The Intertextuality of Zechariah 1-8

Discussion about the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus, Talmud, Dead Sea Scrolls, archaeology, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8789
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

The Intertextuality of Zechariah 1-8

Post by MrMacSon »

Michael R. Stead, The Intertextuality of Zechariah 1-8, Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2009, pp.86-90.
ISBN 13: 9780567291721

.
The Intertexts of Zechariah 1:7–11

In Zech 1:8–11, the prophet recounts his first night-vision, which involves a man riding a red horse amid the myrtle trees, surrounded by other coloured horses. There is much in this vision that is bizarre ...

4.3.1. Horses which “Patrol the Earth”
The function of the horses is explained in vv. 10–11: “Yahweh sent them to patrol the earth earth".
There are two sets of intertexts which have combined to shape this image. First, there is an allusion to Job 1–2. In Zech 1:10–11, the role of the horses is “to patrol in the earth” (ץֶ רָ אָ בּ ךֵ ְלַּ הְ תִ הְ ל ), which parallels the description in Job 1:7 and 2:2 of one who comes from roving “in the earth” (ץֶ רָ אָ בּ”) and from patrolling in it”. The likelihood of a deliberate allusion in Zechariah to Job 1–2 is strengthened by the continuation of this allusion in the final night-vision in Zech 6:7,43 together with further parallels between the roles of the horses/heavenly attendants. In Job, the heavenly attendants come “to present themselves before Yahweh” (הָל־יהוַ ְע בֵ צַּיְ תִ הְ ל, Job 1:6 and 2:1), which parallels the figures in Zech 6:5 who go out “from presenting themselves before the Lord”. This repeated imagery in Zech 1 (and 6) constitutes an unmistakable allusion to Job 1–2.

The second set of intertextual connections relates to the equine imagery, and in particular to horses in Yahweh’s service. There are only three other places outside Zechariah where we see horses used by Yahweh —Hab 3:8; Joel 2:4–545 and Isa 66:15.46 While the data are too sparse to be able to claim that any one of these three is a specific intertext of Zechariah, we may make an important observation about the general intertexts of “Yahweh’s horses.” It should be noted that in all three other instances of this equine imagery the horses are agents of Yahweh in bringing judgment and destruction. This bellicose imagery continues in Zech 6:1–8 (see my analysis below in Chapter 6), which makes it all the more surprising that Yahweh’s horses in Zech 1:7–17 do not have these expected overtones of violence.48 My suggestion is that these overtones have been omitted for rhetorical effect, to create a jarring dissonance.

That is, the general intertextual background of equine imagery creates the expectation that “Yahweh’s horsemen” should be going to go out to trounce the nations, and so their discordant role here contributes to the shock of v. 11 (see below) that the messengers come back with the message that the world is at peace.

... 43. In Zech 6:7 the chariots go out to patrol the earth

... 46. I take it that the imagery in Jer 4:13 refers to the chariots of the destroyer from the north, not Yahweh. It may be however, that the ultimate source for the imagery of the chariots of Yahweh is the deliberate reversal of this imagery of the chariots of the foe from the north.
... 48. Instead of a destructive role, the role of the horse(men) in Zech 1:7–17 is much closer to those in Isa 21:9, who have a “messenger” role. Isa 21:9 describes "riders, horsemen in pairs" who come ot announce the fall of Babylon. However, even given some points of verbal connection between these two passages, there is a jarring dissonance between the messages of the respective horsemen. Whereas Isaiah’s horsemen come back with the message of the fall of Israel’s enemy, Zechariah’s horsemen return to say that the world is at peace.


4.3.2. The Divine Council Scene
It is important to recognize that Yahweh’s horses are a part of a “divine council” (or “heavenly assembly”) scene, one which would seem to derive from other similar scenes in the Hebrew Bible. In particular, 1 Kgs 22:19–22; Isa 6; Ezek 3 and Job 1:6–12; 2:1–7 all share the imagery of creatures around the throne of Yahweh, who are sent out to do his bidding. As Jeremias notes, Zechariah’s usage differs in one important respect, in that, in the first vision, the heavenly assembly has already occurred, and the prophet Zechariah only witnesses its after-effects, and does not see Yahweh or his throne directly (1977: 117–21).

However, we should not read too much significance into the apparent absence of Yahweh from the scene, given the presence of the “angel of Yahweh.” I take it that the “man standing amidst the myrtles” in 1:8 is to be identified with the “angel of Yahweh” in 1:11, as he is likewise “standing amidst the myrtles.”[50] Tollington argues that “the angel of Yahweh” in Zechariah is a revival of an old concept which existed before classical prophetism (1993: 96). In that older tradition there is a blurring between Yahweh and the angel of Yahweh, and this same blurring occurs in Zech 1–8.[51] [I shall comment more on the significance of the angel of Yahweh when I discuss the fourth vision (see Chapter 5 below), though for the present purposes we may safely conclude that this scene in Zech 1 bears a number of similarities to other divine council scenes.]

The other key figure in this scene is the “The angel who was talking to me,” usually described as the “interpreting angel.” I agree with the suggestion of Tollington (1993: 98–99) that Jacob’s dialogue with the “angel of God” in Gen 31:10–13 has influenced Zechariah’s depiction of the angel of Yahweh.53 In addition, I also detect the influence of several passages from Ezekiel in which an intermediary explains a heavenly vision.54 Zechariah 1–8 has combined this “interpreting angel” motif with another strand of tradition—the question-and-answer dialogue. In Jer 1:11–13; 24:3–5 and Amos 7:7–8; 8:1–2 we have examples of a question-and-answer dialogue being used to explain the significance of a vision, a vision that has obvious parallels in Zech 1–8.55 However, there is also an interesting reversal of roles. In the passages in Jeremiah and Amos the question is typically initiated by Yahweh, who asks the prophet “What do you see?” .(In Zech 1–8, the directionality is reversed, in that it is typically the prophet who asks “What are these things?” (הֶ לֵּ ה־אָ מ). I say “typically” because at two points (Zech 4:2 and 5:2) the prophet reverts to the “What do you see?” form, exactly paralleling the usage in Amos and Jeremiah. Again, we are seeing a combination of streams of tradition, a composite metaphor.

50. So also Baldwin 1972: 93, Clark 1982: 213–18; Smith 1984: 189; Meyers and Meyers 1987: 110, 115; Merrill 1994: 103; Delkurt 1999a; Boda 2004: 196. Contra Petersen 1984a: 144–45, who takes the “man standing among the myrtles” to be a different figure to “the messenger of Yahweh.” Contra also Conrad 1999: 64, who identifies the prophet Haggai as the “messenger of the LORD” being referred to in these verses.
51. See, for example, Gen 22:15–16, where the angel of Yahweh speaks as Yahweh. See also Exod 3:2–5; Judg 2:1; 6:11–14, 22–24; 13:21–22; 2 Sam 24:16–17. The blurring of roles also occurs in Zech 1:12, where the angel of Yahweh speaks to Yahweh, and Zech 3:1–2, 5–6, where he speaks as Yahweh.

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8789
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The Intertextuality of Zechariah 1-8

Post by MrMacSon »

.
Michael R. Stead, The Intertextuality of Zechariah 1-8, Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2009, pp.133-139.

.
Chapter 5

ZECHARIAH 3–4 AND 6:9–15


5.1. Introduction and Rationale

As I begin, it is necessary to explain my rationale for treating Zech 6:9–15 together with Zech 3–4. Zechariah 6:9–15 stands apart from the “oracles” which precede it in Zech 1–6. The prior oracles have, in some way, related to the vision(s) which they immediately follow. However, the oracular material in Zech 6:9–15 does not relate to the material in night-visions six, seven or eight. Zechariah 6:9–15 also stands apart because it is the only instance of a “sign-act” in Zech 1–8.3 The points at which Zech 6:9–15 connects with the night-vision sequence is to material in Zech 3–4. The following table shows some of the inter-locking themes in Zech 3–4 and 6:9–15:

Theme
Zech 3
Zech 4
Zech 6:9—15
symbolic action
involving Joshua
He showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of Yahweh (3:1, cf. 3:8) —> "put a turban on his head" .
Set [the crown] on the head of the high priest, Joshua (6:11)
Priesthood promised authority You will govern my house and have charge of my courts (3:7) And there will be a priest on his throne (6:13c)
"Branch" (צמח) Joshua and his associates are a sign that "I am going to bring my servant the branch" (3:8) Behold, a man who name is Branch: for he shall branch out on his place ... (3:13a)
Temple Building The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundation of this house; his hands shall also complete it (4:9a) .... and he [the Branch] shall build the temple of Yahweh (6:13b)
Two figures Joshua + "my servant the Branch" (3:8) Two olive trees (4:3);
These are the two sons of oil who stand before the Lord of all the earth (4:14)
There shall be a counsel of peace between the two of them (Branch + Priest) (6:13d)
Prophetic Authentication Formula Tied to Temple Building The hands of Zerubbabel will complete the house of Yahweh... And you shall know that Yahweh of Hosts has sent you to me (4:9b) Those who are far off shall come and build the temple of the Yahweh; and you shall know that Yahweh of Hosts has sent me to you (6:15)


These parallels suggest that the sign-act in Zech 6:9–15 is of a promissory nature, in some way symbolically guaranteeing the promises about the priesthood, the branch and the rebuilt temple made in Zech 3–4 (see esp. 6:12–15). This sign comes directly upon the return of some exiles from Babylon, whose return is something of a “firstfruits”—an indication that the fulfilment of the promises of the night-visions has begun.4 It is for these reasons that I regard Zech 6:9–15 as an important interpretive key in unlocking the meaning of Zech 3–4. As such, I will begin this chapter with an analysis of Zech 6:9–15, focusing in particular on the intertexts which best explain these interlocking themes in Zech 3–4 and 6:9–15.

3 The re-clothing of Joshua in Zech 3 comes close to a symbolic act, especially if, as I take it, the prophet issues the instruction in Zech 3:5 (“Put a clean turban on his head”). On the genre of the sign-act, see Friebel 2001.


5.2. Zechariah 6:9–15 in the Light of Its Intertexts

In order to understand Zech 6:9–15 correctly it is critical that we recognize that it depicts a “symbolic” crowning. That is, although Joshua is the one physically crowned in Zech 6:11, it cannot be that he is merely being crowned in his own right, since (at least one) crown does not remain with him, but rather is given to others, to be a memorial in the temple (6:14). Moreover, the promises spoken in Zech 6:12 are not addressed to him, but rather are spoken in regard to a different individual.5 Zechariah 6:12 reads: “And you say to him [Joshua] ‘Thus says Yahweh of Hosts ‘Behold, a man, his name is Branch’.”

As Boda (2001: §4.3.1) has observed, the direct speech which begins Behold, a man”) is not addressed to Joshua himself:

When this phrase appears in direct speech elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, it does not refer to the one addressed, but rather to a third party who may be approaching from a distance (2 Sam 18:26), may be present in the scene (1 Sam 9:17), may be absent but accessible (1 Sam 9:6), or may have been encountered at an earlier point (1 Kgs 20:39). Thus, צמח (Zemah) cannot be Joshua to whom the speech is addressed.

This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that a close parallel to the phrase “Behold, a man, ‘Branch’ is his name” occurs in 1 Kgs 13:1...in the context of prophecy about a Davidic scion who will act in the future to restore right worship at God’s altar. Similarly, the prophecy in Zech 6 is addressed to a Davidic “Branch” describing his (not Joshua’s) future actions in rebuilding the temple.

A further indication that Joshua is not to be understood to be “the Branch” is the promise in Zech 6:13 that there shall be a “counsel of peace between the two of them” in that this anticipates that the “Priest” and “Branch” are separate figures.6 As Petersen has noted (1984), the language of “counsel” suggests an element of subordination in the role of the priest. Zechariah 6:12–13 is addressed to two different parties, as follows:

Branch (Zech 6:12—13 a)
Priest (Zech 6:13b–c)
Behold, a man, his name is Branch, and he shall branch out from his place, and he shall build the temple of Yahweh. It is he who shall build the temple of Yahweh and shall bear royal honour, and shall sit and rule on his throne. and a priest shall be on his throne,9 and a counsel of peace shall be between the two of them.

5 This difference between addressee and subject is paralleled in the other “Branch” oracle, in Zech 3:8, where the oracle is also spoken to Joshua, but concerns a different figure (the “coming” Branch).

6 Contra MacKay (1968: 208) who identifies Joshua as the Branch, and sees the “two” as the combination of the kingly and priestly roles of the Messiah. See similarly Barker 1977. The only other instances of the phrase, “between [the] two of them”, describes a relationship between two individuals, rather than two abstract entities or roles (see Exod 22:10; 2 Kgs 2:11).

9 My translation treats the two instances of the phrase "upon his throne” alike. So also, eg., VanderKam 2004: 40. Some commentators, in trying to avoid the implications of an “enthroned” high priest, have suggested that the second instance of this phrase should be translated “by his throne,” with the Branch sitting on the throne, with the priest standing nearby. This interpretation finds some support in the LXX translation (έκ δεξιών αύτοΰ), though, as Mastin (1976) has shown, the LXX is unlikely to reflect a different Vorlage, but rather be an instance of the LXX exegeting the MT, perhaps under the influence of 1 Kgs 2:19, where Solomon sits “upon his throne” and sets up a “throne” for the Queen Mother “who sits at his right hand."

On this reading, there are two individuals, each on his own “throne.” The English word “throne” is a less than ideal translation, because “throne” in English typically denotes royal authority. While [...] can mean this in Hebrew (and, indeed, does denote this with respect to the throne of the “Branch”), it does not necessarily denote this in every case. For example, Eli the Priest sits on a “seat” [...]. I submit that the “seat” which the priest is promised in Zech 6:13 is not a king’s “throne,” but rather his seat of authority13 (like Eli’s seat, and perhaps akin to “Moses’ seat”) ...

The intertexts to Zech 6:12–13 provide the key to unlocking the riddle of the “Branch.” My argument is that there are two sets of intertexts which combine to explain these verses.

The first set of intertexts arises in connection with the Jeremianic [...] (“Branch”). Almost all commentators recognize an allusion in Zech 6:12 to Jer 23:5 (the promise of a Davidic [...]). What is not as often recognized, however, is that the allusion is not merely to Jer 23 alone, but rather to a complex of ideas which develop across Jer 22, 23 and 33.

In Zech 6:9–15 there is an unmistakeable allusion to the “Jehoiachin” prophecy in Jer 22:24–30. Zechariah 6:13 says that the Branch “shall sit and rule upon the throne" [...]. Jeremiah 22:30 is the only prior instance of a verse with these same three words [...]. In the context of the passage in Jer 22:30, these words describe a stripping of royal rule from Jehoiachin’s offspring—“There shall not be a successor from his seed, a man who sits on the throne of David and rules over Judah.”

Zechariah 6:13 alludes to Jer 22:30 in order to reverse it. The likelihood of a direct allusion is strengthened by another “reversing” allusion in Zech 6:13 to an adjacent passage in Jer 22. Zechariah 6:13 also says that the Branch will bear “honour” [...] which is a reversal of Jehoiakim’s loss of honour—“They will not say ‘Alas, his honour’” [...] Jer 22:18). This combination of vocabulary used in this way is without parallel outside these two passages, which makes a compelling case for allusion, notwithstanding the fact that most commentators have not made the connection.

The allusions in Zech 6:9–15 are not limited to Jer 22:18–30. It is widely accepted that Zechariah’s figure of the “Branch” [...] derives from Jer 23.18 In the literary flow of the book of Jeremiah, the promise of the Righteous “Branch” in Jer 23 is the answer to the unrighteous King Jehoiachin (Jer 22:24–30). Though Jehoiachin was the Davidic King, he is clearly a paradigmatic example of the “evil shepherds” whom Yahweh will “visit” (Jer 23:2), and in whose place Yahweh will raise up true "shepherds" who will shepherd his people faithfully (Jer 23:4).

This provides the context for the promise in Jer 23:5 of a “righteous Branch for David.” This is a promise that the Davidic line will endure, notwithstanding the fact that Jehoiachin and his children will be excluded from it. The “activation” of this promise in Zech 6:9–15 must, at the very least, be understood as indicating that the negative consequences of Jehoiachin are about to be reversed.

In addition to these allusions to Jer 22:18–30 and Jer 23, Zech 6:9–15 also has strong connections with Jer 33. There are three notable points of contact. First, both Jer 33 and Zech 6 use the otherwise unattested (and slightly awkward) combination of “a Branch branching out”

Jer 33:15
Zech 6:12
I will cause a righteous Branch to branch out for David Branch is his name, and from his place he shall branch out

Secondly, both Jer 33 and Zech 6 refer to “the Branch” and the priesthood working in parallel.

Jer 33:17—18
Zech 6:13
David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel (Jer 33:17) And he [“Branch”] will bear royal honour and he will sit and rule upon his throne (6:13a)
and the levitical priests shall never lack a man in my presence… (Jer 33:18) And a priest shall be upon his throne, and there shall be a compact of peace between the two of them (Zech 6:13c)

Thirdly, the “Branch” passage in Jer 23 makes no favourable references to the priesthood, suggesting that Zech 6 has derived its “Branch” (with its concomitant priesthood) from both Jer 23 and 33, rather than from Jer 23 alone. For these reasons, we should recognize an allusion to Jer 33 in Zech 6:9–15 as part of a complex allusion to Jer 22, 23 and 33.

...there is a second allusion in this passage, overlaying the first ... in the last phrase of Zech 6:12—“And he shall build the temple of Yahweh” [...] )This phrase is repeated almost verbatim in the very next verse, Zech 6:13), further highlighting the activity of “temple-building” as the defining role of “the Branch.”
.


[eta] pp.139 [bottom]—41:

.
We have already noted the importance of the theme of temple building in Zech 1–2 [22: comments on Zech 1:16–17 in §4.4, and comments in §4.6.3 on implications of “dwelling” language in Zech 2:14–15]. This “thematic allusion” reoccurs across Zech 1–8, and has the effect of drawing in the wider “temple builder” tradition.

Without doubt, the divine promises in 2 Sam 7 are at the heart of the biblical motif of “temple building.” Yahweh promises to David that his son "will build a house for my name [...]. We should note the similarity in form between this promise and Zech 6:13 [...]. The parallel is striking notwithstanding the fact that the language of "house" [...] of Yahweh in 2 Sam 7 has been replaced by the language of "temple" in Zech 6:13.

This promise of a temple builder in 2 Sam 7 is intrinsic to the wider promise which establishes the Davidic dynasty:

When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your seed after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. (2 Sam 7:12–13)

The three important elements in this “messianic” promise are Davidic descent, an everlasting kingdom (dynastic succession?) and temple building. I place the word “messianic” in quotes to give me an opportunity to define how I am using this word.

Though various individuals were “anointed” (משׁח), the biblical concept of a “messiah” [..] stems from the fact that the king was Yahweh’s anointed (e.g. Saul, 1 Sam 15:1; David, 1 Sam 16:3; Solomon, 1 Kgs 1:34 etc.). Each successive king in Judah was “Yahweh’s anointed.” That is, each king was “an anointed one,” or “a messiah.” For the present purposes, the significance of the promises in 2 Sam 7 is that they establish that the temple building role was intrinsic to the promises which inaugurated the Davidic line.

This observation is very important for our present enquiry, since the tendency among interpreters has been to downplay the significance of the temple builder, by referring to Zerubbabel as “merely” the temple builder. However, if we are sensitive to the intertextual echoes of 2 Sam 7, we should expect “temple building” to be a highly significant role.

By using the “temple builder” theme, Zech 6 alludes not only to the specific promises of 2 Sam 7, but also incorporates the subsequent wider biblical development of this theme. For example, I take it that this elevated significance of the temple-building role is also reflected in what Yahweh says to Cyrus in Isa 44:28–45:1:

He is my shepherd and will accomplish all that I please; he will say of Jerusalem, “Let it be rebuilt” (בנה), and of the temple (היכל), “Let its foundations be laid.” This is what Yahweh says to his anointed (משׁיח), to Cyrus.

Furthermore, the same correlation between Yahweh’s anointed and temple-building can be seen in both the DtrH and the work of the Chronicler. For example, in 2 Chronicles there are five kings who are given an unqualified “good” assessment. In each case, a key part of their characterization as “good” kings is that they rebuild or restore the temple (or part thereof).25 This wider development of the connection between king and temple reinforces the conclusion that temple building is a role undertaken by God’s chosen ruler (i.e. temple building is a “messianic” role).
.

Post Reply