LIBRARY OF PRIiIClTON 
 
 JUN 2 9 2007 
 
 THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY 
 
THE PROPHECIES 
 
 OF /<>* ' 
 
 FEB 13 1926 
 
 ZECHARIAH 
 
 '%^CIAI U^ 
 
 WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE ORIGIN AND DATE 
 OF CHAPTERS 9-14 
 
 BY / 
 
 GEORGE LIVINGSTONE ROBINSON 
 
 HEBBEW FELLOW, PRINCETON, U. S. A. 
 
 CHICAGO 
 
 Zbc XDlntverstt? of Cbfcago press 
 
 1896 
 
A DISSERTATION PBESENTED TO THE PHILOSOPHICAL FACULTY OF 
 
 LEIPZIG, FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING THE 
 
 DEGREE OF DOCTOR OP PHILOSOPHY 
 
 • '. 
 
 [Reprinted from The Amk.kioan Journal of Semitic Languages and 
 Literatures, Vol. XII., Nos. 1 and 2. Chicago, 111.) 
 
OUTLINE. 
 
 LiTEBATDRE. 5 
 
 Introduction: The History of Critical Opinion. - - - 10 
 
 1. Contents of the Book of Zechariah. ------ 1.5 
 
 2. The Pre-Exilic Hypothesis Examined. ----- 16 
 
 1) The Historical Argiiineut, or Argument from Historical 
 
 Allusions. 
 
 2) The Christologieal Argument, or Argument from Mes- 
 
 sianic Prophecj'. 
 
 3) The Psychological Argument, or Argument from Parallel- 
 
 isms in Thought and Language between Zech. 9-14 
 and the other prophets. 
 
 3. The Post- Zechabian Hypothesis Examined. - - - - 52 
 
 1) The Linguistic Argument 
 
 2) The Historical Data alleged in favor of a Grseco-Macca- 
 
 beau date. 
 
 4. The Integrity of Zechariah 9-14. 75 
 
 5. The Relation of Chapters 9-14 to Zechariah 1-8. - - - 83 
 Sdmmary and Conolusion. -------- 93 
 
LITERATURE. 
 
 [The asterisks bofore certain namos indicate tljat the works of these autliors are 
 eepecially valuable from a critical point of view.] 
 
 1. Adthors Who Advocate a Pre-Exilic Origin for Zech. 9-14. 
 
 ♦Joseph Mede, Dissertationum eccliasticarmn triginfa quibus acce- 
 dunt fragmenta sacra. Londini, 1653; Works, -Ith ed., Londou, 1677, 
 pp. 786 sg., 834. 
 
 H. Hammond, Paraphrase and Annotations, etc. 6th ed., London, 
 1653, III., pp. 135, 745. 
 
 Rich. Kidder, Demonstration of the Messias in which the truth of the 
 Christian religion is defended, especially against the Jews. Loudon, 
 1700; 2ded., 1726, pp. 76s<7. 
 
 Wm. Whiston, Essay toward restoring the true text of the O. T. and 
 for vindicating the citations made thence in the N. T. London, 1722, 
 pp. 93 sg. 
 
 *B. G. Flligge, Die Weissagungen, welche bei den Schriften des Pro- 
 pheten Sacharja beygebogen sind, ilbersetzt u. kritisch erldutert ; nebst 
 einigen Abhandlungen, Hamburg, 1784. — Idem, Beitr&ge zur orient, u. 
 exeget. Bibliothek, etc. Hamburg, 1787. 
 
 *Wm. Newcome, An attempt towards an impi-oved version, metrical 
 arrangement and an explanation of the twelve mincer prophets. Lon- 
 don, 1785; new ed., 1836. 
 
 G. F. Seiler, Tlieolog.-krit. Betrachtung neuer Schriften. Erlangen, 
 1786. 
 
 J. D. Michaelis, Neue orient, u. exeget. Bibliothek, I. GOttingen, 
 1786. 
 
 G. L. Bauer, Die kl. Propheten mit Comm. Leipzig, 1786-90. — Idem, 
 Einleitung. Nlirnberg, 1794. 
 
 J. C. Doederlein, Auserlesene theolog. Bibliothek. Leipzig, 1787. 
 
 Ch. W. Augusti, Einleitung in das A. T. Leipzig, 1806-29. 
 
 *L. Bertholdt, Hist. -kr it. Einleit. in sdmmtliche kanonische ?t. apo- 
 kryphisclie Bucher des A. u. N. T. Erlangen, IV., 1814, pp. 169783. 
 
 *\V. M. L. deWette, Lehrbuch der hist.-krit. Einleit. in das A. T. 
 Eds. 1-3, Berlin, 1817-29; eds. 4^7 (in which the post-exilic origin of 
 chs. 9-14 is advocated); ed. 5, Berlin, 1840, I., pp. 343-7; ed. 6 (post- 
 humous), Berlin, 1852; ed. 7 (E. Schrader), 1869, pp. 447 sq. 
 
 Ed. Forberg, Comm. crit. et exeget. in Zech. italic, part. post. Coburg, 
 1824. 
 
 *Roseumuller, Scholia in V. T., IV. Lipsite, 1828; VII., 4, pp. 257 sq. 
 
 5 
 
6 THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHAEIAH 
 
 J. A. Theiner, Comm. ilber die hi. Schrift. Die zicolf kl. Propheten. 
 Leipzig, 1828. 
 
 *F. Hitzig, Stud. u. Krit., 18.30, pp. 25-14.— Idem, Die zwolf kl. Pro- 
 pheten. Leipzig, 1838; 2d ed., 1852; ith ed., besorgt von H. Steiner, 
 Leipzig, 1881, pp. 333-410. 
 
 Aug. Knobel, Der Prophetismus der Hebrder. Breslau, 1837, II., pp. 
 166 sq., 280 sq. 
 
 *H. Ewald, Die Propheten des A. B. Stuttgart, 1840, pp. 308 sg., 389 
 sq.; 2ded., 1867-8. 
 
 F. J. V. D. Maurer, Comm. gramm. hist. crit. in Prophetas minores. 
 Lipsise, 1840, II., pp. 468 sq. 
 
 Ed. Meier, Geschichte der poetischen Nationalliteratur der Hebrder. 
 Leipzig, 1856, pp. 306 sg. — Idem, Die Bearbeituiig der zwolf kl. Prophe- 
 ten von Hitzig, Maurer und Ewald, iu Theol. Jahrbiicher von Zeller, 
 lst-3d vols., Tubingen, 1842-3. 
 
 Herzfeld, Geschichte des Volkes Israel. Braunschweig, 1847, I., pp. 
 280 sq'. 
 
 *F. Bleek, Ueber das Zeitalter imi Sach. Cap. 9-li; Stud. u. Krit., 
 1852, pp. 247-332; 1857, pp. 316 sq.,- Einleit. 4th ed., bearbeitet von J. 
 Wellhausen, Berlin, 1878; 5th ed., 1886; 6th ed., 1893. 
 
 *E. F. J. V. Ortenberg, Die Bestandteile des Buches Sach. Gotha, 1859. 
 
 C. K. J. Buusen, Die Prophete^i. Leipzig, 1860. — Idem, Gott in der 
 Geschichte, I., pp. 449 sg. 
 
 Sam. Davidson, Introduction to the O. T. London, 1862-3. 
 
 *W. Pressel, Kcnnmentar zu Hag., Sach. u. Maleachi. Gotha, 1870. 
 
 L. Diestel, Article Sacharja iu Schenkel's Bibellexicon, 1875. 
 
 B. Duhm, Die Theol. der Proph. als Grundlage etc. Bonn, 1875, pp. 
 72, 144, 202 sq. 
 
 Ed. Reuss, La Bible, ancien Test. ; II, Les prophktes. Paris, 1876, 
 pp. 179 sq., 349 sq. 
 
 *H. Steiner, Die zwolf kl. Propheten. Leipzig, 1881. (See F. Hitzig.) 
 
 *C. Bruston, Histoire critique de la littiraturc 2}>'oph4tique des 
 H6breux. Paris, 1881, pp. 116 32. 
 
 Sam. Sharpe, History of the Hebreiv nation and literature. London, 
 1882. 
 
 *H. Graetz, Recension iiber Stade's Deuterozacharja in Frankel's 
 Monatschrift fiir die Geschichte u. Wissenschaft des Judeutums; 1881, 
 pp. 239 sq., 277 sq., 317. 
 
 C. v. Orelli, Die dlteste Wei.ssagung von der Vollendung des Gottes- 
 reiches. Wieu, 1882, pp. 272 .vq., 327 .sq.- Idem, Ezechiel u. die zwolf kl. 
 Proj>h. Nurdlingeu, 1888. 
 
 *F('rd. Montet, Etude critique sur Ic date assignable aux six derniers 
 chap'dres de Zech. Geneve, 1882. 
 
 Ed Riehm, Article Sacharja in HandwOrterljuch des bibl. Alterthums; 
 1875-84.— Idem, Einleitung (posthumous). Halle, 1889. 
 
THE PROPHECIES OF ZEOHARIAH i 
 
 H. L. Strack, Einleit. in das A. T., in Zockler's Handb. der Theol. 
 Wisseuschaften. Nordlingen, 1888; 4;th ed., Miinchen, 1896. 
 
 H. Schultz, Alttestamentliclie Theologie. GOttingen, 4th ed., 1889, 
 pp. 64 and 65. 
 
 P. W. Farrar, The Minor Prophets, in Men of the Bible Series. New 
 York. 
 
 *G. Griitzmacher, Untersuchung iiber den Ursprung der in Zach. 
 9-14 vorliegenden Profetien unter besonderer Beriicksichtigung der 
 zuletzt darilber vorgetragenen Hypothese. Berlin, 1892. 
 
 K. D. Schlatter, Einleitung in die Bibel. 2d ed., Stuttgart, 1894, pp. 
 266-73. 
 
 Aug. Dillmann, Einleitung in das A. T. u. biblische Theologie (MS.). 
 Berlin, 1894. 
 
 2. Authors Who Advocate a Post-Zeoharian Origin fob Chs. 9-14. 
 
 H. Grotius, Annotationes in V. T. ; 1644; ed. Vogel & Doederlein, 
 II, Halle, 1676. 
 
 *H. Corrodi, Versuch einer Beleuchtung der Geschichte desjiidischen 
 u. christlichen Bibelkanons, I. Halle, 1792, p. 107. 
 
 H. E. G. Paulus, Exeg. Handb. iiber die drei ersten Evangelien. 
 Liibeck, 1805; Leipzig, 1812; Heidelberg, 1832; pp. 117 sg. 
 
 *J. G. Eichhorn, Einleitung in das A. T. 3d ed., 1805; 4th ed., 1824; 
 pp.421 sq., 4448^. — Idem, Uebersetzung der hebrdischen Propheten, 1819. 
 
 H. P. W. Gramberg, Krit. Gesch. der Religionsideen des A. T. Ber- 
 lin, 1830, II., pp. 520 31 and 635-60. 
 
 J. H. W. Vatke, Bibl. Theol. des A. T. Berlin, 1835, pp. 553 sg., 
 especially pp. 462 sq. Aum. 
 
 A. Geiger, Urschrift u. Uebersetzung der Bibel in ihrer Abhdngig- 
 keit von der inneren Entioicklung des Judentums. Breslau, 1855, pp. 
 hhsq. 
 
 *Fr. Bottcher, Neue exeg.-krit. Aehrenlese zum A. T. Leipzig, 1864; 
 2d ed., pp. 215 sg. 
 
 *B. Stade, Lehrbuch der hebrdischen Grammatik. Leipzig, 1879. 
 — Idem, De populo Javan parergon. Gissfe, 1880 (Programm zum Gies- 
 sener Ludwigstage). — But especially Deuterozacharja, Eine krit. Studie 
 in Zeitschr. fiir die alttest. Wissenschaft {=ZATW); Giessen, 1881-2, pp. 
 1-96, 151-72, 275-309. 
 
 *A. Kuenen, Historisch-critisch onderzoek naar het onstaan en de 
 verzameling van de boeken des otiden verbo7ids. Leyden, 1863. (1st ed. 
 in favor of pre-exilic origin of Zech. 9-14; in 2d ed., 1889, jjost-Zecharian; 
 pp. 380 .sg.) German transl., Vol. II., 1892. 
 
 *T. K. Cheyne, Article on The Date of Zech. 9-14 in The Jewish 
 Quar. Keview, Vol. I., 1889. 
 
 *H. Graetz, Zech. 14, in The Jewish Quar. Review, Vol. III., 1891. 
 
 C. H. Cornill, Einleitung in das A. T. Freiburg, 1891, pp. 196 s(/. 
 
8 THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHARIAH 
 
 S. K. Driver, Introduction to the Literature of the O. T. Eds. 1-3; 
 New York, 1891; Edinburgh, 1891-2. 
 
 *W. Staerk, Untersuchung ilber die Komposition u. Abfassungszeit 
 von Zach. 9 bis 14, mit eingehender Berucksichtigung der neuesten 
 Hypothese. Halle, 1891. 
 
 *J. Wellhausen, Skizzen u. Vorarbeiten; V. Heft. Berlin, 1892; 2d 
 ed., 1893. — Idem, Article Zechariah in Encyc. Brit., IX. ed. — Idem, Pro- 
 legomena zur Geschichte Israels. Berlin, 1886, pp. 438 sq. — Idem, 
 Beurteilung der Schrift von Gh-af v. Baudissin, '^Studien zur Religions- 
 geschichte," in Gottinger gelehrte Anzeigen. Gottingen, 1877, pp. 185 sq. 
 
 *N. I. Kubinkam, The second part of the Book of Zechariah. Basel, 
 1892. 
 
 *Karl Marti, Der Prophet Sach. Freiburg, 1892.— Idem, Stud. u. 
 Krit., 1892, Heft 2 uud 3. 
 
 *A. F. Kirkpatrick, The Doctrine of the Prophets. London, 1892. 
 
 *R. Eckardt, Der Sprachgebrauch von Zach. 9-U; ZATW, 1893, pp. 
 7&-109. 
 
 *A. K. Kuiper, Zacharia 0-14; eene exegetisch-critische Studie. 
 Utrecht, 1894. 
 
 G. Wildeboer, De Letterkunde des Oudeti Verbonds naar de tijds- 
 orde van haar outstaan. Groningen, 1893, pp. 517 sq. 
 
 E. Kautzsch, Die heil. Schrift des A. T. ilbersetzt. Freiburg-Leipzig, 
 1894, Beilagen, pp. 203 sq. 
 
 8. Authors Who Defend the Unity of the Prophecies or Zechariah. 
 
 *J. C. Carpzov, Critica Sacra V. T. Lipsi.ie, 1728, pp. 859 sg. 
 
 * J. H. Bechhaus, Ueber die Integritdt der proph. Schriften des A. B. 
 Halle, 1796. 
 
 Benj. Blayney, A new translation of the propliecies of Zech.. ivith 
 notes. Oxford, 1797. 
 
 J. Jahn, Einleitung in die gOttl. Biicher des A. B. Wien, 1802-3; 
 2ded., pp. 669s<z., 675sg. 
 
 *F. B. Kdster, Meletemata critica et exeg. in Zecharice prophetce 
 partem posteriorem, capp. IX-XIV, pro tuenda eius authentia. Gottin- 
 gen, 1818. 
 
 F. Ackermann, Proph. inin. pjerpet. annot. ill. Wien, 1830. 
 
 *M. W. L. de Wette, Einleitung in das A. T.; eds. 4-7. Berlin, 
 1833, 1840. 1852, 1869. 
 
 *E. W. Hengstenberg, Die Authentie des Daniels u. die Integritdt 
 des Sach. Berlin, 1836. — Idem, Uhristologie des A. T. u. Comm. ilber 
 die mes.'iianischen Weissagungen, III. 3d ed., Berlin, 1856, pp. 243 ,sr/. 
 
 A. McCaul, Rabbi Kinichi upon the Prophet Zech., translated, etc. 
 London, 1837. 
 
 H. Hesselberg, Die zwGIf kl. Proph. KOnigsberg, 1838. 
 
 H. A. C. Haveruick, Einleitung in das A. T. Erlaugen, 1839. 
 
THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHARIAH 9 
 
 *J. D. F. Burger, Etudes ex4.get. et crit. sur le prophMe Zach. Strass- 
 burg, 18il. 
 
 J. Ch. K. V. Hofmann, Der Schriftbeiceis. Nordlingen, 1855, II., pp. 
 554: sq.; 2d ed., 1860, pp. 603 sg. — Idem, Weissagung m. Erfulhmg ; 
 1841-4. 
 
 J. G. Herbst (died 1836), Historisch-Kritische Einleitung in die heil. 
 Schriften des A. T., hsgg. von B. Welte. Karlsruhe, 1840-M. 
 
 E. Henderson, The Minor Prophets with Comm., etc. London, 1845. 
 
 F. W. C. Unibreit, Praktischer Komm. iiber die Propheten des A. B. 
 Hamburg, 1845, Vol. II., pp. 351 sq., 451 sq. 
 
 P. Schegg, Die kl. Projihefeii. Regensburg, 1854-62. 
 
 W. Baumgarten,-Di'e Nachtgesichte Sacharjas. Braunschweig, 1854-5. 
 
 T. V. Moore, The Prophets of the Restoration ; new translation with 
 notes. New York, 1856. , 
 
 H. L. Sandrock, Prioris et posterioris Zacharioe partis vaticinia ab 
 uno eodemque auciore profecta. Breslau, 1857. 
 
 W. Neumann, Die Weissagung des Sach. Stuttgart, 1860. 
 
 L. Reinke, Die niessianische Weissagung. Giessen, 1859-62. 
 
 *A. Kohler, Die Weissagungen Sach., Cap. 9-14. Erlangen, 1861-3. — 
 Idem, Article Sacharja in Herzog's Realencyclopaedie, 2d ed., Vol. XIII. 
 
 *J. J. Stahelin, Die niessianische Weissagungen des A. T. Berlin, 
 1847, pp. 125 sq.,Yiisq. 
 
 *Th. Kliefoth, Der Prophet Sach. iibersetzt, etc. Schwerin, 1862. 
 
 *J. J. S. Perowne, Article Zechariah in Smith's Diet, of the Bible. 
 London, 1863. 
 
 C. F. Keil, Einleitung u. Komm. zum A. T. ; III., 4th ed. — Idem, Die 
 zwolf kl. Propheten. Leipzig, 1853 and 1873. 
 
 *T. W. Chambers, Conim. on Zech. (in Lange's Bible Work). Eng. 
 ed., 1874. 
 
 J. P. Lange, Sacharja in Bibelwerk, Part XX. Bielefeld u. Leipzig, 
 1876. 
 
 W. Drake, Comm. on Zech. (Speaker's Comm.). London, 1876. 
 
 E. P. Pusey, The Minor Prophets. Oxford and London, 1877. 
 
 *C. H. H. Wright, Zech. and his prophecies (Bampton Lectures). 
 London, 1879. 
 
 *C. J. Bredenkamp, Der Prophet Sach. Erlaugeu, 1879. 
 
 Marcus Dods, Hag., Zech., and Mai. (Handb. for Bible Classes). 
 Edinburgh, 1879. 
 
 *W. H. Lowe, Tlie Heb. Student's Comm. on Zech., Heb. and LXX. 
 London, 1882. 
 
 W. Haehnelt, " Um den Abend wird es licht sein : " der Prophet 
 Sach. fiir die Gemeinde ausgelegt. Leipzig 1891. 
 
 W. H. Green, Prophets and Projyhecy (MS.). Princeton, 1893. 
 
10 . THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHAKIAH 
 
 INTKODUCTION. 
 
 THE HISTORY OF CRITICAL OPINION.* 
 
 The integrity of Zechariah's prophecies was first questioned 
 about the middle of the 17th century, when Joseph Mede (1653), 
 of Christ Church College, Cambridge, attacked the genuineness 
 of chs. 9-11. His motive was to find, if possible, a satisfactory 
 explanation for the quotation in Matt. 27:9, 10 of Zech. 11:12, 13, 
 attriliuted by the evangelist to Jeremiah. Accordingly he argued 
 that chs. 9-11 are of pre-exilic origin and the work of Jeremiah. 
 This opened the way for criticism. Hammond (1653), Court- 
 preacher to Charles I., but especially Kidder (1700), Bishop of 
 Bath and Wells, and Whiston (1722), Professor at Cambridge, 
 defended Mede's view, ascribing also chs. 12-14 to Jeremiah; 
 but they were all most strongly opposed by Carpzov (1728), who 
 maintained that only Zechariah could have written these proph- 
 ecies. After Carpzov nothing more was published against the 
 genuineness of Zech. 9-14 for over half a century, when the 
 question was taken up afresh in England, and about the same 
 time introduced by Flugge (1784), Archidiakonus in Hamburg, 
 into Germany. From 1784 on, the critical opinions of Zech. 9-14 
 furnish a most striking history. 
 
 Archbishop Newcome, Primate of Ireland (1785), inaugurated 
 a new era. He distinguished, for the first time, two separate pre- 
 exilic fragments in chs. 9-14, which he argued belonged to two 
 authors of different times. Chs. 9-11, he maintained, were 
 written before the downfall of Samaria, or about the time of 
 Hosea; while chs. 12-14 were composed between the death of 
 Josiah and the destruction of Jerusalem. The year previous 
 (1784), when Mede's idea was introduced into Germany, Flugge 
 had attempted by means of his anonymous writing to vindicate 
 the quotation of St. Matthew by ascribing the last six chapters of 
 Zechariah to Jeremiah. But Flugge's hypothesis (made like 
 Mede's in the interests of conservatism) was modified by Bauer 
 (1786-90) and Doederlein (1787), who followed the view of 
 Newcome. Against these Corrodi (1792) made a bold stand. 
 
 * Modern criticism uovor (liBpntos tlui RcnHinonoBS of chs. 1-S; on the ctthor luinil, tradi- 
 tion has novor, witliout exception, (ieniod the Zecharian authorship of chs. lf-14. 
 
THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHARIAH 11 
 
 He declared himself in favor of the view (first suggested by 
 Grotius, 1644) that these chapters of Zechariah are of late post- 
 Zecharian origin. Between the theory of a pre-exilic origin of 
 these prophecies on the one hand, and the theory of a post- 
 Zecharian on the other, Bechhaus (1796), Blayney (1797) and 
 Jahn (1802) defended the unity of the entire book of Zechariah. 
 Paulus (1805), however, insisted upon a late, post-exilic date, but 
 was vigorously opposed by Augusti (1806) and Bertholdt (1814), 
 who maintained the pre-exilic origin of the chapters in dispute, 
 Bertholdt suggesting for the first time that the author of chs. 9-11 
 might be the Zechariah son of Jeberechiah mentioned in Isa. 8 : 2. 
 He consequently assigned these chapters to the reign of Ahaz, 
 and chs. 12-14 to the reign of one of the last independent kings 
 of Judah. With this opinion agreed Gesenius (in his Commentary 
 to Isaiah) and de Wette in the first three editions of his Intro- 
 duction to the O. T. (1817-29), and also Forberg (1824); but 
 Koster (1818) defended unity. 
 
 The problem by this time had been pretty thoroughly dis- 
 cussed. Eichhorn (1824), who, in the earlier editions of his 
 Introduction wavered in his decision, in the fourth edition took 
 a firm stand in favor of a late Grseco-Maccabean date. In chs. 
 9:1-10:12 he found a description of Alexander the Great's inva- 
 sion in 332 B. C, and in chs. 13:7-14:21, a song of comfort over 
 the death of Judas Maccabeus in the battle with Bacchides, 161 
 B. C, while chs. 11:1-13:6 were written in the period between, 
 i. e., between the middle of the 4th and 2d centuries B. C. Gram- 
 berg (1830) also advocated a post-Zecharian origin for these 
 chapters, maintaining that they were a feeble imitation of older 
 prophecies and an awkward working-over of a pre-exilic prophecy 
 mingled with poetry, entirely disregardful of the time to which 
 they belonged, and having their origin in the last years of the 
 reign of Darius or in the first of Xerxes, 480 B. C. Likewise 
 Vatke (1835) favored this period, explaining the origin of these 
 prophecies in the time of the Egypto-Persian wars, when the Jews 
 were continually having feuds with the neighboring peoples. But 
 the post-exilic theory was not accepted by Theiner (1828), Rosen- 
 miiUer (1828), or Hitzig (1830). who argued in favor of the 
 reign of Uzziah — a view defended in later times by no one except 
 
12 THE PBOPHECIKS OF ZECHABIAH 
 
 Pressel (1870), and given up by Hitzig himself in his Commentary 
 (1838), in which he grants that chs. 12-14 may be later, probably 
 out of the reign of Manasseh. Defenders of the unity of Zechariah 
 were not, however, wanting. Ackermann (R. C, 1830), but espe- 
 cially de Wette (editions 4-7, 1833 sq.) and Hengstenberg (1836), 
 as well as McCaul (1837) and Havernick (1839) once more 
 advocated unity. Knobel (1837) and Hitzig (1838) on the con- 
 trary re-asserted the pre-exilic hypothesis. They were followed 
 by Maurer (1840), and also by Ewald (1840), who, though he 
 assigned chs. 9-11 to the time of Ahaz and preferred the period, 
 "eight to four years before 586 B. C." for chs. 12-14, was not so 
 confident that these chapters were earlier than the beginning of 
 the exile, — a view taught also by Dillmann in his Introduction to 
 the O. T. (1894). 
 
 From 1840 on defenders of unity were numerous. Burger 
 and V. Hofmann (1841), Herbst (1842), Henderson and 
 Umbreit (1845), Schegg, R. C. and Baumgarten (1854), Moore 
 and Sandrock R. C. (1856), Kohler and Kliefoth (1862) and 
 Perowne (1863) all defended the genuineness of Zech. 9-14. 
 But during the same period, Meier (1842), Herzfeld (1847), 
 Bleek (1852), v. Ortenberg (1859), Bunsen (1860) and Samuel 
 Davidson (1862) argued for a pre-exilic origin of these chapters; 
 whereas, Stahelin (1847). Geiger (1855), and Bottcher (1864), 
 for a post-Zecharian, — Bottcher placing chs. 9-14 (as already 
 Eichhorn in part) in the period of the wars between the Ptolemies 
 and the Seleucidae at the beginning of the third century. On 
 the other hand, five years previous (1859), v. Ortenberg had 
 considered the pre-exilic theory to be established with "absolute 
 certainty"; and argued that chs. 9-11 with 13:7-9 form a unit 
 coming from the hand of Zechariah mentioned in Isa. 8 : 2, and 
 that chs. 12:1-13:6 with ch. 14 were written between Josiah's 
 death (609 B. C.) and the downfall of Jerusalem (586). 
 
 Previous to 1870 the question of unity was repeatedly con- 
 tested, and of the two divisive hypotheses, the pre-exilic theory with 
 various modifications became the prevailing critical view. In 
 1875 Diestel repeated the statement of Bleek in 1852, that the 
 pre-exilic origin of Zech. 9-14 is one of the "surest results of the 
 modern investigations of the Bible " T. W. Chambers also (1874) 
 
THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHARIAH 13 
 
 in summing up the history of criticism says: "The opinion which 
 referred the origin of the controverted chapters to the time of 
 Alexander the Great or of the Maccabean age is now more gener- 
 ally abandoned, and by later writers on the other side is not 
 deemed worthy of reply." And, indeed, it is noteworthy that for 
 nearly twenty years after Bottcher (18G4), no one openly 
 defended the post-Zecharian hypothesis. On the contrary, many 
 advocated the pre-exilic theory, among whom are Pressel (1870), 
 Diestel and Duhm (1875), Reuss (1876), Bruston, Steiner (who, 
 p. 370, comments on the unity of the views of modern criticism) 
 and Graetz (1881), v. Orelli and Montet (1882) and Riehm 
 (1881). Those who defended unity in the same period are Keil 
 (1873), Chambers (187-1), Lange and Drake (1876), Pusey 
 (1877), Wright (1878), Bredenkamp and Dods (1879), and 
 lastly Lowe (1882), since whom no one has argued openly the 
 integrity of the entire book of Zechariah. Haehnelt's popular 
 work (1891) is of no critical value. 
 
 With Stade (1881-2) the criticism of Zech. 9-14 took a new 
 direction. In the ZATW. he reopened and discussed the ques- 
 tion at length, concluding that chs. 9-14 were written in the 
 period of the contests of the Diadochi, i. p., between 306 and 278 
 B. C. Since the publication of his articles the tendency of criti- 
 cism is toward a post-Zecharian origin of these chapters. As far 
 as we know, Grtitzmacher's dissertation (1892) is the only really 
 formidable attempt to reinstate the pre-exilic hypothesis since 
 1882. On the other hand, many have followed Stade's lead. 
 Cheyne (1888), by a process of reasoning similar to Stade's, 
 arrives at the conclusion that Zech. 9-14 were written either in 
 the late Persian or early Greek period, but certainly pre-Macca- 
 bean. Kuenen (1889). Briggs (Messianic Prophecy, 1886) and 
 Driver (1891) are divided in their opinion, allowing that chs. 
 9-11 may be at least pre-exilic in origin, but confident that a 
 post-Zecharian redactor worked them over, while chs. 12-14 were 
 composed not before 400 B. 0. Delitzsch [Mess. Weissaginig, 
 1889) favors a post-Zecharian date, though he is uncertain as to 
 the exact time. Cornill (1891) finds the best historic setting^ 
 between 301 and 198 B. C. Graetz (1891) suggests the reign 
 of Artaxerxes III. for ch. 14; but, on the contrary, maintains the 
 
14 THE PEOPHECIES OF ZECHAEIAH 
 
 pre-exilic origin of clis. 9-13. Staerk (1891) agrees with Stade 
 for the most part in placing these chapters between 306 and 280 
 B. C, but excepts the fragments 11:4-17; 13:7-9, which he 
 thinks describe in an allegorical manner the events of 171 B. C. 
 from the standpoint of the following year, 170 B. C. Rubinkam 
 (1892) assigns these prophecies as follows: ch. 9:1-10 to the 
 year 332 B. C. when Alexander stood before Tyre, and chs. 9:11- 
 14:21 to the years following 168 B. C, because they witness to 
 the struggle for independence in the Maccabean age. In refer- 
 ence to the history of critical opinion Rubinkam makes the fol- 
 lowing noteworthy remark: "It is becoming evident that in spite 
 of the great number of scholars who in the past four or five 
 decades have declared for the pre-exilic origin of the chapters 
 under consideration this theory is ceasing to satisfy. Not only 
 those who for the first time are publishing their opinions upon 
 the subject, but also those [c. g., Kuenen) who have firmly advo- 
 cated the pre-exilic authorship are declaring for a post-exilic 
 date." * This he wrote in 1892. In the same year Wellhausen 
 published his Skizzen u.VornrhcHen, 5. Heft, in which he maintains 
 that Zech. 9-14 is a unit and out of the Maccabean age. Marti 
 (1892) likewise places these prophecies in the 2d century B. C. 
 Kirkpatrick (1892), however, though he partitions the book of 
 Zechariah among three different authors, finds no better or more 
 appropriate period for the historic setting of chs. 9-14 than 485 
 B. C. Eckardt (1893) endeavors on purely linguistic grounds 
 to prove a much later origin for these chapters. And finally, 
 Kuiper (1894) concludes that they are a unit, having had their 
 origin in the Hellenic period, after the battle of Issus, but before 
 the conquest of Egypt by Alexander, 332 B. C. 
 
 From this survey of the criticism of the book of Zechariah it 
 is evident that at present there are three jn-incipal hypotheses 
 concerning the origin of chs. 9-14: 1. TItc iheory that these 
 chapters are of pre-exilic origin — first suggested by Newcome 
 and Bertholdt, viz., that chs. 9-11 were written shortly before the 
 downfall of Samaria, 722 B. C, and chs. 12-14 shortly before the 
 destruction of Jerusalem, 586 B. C. The principal defender of 
 this hypothesis in the last decade is Griltzmacher. 2. The tradi- 
 
 " Murti also rcinarka {Theol. Zeitit.auH tier Srlurriz, p. H9, 1894): *'Doch dioso Ansicht 
 Ulid prn-oxilic) erWL'ist sicli nn'lir u. molir als durcliaus uulialtbar." 
 
THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHARIAH 15 
 
 tional view, which insists that the book of Zechariah is a unit and 
 was written by Zechariali, the contemporary of Zerubbabel. This 
 view has had no pronounced defender since Lowe, 1882. 3. The 
 post-Zecharian hypothesis, which allows of either a late Persian, 
 an early Greek, or a Maccabean origin for Zech. 9-14. This is 
 today the popular hypothesis. In fact most of those who have 
 written since 1882 have advocated a late post-exilic date, thus 
 evincing that the post-Zecharian hypothesis, which in 1874 ''was 
 not deemed worthy of reply," is renewing its popularity in the 
 circle of a vacillating criticism. 
 
 I. 
 
 CONTENTS OF THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH. 
 
 The prophecies of Zechariah naturally fall into two parts, chs. 
 1-8 and 9-14, both of which describe the present and look for- 
 ward into the future. 
 
 Pa7-t I. {chs. 1-8) consists of three distinct prophecies 
 delivered on three different occasions: I. Ch. 1:1-6, an intro- 
 duction, delivered in the 8th month of the 2d year of Darius 
 Hystaspes, 520 B. C. These verses having been spoken three 
 months before the following prophecies are consequently a gen- 
 eral introduction; but, one of the strongest and most intensely 
 spiritual calls to a deep and sincere repentance to be found any- 
 where in the O. T. II. Chs. 1:7-6: 15, a series of night visions 
 followed by an appendix, delivered on the 24th day of the 11th 
 month of the year 520 B. C, or exactly two months after the 
 corner stone of the temple had been laid (Hag. 2:18). These 
 visions were intended to encourage the people to rebuild God's 
 house. They teach severally the following lessons: 1. God's 
 special care for and interest in his people (1:7-17). 2. Israel's 
 enemies have finally been destroyed (2:1-4). 3. God will 
 re-people, protect and dwell in Jerusalem (2:5-17). 4. The 
 priesthood shall be cleansed, continued and made typical of the 
 Messiah-Branch to come (3:1-10). 5. The visible shall give 
 place to the spiritual (4:1-14). 6. The land shall be purified 
 from outward wickedness (5:1-4). 7. Wickedness shall be 
 actually removed from the land (5:5-11). 8. God's people thus 
 purified shall rest secure in him (6:1-8). These eight visions 
 
16 THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHABIAH 
 
 are followed by a coronation scene, in which Joshua the high- 
 priest is crowned and made typical of the Messiah-Priest-King 
 whose name is Branch (G:9-15). III. Chs. 7 and 8. Zecha- 
 riaJis answer to the Bethel deputation concernincj fasting, deliv- 
 ered on the 4th day of the 9th month of the 4th year of Darius, 
 518 B. C. The prophet's message is divided into four sections 
 by the slightly varying formula, " the word of the Lord came 
 unto me" (7:4,8; 8:1,18). 1. Fasting terminates on yourselves 
 (7:4-7). 2. Look at the lesson from your fathers (7:8-14). 
 3. Contrast the past with the future; instead of a curse Jehovah 
 will send a blessing; instead of evil, good (8:1-17). 4. Your 
 fasting shall be changed to feasting, and many nations shall in 
 that day seek the Lord of hosts in Jerusalem (8:18-23). 
 
 Part IT. {chs. 9-14). This part contains two oracles (xiB52) 
 without dates (9-11 and 12-14). I. Chs. 9-11, an oracle of 
 promise to the new theocracy. This section contains promises of 
 a land in which to dwell, a return from exile, victory over a hos- 
 tile world-power, temporal blessings and national strength, closing 
 with a parable of judgment brought on by Israel's rejection of 
 Jehovah as their shepherd. 1. Ch. 9. Judah and Ephraim 
 restored, united and made victorious over their enemies, are 
 promised a land and a king. 2. Ch. 10. How Israel shall be 
 saved and strengthened. 3. Ch. 11. How Israel has been pun- 
 ished for rejecting the shepherding care of Jehovah. II. Chs. 
 12-14. the victories of the neio theocracy, and the cominij day of 
 the Lord. 1. Ch. 12. How Jerusalem shall be besieged by her 
 enemies, but saved by Jehovah. 2. Ch. 13. How a remnant of 
 Israel purified and refined shall be saved. 3. Ch. 14. An apoca- 
 lyptic vision of judgment and redemption. 
 
 II. 
 
 THE PRE-EXILIC HYPOTHESIS EXAMINED. 
 
 Of the two principal schools of criticism — the one advocating 
 a pre-exilic origin of Zech. 9-14, and the other a post-Zecharian — 
 the pre-exilic liypothesis will be discussed first. This hypothesis, 
 though conditioned by a successful division of chs. 9-14 into two 
 
THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHARIAH 17 
 
 separate, independent oracles,* and bound to a literal interpreta- 
 tion of chs. 11 and 14, is worthy of careful examination. We 
 propose to discviss it along three lines, — the historical, the Mes- 
 sianic and the literary. 
 
 I. The Historical Argument, or Argument from Historical 
 Allusions. — The historical allusions occurring in 9-14 do not all, 
 it must be allowed, point in the same direction. Yet in opposi- 
 tion to the alleged pre-exilic origin of these chapters it is to be 
 observed: 1. TJtere are reasons for thinking tliat, in hotli parts 
 of the Book of Zechariah, the exile is represented as an event of 
 the past, and that the restoration from exile both of Ephraim and 
 Judah, though incomplete, has already been begun. This is 
 unquestionably true of Parti (c/. 1:12; 7:5; 1:16; 8:3; 6:10; 
 8:13; 8:7,8; 2:10, 11), but also true of Part II. The exile is 
 treated as a fact. In 10:6 Jehovah declares, "I will strengthen 
 the house of Judah and I will save the house of Joseph and they 
 shall be as though / Itad not cast them off." The captivity at 
 least of Ephraim is here pre-supposed (c/. Driver, p. 826; Kuiper, 
 p. 82). But if it be so that Ephraim has already gone into exile, 
 this admission of itself is disastrous to the pre-exilic hypothesis, 
 as no one since Bauer has ever assigned 9-11 to a period subse- 
 quent to 722 B. C. Grtitzmacher (p. 38) fails to explain this 
 pass.ige satisfactorily, having overlooked vs. 2-5, in which the 
 exile and restoration of Judah are described. Again in 9:8 
 Jehovah promises to encamp about his house on the army side so 
 that no oppressor shall pass through again (IV), from which it 
 is evident that the land of Judah has already been overrun by a 
 foreign foe and the temple desecrated [cf. Kohler, and Lowe, 
 p. 84). Further, from 9:9 it is reasonable to infer, inasmuch as 
 a king is promised, that Zion at this time was without a king. 
 An 8th century people would hardly have understood such words. 
 Israel's restoration, on the other hand, is still incomplete, "Turn 
 
 * The following enramary illustrates the great variety of opinion among the advocates 
 of the pro-exilic school : 1) The opinion that 9-14 are wholly or in part the work of Jeremiah 
 (Mede and FlUpge) ; 2) that 9-11 were written in the time of Hosoa, whereas 12-14, between 
 the death of Josiah and the fall of Jerusalem (Nowcome, Doederlein, etc.) ; 3) that 9-11 were 
 written by the Zechariah mentioned in Isa. 8 : 2, in the time of Ahaz, while 12-14 were com- 
 posed just before 5813 B. C. (Bertholdt, Knobel, etc.) ; 4) that 9-14 is a unit and written in the 
 time of Uzziah (Rosenmiiller, Pressel, and formerly Hitzig) ; 5) that 9-11; 13:7-9 belong to 
 the reign of Ahaz, while 12 : 1-13 : 6 and 14 belong to the period between the death of Josiah 
 and the downfaU of Jerusalem (Ewald, Dillmann, Grfltzmacher and others). This last 
 position is the most tenable, and hence will receive special attention here. 
 
18 THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHARIAH 
 
 you to the stronghold ye prisoners of hope: even today do I 
 declare that I will render double unto thee " (9:12). Such words 
 have no sense if not after the exile {cf. Wellhausen, Encyclopedia 
 Britannica). They describe the reward Zion is to receive for 
 her exile {cf. Cornill, p. 198), and can be explained only in post- 
 exilic times. But again, " I will gather them and they shall 
 return" (10:8-10). "Because of the blood of thy covenant I 
 have sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit" (9:11), in the last 
 of which the verb TinViD is a prophetic perfect, showing that 
 Zion's deliverance had already taken place in God's intention, 
 and was therefore certain to follow, but as yet not having taken 
 place. 2. The allef/ed authors of Zech. 9-14 disi^ociate themseliies 
 from any definitely named person or any specific event Icnoicn to 
 he pre-exilic. If a whole section of prophecy is to be dislodged 
 from its place in the development of scripture and transferred to 
 an earlier date, there ought to be found in it definite historical 
 allusions which would justify the change. But especially, when 
 the contrast between the two periods is as great as that between 
 the times before and after the exile. In the one case we are 
 dealing with nations under independent kings ; in the other, with 
 a congregation having only a civil governor who is subject to a 
 heathen sovereign. In the former period, we are dealing with a 
 people falling deeper and deeper into gross sin ; in the latter, with 
 a people weak but disciplined by the lesson of the exile. Before 
 the exile, with a people unwilling to listen to the messengers of 
 Jehovah; after the exile, obeying the word of the Lord (Hag. 
 1:14; Ezr. 5:2). In view of this, therefore, observe in Zech. 
 9-14 that, whatever may have been the character of the nation, 
 no ruler is specified by the prophet or named. God alone is 
 described as ruler of his people (9:9, 10; 14:9). The only king 
 mentioned is the Messiah-king (9:9). The kings alluded to in 
 14:5; 11: (5 are kings of the past. The alleged allusion to a 
 ruling king in 13:7-9 (Bleek) is wholly unwarranted, as such an 
 apostrophe to the Sword could never have been uttered by a pre- 
 exilic prophet concerning a ruling king then upon the throne. In 
 14:5, when the prophet speaks of Uzziah, he adds "king of 
 Judah" as though speaking to a late congregation. The king 
 of Gaza (9:5) was a satrap vassal of the Persian empire as were 
 
THE PKOPHECIES OF ZECHAKIAH 19 
 
 the "kings" of Tyre and Sidon, according to Herodotus (8:67). 
 The king of Persia was called " King of Kings" (Dan. 2:36, 37; 
 Ezr. 7:12). It is further to be observed that the "house of 
 David" mentioned in 12:7-12; 13:1 is never described as being 
 in possession of the throne. The fact that the kingly house is 
 closely associated with the priesthood (12: 13) and the inhabitants 
 of Jerusalem (12:7,10; 13:1) as in Jer. 1:18; 2:26; 13:13; 31:19 
 is no proof, as Griitzmacher (p. 36) would maintain, that our 
 prophet is a contemporary of Jeremiah. The same terms might 
 easily be used by a successor of Jeremiah. Furthermore, it is 
 David's house only and not any earthly ruler in it of which the 
 prophet speaks. Of it, the house, might well a post-exilic prophet 
 speak, for of David's house the Messiah was to come. The house 
 existed after the captivity and Zerubbabel was its temporary head ; 
 but Zerubbabel was only "governor " ( Hag. 1 : 1, 14 ; 2 : 2, 21 ) . He 
 was never crowned king, but Joshua (Zech. 6:11). In this connec- 
 tion Driver (p. 330) remarks, "The terms in which the house of 
 David is alluded to, do not necessarily imply that it was the ruling 
 family, though it is true that a preeminence is attached to it (12: 
 7, 8; 13:1); and from 1 Chron. 3:17-24; Ezr. 8:2 we know that 
 the descendants of David were reckoned as a distinct family as late 
 as the time of the Chronicler. The independent position assigned 
 to the house of Levi as a whole, beside the house of David is 
 unlike the representations of the earlier period {e. y., those of 
 Jeremiah, who only names the priests as a class and ranks them 
 after the kings and princes, 1:18; 2:26; 4:9; 8:1-13:13, etc.); 
 on the other hand it would harmonize with post-exilic relations, 
 when the family of David was reduced in prestige, and the tribe 
 of Levi was consolidated." {Cf. Cornill, p. 197.) The narrative 
 itself suggests the position of coordinate preeminence which the 
 house of David held after the exile rather than that of absolute 
 supremacy as the reigning house. {Of. Kuiper, p. 85.) 3. There 
 are passages in chs. 9-14 which, if jjre-exilic in origin, loould 
 hare been obscure and even misleading fa a people confronted hy 
 the catastrophes of 722 aiul 586 B. C. This is seen both nega- 
 tively and positively, (a) In the entire absence of any allusion 
 to a specific enemy about to come. No definite army is named as 
 threatening immediately; no king designated as actually approach- 
 
20 THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHARIAH 
 
 ing. There is no mention whatever in chs. 9-11 of an Assyrian 
 monarch who would soon besiege and take Samaria as we find in 
 Mic. 5:5,6; Hos. 9:3; 10:6; ll:5sg. (c/. Am. 3:11; 6:14). 
 Neither does Judah stand in peril from the same as in Isaiah's 
 day (Isa. 7: 17, 20; 8:1 sq.). Instead of Assyria, Javan is painted 
 as the opposing enemy of the theocracy (9:13), and as yet not 
 raised up or threatening. In chs. 12-li, the enemies that are 
 described as coming up against Jerusalem are not the Chaldeans 
 under Nebuchadnezzar, but rather "all nations" (12:2,3; 14:2; 
 cf. Ewald, p. 389, and Grutzmacher, p. 49). In Jeremiah, on the 
 contrary, of whom the author of Zech. 12-14 is the alleged con- 
 temporary, the Chaldeans are particularly specified as coming 
 against Jerusalem to take it and burn it with fire (Jer. 32:5; 
 37:8); and in Jer. 25:9; 27:6sg.; 28:14 Nebuchadnezzar is 
 specially designated as the king whom Judah would inevitably 
 serve, (b) In the absence of any remonstrance against allying 
 with foreigners (c. g., Egypt) for jwotection. But (/. Hos. 5:13; 
 7:11; 12:1; 14:3; Isa. 7:4,20; 80:2sq.; 31:lsq. and Jer. 2:18, 
 36; 37:7, in which it is expressly forbidden, (c) In flic fact 
 that victory and not defeat is 2>i'oiitiscd. Jehovah promises to 
 shield Israel when Syria, Phoenicia and Philistia are destroyed 
 (9:8). Against Javan "the Lord of hosts shall defend them" 
 (9:14) and "shall save them" (9:16). In the siege of Jerusalem 
 the Lord will "smite every horse with astonishment and his rider 
 with madness" (12:4). "The Lord also shall save the tents of 
 Judah" (12:7), and "he will defend the inhabitants of Jerusa- 
 lem" (12:8). The pre-exilic prophets made no such predictions 
 {cf Am. 7:17; 8:2; 9:8; Isa. 8-Asq.; 9:14; Hos. 8:14; 9:16; 
 Jer. 12:14; 13:19 and frequently). They could not prophesy 
 thus; and indeed it is difficult to see how any true prophet living 
 before the exile could have uttered such predictions as are con- 
 tained in Zech. 9-14, promising that Jerusalem would be spared 
 when the fate of Jerusalem was evidently sealed. On the other 
 hand the gathering of hostile armies about Jerusalem in post- 
 exilic times was not uncommon [rf Joseph., XI., 7,8). (d) In 
 the fact that temporal prosperity and abundance are promised 
 rather than inrmediate r((laitiHy announced. In 9:17 the victory 
 over Javan is to be followed by abundance of corn and wine. 
 
THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHAEIAH 21 
 
 "Showers of rain and grass in the field" shall also be given 
 (10:1). '"The people shall increase as they have increased" 
 (10:8). Jehovah "will strengthen them in the Lord" (10:12). 
 "The feeble shall be as David" (12:8). The wealth of the 
 heathen, " the gold and the silver and the apparel in great abun- 
 dance" shall be gathered and divided in Jerusalem as spoil (11:2, 
 14; cf. Hag. 2:8). But all this is contrary to what actually hap- 
 pened to Israel and Judah almost immediately after these proph- 
 ecies are claimed to have been delivered. Such predictions are 
 false, therefore, when viewed from the pre-exilic standpoint; or, 
 they are later interpolations (c/. Kuenen, Graetz, etc.). For, 
 the contemporaries of these unknown prophets did not predict 
 temporal prosperity on the eve either of 722 or 586 B. C. Amos 
 predicted catastrophe and desolation (5:27; 6:7,8; 7:2,4,9); 
 Hosea, that they should eat and not be satisfied (4:10), that man 
 and beast should languish (4:3); Isaiah, that they should be 
 hungry and oppressed (3:1,5; 7:24,25); Jeremiah, that the 
 whole land would become a desolation (25:11); and these pre- 
 dictions actually came to pass. Those of the unknown prophets 
 did not {cf. Kohler, II., p. 809; Kuiper, p. 92, and Cornill, p. 197). 
 On the other hand, the encouraging promises of Zech. 9-14 are 
 in perfect harmony with post-exilic times, and especially in har- 
 mony with the consoling declarations of Zech. 1-8. In 8:11 
 Jehovah declares that he "will not be unto the residue of this 
 people as in the former days." In 8: 15 he says: " I have thought 
 in these days to do good unto Jerusalem and to the house of 
 Judah." In 1:16, "I am returned to Jerusalem with mercies." 
 In 2:8, "multitudes of men and cattle shall be in Jerusalem." 
 In 3 : 10, every man shall sit under his own vine and fig-tree ; and in 
 8: 12, " the vine shall give her fruit and the ground shall give her 
 increase and the heavens shall give their dew," — types of the 
 highest prosperity, (e) In the fad that the jieople are exhorted 
 to rejoice rafher titan to fear. In 9:11, the prophet exhorts, 
 " Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion" (9:9). He further prom- 
 ises that the heart of Ephraim "shall rejoice as through wine," 
 yea "their children also shall be glad" and rejoice in the Lord 
 (10:7). But Hosea. the contemporary of this alleged prophet, 
 bids Israel, in view of impending exile, "rejoice not" (9:1). He, 
 
22 THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHARIAH 
 
 on the contrary, pronounces woe upon tliem (7:13; cf. Am. 6:1). 
 Amos declares that their feasts shall be turned into mourning and 
 all their songs into lamentation (8:10) ; "wailing shall be in the 
 broad-ways" (5:16). In Zech. 14:16-19 all nations are repre- 
 sented as going up to Jerusalem to keep the feast of tabernacles — • 
 the most joyous feast of the year. On the contrary, Jeremiah's 
 "eyes ran down with tears night and day" as he predicted Judah's 
 solemn fate (14:17). "For in the name of the Lord," he 
 declared, " I will take from them the voice of mirth and the voice 
 of gladness" (25:10). But here again Zech. 1-8 furnishes 
 striking parallels to Zech. 9-14 {cf. Zech. 2:10; 8:19; 13:5). 
 Hence throughout these so-called pre-exilian prophecies of Zech. 
 9-14, there is sounded forth not one clear note of alarm or warn- 
 ing; judgment rather gives place to hope, warning to encourage- 
 ment, threatening to joy and gladness, — all of which is most 
 inconsistent with the idea that these chapters are of pre-exilic 
 origin, and that their authors, as is alleged, spoke to their age. 
 On the other hand, they are perfectly consistent with the condi- 
 tions and promises of post-exilic times.* 
 
 Certain historical allusions are alleged to be found in Zech. 
 9-14, however, which point to pre-exilic times. They are the 
 following: 1. Zech. 11:8, ^' and I cut off the three shepherds in 
 one month." This reference is said to fix the date of chs. 9-11. 
 Two interpretations of the "three shepherds" are commonly 
 given: (a) Hitzig's view, which identifies them with three kings 
 of the northern kingdom, viz., Zechariah. Shallum and Menahem 
 (2 Kgs. 15: 8-14). -j- But the value of this interpretation is 
 injured by the fact that Shallum alone ruled a full month ( 2 Kgs. 
 
 * Biirper remarks (p. 125) : " II faut s'otonner do co quo los critiques modernes, qui ont 
 taut do sagacit6 et do ponStration pour trouvor dos traces do I'exil dans la plupart dos 
 autres livres do I'A. T. Cp. ox. dans presque tons los psauines n'aieiit pas en asaez d'intelli- 
 eoiice pour d^couvrir lea allusions nombreuses aux temps de I'exil qu'on trouve dans tous 
 les chapitres de la secondo partio do Zachario : p. ex. ch. 9, la d61ivoranco des prisonniora, 
 ot la mention dos Grecs, ch. 10, presqu'en entier, etc." 
 
 t Of tlio score or more interpretations (Hredenkamp pays forty) sivon of the "three 
 siiopherds " in Zoch. 11 :8 these are examples: Moses, Aaron and Miriam (Jerome) ; Galba, 
 Otho and Vitellius (Calmot) ; the throe world-ijowers of Daniel — Babylonia, Persia and 
 Macedonia (Koil, Kohlor, Kliefoth, Hofmann) ; Assyria, Babylonia and Persia (Stade) ; 
 throe <)(lic08 — proptiet, priest and kinf< I Ephrem, Tlioodoret, ("yrill, Delitz.'^ch, Brodenkamp. 
 Kuiper) : priests, judtiea and lawyers (Puaoy), Jehoahaz, Ji^hoiakim and Zedekiah (Qimchi), 
 Antiociius P^piphancs, Eupator and Demetrius (Wright, Lowo), Lyaimachus, .lason and 
 Monelaus (Uubinkam, Staerk), Judas, Jonathan and Simon (Abarbanel). Pharisee, Sadduceo 
 and EasoDO, otc. 
 
THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHARIAH 23 
 
 15:13); and Meuahem reigned ten years in Samaria (2 Kgs. 
 15:17). This explanation, therefore, does not satisfy the state- 
 ment of Zech. 11:8 that they were cut oft "in one month.'' 
 Steiner avoids this difficulty by making the one month relative, 
 (b) Eiuald's view (also that of Orelli, Maurer, Bleek, Kuenen 
 and Dillmann), which declares in favor of Zechariah, Shallum 
 and a usurper, who at the same time quickly rose to power and 
 was immediately put down, but who happens not to be mentioned 
 in 2 Kgs. 15:10-13 {cf. Griitzmacher, p. 47). But this inter- 
 pretation is likewise met by serious objections: (1) There is no 
 historical proof that any such usurper ever existed after Shallum. 
 (2) It is not certain that the writer is speaking exclusively to, 
 or of the Israel of the northern kingdom. (3) The time-condi- 
 tions, "one month," still remain unsatisfied. Strack's suggestion 
 (p. 389) that the pretender rose within the month, is also a mere 
 supposition without historical foundation, and is therefore equally 
 unsatisfactory. Accordingly our proposition stands fast, that the 
 author dissociates himself from pre-exilic persons and events. 
 
 2. Zech. 12:11-14 is a reference alleged to fix the date of chs. 
 12-14. " In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusa- 
 lem as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon." 
 Hadadrimmon is generally supposed to be the place where Josiah 
 was fatally wounded by Pharaoh Necho. (Cy. Schrader, Well- 
 hausen, Skizz. u. Vorarb., p. 192, who considers Hadadrimmon to 
 be the name of a God, and Griitzmacher, p. 17). Both accounts 
 of Josiah 's death state that it was "at" or "in the valley" of 
 Megiddon where his wound was received (2 Kgs. 23:29 and 2 
 Chron. 35:22). And the Chronicler tells us that not only 
 Megiddon but "all Judah and Jerusalem mourned for Josiah," 
 that "Jeremiah wrote lamentations over him and the singing men 
 and the singing women spake of Josiah in their lamentations to 
 this day, and made them an ordinance in Israel" (2 Chron. 35: 
 24, 25). It was a national mourning for a national calamity, the 
 memory of which long lingered in the minds of pious Jews. 
 
 3. Zech. 14:5, " Ye shall flee like as ye fled from before the 
 earthquake in tlie days of Uzziah, king of Judah." But the 
 earthquake here alluded to occurred at least a century and a half 
 before the date assigned for the composition of ch. 14, and yet 
 
24 THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHAKIAH 
 
 the event seems to be just as "fresh in the mind of the author" 
 as the mourning in the valley of Megiddon (c/. Bleek, p. 391). 
 RosenmuUer saw the force of this argument and so placed the 
 entire six chapters (9-14) in the reign of Uzziah. Observe "as 
 ye fled," etc. Wellhausen, Encyclopedia Britannica, weighing 
 this passage, remarks: "Zech. 14:5 is a stronger argument for a 
 date in the Assyrian period than anything cited from chs. 9-11," 
 and in his Skizz. u. Vorarb. (p. 194) argues that "whoever is 
 unwilling to admit the force of this reference forfeits the right 
 to protest against the proposition that sometimes other archaic 
 expressions are intentionally found in later prophecies." It need 
 only be added in the case of Zech. 12:11 and 14:5 that, from the 
 pre-exilic standpoint, the argument in favor of the one passage 
 vitiates the force of the argument in favor of the other. 4. The 
 names given to the theocracy in 9-14 imply, it is alleged, a pre- 
 exilic date for the entire section; e. g., in 9-11 various terms are 
 employed which indicate that the kingdoms of Israel and Judah 
 are still standing; such as Ephraim and Jerusalem (9: 10), Judah 
 and Ephraim (9:13), house of Judah and house of Joseph (10:6), 
 and "the brotherhood between Judah and Israel" (11:14); in 
 12-14, on the contrary, only Judah, Jerusalem (12:2), inhab- 
 itants of Jerusalem (12:5,10; 13:1), house of David and house 
 of Levi appear, thus showing that the northern kingdom is no 
 longer in existence and that Judah only remains (v. Ortenberg, 
 Knobel, Ewald. Dillniann, Grrfttzmacher, p. 43). Among these 
 the chief allusion is the breaking of the brotherhood between 
 Judah and Israel in 11:14. By this Grtltzmacher (p. 48) imder- 
 stands " the breaking out of war between Israel and Judah which 
 took place under Pekah of Israel and Ahaz of Judah (so Dillniann 
 and others). But in history a union existed between Judah and 
 Israel, as Cornill observes (p. 199), only during the reigns of 
 Ahab and Jehosaphat and their next successors. Others claim 
 that no " brotherhood " ever existed between Israel and Judah, in 
 the sense in which the term is here employed, after the schism of 
 Jeroboam I. And indeed there was no real " brotherhood " in 
 the reigns of Jehosaphat and Ahab any more than in the days of 
 Pekah and Ahaz. The expression is a doubtful one, as it can 
 refer citlicr 1o the original schism of Israel and Judah in the 
 
THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHAKIAH 25 
 
 days of Jeroboam, to the captivity of Israel in 722 B. C, or to a 
 later rupture which was to happen after the time of the prophet. 
 The origin of the expression mriX {d. X. ) is most easily explained 
 in post-exilic times when Ezekiel's prophecy of the "two sticks" 
 (37:16s5.) was fulfilled, and Israel and Judah were really united 
 in religion and government. This harmonizes with the prophet's 
 aim, everywhere making the interest of Israel and Judah the same 
 (9 : 10, 13 ; 10 : 6 ; 12 : 1 sg. ) . To him Israel and Judah are united, 
 not merely coexisting. Ezekiel's vision had become a fact, Israel 
 and Judah now stood in the relation of a reunited brotherhood, 
 "to break which was emblematic," as Delitzsch (p. 218) says: 
 " of the deeper rupture which would one day divide the Jewish 
 people into halves, one holding to the good shepherd, and the other 
 rejecting him." Israel and Judah were both represented in the 
 post-exilic congregation; and as names, were both applicable to 
 the post-exilic theocracy for the following reasons: (1) Even 
 before the exile Ephraim became mixed with Judah. Men of 
 Asher, Manasseh and Zebulun, came to Jerusalem to keep the 
 passover of Hezekiah (2 Chron. 30:11). Ephraim also was 
 among them (c/. v. 18). Both Israel and Judah joined also in 
 celebrating Josiah's passover feast (2 Chron. 35 : 18) . (2) Among 
 the 42,360 led back under Zerubbabel (Ezr. 2; Neh. 7), about 
 12,000 were without pedigree, among whom there were doubtless 
 (Oehler) several from the ten tribes whose genealogies had been 
 neglected. Twelve heads of houses, including Zerubbabel and 
 Joshua, presided over them (Neh. 7:7; Ezr. 2:2). (3) From 
 1 Chron. 9:2, 3 it is obvious that at least five tribes, Judah, Levi, 
 Benjamin, Ephraim and Manasseh were represented among them. 
 Zechariah's call to flee from dwelling in Babylon doubtless 
 brought others (Zech. 2:10). (4) Later, in Ezra's day, the Jews 
 regarded themselves as representatives of the twelve tribes; this 
 is seen in their offering twelve goats as a sin-offering at the dedi- 
 cation of the temple (Ezr. H:17), and in a second sin-offering of 
 twelve bullocks for all Israel (Ezr. 8:35). (5) The N. T. men- 
 tions Anna of the tribe of Asher (Lk. 2:36), Barnabas of the 
 tribe of Levi (Acts 4:30), and Paul as of the tribe of Benjamin 
 (Phil. 3:5), who in his defense before Agrippa speaks of the 
 twelve tribes as existing in his own day (Acts 26:7). The twelve 
 
26 THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHARIAH 
 
 tribes are also spoken of in Matt. 19:28; Lk. 22:30; Rev. 7:4; 
 21:12, all showing that the names Israel and Judah survived the 
 exile, and are therefore appropriate appellations in the mouth of 
 a post-exilic prophet. The idea of the "Lost Ten Tribes" is, as 
 Wright remarks, "a myth of later ages"' (c/. Wellhausen, p. 183). 
 Again, the expressions "house of Israel" and "house of Judah" 
 are no proof of the pre-exilic origin of these chapters for both terms 
 were used after the ten tribes had been carried away (e. r/., Jer. 
 31:27-31). They actually occiir once in Zeeh. 1-8 (viz., 8:13). 
 These terms, however, doubtless attained a broader signification 
 in post-exilic times. The name Israel, for example, is often used 
 as coextensive with the whole nation [cf. Ezr. 2:2,5,9, 70; 3:1; 
 4:3; 6:16,21; 7:28; 8:29; Neh. 1:6; 7:7; 8:17; 9:1,2; Zech. 2: 
 2, 4). In Mai. 1:5 the prophet speaks of the " border of Israel," 
 referring naturally to the borders of the entire nation {cf. 2:11). 
 Zech. 9:1. sq. is (as Mai. 1:1) addressed to Israel, but not to 
 Israel of the ten tribes necessarily, as the author expressly says, 
 "as of all the tribes," implying that the prophecies of Ezek. 37: 
 16 sg.; Jer. 30:3; Hos. 3:5 and Am. 9:9, 14, 15 were now fulfilled 
 in the ecclesia of the post-exilic theocracy. That one of the 
 twelve tribes should be lost was from the first regarded as a 
 grievous misfortune (Judg. 21:36). On the other hand, only as 
 representatives of the twelve tribes could the theocracy expect to 
 inherit a right to the covenant j)romises. Hence the use of these 
 names in a post-exilic prophecy is nothing unusual or extraordi- 
 nary. 5. Zech. 14:10, the area occupied by Judah when the 
 prophecy was ivritten. The expression " from Geba to Rimmon" 
 limits, it is claimed, the origin of 12-14 to a time prior to the 
 captivity (c/. Steiner, p. 371). But, while it marks the bound- 
 aries of Judah "s territory before the downfall of Jerusalem, it 
 also satisfies the conditions after the exile (c/. Wellhausen, p. 195). 
 Schttrer says {History of Jewish People, p. 189), the extent of the 
 Jewish commonwealth during the Persian domination was prob- 
 ably limited to Judah proper, which in its range corresponded 
 nearly with the kingdom of Judah of earlier days." 6. The 
 national sins according to Zech. 9-14. It is argued from 10:2; 
 13:2-6 that idolatry and false prophecy are represented as the 
 prevailituj sins of the prophet's time, and that, therefore, these 
 
THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHAKIAH 27 
 
 prophecies must have been written before the exile (Dillmann, 
 Griitzmacher and others). But from these passages we can 
 hardly conclude that idolatry and false prophecy were the pre- 
 vailing sins at the time of writing: for. one of these passages 
 refers to the past (10:2), and the other is clearly a reference to 
 the future (13:2-()). In 10:2, teraphim, diviners and dreamers 
 are alluded to. But the prophet here is speaking of what hap- 
 pened in the past, before the exile, and which now would be a 
 gross sin for Israel to repeat; therefore he exhorts, "ask of the 
 Lord rain," etc., and not of teraphim and idols, for " they have 
 spoken vanity." In 13:2—6, "the names of the idols," "the 
 prophets," and "the unclean spirit" shall, "in that day," be 
 cut off out of the land (just as "theft" and "lying" are to be 
 removed, in Zech. 5:3-11). The prophet is here describing the 
 future, how the land shall "in that day" be purified from sin and 
 from uncleanness. In neither case does the author speak of idol- 
 atry as the sin of the present (of. Bredenkamp, p. 104). If, how- 
 ever, it be insisted that the author of 10 : 2 was speaking to an 
 8th century people, his language stands out in decided contrast 
 to that of his contemporaries. Hosea, for example, describes the 
 idolatry of Israel in his day "as a great whoredom from the 
 Lord" (l:2sQ.), for "they sacrifice upon the tops of the moun- 
 tains and burn incense upon the hills" (-4:13). "Ephraim is 
 joined to idols" (-1:17). "Of their silver and gold have they 
 made them idols" (8:4; 13:2), yea, "altars to sin" (8:11). 
 "Israel hath forgotten his maker" (8:14), therefore, "O Israel, 
 thou hast destroyed thyself" (13:0). The language of Amos 
 and Isaiah is equally vehement (c/. Am. 4:4sg.; o-Asq.; 8:14; 
 Isa. 2:8; 8:19; 10:11, etc.). But how differently our author 
 expresses himself ! He employs nothing but past tenses, remark- 
 ing that "the teraphim have spoken (l"i21) vanity," and "the 
 star-gazers have seen (^T") a lie," etc. (10: 2), and this is the only 
 instance in all his prophecies which hints that he is addressing 
 himself to an idolatrous people. And likewise the author of 
 13:2-6, speaks as though he were writing in a period when 
 idols and false prophecy* were remembered, but almost extinct, 
 
 •Tlio priipliHts referrnd to in Zech. 13:2Kg. aio falee prophets: for (o) they are closely 
 associated witli unclean spirits, with no intimation of a contrast oxistinR between them; 
 and ib) in V. 4 it is said that they will no longer " wear a rou«h garment to deceive." God's 
 prophets were not wont to deceive. 
 
28 THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHARIAH 
 
 only the names and altars and groves of idolatry remaining. 
 Hence he declares that the day is coming when even the names 
 of the idols shall cease from the land, when every vestige of 
 idolatry (as Hosea had prophesied, 2:19) and all false prophets 
 would be made to disappear from the midst of Israel. This Is 
 very different from the repeated strain of his alleged contempo- 
 rary, Jeremiah, who continually denounced idols and false proph- 
 ets (c/. 10:14; 19:13; 25:6; 32:35). True, there was always 
 danger of Israel relapsing into idolatry. Intermarriage with the 
 heathen always endangered the worship of Jehovah ( Ezr. 9 •.2sq.; 
 Neh. 13 : 23-26) . Sorcery is denounced by Malachi (2:11; 3:5), 
 and, as Cornill remarks, "as ever increasing." False prophets 
 actually existed in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah (Neh. 6:7- 
 14, 21). But in Hag. and Zech. 1-8 these evils are not men- 
 tioned. In Zech. 10:2 we have more of a warning than an accu- 
 sation ; and in 13:2-6, a promise for the future. This much at 
 least we tenaciously hold, viz., that idolatry and false prophecy 
 are not treated in Zech. 9-14 as the prevailing sins of the age. 
 7. TJte eneniies of Is7-ael in Zech. 9-14. These are Assyria and 
 Egypt (10:10-11), Syria, Phoenicia, and Philistia (9:1-7), and 
 Greece (9:13) ; the mention of whom, it is alleged, fixes the date 
 of these prophecies as pre-exilic. (a) Zech. 10:10, 11; 14:18, 
 19; Assyria, and Egypt. The following claims are made with 
 reference to these passages: (a) that ihc use of the terms, Assyria 
 and Egypt, by a post-exilic writer is "impossible" (Graetz, 
 Monats., p. 284). But this is not so certain. No one, for 
 example, would doubt the post-exilic origin of Lamentations, and 
 yet in ch. 5:6 the term "Assyrians" occurs, most probably 
 intended for Babylonians: in 2 Kgs. 23:29, Pharaoh-Necho is 
 described as going up against the "King of Assyria," whereas 
 Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, is meant (c/. Kuiper, p. 82); 
 and in Ezr. 6:22 "Assyria" is employed instead of Persia. These 
 instances render it at least possible that in Zech. 10:10, 11 we 
 have a parallel instance (Vatke). We still speak of "Egypt" 
 and "the Egyptians," though the country has passed under many 
 diiferent protectorates since the time of the Pharaohs. Rubinkam 
 suggests a principle by which these references can be explained, 
 viz.. tlie later a prophecy is. the wider is its scope and the less 
 
THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHARIAH 29 
 
 value can be placed on the use of words and phrases. An earlier 
 writer cannot, of course, use modes of speech which have their 
 birth in later times, but a later writer may be easily influenced by 
 the diction and phraseology of a former age. Forms of expres- 
 sion are slow in changing. In the New Testament, e. r/., Jesus 
 speaks of coming into the borders of Zebulun and Naphthali 
 (Matt. 4:13). So here in Zech. 10:10, 11, the prophet was 
 representing the future under the forms of the past. De Wette 
 iinally decided to explain these terms as "an affectation of archa- 
 ism" rather than maintain the pre-exilic origin of these prophe- 
 cies. Hosea had predicted that Ephraim would be scattered in 
 Assyria and Egypt (7:16; 8:13; 9:3, 6; 11:5, 11), and very 
 naturally, a later prophet, in promising deliverance to Ephraim, 
 would expect the same countries to give them up. (/3) // is 
 further- claimed that these nations were in the height of their 
 power when the prophet lorote (Flugge, Bertholdt, Bleek, v. Orten- 
 berg, Grutzmacher, p. 89, and others). But this claim, while it 
 has some force, would have far greater weight were Assyria and 
 Egypt the subjects of the prophet's thought. Not these, on the 
 contrary, but Ephraim is the main theme of his discourse. Hence 
 we must not press this reference to Ephraim's enemies too far. 
 They were of minor value in the prophet's mind compared with 
 the immense importance of Jehovah's promises to Ephraim, which 
 he was now commissioned to deliver. Furthermore, while it can- 
 not be denied that Assyria and Egypt are spoken of as still in 
 possession of great power, yet it is equally true that the prophet 
 does not speak of them as active, either as helping forward 
 Ephraim's captivity, or as resisting Ephraim's return; which cor- 
 responds exactly with post-exilic conditions, when the power of 
 both nations had been broken. Moreover, in v. 10 the prophet 
 speaks rather of the "land" of Assyria and the "land" of Egypt, 
 out of which Ephraim should be gathered, and in v. 11 he strength- 
 ens the hope of Ephraim by contrasting the final condition of 
 these heathen countries with the future prosperity of Israel in v. 
 12. (y) It is further maintained that the special mention of 
 Egypt in 14:18, 19 indicates that Egypt at that time ivasJudah's 
 special enemy (Grfttzmacher, p. 20). But the particular mention 
 of Egypt in ch. 14 is obviously due to the physical conditions of 
 
30 THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHARIAH 
 
 that land, with which the author was acquainted. Egypt, being 
 watered by the Nile, needed no rain, hence the prophet is forced 
 to resort to another punishment, viz., plague (c/. Hofmann, Hitzig, 
 KOhler, Reuss, Stade, Wellhausen, and others) . There is no foun- 
 dation for imputing to the prophet (as Bredenkamp, p. 199) a 
 moral reason for the special mention of Egypt; for, if the specifi- 
 cation lies not in the physical conditions of Egypt, it is difficult 
 to see why Egypt and not Babylon should have been threatened 
 by a prophet who lived, as Grutzmacher says, not long before the 
 capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. 
 
 (b) Zech. 9:1-8, Syria, Phoenicia, and PhilisUa. The follow- 
 ing claims are made concerning the mention of these nations: (a) 
 Tliat these kingdoms were still "independent" tohen the prophet 
 wrote, which in post-exilic times was not the case (Grutzmacher, p. 
 40). But the text does not state that they were independent, as 
 Kuiper observes (p. 80). They are represented as overcome with- 
 out resistance. On the other hand, it is not inconsistent with post- 
 exilic conditions that these kingdoms then existed in western 
 Asia. Haggai speaks of "nations" and "kingdoms" and 
 "thrones" (2:7, 22), which, being heathen, would be over- 
 thrown, and yet in Haggai's day Darius ruled all western Asia 
 and Egypt. The fact of Phoenicia's importance at the beginning 
 of the 5th century is beyond dispute. Ezekiel's prophecies 
 against Tyre and Sidon ( 28 : 1-23 ) closely resemble those under 
 discussion. Syria, Phoenicia, and Philistia always remained the 
 enemies of Israel — either active or passive. Jeremiah prophesied 
 against Damascus and Hamath long after their loss of independ- 
 ence (732 and 739 B.C.) by Tiglath-pileser III. (Jer. 49:28- 
 27). Judgments were also pronounced upon the Philistines 
 both by Jeremiah and Ezekiel (Jer. 25:20; Ezek. 25: 15-17) ; 
 likewise by Zephaniah (2:4-7). After the exile, the Philistines 
 resisted Israel's return (Neh. 4:7, 8) and remained hostile to the 
 Jews and to their religion until the time of the Maccabees (I. 
 Mace. 3:41; 10:83; cf. 5:lsq.; Sirach 1:26; Ecclus. 50:20). 
 In short, all these nations were Israel's hereditary foes, and, 
 therefore, judgments pronounced against them were always in 
 place [cf. Kuiper, p. 80). [p) It is further urged that 9:1-8 
 bears a close resemldance to Amos [1:1-2:6) and hence must 
 
THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHARIAH 31 
 
 have been delivered af about the same iimc (Bleek, Einleit., (3th 
 ed., p. 386). But the alleged similarities between these prophe- 
 cies consist chiefly in the names of the cities threatened; e. g., 
 Damascus, Tyre, Graza, Ashkelon, Ekron, and Ashdod are in com- 
 mon. The dissimilarities are much greater and far more strik- 
 ing: (1) The order of the nations threatened. With Amos the 
 order is Syria, Philistia, Phoenicia; in Zech. 9:1-8, Syria, Phoe- 
 nicia, Philistia. (2) Amos predicts the captivity of Syria (1:5); 
 the prophet in Zech. 9:1-8 does not. (3) Amos prophecies that 
 Tyre shall be burned with fire; our prophet (like Ezek. 28:2-5) 
 rather specifies Tyre's "power in the sea," which shows her 
 importance in commerce, and likewise, prophesies against Sidon 
 (c/. Ezek. 28:21-2()). (4) Amos includes the Edomites, Ammon- 
 ites, and Moabites as objects of God's wrath, but in Zech. 9:1-8 
 they are passed over in silence (c/. Bredenkamp. p. 81). These 
 were powerful nations in the 8th century B.C. After the exile, 
 on the contrary, they were so weak that Nehemiah, with half of 
 the returned exiles in arms, repelled" Sanballat and Tobiah and 
 the Arabians and the Ammonites and the Ashdodites," who 
 together had conspired to hinder the Jews from rebuilding the 
 walls of Jerusalem, while the other half went on with the work of 
 building (Neh. 4:7-8). On the other hand, a post-exilic prophet 
 might very appropriately condemn the Syrians, the Phoenicians, 
 and the Philistines, because, as Kohler suggests, they lay within 
 the rightful boundary of Israel's territory (Ezek. 20:42: 47:13 
 sq.). (5) Amos includes Israel and Judah among the nations 
 upon whom the Lord will presently inflict judgments (2:4sf/.); 
 but in Zech. 9:1-8 they are described as a nation under Jehovah's 
 special care, which shows that Jehovah's attitude toward Israel 
 had changed. (6) Amos gives in each case the reason why 
 Jehovah will punish the nations; but the prophet in Zech. 
 9 : 1-8 fails to show any real reason why these nations should be 
 destroyed, except that Israel is returning home, and they are 
 occupying Jewish territory. (7) Amos declares that "the rem- 
 nant of the Philistines shall perish" (1:8); whereas our prophet 
 promises that those which remain shall be as chieftains in Judah. 
 and Ekron as Jebusites incorporated into the nation (9:7). This 
 is a positive proof in favor of the post-exilic origin of Zech. 
 
32 THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHAKIAH 
 
 9:1-8 (c/. Kuiper, p. 80). (8) Amos describes the moral con- 
 dition and sinfulness of Israel; but our prophet pictures Israel 
 as waiting upon the Lord (9:1). (9) Finally, Amos distin- 
 guishes between Israel and Judah; but the author of Zech. 
 9:1-8 makes the interests of "all the tribes of Israel" the same 
 (9:1); cf. Graetz, 3Ionats., Tp. 280). (-y) Again, it is claimed 
 that the storm which breaks in upon the kingdoms of Syria, Phoe- 
 nicia, and Philistia is the second invasion of Tiglath-pileser in 
 734 B.C. (Grutzmacher, p. 45). This is substantiated by the 
 mention of "Hadrach" (9:1) — an 8th century word — and the 
 almost perfect agreement of the monuments with Zech. 9:1-8. 
 But the name "Hadrach" for Syria, which appears in 8th cen- 
 tury inscriptions, may have been employed quite as well by a 
 prophet of the 6th century. No other writer of the 8th century 
 uses the term. It was doubtless the common Assyrian name for 
 Syria, and as such finds its way appropriately in the mouth of an 
 Assyrian-trained prophet who was speaking to a people accus- 
 tomed to Assyrian appellations and terminology (c/. Schrader, 
 KAT., pp. 326, 453). As regards the invasion of Tiglath-pileser 
 in 734 B.C., described in 2 Kgs. 15:29; 16:9, and confirmed by 
 the Assyrian inscriptions, which accords so perfectly with Zech. 
 9:1-8, it is to be observed: (1) that neither the inscriptions nor 
 the biblical record mention the capture of Tyre (c/. Kuiper, p. 
 77); (2) nor indeed is Philistia mentioned in the Bible account. 
 One thinks more naturally of Uzziah's time in connection with 
 Philistia (2 Chron. 26:6; cf. Hitzig-Steiner, p. 369). (3) Our 
 author sees clearly that the invasion will not aifect Jerusalem 
 (9:8). (4) Moreover the degree of the dispersion indicated in 
 9:11-13, 10:6-11 as the result of the alleged invasion can hardly 
 be referred to the devastation of Grilead and Lebanon by Tiglath- 
 pileser, but drives us powerfully to think of times subsequent to 
 the exile (Elmslie). (5) Finally, Griitzmacher's interpretation is 
 based upon the supposition that in Zech. 10:3 the prophet hopes 
 that Judah will bo able, with the help of Tiglath-pileser, to come 
 through the war with Israel and Syria, and in the future be able 
 to rescue Ephraim from captivity (p. 46). But this interpreta- 
 tion is both unnatural and unnecessary. It is quite as easy to 
 explain Zech. 9, with Hitzig-Steiner (p. 370), in terms of the 
 reign of Jeroboam 11. (c/. 2 Kgs. 14:28). 
 
THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHAKIAH 33 
 
 (c) Zech. 9:13 — Javan. i. e., Ionia or Greece. "For I have 
 bent Judah for me, I have filled the bow with Ephraim; and I 
 will stir up thy sons, O Zion, against thy sons, O Greece, and 
 will make thee as the sword of a mighty man." This is the most 
 striking historical illusion in these controverted chapters, the 
 explanation of which must determine in large part the date of 
 these prophecies. The following solutions are offered by the 
 advocates of the pre-exilic hypothesis, (a) Thai Zech. 9:13 is 
 explained by Joel 4:6, 7 (Hitzig, Bleek, Ewald, Griltzmacher, 
 Montet, p. 23). According to this view, the "sons of Zion" are 
 the Israelitish prisoners sold by the Phoenicians to the lonians, 
 or sons of Greece (Hitzig), who, already too long in slavery, are 
 to be aroused by Jehovah (Ewald) and set free, as they, too, are 
 parties to the covenant of promise mentioned in Zech. 9:11, 12 
 (Bleek). In this case the author is speaking of Hebrew slaves 
 and of Ionian and Arabian tradesmen of the 8th century, B. C. 
 But on the contrary, in the passage before us, we have to do 
 rather with a godless heathen power, the subjection of which 
 must precede the breaking in of the Messianic kingdom (c/. 
 Kuiper, p. 83). The "sons of Zion" are Judah and Ephraim, 
 rather than a small band of Hebrew slaves sold into Grecian or 
 Arabian lands (c/. Bredenkamp, p. 99). It is not to be sujjposed 
 that by a successful insurrection of slaves the Messianic age is to 
 be inaugurated. Such an idea is too absurd (Pusey). The 
 context clearly shows that Zion is the subject of the prophecy 
 (9:9-17). It is Zion who is exhorted to rejoice over her coming 
 king (vs. 9, 10) ; it is Zion who shall be released from prison (vs. 
 11, 12), and it is Zion (Judah and Ephraim) who shall conquer 
 the "sons of Javan" (vs. 13-17). Pressel felt the force of this 
 claim and conseqiiently gave up the idea that Joel 4:6,7 explains 
 this passage. "Zion" is far more prolmbly the post-exilic con- 
 gregation. But on the other hand, how explain the mention of 
 the "sons of Javan" in the 8th century? Could a jirophet of 
 that early age picture Javan of sufficient importance that its 
 defeat would lead to glory? (C/. Bredenkamp, p. 99.) The 
 Greeks are here represented not as a distant and unimportant 
 people such as they would be in the 8th century, B. C, but as a 
 world-power, as Israels most formidable antagonist, the victory 
 
34 THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHAEIAH 
 
 over whom inaugurates the Messianic age {c.f. Driver, p. 326). 
 This is self-evident. Consequently Dillmann (^Commentary on 
 Genesis, p. 174) frankly allows that Zech. 9:13, as it stands at 
 present, refers to the Macedonian Greeks. And Steiner also 
 admits (p. 381) that "aus dem 8. Jahrhundert eine solche zu 
 begreifen und hinreichend zu motiviren, dtirfte schwer fallen." 
 Most defenders of the pre-exilic hypothesis abandon, therefore, 
 the idea that 9:13 is a prophecy of the 8th century, and take 
 refuge in one or other of the two remaining explanations. (/3) 
 That the text is corrupt (Graetz, Steiner, Strack, 4th ed. p. 410. 
 cf. Kirkpatrick who omits the words 'Vti'jS by for the sake of 
 rhythm). For example, Steiner (pp. 381, 2) on the authority of 
 the Targum, which reads ^X^'l'Z'S "'Dj , substitutes for "1''"Tj"'jS the 
 reading D;'i3n ^n {cf. Schlatter, p. 269, "Ueber alle Peinde"), 
 and explains "V as a later addition which crept into the text, as 
 e.g., Tous'EWijvas in the LXX. translation of Isa. 9:11. But the text 
 as it stands was only possible when it belongs to, or was thought 
 to belong to the post-exilic period [cf. Stade, p. 152); moreover, 
 the expression D^'lytl ^DS would in any case occur more naturally 
 in post-exilic writings [cf. Kuenen, p. 413). On the other hand, 
 the substitution proposed by Graetz, Monats., p. 281, is still less 
 probable. He conjectures that "V is a corruption of "pl/Offl 
 Samaria, and compares with it Zech. 10:6, 12. According to 
 Graetz, consequently, Jehovah stirs up the sons of Zion against 
 the sons of Samaria, ?'. e., Ephraim and Judah against Ephraim, 
 which is naturally absurd. At best any change of the text is a 
 confession that "|T is inexplicable in pre-exilic times. For as 
 Kuiper observes (p. 13), "the whole question of changing the 
 text rests upon the hypothesis that the prophecy is out of the 8th 
 century and it loses thus as petitio principii all worth." The 
 other means of escape is the unsatisfactory refuge of the mediat- 
 ing hypothesis, (y) That Zech. 9:13 is one of the many post- 
 exilic inter jiolat ions in these jjrophecies (Dillmann, Kuenen, 
 Driver, Cornill, and others). Kuenen, e. (j., finds in chs. 9-11, 
 13:7-9, "fragments for the most part of 8th century origin, which 
 were afterwards worked over and enriched by a post-exilic though 
 awkward redactor." Certain passages, he says, are confessedly 
 inexplicable in pre-exilic times, whereas others must have had 
 
THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHARIAH 35 
 
 their origin when the two kingdoms were standing. Driver and 
 Cornill share this hypothesis. But we are unable to accept of it 
 chiefly because it is too unsatisfactory. Even Kuenen himself 
 allows that it is not wholly satisfying, and Cornill admits (p. 198) 
 that it does not solve the problem. It is plainly evident, there- 
 fore that on the grounds of the pre-exilic theory a reasonable 
 explanation of Zech. 9:13 is practically unattainable. Later we 
 shall attempt to show that this passage has both an occasion and 
 a teaching purpose in post-exilic times. 
 
 II. The Christological Argument, or the Argument from 
 3Iessianic Prophecy. — The real value of this argument is too 
 frequently underestimated, especially by those who hold the 
 pre-exilic hypothesis. We maintain that in the Old Testament 
 the Messianic idea, at first only generic in outline, grows and 
 expands and moves steadily forward with marvelous symmetry, 
 continually approaching more and more its ultimate ideal in 
 Jesus Christ; also that the most decisive criteria by which the 
 date of a given prophecy may be determined are newness and uni- 
 fication. The latter especially, we hold, is the best mark by which 
 to judge the origin of any Messianic prediction. As the perspec- 
 tive shortens by the lapse of time, different lines of previous 
 Messianic prediction are brought together and unified so as to 
 present a new and more complete picture of the Messiah. When 
 this is done it is an evidence of late date. Zechariah furnishes 
 a most remarkable picture of this sort. He takes the pre-exilic 
 ideas of the Messiah, which like so many independent lines seem 
 to move forward and converge, and he unites them all in Joshua 
 the high-priest (3:8, 9; 6:12, 13).* He selects the Branch of 
 Jer. 23:5; 33:15; the Servant of Isa. 40-66; the King of Ps. 72 
 and 110, Isa. 9:6, and 11:1, and the Priest of Ps. 110 and blends 
 
 ♦There is as littlo roason for doubtinp tho genuineness of '.iiSb (Stade, Gesch. Israels, 
 H., p. l-">; Marti, Der Proph. Sack., p. 85) as there is for arguing that Zerubbabel is the 
 Mosaiah (Wollhausen, pp. 176, 179). In 6:12, 13. Marti claims with Ewald and Baur, that 
 both Joshua and Zerubbabel are crowned. But (1) this necessitates tho insertion of bSQ'^T 
 1D^'^2 after 13X11 in v. 11, and of yilTn"^ after riTll in v. 13; also tho change of llbx 
 in V. 12 to DnbS • (2) Besides, there is no example in the O. T. whore a prophet saw in a 
 contemporary tho M'-ssiah as already born. I'lJ) Moreover, tho prophecy contemplates tho 
 Mossiali as future (v. 12). Ho is spoken of as a man (v. 12), not as the man. and that he is to 
 be a priest (v. 13). (4) Finally the crown riUCy (sing, on account of rT^nn t. 14; cf. Job 
 31 I'M) is to be a typo, stored away in the temple. Wellhausen'H text is self-made. 
 
36 THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHAEIAH 
 
 them all into one single composite picture of the Messiah and 
 describes him as Servant-Branch-Priest-King (3:8, 9; (3:12, 13); 
 thus heaping upon the high-priest Joshua Messianic terms never 
 before associated by a single author in one and the same person. 
 The same is true of Zech. 9-14. As Delitzsch maintains {Mes- 
 sianic Prophecij, p. 215), "the author of Zech. 9-14 cannot be 
 a pre-exilic prophet, for the Christological images move in the 
 path in which prophecy was directed by Deutero-Isaiah ; the So^ai 
 of the future Christ are supplemented through the preceding 
 -rraO^IMTa (1 Peter 1 : 1 1 ) . " We shall now endeavor to examine the 
 Messianic portions of Zech. 9-14, and for the sake of convenience 
 we shall treat them under two heads, viz., those which describe the 
 Messianic Person, and those which describe the Messianic Times. 
 1. The Messianic Person, (a) The Messianic King (9:9, 
 10). Different views are entertained as to the position of this 
 passage in the development of the idea of Messianic kingship. 
 Orelli {Old Testament Prophecy, p. 244), makes it "the first 
 passage in which the future human representative of the divine 
 kingly dignity is described in his personal characteristics" {cf. 
 Riehm, Messianic Propliecy, pp. 181, 182; Briggs, Messianic 
 Prophecy, p. 185). Ewald (p. 309) is willing to allow only that 
 the Messianic hopes of Zech. 9-11 are "ganz so ausgebildet und 
 gestaltet, ganz so krilftig und so vorwaltend" as the prophecies 
 of Isaiah, and maintains that they are inferior to his in "schla- 
 gender Kraft der Rede und lichter Klarheit des Ausdrucks." 
 Graetz {Moiiafs.. p. 281) parallels 9:9, 10 with Ps. 72; Steiner 
 (p. 373) with Micah 5:4. Driver, however (p. 327), admits 
 that the priority of Zech. 9:9 sq. to Isaiah may be questioned, and 
 remarks with some reluctance that "the portrait of the Messiah- 
 king seems to be original in Isaiah." In examining this passage 
 we wish to apply the tests above mentioned and ask. Is the picture 
 of the Messiah-king in Zech. 9:9, 10 composite? and. Does it 
 imply other descriptions, or add new features to the idea of 
 Messianic kingship? "Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion : 
 Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem : behold thy King cometh unto 
 thee." Notice the prophet does not say a King, but thy King ; 
 that is, a definite King, an expected King, a King of whom Zion 
 had heard before. Tlic prophet then proceeds to describe him. 
 
THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHARIAH 37 
 
 (1) He is just (p^'^2), for as justice is an essential attribute of 
 Jehovah, so must it also be the cardinal virtue of the King who 
 represents him. This idea is not necessarily original here. 
 The prophet may very easily have borrowed it from Isa. 9 : 6 or 
 Jer. 23:5, 33:15, or both. (2) He is saved {T^'Q), Jehovah 
 has delivered him and now he is able to deliver others (vs. lli 
 12) . This is a new feature in the characterization of the Messianic 
 King, quite foreign to the pre-exilic prophets. (3) He is lowly 
 (''jy). This too is a neiv characteristic, and an expression which, 
 according to Rahlfs, had its birth in the time of the exile. It 
 implies affliction, meekness, humility. (4) He rides tipoii an ass. 
 Another mark of lowliness and a figure quite too graphic for the 
 prophetic mind of the 8th century, B. C. It signifies that he 
 will come in the guise of peace. In the time of the Judges, 
 nobles rode on asses in peace and in war; but after the days of 
 Solomon kings rode on horses. This King goes back to the 
 primitive simplicity of Israel. He is a Prince of Peace, even as 
 Isaiah had described him (9:6), and as the psalmist through the 
 figure of Solomon's quiet reign (Ps. 72). But the difference 
 between the psalmist's picture and that of Zech. 9:9, 10 is this: 
 What was in his time a "pious wish" prefigured in the person 
 of a human monarch, becomes later a "categorical prediction" 
 concerning an actual King, the representative of Jehovah {cf. 
 Wellhausen, p. 182). (5) Finally his dominion is described as 
 extending from sea to sea, and from the river to the ends of the 
 earth. This idea of universal dominion is a parallel to that in 
 Psalm 72:7, 8 and Micah 5:2. It completes the picture of the 
 Messiah-King in Zech. 9:9, 10. The ideas of justice, peace, and 
 universal dominion are old. These our prophet unities, as no 
 single pre-exilic prophet had done, then adds to them other new 
 features which can best be accounted for after the humiliation of 
 the exile. For example, all that is implied in the terms saved 
 and lowly is new. The idea of salvation in connection with the 
 coming Messianic King is in the earlier prophets entirely want- 
 ing. The idea of meekness and sutfering is found in Isaiah 
 40-66 but not in connection with the coming king. But in 
 Zech. 9:9-12 the king is not only a ruler of Israel, as Micah 
 pictures him, but also a Saviour. The prophet thus brings for- 
 
38 THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHAKIAH 
 
 ward the spiritual character of his rule. The picture is com- 
 posite. Messianic prophecy here rises to* the height of its con- 
 summation in reference to two things: (1) The spiritual nature 
 of the agent by whom the Messianic kingdom will be set up and 
 guided, and (2) The salvation resident in the king whose 
 dominion is world-wide (c/. Orelli, p. 247). 
 
 (b) The Messiah-Shepherd, — rejected {11:12, 13), pierced 
 {12 : 10 sq.) , smitten {13:7). These three passages though pecu- 
 liarly difficult are conspicuous on account of their Messianic 
 interpretation in the New Testament. Zech. 11:12, 13 is 
 interpreted Messianically in Matt. 27:9, 10;* Zech. 12:10 in 
 John 19:37; and Zech. 13:7 in Matt. 26:31. The question for 
 us is, Did they have a. Messianic value to the prophet f Ewald 
 (p. 390) sees Messianic hopes in 12-14. but explains them as 
 "only the reaction against the unnatural condition into which 
 the cruelty of the Chaldeans had placed Judah against Jerusa- 
 lem." Others find no personal Messiah in these chapters {e. g., 
 Montet, p. 84; Grtitzmacher, p. 42; Steiner, p. 343). But this 
 opinion is based on a literal interpretation of ch. 11:4-17, a 
 change of text in 12:10, and a transposition of 13:7-9 from its 
 present position to the end of ch. 11. Accordingly ch. 11:4— 
 17 is a description of the Syro-Ephraimitish war. The idol- 
 shepherd (11:15-17, 13:7-9) is Pekah, king of Israel (Griitz- 
 macher. Dillmann), or as Steiner prefers, the last king of 
 Judah (13:7-9). But this is only speculation. Ch. 11:4-17 is 
 a parable, descriptive of the Shepherd of Israel. Not the 
 Jehovah-Shepherd, for he distinguishes himself from Jehovah 
 (11:13), and not the prophet, for in 11:7 the prophet describes 
 a third individual in the first person, but the Messiah-Shepherd, 
 who finds his clearest expression in 13:7-9. Language such as 
 "my shepherd." "my companion," "the third part shall be left 
 in the land and refined," applies best to the Messiah and to 
 Messianic times. The remaining passage (12:10) is likewise 
 
 *Tliat Matthew slionld liavo ascribed this pr<i]>liotic quotation to Jeremiali desorves 
 but a paHBJUK word as no ono any lonRcr claims ttiat Joremiaii wrote Zecli. 9-11. Of tlie 
 various tiieories devised to explain the diiliculty the one usually adopted is that of Aurus- 
 tino, Beza, Calvin, Kohler, Keil, Wripht. and mt>st moderns, viz., that it was a simple slip 
 of tho memory. Some, however, appeal to the original order of the Major Prophets in the 
 Jewish ("anon in which .Jeremiah stood first. An error of like sort sneme to occur in 
 2 riiron. a6: 22, Ezra 1:1, 2, where Isaiah 44;*J^S is ascribed to Jeremiah (c/. Brown, Biltlical 
 Literature mtd Ej:ege8i8, 1881-4). 
 
THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHARIAH 39 
 
 Messianic, because (1) of the language, which identifies the 
 "sender" with the "sent" ((/. Hitzig-Steiuer, p. 396); (2) the 
 spirit of grace and supplications; and (3) on account of the 
 purification which follows in 13:1. No mere " Propheten-mord " 
 (Steiner, p. 379) satisfies the entire context, or expresses the 
 prophet's vision. We are constrained, therefore, in spite of the 
 difficulties of the prophecy, to look upon these passages as 
 Messianic, and descriptive of the Messianic-Shepherd. In the 
 first instance he is the hireling-shejjhcrd^ll-A sq.) who performs 
 his task at Jehovah's bidding; in the second he is the martyr- 
 shepherd (12:10) who suffers with Jehovah's permission; in the 
 third he is the companion-sheijherd (13:7-9) who is smitten by 
 Jehovah's fiat. The order is climacteric, — insulted, pierced, 
 smitten: (1) Shamefully rewarded by the flock; (2) Cruelly 
 murdered by his own people; (3) Judicially slain by Jehovah. 
 The first brings judgment; the second produces repentance and 
 opens a fountain for sin and for uncleanness; the third calls 
 forth Jehovah's mercy and directs it upon the "little ones" — the 
 lesson to be taught being that the Messiah is the Shepherd of 
 Israel. The genesis of this idea is found in the pre-exilic 
 prophets. The psalmist had said, "the Lord is my Shepherd" 
 (Ps. 23:1); Jeremiah prophesied judgment upon faithless shep- 
 herds (23: 1-8), but neither Jeremiah nor the psalmist represents 
 Jehovah as the Shepherd of Israel, much less that the Messiah 
 was Israel's shepherd. It was left for Ezekiel to picture Jehovah 
 as the shepherd of his people. During the exile when Israel was 
 scattered as sheep without a shepherd, Jehovah promises that he 
 will be the shepherd of his people, and gather his scattered sheep 
 as a shepherd gathereth his flock (Ezek. 34: 11-16) . Our prophet 
 follows Ezekiel, but goes beyond him : for he distinguishes 
 between the Messiah -Shepherd and the Jehovah-Shepherd (Zech. 
 11:13; 12:10; 13:7). He describes also the fountain of cleans- 
 ing (13:1). With him it is no temporary lustration in case of 
 defilement, as in Num. 19, nor a mere sprinkling as in Ezek. 
 36:25, but a perennial fountain, first described by Joel (3:18). 
 But Joel is content with indicating its effect (3:21) without 
 denoting expressly its purifying character. Our prophet explic- 
 itly shows that its purpose is to cleanse from sin. Hence, here 
 
40 THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHAKIAH 
 
 again the spiritual side of cleansing is turned forward, and we 
 have here consequently the climax of the idea of atonement in 
 the Old Testament. The good Shepherd is insulted first, then 
 pierced by his people. A spirit of grace and supplication is 
 poured out upon the nation and they repent and are cleansed 
 from sin. Finally the divine fiat goes forth and the wonderful 
 tragedy is complete. The whole is a most remarkable drama, 
 bringing us near the scenes of Calvary. In Isa. 40-66 the 
 prophet enclosed his picture of the Suffering Servant in a bright 
 promise of exaltation; our prophet, on the contrary, increased 
 the terribleness of the nation's crime by showing that it was 
 also the decree of heaven. Well may we say with Orelli, that 
 in Zech. 9-14 "the Messianic idea has attained full reality." 
 
 2. The Messianic Times — Eschaiology. Apocalypse marks 
 the last stages in the development of prophecy. The description 
 of the incorporation of the heathen into the kingdom of God in 
 Zech. 9-14 is, in our judgment, the most remarkable in the Old 
 Testament as it presupposes all that goes before. As Delitzsch 
 remarks, "the author takes from pre-exilic relations emblematic 
 features for his eschatological pictures." His models were Joel 
 and Isaiah. In form and contents he follows Joel 3, and like 
 Isa. 19:19; 66:21, 23 he uses figurative language; for he knew 
 that when these predictions should be fulfilled, this mode of 
 worship would be abolished. The idea that the heathen shall 
 be converted to Jehovah is an old one. It is asserted in its 
 simplest form in the Song of Moses (Dent. 32). Rights of citi- 
 zenship in Jerusalem are acquired by the heathen in Ps. 87. Amos 
 brings about their conversion by means of spiritual subjugation 
 (9: 12) ; Joel through the outpouring of the spirit (2:28) ; Zeph- 
 aniah as the result of divine judgment (3:9); Isaiah opens up a 
 a vista of wonderful possibilities, but Isaiah's picture of the Mes- 
 sianic future is often clouded and indistinct ( 11 : 10-16) . He does 
 not discriminate clearly between the inauguration of the Messianic 
 times and the restoration of Israel from exile. But this confusion 
 of the two events might naturally be expected from a prophet living 
 before that event ; for, to one standing on a lofty vantage ground, 
 the distant mountain ranges are not always easy to distinguish. On 
 the other hand, the prophets who lived after the exile are relieved 
 
THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHARIAH 41 
 
 of this confusion. Their perspective was shorter and their 
 horizon broader. More and more they identified the day of the 
 Lord witli the coming of tlie Messiah. This is especially true of 
 Zech. 9-14. In all these prophecies concerning the unique day 
 which was to come, there is not the slightest proof that the 
 author ever had in mind the return of Israel from e.rile. He 
 was thinking rather of the Messiah and the incorporation of the 
 heathen into the kingdom of God (cf. Cheyne, JQR, 1889, p. 
 79). Haggai watched the nations bringing their costliest pos- 
 sessions to adorn the temple of Jehovah (2:7); Zechariah sees 
 them, as Isaiah and Micah had seen them (Isa. 2:2sg.; Mic.4:l,2), 
 streaming thither to worship Jehovah and eager to share in 
 the privileges of the chosen nation (2:15; 8:20-23); for, to 
 Zechariah, the glory of the second temple lay in its catholicity. 
 The counterpart of this picture is to be seen in Zech. 9-14. As 
 Wildeboer (p. 414) remarks: "this thought (the incorporation 
 of the heathen) governs the whole of chapters 12-14." (1) A 
 remnant of the Philistines, like the ancient Jebusites, inherit 
 the blessings of Judah (9:7). (2) All nations shall in that day 
 go up to Jerusalem from year to year to keep the feast of taber- 
 nacles (14:16-19). This last passage is a most appropriate 
 doxology to all Old Testament apocalypse [cf. Oehler). 
 
 Montet (p. 91) objects, however, to the post-exilic origin of 
 chapter 14, on the ground that the nations are forced to come up 
 to Jerusalem to keep the feast of tabernacles. They are repre- 
 sented as coming in chains, he claims; compelled to obey, "un 
 ordre, un ordre ini[)6rieux et dur, un ordre accompagn^ de la 
 menace d'un chatiment." But the announcement is made simply 
 that all nations shall go up to Jerusalem. It does not say that 
 they must go up, or that they do so to avoid punishment. Those 
 who remain behind are the threatened ones. Upon them shall 
 be the plague. Never in the Old Testament are the heathen con- 
 verted to Jehovah by force. This was ncjt the Old Testament 
 method either before or after the exile. Grutzmaclier (p. 35) in 
 proof of the same hypothesis, argues that chapter 14 is pre-exilic 
 as all the prophets, from the end of the exile on, only threaten 
 the heathen with terrible judgment, e. y., Haggai and Zechariah. 
 This assertion, as is evident, completely reverses the claim of 
 
42 THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHARIAH 
 
 Montet, but like it is false. For, while it is true that Jer. 
 12:15-17; 16:19-21 disproves the assertion of Montet, it is like- 
 wise true that Zech. 2:15 and 8:20-23, in which many people 
 and strong nations are represented as eager to go up to Jerusalem 
 to worship Jehovah, even taking hold of the skirt of him that is 
 a Jew, saying, "We will go with you, for we have heard that God 
 is with you," show that the union of the heathen with Israel is a 
 purely voluntary act. So also in Zech. 9-14. God's providence 
 brings it about (c/. Cheyne, JQR, 1889, p. 81). We, accord- 
 ingly, maintain that the prophecies contained in Zech. 9-14, 
 occupy a position of singular importance in the development of 
 Messianic prophecy; that their place is toward the close of pro- 
 phetic revelation; that they knit together lines of hope and 
 promise concerning the Great Deliverer which before were 
 separate, and add new features to the former descriptions of the 
 pre-exilian prophets. The Messiah-King is not only a just ruler 
 (as described by Isaiah and Micah), maintaining peaceful and 
 world-wide dominion (as in Ps. 72), but he is also saved and 
 lowly, coming to Zion riding upon an ass. The Messiah- 
 Shepherd not only endeavors to shepherd the flock (as Ezekiel 
 had promised concerning the Jehovah -Shepherd), but is insulted 
 also, pierced and smitten; whereupon, a spirit of grace is poured 
 out (as in Joel) and the nation repents and is cleansed from sin. 
 The Messiah-Shepherd being distinguished from the Jehovah- 
 Shepherd. But towering over all is the prophet's vivid apoc- 
 alypse of the coming day of the Lord, when through the 
 Messiah's influence all nations will come up to Jerusalem to 
 worship one Jehovah (14:9), and when everything will be con- 
 secrated to his service ( 14 : 20-21 ) . ( C/. W. J. Beecher's idea, that 
 chs. 9-14 may have been edited by Zechariah . . . for the sake of 
 the Messianic doctrines they contain." Old and New Testament 
 Student, Oct. 1889, p. 230. Also Elmslie, Book by Book, p. 33(5.) 
 
 III. The Psycholorjical Argument, or argument from jxiral- 
 lelisms in tliought and language between Zech. 9-14 and the 
 other prophets.* — This argument is often overestimated. It 
 
 •Tlio purely linguiatic argument as drawn out by Eckardt (ZATW., 189;i, pp. 7(3-109) 
 will bo (liscuBsod later on, Inasmuch as Eckardt makes tlio "Priestor codex," Job, .Joel, Hab- 
 bakuk, Micah (in part). Proverbs, and PKalms the basis, or Spiegolbildor of late Hebrew, 
 thus assuming what in part remains to bo proTou. 
 
THE PBOPHEOIES OF ZEOHARIAH 43 
 
 means simply that there are certain parallelisms of thought 
 and language between Zech. 9-14 and other Old Testament 
 writings which indicate some degree of dependence one upon 
 the other. The question therefore is, did the author of Zech. 
 9-14 borrow from others, or they from him? There seems to 
 be reasons for thinking that the author of Zech. 9-14 bor- 
 rowed from the earlier prophets. Stahelin claimed that this 
 was the case; likewise de Wette and others. Stade practically 
 finds no limit to the parallelisms between Deutero-Zecliariah 
 and the former prophets, and in our judgment illustrates how 
 vain it is to measure prophecy by line and plummet (c/. Kuiper, 
 p. 116). He traces almost every thought of these chapters to 
 some antecedent prophecy and thus deprives the author of all 
 originality. Indeed the author, he claims, was not a prophet 
 but a scribe who gathered up the unfulfilled prophecies of his 
 own day and re-delivered them because of their near fulfil- 
 ment (p. 162). The author does not even claim to be a prophet, 
 he continues, but simply copies and combines the ideas of the 
 earlier prophets in a most mechanical manner. But Stade 
 proves too much. He damages his case by overstatement and 
 exaggeration. Yet Kuenen admits that he proves the depend- 
 ence of Zech. 12-14 on the earlier prophets. Bleek, David- 
 son, Griltzmacher, and others, however, hold that the depend- 
 ence is on the other side. But it seems more probable, with 
 Perowne, that one prophet should have drawn from many, 
 than that many should have borrowed from one. It is not our 
 purpose to press this argument beyond its legitimate limits. 
 We propose to treat it rather as a corroboration of what 
 has been proved elsewhere on separate grounds than as an 
 independent argument. We have, therefore, sifted the vari- 
 ous passages that appear as parallelisms between our author 
 and his predecessors, and offer the following only as worthy 
 of careful consideration, holding that these are not only con- 
 firmatory of our previous conclusions but also sufiicient for 
 our present purpose. We prefer to omit doubtful passages, 
 choosing only those which are conceded to have some degree 
 of dependence on each other ; for, as Montet (p. 72) ob- 
 serves : " Some passages have a fortuitous and nccidentai resem- 
 
44 THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHARIAH 
 
 blance."* Passing by, therefore, some very possible quotations 
 from Micah (5:9-14; 7:12) found in Zech. 9:10, and others 
 from Amos 8:12, Joel 2:28 and Hosea 2:19 which are closely 
 related to Zech. 12:10; 13:1; 11:8, we make the following 
 propositions : 
 
 1. That Zech. 9-14 shows familiarity with Ezekiel, especially 
 with, chapters 32-39 {cf. Steiner's admission, p. 369). That 
 certain marked parallelisms really exist between Ezekiel and 
 Zech. 9-11 is not disputed. The point, therefore, at issue is 
 not. Does a dependence exist? but rather, On whom does it fall? 
 (a) Ezek. 34:1 sq. and Zech. 11:4-17; 13:7-9, — pro2jhecies 
 against the shepiherds. The similarities between these chapters 
 are obvious {cf. Grtitzmacher, p. 26): 1) In Ezekiel the shep- 
 herds are described as feeding themselves (84:3, 8, 10) instead 
 of feeding the flock (v. 2) ; as killing them that are fed and eat- 
 ing the fat thereof (v. 3); as neglecting to bind up that which 
 was broken (v. 4), and not caring for the sick, the driven away 
 and the lost (v. 4.) In Zech. ll:4sfj'. the possessors of the flock 
 are likewise accused of slaying the sheep and of holding them- 
 selves not guilty, and of selling the flock and refusing to pity 
 (v. 5). 2) Therefore, says Jehovah in Ezekiel, "I myself will 
 seek out and feed my flock" (vs. 11-14); and in Zech. 11:7, "I 
 will feed the flock." 3) Ezekiel declares, I will make with them 
 a covenant of peace (v. 25), that they may dwell safely in the 
 land. In Zech. 11:10, on the contrary, the covenant made in 
 behalf of Israel with all peoples is broken. 4) As a result of 
 Jehovah's dealings with the flock Ezekiel twice aflirms, "and they 
 shall know that I am the Lord" (vs, 27, 30); in Zech. 11:11 it 
 is also declared that " the poor of the flock knew that it was the 
 word of the Lord." 5) Both prophets are also commissioned by 
 a "Thus saith the Lord" (Ezek. 34:1, 14; Zech. 11:4, 15). These 
 are the most important resemblances. On which side is the 
 dependence? Notice the following considerations: 1) Ezekiel 
 frequently repeats the most important thoughts, e, <]., the idea of 
 
 *MontL't (p. 74) rejects all parallels as unworthy of discussion except three: viz. (1) 
 Ps. 72:8 and Zech. 9:9, 10 in which case Pa. Tl is perhaps an 8th century production, 
 borrowed in Zech. 9:9, 10 by a couteraporaneous prophet: (2) lBa.ll:15and Zech. 10:11, 
 this chapter of Isaiah having been written, he thinks, after 722 B.C.; (3) ;Ho3. 2: 19, 25 and 
 Zech. Hi: 2, 9; hero he admits that Hosea is borrowed by our author, but that is possible as 
 he assigns Zech. 111:2, 9 to the 6th century. 
 
THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHARIAH 45 
 
 the shepherds feeding themselves is found in vs. 3, 8 and 10; so 
 too the mention of the fat and strong of the fiock (vs. 3 and 16), 
 the diseased, the sick, the broken, the driven away and the lost 
 vs. 4 and 16) ; and the fact that the flock are scattered (vs. 5, 6, 8, 
 12, 21). If Ezekiel were borrowing it is not likely he would so 
 often repeat. 2) Certain allusions in Zech. 11 -Asq. imply a knowl- 
 edge of Ezek. 34, e. (]., the covenant broken in Zech. 11:10 is the 
 same as that promised in Ezek. 34:25. And the "in that day" 
 of Zech. 11:11 is explained by "the clovidy and dark day" of 
 Ezek. 34:12. 3) Our author seems to be influenced by Ezek. 34 
 in other portions of his prophecies: e. g., the expression "because 
 there was no shepherd" (Ezek. 34:8) occurs in Zech. 10:2; also 
 the "he-goats" D'l^Fiy of Ezek. 34:17 in Zech. 10:3. And the 
 declaration of Ezekiel, "I will set up one shepherd over them" 
 (34:23) gives rise to the prediction, "there shall be one Lord 
 and his name one" (Zech. 14:9). Cf. also Ezek. 34:28 and Zech. 
 14:11; Ezek. 34:12 and Zech. 11:11. 4) Zech. 11:4-17 is an 
 allegory, and allegorical language always implies that the facts 
 are familiar from which the lesson to be taught is drawn. The 
 allegory clothes abstract principles in the imagery of a fictitious 
 tale ; but in order to understand it, the facts must be known before 
 the mind can appreciate the allegory. [Cf. Delitzsch in Rudelbach 
 u. Giirricke's Zcits., 1851, p. 309.) This was the case, as we con- 
 ceive it, with Zech. 11 : 4-17. The prophet portrayed events to Israel 
 which had long been the subject of thought and consideration. 
 Ezekiel's prophecies were now fulfilled. The two staves of Ezek. 
 37:16 were long familiar. Israel had rejected the shepherding 
 care of Jehovah and been punished for it, and this it is which 
 furnishes the basis of the allegory. [Cf. Kuiper, p. 113, and 
 Stade, ZATW., I., p. 68 sg.) (b) Ezek. 28:lsq., and Zech. 
 9:2 sq. — dewmciations against Tyre and Sidon. 1) Thrice Eze- 
 kiel speaks of Tyre as very wise (28:3, 7, 12) also in Zech. 9:2 
 "though she be very wise." 2) Both prophets speak of her 
 power in the sea (Ezek. 28:4; Zech. 9:4), and of her abundance 
 of gold and silver (Ezek. 28:4; Zech. 9:4). 3) Both declare 
 that God will cast her out (Ezek. 28:16, 17; Zech. 9:4) and 
 that she shall be burned with fire (Ezek. 28:18; Zech. 9:4). 
 4) Ezekiel further declares that " there shall be no more a pricking 
 
46 THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHARIAH 
 
 brier unto the house of Israel nor any grieving thorn of all that are 
 around about them" (28:2-4); in Zech. 9:8 also, "I will encamp 
 about my house because of the army, and no more shall any 
 oppressor pass through them." 5) Ezekiel further promises that 
 the house of Israel shall be gathered from the people among whom 
 they are scattered and shall dwell in their own land (28:25, 26); 
 in Zech. 9:2 sg., the prophet describes the preparation of the 
 land for the return of the nation and the coming of their king. 
 These coincidences are in themselves singularly remarkable, and 
 the more so inasmuch as in each case the prophets follow the 
 same order of thought. But the important inquiry again is, which 
 prophecy is the older? Doubtless Ezekiel, for as Stade shows 
 (I., p. 46) the section in Zech. 9:1-8 is built up not only of Ezekiel 
 but also of Amos (c/. Am. 1:6-10); and this apparently is so 
 convincing to Griltzmacher that he does not deny the validity 
 of Stade's claim. (C/. Kuiper, p. 76).* (c) Ezek. 37 and 38,— 
 Ephraim and Judah restored and, imited. This section of Ezek- 
 iel's prophecies seems to give a colouring to Zech. 9-14. The 
 great governing thoughts in these chapters are the following: 1) 
 Ephraim and Judah shall be brought back from exile and united 
 as one nation (37:12, IQsq.). 2) They shall be gathered, and 
 afterwards dwell safely together in the land of Israel (38:8, 11, 
 14). 3) There they shall have one king (37:22,24). 4) In 
 that day their enemies shall come up against them but Jehovah 
 will wonderfully deliver them (38:14, 18, 20) and send confusion 
 and pestilence upon their enemies (38:21, 22). 5) Finally, the 
 Lord shall be magnified and sanctified (38: 23). How completely 
 these thoughts are reechoed in Zech. 9-14 is almost beyond dis- 
 pute: 1) Both Ephraim and Judah are represented as already 
 restored, or in the act of being restored (Zech. 9:10, 13; 10 :t), 7). 
 2) Also as already occupying a part at least of their possessions, 
 and as dwelling securely (9:10 .sr^., 14:11). 3) And as having 
 in future but one king (14:9). 4) Yet as attacked by hostile 
 nations coming up against them (12:2 sq., 14:2 sg.), but as deliv- 
 ered by the wonderful intervention of Jehovah (12: 4 sq., 14: 3 sq., 
 
 • Dillnmiin (Cumm, on Isa. p. 210) assiini!^ the prophocy iiKainst Tyre in Isa. 2.5 : 15-18 to a 
 time after the rotuni from exile, though lie pliice.s Zoch. 9:2-4 in the 8th century B.C. But 
 it in liiflicult to see why ho should shift an Isianic prophocy concerninK Tyro to the period 
 of Zechariah, and insist that that of Zoch. 9:2-4 bolonRs to the period of Isaiah. 
 
THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHARIAH 47 
 
 c/. especially Ezek. 38:20 and Zech. 14:4); on the other hand, 
 all the enemies of Israel are described as confused and plagued 
 by Jehovah (14:12, 13, 17). 5) Finally, the Lord is magnified 
 by the universal hallowing of everything to his name (14:20, 21). 
 The resemblances are perfect; the only difference being that the 
 prophecies of the latter are an advance upon the former. Zech. 
 9-14 is a fulfilment of Ezek. 37 and 38. Cf. Hitzig, Stud. u. 
 Krii., 1830). The similarities in language are also noteworthy. 
 Little more could be expected from our prophet had he actually 
 committed these chapters of Ezekiel to memory and written under 
 their inspiration. Griltzmacher (p. 27), who reverses the depen- 
 dence of these authors, fails to show in what respect Zech. 14 must 
 have been the basis of Ezek. 38: 17 and 39:8. (d) Other character- 
 istic expressions common to Ezekiel and Zech. 9-14, whose priority 
 from the passages themselves is uncertain: 1) Ezek. 5:2-12, in 
 which the prophet describes how the people of Jerusalem shall 
 perish, one-third by pestilence and famine, another third by sword, 
 and another in exile; the lesson being illustrated by the prophet's 
 dividing his hair, at the commandment of the Lord, into three 
 parts; in Zech. 13:8, 9 also, two-thirds of the people are spoken 
 of as doomed to be cut off, while a third part is left as a remnant 
 in the land. The similarities of these two prophecies are observed 
 and emphasized by Koster. de Wette, Havernick, Hengstenberg and 
 Stade. 2) In Ezek. 38:15 the expression "riding upon horses," 
 D''CTC '33"1, occurs also in Zech. 10:5. Griitzmacher (p. 27) 
 attempts to show Ezekiel's dependence on Zechariah here; but cf. 
 Stade I, p. 66, — his allusion to Ezek. 23 : 6, 12. 3 ) In Ezek. 36 : 26 
 a "new spirit" is promised, which in 39:29 is poured out upon the 
 house of Israel. This finds a parallel on a much higher spiritual 
 plane in Zech. 12: 10. 4) The thought of cleansing is coupled in 
 both prophets with that of the outpouring of the Spirit (Ezek. 
 36 : 25-28 ; Zech. 13:1). Stade finds also in Ezek. 47:1 a basis f or 
 Zech. 13: 1. (So Koster, de Wette, Kuiper, Hiivernick and Lowe; 
 Wellhausen in 36:25). Cf. the words "sin" and " uncleauness '' 
 in Zech. 13:1 with Ezek. 36:17,23. 5) The expression " every one 
 against the hand of his neighbour," is common to both (Ezek. 
 38:21; Zech. 14:13). 6) "If not. forbear" (Ezek. 2:7; 3:11,27 
 and Zech. 11:12). 7) "Roaring of young lions" (Ezek. 19:3 .sv/. 
 
48 THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHARIAH 
 
 and Zech. 11:3. cf. Jer. 25:36-38; 49:19). 8) "No stranger 
 iincircomcised in heart nor uncircumcised in flesh shall enter into 
 my sanctuary" (Ezek. 44:9), an observation closely resembling, 
 though only approximating the thought contained in Zech. 14:21, 
 "no more shall there be the Canaanite in the house of the Lord." 
 9) Also the formula, "and they shall be my people, and I will be 
 their God" (Ezek. 11:20, cf. 30:25, 26; 34:80, 31), finds its 
 counterpart in Zech. 13:9, "it is my people," and "the Lord is 
 my God." All these resemblances, however inconclusive each one 
 may be when taken by itself, help to confirm the conclusion that 
 our prophet was familiar with the prophecies of Ezekiel, and 
 therefore, that he lived after the exile (c/. Wildeboer, p. 413). 
 
 2. Zech. 9-14 exhibits acquaintanceship tvith Jeremiah. The 
 close relation of these prophecies to each other is, as Griitzmacher 
 (p. 25) allows, "unmistakable." This is especially true of Zech. 
 9-11. — the more important section here, inasmuch as the author 
 of chs. 12-14 is an alleged contemporary of Jeremiah. The 
 parallels to be considered are the following: (a) Jer. 25:34-38, 
 — judgment upon tJte she2Jhe7-ds, cf. Zech. 11:1-3. Between these 
 passages there is "an indubitable contact," Griitzmacher (p. 26) 
 makes Zech. 11:1-3 the original, however, because, as he thinks, 
 it is a literal description of the invasion of Tiglath-pileser, whereas 
 Jeremiah's is rather a modified description of this passage in the 
 form of an allegory. But the contexts of both passages are 
 opposed to this intei'pretation. That of Jer. 25:34-38 does not 
 easily admit of an allegory, while that of Zech. 11:1-3, on the 
 contrary, invites it. In Jer. 25 the prophet is addressing words 
 of plain and simple, yet forcible warning to the shepherds of Jeru- 
 salem; whereas in Zech. 11:1-3, if the description is literal, as is 
 maintained, the invading Assyrians are described as employed 
 chiefly in devastating the country, felling cedars, spoiling forests, 
 destroying the oaks of Bashan, etc. The true explanation of 
 these two related passages, according to our opinion, is this: Jer. 
 25:34-38 is a simple description of Judah"s impending calamity; 
 whereas, Zech. 11:1-3 is an allegorical introduction to the alle- 
 gory par excellence which follows in verses 4-17. Both together 
 (?*. e., Zech. 11:1-3 and 4-17) describe the solemn but historical 
 past of Israel and Judah. The marks of Zechariah's posteriority 
 
THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHARIAH 49 
 
 are found principally in the context [cf. Jer. 25:34:; 12:3, and 
 tlj"inn "S^ of Zech. 11:4, 7). In Jeremiah the days of Israel's 
 slaughter are accomplished; in Zechariah, on the other hand, 
 Israel is admonished to learn a lesson from that slaughter, 
 (b) Jer. 23:lsq. — Israel's promised restoration. Cf. especially 
 Zech. 10:3-12. In both passages, it is announced that the evil 
 shepherds shall be punished and that scattered Israel shall be 
 gathered {cf. Grutzmacher, p. 2G); but with this difference, viz., 
 that in Zech. 10:6, 8, Israel is already gone into captivity while 
 those remaining in exile are exhorted to return home. The pic- 
 ture of the Messianic King in Jer. 23 : 3 is not nearly so vivid or 
 complete as that in Zech. 9:9, 10 (c/. Jer. 17:25; 22:4, "Sy). 
 Again, the promise in Jer. 23:3 to gather the remnant of Israel 
 out of all countries {cf. ^"nyZ'ZTT\ ) is far less definite than that 
 of Zech. 10:6, "I will strengthen the house of Judali and I will 
 save the house of Joseph and they shall be as though I had not 
 cast them off." And also, Jer. 23:3, "they shall be fruitful and 
 increase," describes, according to our view, an earlier stage in the 
 history of Israel than Zech. 10:8, "and they shall increase as they 
 have increased." {Cf also Jer. 23:8 and Zech. 10:8, 10; Jer. 
 23:33 sg. and Zech. 9:1, 12, 1). (c) Other expressions char- 
 acteristic of Jeremiali found hut once in Zech. 9-11 are the 
 folloiving: 1) Three times Jeremiah uses the technical phrase, 
 "the pride of Jordan," 'yTfT^ ■pKj (12:5; 49: 19; 50:44) ; the same 
 metaphor occurs outside of Jeremiah only once, viz., in Zech. 
 11:3 {cf. Grtitzmacher, p. 26). The expression is of late origin, 
 probably out of the exile (Koster, p. 80). 2) The use made of 
 nbuJ "casting away in contempt (Jer. 26:23, 36:30) may well 
 have suggested the phraseology of Zech. 11:13. 3) The 
 word yiT "sow," employed in a good sense in Jer. 31:27 (but 
 also in Ezek. 36:9, cf. Hos. 2:25), finds a corresponding use in 
 Zech. 10:9. 4) The contrast also between the teraphim and 
 soothsayers and the power of Jehovah to give rain stands out 
 strikingly in Jer. 14:22, cf. 2S):%sq., but also in Zech. 10:2. 5) 
 Stade finds another parallel between Jer. 46:10, "the sword shall 
 devour and it shall be satiate and made drunk with their blood," 
 and Zech. 9:15. "and they shall devour and drink, etc." 
 
 In Zech. 12-14 also, certain passages occur which show the 
 
50 THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHARIAH 
 
 author's dependence on Jeremiah. Thus in Zech. 14:10, "unto 
 the tower of Hannaneel" and "the gate of the corner," are meas- 
 urements taken from Jer. 31 : 38, as v. 40 clearly indicates. And 
 in Zech. 13:7 the phrase, "upon the little ones," is borrowed from 
 Jer. 48:4 {cf. 14:3 D"'"iy:;n ). And the phrase, "all the families," 
 frequently used in Zech. 12:12-14 is found in different parts of 
 Jeremiah (1:15; 2:4; 10:25; 25:9; 31:1; 33:24). 
 
 3. Close resemblances exist behveen Zech. 9-14 and Isa. 
 40-66. The value of this point is enhanced by the fact that all 
 those who place Zech. 9-14 before the exile, urge an exilic or 
 post-exilic date for Isa. 40-66. We are thus dealing with a 
 prophecy written in their opinion long after the prophecies under 
 discussion, and therefore in no sense the basis of chs. 9-14.* That 
 a close relation actually exists between these two prophecies in 
 thought and language is openly admitted (Ewald, v. Ortenberg, 
 Hengstenberg, Stade, Grutzmacher, and others). Here again, 
 therefore, the important inquiry to be made is, on whose side 
 does the dependence rest? To us it is sufficiently clear that the 
 author of Zech. 9-14 depended on Isa. 40-66 not only for various 
 characteristic expressions, but also for his eschatological pictures. 
 For example, (o) the promise in Zech. 9:11, "I have sent forth 
 thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water," reminds one of 
 four similar passages in Isa. 40-66, viz., 42:22, "they are hid in 
 prison-houses" (cf. v. 7); 49:9, "say to the prisoners, go forth"; 
 51 : 14, " the captive exile hasteneth that he may be loosed and that 
 he should not die in the pit"; and 61:1, "to proclaim liberty to 
 the captives and the opening of the prison to them that are 
 bound." Bleek acknowledges the resemblance here. Grutzmacher 
 passes it over in silence. (6) In Zech. 9:12 the promise occurs, 
 "I will render double unto thee" (i. e., double blessing). This 
 form of expression is somewhat rare, but it occurs in Isa. 40-66 
 twice; once in 61:7, "for your shame ye shall have double, in 
 their land they shall possess double: everlasting joy shall be unto 
 them;" and in 40:2, "Jerusalem has received double for all her 
 sins." (Cy. Jer. 16:18.) Dillniann explains the dependence of 
 Zech. 9:12 on Isa. 40:2 and ()1:7 in this instance by making 
 
 * Tho unity of Isa. 40 G6 is uot necessarily assumed hero as the passages oniployecl in our 
 arKument are usually if not universally allowed to bo of exilic or early post-oxilic oriKin, 
 (Cf. Schiau's Ehed-Jahwe Lieder, Dissert.; Cornill's Einleit.; Duhni's Jea., and Cheyue's 
 Introduction to Isaiah.) 
 
THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHAKIAH 51 
 
 Zech. 9:12 "eine spatere Ueberarbeitung," but without sufficient 
 reason, (c) In Zech. 12:1 Jehovah is described as "He who 
 stretcheth forth the heavens and layeth the foundations of the 
 earth and formeth the spirit of man within him."' This descrip- 
 tion of Jehovah is an idea frequently found in Isa. 40-66 ; e. g., 
 51:13, Jehovah is the Creator, "who stretched forth the heavens 
 and laid the foundations of the earth "i::i1 D'- TT PitDD ; in ii : 24, 
 "that stretcheth forth the heavens alone, that spreadeth abroad 
 the earth by myself." {Cf. 45:12; 40:21, 22; 42:5; 48:13; 51: 
 16.) Here again it is evident that our prophet is the borrower, 
 Grfitzmacher (p. 28) is unable to decide, (d) In Zech. 12:2 
 Jerusalem is spoken of as "a cup of trembling," by"! ~,D . This 
 is a characteristic expression of Isa. 40-66. Jeremiah speaks of 
 a "cup of trembling." In Isa. 51:17b, the prophet declares, 
 "thou hast drunken the dregs of the cup of trembling;" "even 
 the dregs of the cup of trembling" (v. 22, bn ClS). (e) Stade 
 finds a further foundation for the announcement in Zech. 9:9, 
 " Behold thy king cometh," in Isa. 62:11, " Behold, thy salvation 
 Cometh." He also parallels the attributes of the Messianic King, 
 "just" and "saved" (Zech. 9:9), with the attributes of Jehovah 
 in Isa. 45:21 {cf. 61:10; Jer. 17:25; 22:4). (/) The eschatolog- 
 ical resemblances between Isa. 40-66 and Zech. 9-14 are particu- 
 larly striking [cf. Grtitzmacher, p. 28). The vision of our 
 prophet that "all nations shall come up to Jerusalem" to worship, 
 is a thought frequently occurring in Isa. 40-()6; <?. ^., 55:5, "and 
 nations that knew not thee shall run unto thee;" 56:6, 7, "mine 
 house shall be a house of prayer for all people" {cf. 66:18-20, 
 23). All these are reechoed in Zech. 14:16sg. Further, a 
 curse is pronounced by our prophet upon those who refuse to 
 come up to keep the religious observances of the sanctuary: 
 " their flesh shall consume away and their eyes and their tongues 
 shall consume away" (Zech. 14:12; cf. Isa. 06:24); and the 
 nature of the punishment described is similar. In Zech. 14:12, 
 13 plagues of disease are followed by tumult, and that by inter- 
 necine war; in Isa. (50:12 they utterly waste away and jaerish out 
 of sight. Lastly, in both prophecies a transition is made to holi- 
 ness. In Zech. 14:20,21, the prophet describes a time when 
 holiness shall be inscribed on everything, even on the bells of the 
 
52 THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHABIAH 
 
 horses; in Isa. 61:6; 62:12, the prophet likewise describes a time 
 when the people shall be as holy as the priests, and when they 
 shall be called the '"ministers of God." Just here lies an impor- 
 tant distinction between these prophecies, which favors a much 
 later origin for Zech. 14, viz., the broader catholicity and more 
 extended universalism of our prophet which enables him to rise 
 above Hebrew prejudice, and picture even the heathen serving as 
 priests, offering sacriiice in the ordinary cooking vessels of Jeru- 
 salem to the Jehovah of Israel. 
 
 Thus in these parallelisms between Zech. 9-14, on the one 
 hand, and Isa. 40-66, Jeremiah and Ezekiel on the other, we 
 have the strongest possible corroboration of the late origin of 
 Zech. 9-14. Every great section of Zech. 9-14 shows familiarity 
 with the older prophets. Their thoughts were not infrequently 
 our author's thoughts, their order his order, and their phrase- 
 ology his phraseology. Moreover, great sections of their writings 
 taken as a whole evidently gave rise to paragraphs of Zech. 9-14 
 taken as a whole (c/. especially Isa. 66 with Zech. 14 and Ezek. 
 34 with Zech. ll:4sg.). 
 
 Here then in conclusion are our reasons for arguing a post- 
 exilic date for Zech. 9-14. Whatever else may be shown later 
 on concerning the unity of chs. 9-14, we believe that it has been 
 made reasonably clear, and on grounds of internal evidence alone, 
 that the last six chapters of Zechariah are of post-exilic origin. 
 For, as we have shown, the "historical allusions" are consistent 
 with a late date, the development of "Messianic prophecy" in the 
 O. T. favors it, and the literary and psychological relations of our 
 author to the former prophets corroborate it. Hence, without 
 pressing unduly our claims, we submit that there are good critical 
 reasons for assigning these disputed prophecies to a post-exilic 
 date. We shall next endeavor to determine in what particular 
 period after the exile they had their origin. 
 
 III. 
 
 THE POST-ZECHARIAN HYPOTHESIS EXAMINED. 
 
 If our previous conclusions are accepted, the problem before 
 us now is to decide in which period or periods of post-exilic times 
 these prophecies of Zech. 9-14 find their best historic setting. 
 
THE PKOPHECIES OF ZECHARIAH 53 
 
 Paucity of details in the history of Zechariah's own age has given 
 room, for different theories. Many authorities favor a post-Zech- 
 arianic date, the most important of whom in modern times are 
 Stade, Wellhausen, Kuenen, Marti, Kautzsch, Cornill, Cheyne, 
 Delitzsch, Kirkpatrick, Rubinkam, Driver, Staerk, Wildeboer, 
 Kuiper and Eckardt. They employ the same critical methods as 
 those whose views we have just discussed, but arrive at widely 
 divergent results. Even among themselves there is a marked 
 difference of opinion. For example, Wellhausen and Marti, rep- 
 resenting the extreme view of this school, place these chapters in 
 the 2d century B. C. Wildeboer assigns the date ±280; Kautzsch, 
 301; Stade and Cornill, 306-278; Kuiper, the period immediately 
 following 332. Rubinkam and Staerk argue for double author- 
 ship — one author having lived, as is alleged, in the time of Alex- 
 ander the Great, the other in the Maccabean age. Kuenen finds 
 pre-exilic kernels in 9-11; 13:7-9, which were worked over after 
 the exile, but maintains that the whole is pre-Grecian. Graetz 
 suggests for ch. 14 the reign of Artaxerxes III. Delitzsch assigns 
 the whole to the time just before Ezra and Nehemiah or not later 
 than -458 B. C, while Kirkpatrick, though advocating a double 
 authorship, finds no period so suitable as the first year of the reign 
 of Xerxes, 485 B. C. From this ascending scale of individual 
 opinion, therefore, it is evident that there is a gradual approach 
 toward the period in which Zechariah himself lived, viz., the 
 reign of Darius Hystaspes, 521 sq. B. C. The balance of opinion, 
 however, is in favor of the period after 333 ; and hence the prime 
 question to be discussed here is, Are these prophecies of Persian or 
 of Greek origin ? Or, more definitely, in view of the dark century 
 between Ezra and Nehemiah and Alexander the Great, of which 
 so little comparatively is known, Are these prophecies early Per- 
 sian or Graeco-Maccabean ? 
 
 In examining the conclusions of those who maintain a post- 
 Zecharian origin of these chapters we need constantly to distin- 
 guish sharply between the grounds advanced in support of a 
 post-exilic and those which argue a post-Zecharian date. The 
 former we may for the most part accept; the latter we are bound 
 first to examine. A very large proportion of Stade's extended 
 discussion, for example, proves only that Zech. 9-14 is post-exilic. 
 
54 THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHAEIAH 
 
 With this we are no longer concerned. We are concerned, how- 
 ever, with the reasons given by him and others for assigning 
 these oracles to the Graeco-Maccabean age. And to these, there- 
 fore, we turn our attention next. They are of two sorts, linguistic 
 and historical.* 
 
 I. The Argument from Language and Style. — This argu- 
 ment is weakened unfortunately by two facts: (1) the fact that 
 the author of Zech. 9-14 depends so largely on older prophecies 
 for his thoughts, and consequently more or less for his language; 
 and (2) the fact that these prophecies are very brief, at best not 
 exceeding in length an ordinary newspaper article. Hence, the 
 danger of ■ pressing the linguistic argument too far. Eckardt, 
 who [ZATW., p. 16 sq., 1893) presents a most admirable dis- 
 cussion of the use of language in Zech. 9-14, arrives at the con- 
 clusion that these prophecies could have been written "'only in 
 Grecian times." This conclusion we propose to examine. 
 
 It is now generally agreed f that the most imj^ortant marks of 
 the late origin of a Hebrew writing are Aramaisms; script io plena 
 *i and ■'— -r; ""jt^ instead of ■'^DK ; the abstract endings "i — and 
 "i^;^; the nota accnsativi PX with suffixes; the omission of the 
 article, or its position between the substantive and its adjective; 
 the clumsy repetition of words and groups of words; and the 
 infinitive absolute as a means of setting forth a finite verb. 
 
 1. Aramaisms in Zech. 9-14. Our author is remarkably 
 free of Aramaic expressions. Such words, e. g., as "|13T for fC? 
 or 'ji for ^TliX , frequently found in the latest literature of the 
 O. T., are entirely wanting in chs. 9-14. Even the few words 
 which do occur, whose roots are often found in later Aramaic, 
 Syriac and Arabic, indicate only the author's Aramaic tendencies; 
 
 " Wo sot aside auy objections wliicli the liistory of the Canon of the Prophets opposes to 
 the theory that an O. T. prophecy could possibly be as late as tlio period of the Maccabees. 
 Inasmuch as the term "Canon" beint; not of Jewisli but of ('liristian origin, it is still an 
 open question whether additions may not have been made after 250 B. C. — the date a^'reed 
 upon as to the formation of the proplittic portion of tlio O. T. ((/. H. E. Ryle, Canon of Ihe 
 O. T., p. 109 ; Eicldioru, Introduction io thi- O. T., p. 79 ; F. Buld, Canon and Text of the O. T. 
 (Edb. Trans.), p. 11 ; X. Koonig, Essai sur la Formation du Canon de Vancien testament, p, 50 ; 
 Paris, 1894 ; Kautzsch, Die heil. Schrift dcs A. 7'., mi4). 
 
 t Cf. the siKus of late Hebrew given by Eckardt, ZATW., 189:i, pp. 76-109; Kautzsch, 
 .ffe6raisc/ier;ru7«ma(ifc, 2.5th ed., 1889; Dulil, Hcb.-Aram. Handwlrrterbuch in Verbindnng mit 
 Proff. .Socin und Zimmem, 12th ed., ISg.j ; Holzinger, " Spraclicliaractcr u. .Vbfas.-iungszeit des 
 Buchos Joel" (ZATW., p. 89s9., 1889) ; Oiosobrecht, "Zur Hcxatouchkritik," and " Ucber die 
 Abfassungszeit dorPsalmon" (ZATW., p. 177 a?., 1881-2) ; Rouss, Oeschichte der heil. Schriften 
 des A. r.,2ded., 1890. 
 
THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHARIAH 55 
 
 for, as Eckardt shows, the same words all occur in classical 
 Hebrew. For example, n^lT (9:15) from TV^' {cf. Mishna Ara- 
 maic nn^lT, i-oi, XJ^I)) occurs in Ps. 144:12. bnn (11:8) V.^ 
 is d. A. But cf. nbnh'J (Prov. 20:21). nj:"; (14:3) occurs in 
 Jer. 20:5; Ezek. 22:25; Prov. 20:15 and frequently in the later 
 books. :r\^ (1^:3) is found also in Job 38:23; Eccl. 9:18; Ps. 
 55:22; 68^31; 78:9; 144:1. byn (12:2) as noun is d. X.; but as 
 verb, occurs in Nah. 2:4 {cf. Aram, byi , Syr. Vi..? and Arab. 
 
 Jjx^l Jx.^). The form T\b'S')T\ is found in Isa. 51:17,22. bjT2 
 (14:2) occurs in Jer. 8:2;'beut. 28:30; Isa. 13:16. These words 
 can only indicate that 9-14 are post-exilic, and in no way, as 
 Eckardt allows, that these chapters are necessarily Greek. Two 
 instances of greater value occur, however, in which the Aramaic 
 ending H is substituted for the Hebrew H: e. g., n2S"J (9:8) 
 instead of "^ZITZ , and nnX (12:5) for N^JS . BuVthe first 
 
 TT«' t;-^ ' t:v 
 
 root actually occurs with an it in the word ^ISQII (14:12); and 
 the second in 1X2.1T , and )1C1'2'>2 also with H (10^10 and 11:6). 
 This vacillating change of our author from one orthography to 
 another is, as we shall see later, one of his most noteworthy lit- 
 erary characteristics. One other possible Aramaism in these 
 chapters remains to be discussed, viz., the change of an S to "' in 
 the word "iHi^H (11:13), intended for ^iSii^n according to many. 
 The proposed emendation, however, is doubtful. For, as Well- 
 hausen (p. 187) shows, the present incorrect reading may be 
 intentional on the part of the Massoretes, in which case this 
 instance cannot be reckoned as an Aramaic usage of our author; 
 or, the text may be correct as it stands. This latter explanation 
 has in its favor the word T^'bllin (Hiph.), used so commonly in 
 the O. T. in the sense of fling or cast away in contempt (cf. Gen. 
 37:22; Num. 35:20,22; Neh. 9:26; 2 Kgs. 7:15; Ezek. 20:8; 
 28:85; 28:17), which indicates that the thirty pieces of silver 
 are an insult to the Shepherd, and, as we may naturally infer, too 
 profane for the temple treasury. 
 
 2. Scriptio plena is a proof of late authorship. The name 
 TT^ especially, according to Eckardt (p. 90), has great worth in 
 determining the period to which these prophecies belong. Down 
 until the end of the 4th century B. C. the custom was to write 
 
56 THE PROPHECIES OP ZECHAEIAH 
 
 scrij)i'to defectum 11^ . The full form, or scrvptio plena T'TH as 
 here, must have been the original orthography of our author, as 
 no copyist would have changed it. Hence, as the scriptio plena 
 TTi is invariably employed in these prophecies, Eckardt con- 
 cludes (p. 90) that our author must have written in the Greek 
 period. But at most the name "David" occurs only six times in 
 Zech. 9-14 and in a single context of as many verses (12:7-12). 
 Koheleth (one of the latest books in the O. T.) has, on the con- 
 trary, TTn (1:1). Hosea and Amos, on the other hand, have Til 
 (Hos. 3:5; Am. 6:5; 9:11), — in all four exceptions to Eckardt's 
 rule. Moreover, the date of the transition from the scriptio 
 defect iva to the scriptio plena, assigned by him to "the end of 
 the 4:th century B. C," is wholly arbitrary, and as far as can be 
 ascertained was not a sudden but a gradual change which took 
 place in the development of Hebrew literature (e/. Bonk, ZATW., 
 XI., 127 sg.). Furthermore, the date of a given prophecy can 
 hardly be decided on the basis of a single word and that a proper 
 name. A much more decisive criterion is the general custom of 
 the author with reference to full or defective orthography. In 
 this respect Zech. 9-14 is a particularly interesting study. "The 
 scripdio plena and defectira are confused in a most striking 
 manner; e.g., 'Zyi (9:9), but "JJji; (10:4): Tin (11:10), but 
 nsn (11:14); iZ-'Zin (9:5), but l-^'Zh (10:5,11); Db">rlT mi!^ 
 (12:7), but DblTlT a-oJr (12:8); ninS'JJ-i (12:14) and nnE'jitJ 
 (12:14 twice). Eckardt allows that the orthography of our 
 author is very remarkable. 
 
 3. The preponderance of the form. ^;x over "'DDS is a further 
 mark of late authorship. Giesebrecht's law is (p. 256), "the 
 later the writing the greater the preponderance in favor of "'DS." 
 But, applying this law to the prophecies in hand, as a matter of 
 fact the form ";5< occurs in 9-14 but twice (10:6; 13:9), whereas 
 ^wbS: five times (11:6.16; 12:2; 13:5 twice). This unfavorable 
 phetiomenon, however, which cannot be accounted for, as Eckardt 
 admits (p. 95) on the ground that the shorter form is borrowed 
 from older passages, is attributed by him "to the deliberate 
 choice of the learned author who made use of the more seldom 
 expression because it had to him a weightier and more solemn 
 
THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHARIAH 57 
 
 ring" (p. 97). But this is hardly satisfactory in view of the fact 
 that in Lamentations, Koheleth, Esther, Ezra, Nehemiah, 1 Chron- 
 icles, 2 Chronicles and Daniel ^DS occurs 109 times against "53X 
 three times; and that in Ezekiel, Haggai, Zech. 1-8 and Malachi 
 ^3i|i is found 155 times, while '^jbS but twice. This shows that 
 the use of "^DX became too universal before the 3d century B. C. 
 to allow of the frequent use of "'jbS in Zech. 9-14. Eckardt's 
 attempt to explain the frequent use of nSH with personal pronoun 
 and participle instead of JISm with pronominal suffix and participle 
 is correspondingly weak. 
 
 4. The ending "li is, according to Eckardt, a further sign 
 of the late origin of Zech. 9-14; e. g., "pn^a (9:12), "'iSSp'; 
 (14:6) and the three words of like ending in 12:4, viz., "in^aP , 
 "iiy312J and "lilW . These last three, however, arise out of Deut. 
 28:28 (which, according to Cornill and Eckardt, is exilic) and 
 therefore are not claimed in proof of Greek origin. The other 
 two find early post-exilic parallels in Zech. 6:14 "li'^STb and Hag. 
 2:17 -pS^m and ■|ip^.=;n!l . 
 
 5. The frequent use of the nota accusativi flN especially 
 icith suffixes. In chs. 9-14 riS with suffixes occurs but six times: 
 DniS (10:3), D=n» (11:9), -ni* (11:11), init (11:10; 11:13; 
 13:9); in Zech. 1-8, on the contrary, nine times: Dnk (2:4; 8:8), 
 azm (2:10, 12; 8:13), '^m (3:4), nns^ (5:8), ^nii (6:8; 8:14). 
 This unfavorable phenomenon in 9-14 Eckardt endeavors (p. 97) 
 to account for on the part of our author "less through intent than 
 good schooling and subject matter" {cf. Hag. 2:3 iri!^ and 2:17 
 
 D^ns). 
 
 6. Eckardt also ohserres (p. 98) tliaf the article is strik- 
 ingly wanting in 9-14 in the foUotoing instaiiccs: DlSi ('•^'•1)) 
 
 "p^iii-'S (9:7), "Sias (9:16), nto (10:7), n^::an -^t {ii-.'i!), 
 
 pTTK^n ^yffl (14:10), D'oilp-bS (14:5), C3""^n-"a (14:5), and 
 1T\Tr T]b"jS ninnirnb (14:16, 17), — in all nine instances. But 
 it is quite possible to reduce this number in importance and 
 value. In four of these cases the absence of the article, if not 
 intentional, may be due to the Massoretic vocalization; e. g., DHS 
 (9:1), following the analogy of Dn« in Isa. 2:9, 11; Deut. 32 :V; 
 2 Sam. 7:14; Ps. 11:4; 12:2,9; 14^2, may be here used in a col- 
 
58 THE PBOPHECIES OF ZECHABIAH 
 
 lective sense, implying "mankind" in general. Or it may be a 
 corruption of D"i5t, Syria, in which case the article would be 
 superfluous. Or it may possibly have been omitted on account 
 of the highly poetic character of ch. 9. The proper name ■'C13"'3 
 (9:7) without the article also may be explained in one of two 
 ways: either as a mistake of Massoretic vocalization; e. g., 3 may 
 quite as easily be pointed 3 (c/. Kautzsch-Gesenius, Gramni., 25*' 
 Aufl., § 126, 3, d) ; or, the name being singular, the article is not 
 necessary [cf. Kautzsch-Gesenius, Gramm., §125, 2). The form 
 "|Kb23 (9:16) is another doubtful example of the failure of the 
 article. The phrase isy "i^IJS may mean either "as sheep that are 
 his people " (Steiner) , or " as a flock of his people " ; both of which 
 are grammatically possible [cf. Lowe, p. 88). Or, here again the 
 absence of the article may be laid to the charge of the Massoretes. 
 Cf. the parallel cases: Ezek. 36:38 nb'iJ^T "(Xbra D^-OJliJIX'SS ; 
 Ps. 71: 1 ^jri^yi^J "NSn ; and in Zech. 1:7 'rXi-''2b . In the case of 
 "lisr»3 (10:7) parallels are found (cf. Kautzsch-Gesenius, Oramm., 
 §126, 3, d) in Job 16:14 "lin^S for linaS , 31:18 nS3 , 38:8 
 "I3j3 , and Ps. 17:12 H^'^SS . Furthermore, the article is regu- 
 larly wanting when the compared subject is already more nearly 
 defined by an attribute, e. fj., Isa. 16:2; 11:19; 29:5; Jer. 2:30; 
 Prov. 27 : 8 ; Job 30 : 14. 1^::nn ^r ( 1 1 : 2 ) is a still more doubtful 
 instance as the necessity of the article depends upon the nature of 
 "I^JlSil whether passive participle or substantive. In case it is a 
 participle the omission of the article before "ly is not exceptional, 
 as it expresses the attribute of 1""'. Kautzsch [Gramm., §126, 
 5, Anm. 1, a) explains the absence of the article here and that 
 of the following example advanced by Eckardt, "i'J3i<in ^^113 
 (14:10), as regular. The form D'oJlp'bS (14:5) has a parallel 
 in Isa. 28:8. D'lrT'B (14:5), which Eckardt declares is "ganz 
 abnorm" without the article, falls easily under the rule given by 
 Kautzsch-Gesenius [Grnmin., §126, 5. Anm. 1, a), viz., that the 
 omission of the article may depend upon a regard for hiafiis 
 before i<, 1, Ti , e. g., in Zech. 4:7 blian ^n for bilSn IHri 
 (vocative); Ps. 104:18 Q-ninSn 0"^^ [rf'l Sam. 16:23"; Lev. 
 24:10; Ezek. 34:12; Hag. 1:4;" Ps. 143:10; Ezek. 10:9 and Jer. 
 22:26). One other case remains to be explained, riiriri'JJnb 
 
THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHARIAH 59 
 
 "■^ T^b'^b (1-4:16, 17). But here again the omission of the article 
 may be set to the account of the Massoretic punctuation; or, if 
 this be rejected, an exact parallel is found in Ps. 21:1. From an 
 individual study of these words, therefore, it is evident that Zech. 
 9-14 is not distinguished by a conspicuous absence of the article, 
 as Eckardt claims, and consequently that these prophecies are not 
 necessarily of late origin. 
 
 7. Another characteristic of late Hebrew is the setting forth 
 of the finite verb by means of the Infinitive Absolute; e. g., ^HBDl 
 T2tl'\ (12:10). But the Inf. Abs. is employed in setting forth a 
 finite verb even more strikingly in Zech. 1-8 and Haggai; e. g., 
 mbni .... "rrinyn (Zech. 3:4); -iSC'l nn-^^-'S (Zech. 7:5); 
 
 ■ffliab .... inyj . . . bi35< . . . 5<ar;'i . . dto'it (Hag. i:6, with 
 
 four Inf. Abs.). For examples of the same use of the Inf. Abs. 
 in other pre-Grecian literature, cf. Kautzsch-Gesenius, Gramm., 
 §113, 4, a. 
 
 8. Lastly, as another proof of the Grecian origin of Zech. 
 9-14, Eckardt urges the clumsy diction and weary rejjetition of 
 these prophecies, especially chs. 12; 13:1-6; 14; e. g., H— "iiJ'''l 
 n-Tinn (12:6; 14:10); 1±i (11 times), nnD"a::j (9 times), and 
 Dfl^'a:; (5 times) in 12:12-14, etc. But the unusual idiom con- 
 cerning Jerusalem, that "she shall dwell in her own place," is not 
 peculiarly characteristic of 9-14, for a corresponding one occurs 
 in Zech. H:12 concerning the Branch, f'Z^'' VrinDT^!! "and he 
 shall grow up out of his own place."' On the other hand, the 
 constant repetition of words is likewise a conspicuous trait of 
 Zech. 1-8; e. g., TO (4 times in 1:17), nST (5 times in 5:5-8), 
 -nj (3 times in 8:12), Dili (4 times in 8:19). (f. also the lan- 
 guage of 6:13; 8:14,15. From this it clearly follows that chs. 
 9-14 are not necessarily later than chs. 1-8. Neither can it be 
 argued that the word NIB"^ (9:1; 12:1) is necessarily very late; 
 for already in Jeremiah's time it was sufficiently familiar to be 
 used in a double sense [cf. Jer. 23:33-40). In conclusion, there- 
 fore, we are forced to remark that on grounds of the language 
 alone of Zech. 9-14 we are unable to decide that our author wrote 
 "nur in der griechischen Zeit"; but. on the contrary, that he 
 wrote before the Grecian times. 
 
60 THE PROPHECIES OP ZECHARIAH 
 
 II. The historical data alleged in favor of a Graeco-Macca- 
 beaii date. — There are confessedly several passages in Zech. 9-14 
 which point in the direction of Maccabean times. Wellhausen 
 quotes a remark of Grotius in which he concedes that if he were 
 compelled to dissent from the traditional view and determined the 
 date of Zech. 9-14 by the clear references to the facts of history, 
 these prophecies would have to be assigned to a period not earlier 
 than the time of the Maccabees. The principal and most decisive 
 passages which favor a late date are: 
 
 1. Zech. 14:9, ^^And the Lord shall be kiiuj over all the 
 earth; in that day shall the Lord be one and his name one. 
 This passage, according to Stade {ZATW., 1880-1, p. 169) not 
 only pictures the congregation in Deutero-Zechariah's time as a 
 theocracy with Jerusalem as the centre; but contains a polemic 
 against the conditions in Greek times when all gods were con- 
 ceived of as only different representations of one and the same 
 God. It betrays also, he thinks, a repetition concerning Jehovah 
 and his being which was alone then possible. To Jeremiah the 
 gods of foreign peoples were the enemies of God's people; to 
 Deutero-Isaiah, as no gods; but to Deutero-Zechariah the heathen 
 all worship the true God, but only under different names — hence 
 Hellenic; and accordingly opposed to Mai. 1:11, which pictures 
 the Jews as not yet having learned to respect heathen gods. 
 8uch is Stade's interpretation of 14:9. But, on the contrary, the 
 post-exilic congregation was as truly a theocracy after the return 
 from exile as in the period subsequent to Alexander's conquest. 
 And the fact that God alone was ruler of his people was, as Stade 
 really admits, the foundation thought of post-exilic Judaism. 
 Indeed it was the basis of the Mosaic religion from the earliest 
 time, as Griltzmacher (p. 34) suggests; however, not in the sense 
 that it was after the exile. Then Israel knew no king but God. 
 Zerubbabel was but a governor f~3 of Judah (Hag. 1:14; 2:2, 
 21); and never until the time of Aristobulus I. (105 B. C.) did 
 any ruler ever venture to assume the title of king. The Jewish 
 colony after the Restoration were more of a religious sect than a 
 political organization. Zechnriah often pictures the close relation 
 of Jehovah to his people (2:14-16; 8:3, 23), and our prophet 
 also describes similar conditions. The "yearning for a fuller 
 
THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHARIAH 61 
 
 theocracy," which Cheyne (^Bampton Lectures, p. 120) discovers 
 ill Zech. 9-14, is thoroughly consistent with the yearning of a 
 struggling congregation in a land of forsaken idols shortlj' after 
 the return from exile. The passage indeed does contain ''an 
 unusually clear and decided expression of Jewish monotheism," 
 as Wellhausen (p. 195) expresses it, but the idea of monotheism 
 was by no means a new idea in Grecian times. Already the decree 
 of Cyrus was given in the name of "Jehovah, God of heaven" 
 (Ezr. 1:1-4); not that Cyrus worshiped Jehovah under the 
 Jewish name, but that the same God of heaven was at that time 
 known by different names. Later, Jehovah is spoken of as "the 
 Lord of all the earth" (Zech. 6:5). And still later a prophet 
 declares that in all nations the Jews are offering acceptable 
 incense to God, but not so in Jerusalem. This is the meaning of 
 Mai. 1:11; and consequently is in no sense polemicised by our 
 author. Stade's view is therefore incorrect, and the force of his 
 whole argument in favor of the Greek origin of this passage is 
 materially weakened. Kuiper (pp. 110, 132) and Staerk (pp. 
 98, 99) decline to follow Stade in this instance, declaring with 
 Grlitzmacher (pp. 34, 35) that the same fundamental thought lies 
 at the basis of both Mai. 1:11 and Zech. 14:9. Further, they see 
 no evidence whatever in Zech. 14:9 of a Greek date for these 
 prophecies. 
 
 2. Zech. 12:2 b. Qbis^T-by nirssn n^n-* rn^in^-by c:;i, 
 
 which, interpreted by Stade, Kuenen, Wellhausen, Rubinkam and 
 others, means, "And Judah also (forced by the enemy) shall be 
 in the siege against Jerusalem." To Stade this is a proof that the 
 children of the Diaspora had served as soldiers. To Wellhausen 
 it is a description of the hostile relations which actually existed 
 between the city and the country in the beginning of the Macca- 
 bean uprising. To another, a parallel passage is found in the 
 book of Enoch (ch. 90:16); viz., "All the eagles and vultures 
 and ravens and kites (/. e., Gentiles) assembled together and 
 brought with them all the sheep of the field (/. r., the apostate 
 Jews of Judea ) , and they all came together and helped each other 
 to break that horn of the ram (Judas Maccabeus)." The validity 
 of all these claims, however, depends upon the exegesis of Zech. 
 12:2ft; whether or not Judah is really forced to engage in actual 
 
62 THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHAKIAH 
 
 conflict with the enemy against Jerusalem. It is obvious at once 
 from the present text, that in order to get a subject for T't'^il'' the 
 by before rn^H"' is to be cancelled (with Targum, Kuenen, Stade, 
 Wellhausen, Geiger, Marti, Rubinkam and others). The passage 
 then translated reads, "And Judah also shall take part in the 
 siege against Jerusalem " ; but this is ambiguous, being capable 
 of the interpretation above mentioned, viz., that Judah shall fight 
 against Jerusalem, but likewise that Judah shall be besieged. 
 The latter we take to be the true meaning of the passage and 
 for these reasons: (a) The verb iTH in connection with "liSBl 
 
 ^ J T T , T - 
 
 implies the passive as in Ezek. 4:3, "lili^3 ntT'n'l , "and she 
 (Jerusalem) shall be besieged." Thus in Zech. 12:2 6, as one 
 nation might besiege Jerusalem (a city), so all nations, coming 
 up, are practically going to besiege Judah. (6) The LXX. has 
 
 (Cat iv Trj 'lovSaia tcrrai Trtpioyij erri 'lepovo-aXr;^, which makes Judall the 
 
 field of battle, and nowhere hints that Judah is opposed to Jeru- 
 salem. The Beth essentia' before '^yi'Z indicates that in the 
 
 T 
 
 mind of the translator the siege was to take place in Judah, i. e., 
 that the conflict was not so much a siege as an open battle {cf. 
 Lowe, p. 107). The Koptic version makes this interpretation 
 still more certain by inserting a koX before io-rai {cf. Schulte, 
 Quartalschr., 1895). (c) The context favors this interpretation. 
 Judah is described (12:5,6) as placing confidence in Jerusalem 
 and then as becoming victorious over the nations, without any- 
 where hinting that Judah has changed sides or betrayed the 
 enemy. In 12:7 also the prophet makes the interests of Judah 
 and Jerusalem one. This is so evident, that in order to accept of 
 the hypothesis that Judah fights against Jerusalem, Wellhausen 
 (pp. 188 s(j'.) is forced to throw out this verse as a later interpo- 
 lation. He also changes bHlTC in 11:14 to Obo;^"!^ in order that 
 the text may read, "break the brotherhood between Judah and 
 Jerusalem." Kuiper's emendations T^^'' for tTil^ , etc., are quite 
 as arbitrary and unnecessary. Hence as a matter of fact the con- 
 text does not allow of our thinking that Judah fights against 
 Jerusalem, (d) Further, the parallel passage in Zech. 14:14 
 (which Wellhausen needlessly transposes to ch. 12) confirms our 
 interpretation of 12:2 b. There the verb Dra with '2 occurs 
 before the proper name Jerusalem. This construction Drib with 
 
THE PROPHECIES OF ZBCHARIAH 63 
 
 3 before the name of a city, usually signifies "at," not "against." 
 if the author had wished to express the thought that Judah will 
 fight a(jainst Jerusalem, he would have said Db"£^T^"by Dn5n 
 instead of Db'JJilT'n DH^ri (c/. Isa. 7:1; 2 Kgs. 12:'"l8; 19:8; Jer. 
 34:22; 37:8). On the exegesis of Zech. 12:2 ?>, cf. Orelli (pp. 
 347, 359). 
 
 With this interpretation of Zech. 12:2 b the alleged parallel in 
 Enoch 90:16 falls away. Moreover, in any case, the language is 
 too obscure and its own interpretation is too uncertain. At best 
 it is a mere coincidence and consequently proves nothing. The 
 commonest traits of Enoch are entirely wanting in Zech. 12:2sg.; 
 e. g., there is no mention of the Chasids or Asideans, who existed 
 as a party for some time before the Maccabean uprising {cf. 
 Charles, Book of Enoch, pp. 249 sg.) ; and who, though generally 
 in support of Judas, yet at times were actually antagonistic to 
 him (1 Mace. 7:13). The Chasids defended the law; so long, 
 therefore, as Judas and the Maccabean family endeavored to 
 re-establish the theocracy, so long they carried with them the 
 siipport of the Chasids; but the moment they laid hands on the 
 high -priesthood, from that moment began the alienation of the 
 Chasids which afterwards developed into a deadly hostility. And 
 further also, as Wellhausen observes (p. 190), though hostile 
 relations actually did exist between the city and the country in 
 the beginning of the Maccabean uprising, "no characteristic of 
 the prophecy under discussion in reality agrees with the condi- 
 tions of that time. The Maccabees were not the Jews of the low 
 land and they did not join themselves with the heathen out of 
 hatred to the city of Jerusalem, in order finally to fall treacher- 
 ously upon their companions in war. There is not the slightest 
 hint in our passage of religious persecution; that alone decides, 
 and hence the most important sign of Maccabean times is want- 
 ing." Furthermore, it should be observed that the apocalyptic 
 restoration of Israel as a nation in eh. 14, is quite incongruous 
 with the later claims of the individual as portrayed in the liter- 
 ature of the 2d century B. C, e. g., in the Book of Enoch, {cf. 
 Charles, pp. 22,23). 
 
 3. Zech. 12:12-14, the hoitac of David and the house of 
 Levi. Stade endeavors to show from this passage that the 
 
64 THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHARIAH 
 
 coordinate position here assigned to the house of Levi beside the 
 "house of David is not only a clear proof that Zeeh. 9-14 is jiost- 
 exilic, but also Greek. He allows that the house of Levi before 
 the Grecian times was already of far greater importance than the 
 house of David ; but he claims that it was due to the ancient 
 traditions in favor of the royal house that kept the priesthood 
 (especially in writings) in a position of subordination. But, the 
 following observations are to be noted in connection with 12:12— 
 14 : (a) The definition of the author's terms. It is generally 
 admitted that by the house of David the author intends the 
 government as in Ps. 122:5 [cf. Wellhausen, p. 191), and by the 
 house of Levi, the priesthood [cf. Mai. 2:4-7, in which Levites 
 are priests). The prophet accordingly divides the community 
 into two parts — the political and the ecclesiastical. He then 
 subdivides these. The house of Nathan he makes a further 
 specialization of the house of David [cf. 2 Sam. 5:14), and the 
 house of Shimei, a further specialization of the house of Levi 
 [cf. Num. 3:21). By this division the prophet embraces the 
 highest and the lowest in both the civil and religious orders of 
 society. From this division we get an indication of the author's 
 aim and date, (b) The author's aim. His aim evidently is to 
 describe how the entire land shall be affected by the murder in 
 12:10. Every stratum of society shall mourn, he declares, from 
 the highest to the lowest of both political and ecclesiastical ranks 
 of the community, (c) The author's date. If the date of our 
 prophet can be determined at all from this passage, it must 
 depend entirely upon the division he makes of society, as the 
 mere mention of the houses of David and Levi can not decide. 
 Such a division would have been absolutely meaningless, accord- 
 ing to our opinion, had our prophet lived and written after the 
 priesthood had acquired temporal power in the Graeco-Maccabean 
 age. Indeed such a division of society would lose its fullest 
 import if the author had lived long after the restoration from 
 exile. For (a) after Zerubbabel the house of David fell into 
 comparative obscurity and continued to lose power and influence 
 more and more, until in the time of the Maccabees it was entirely 
 eclipsed, [ft) It was during the construction of the temple, as 
 far as we know, that the hopes of Israel centered in both the 
 
THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHARIAH 65 
 
 royal and sacerdotal houses (c/. Zech. 4:9; 6:12, 13). Hence in 
 keeping with these conditions our prophet places them side by 
 side, giving precedence to David because of the historic and 
 Messianic prestige of the house of David, in the same manner in 
 which the prophet Haggai always places the name Zerubbabel 
 before that of Joshua (1:1, 12, 14; 2:4, cf. Ezr. 5:2). (y) More- 
 over, the hopes expressed in the context practically render it 
 impossible to make these prophecies late: e. y., the hope con- 
 tained in 12:8, in which the feeble of Jerusalem are described as 
 becoming in that day as David, etc. Such a hope is absolutely 
 inexplicable in Grecian times, for the house of David had at that 
 time lost too much of its power and glory to inspire a prophet 
 with such a comparison. Again, the promise contained in 9:9 
 bears upon our passage. It is there clearly indicated that the 
 prophet looked for a Davidic Messiah to come. The great 
 leaders of the Maccabees, however, were not of the house of 
 David but of the tribe of Levi (c/. Lowe, p. Ill) : accordingly 
 we must conclude that when the prophet wrote, the house of 
 David was still in possession of considerable prestige and political 
 power. Kuenen sees no proof of Greek origin in this passage. 
 4. Zecli. 10:10, 11, Assyria and Eijypt. (This passage, 
 singularly enough, is also one of the strongest proofs in support 
 of the pre-exilic hypothesis). Stade maintains (p. 291), "that, 
 by Egypt the kingdom of the Ptolemies is to be understood is 
 self-evident. And just as sure, though vigorously disputed, is it 
 that Assyria must be taken to mean Syria, which it also means in 
 Isa. 27: 12, 13 and Ps. 83:9." Consequently he concludes (p. 306), 
 that Deutero-Zechariah lived after 306 B.C. — the date of the first 
 Ptolemy {cf. Wellhausen, p. 183). Rubinkam quotes Herodotus 
 (7:63) who says concerning Syria, "the people whom the Greeks 
 call Syrians are called Assyrians by the barbarians." Guthe 
 [Lectures on O. T. Iidrod., MS.) maintains further that Assyria 
 and Egypt are here described by Deutero-Zechariah not as a unit, 
 as they were under Alexander, but as independent kingdoms such 
 as they were after the division under the Ptolemies and Seleucidae 
 in 306 B.C. {cf. Mic. 5:4, 5). But there are serious objections 
 to this late date, (o) The alleged parallel passages (Isa. 27:12, 
 13, Ps. 83:9; Mic. 5:4, 5) are most probably earlier than 306 B.C. 
 
66 THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHARIAH 
 
 as allowed by the most liberal of modern scholars. The popular 
 date, e. g., assigned to Isa. 27 is the early post-exilic period 
 (Driver, Dillmann, Ewald, Kuenen, Oort, Delitzsch, and others); 
 and the Greek origin of Mic. 5:4, 5 and Ps. 83 is equally 
 improbable [cf. Delitzsch, Commentary on Psalms). This argu- 
 ment, therefore, viewed from a critical point of view rests upon an 
 uncertainty, (b) Exegetically also, Stade's conclusion is doubt- 
 ful. For granted that these passages from Isaiah, Micah, and Ps. 
 83 covfld be proven to be of Greek origin, it would still remain to 
 be shown that in the use of the names Assyria and Egypt they 
 furnish an analogy to our passage in hand. Grlitzmacher denies 
 that ITOS in the O. T. ever means Syria (but cf. Noldeke, 
 Zeitschr.fur Assyriologie, I., pp. 2(38-273) ; and Kuiper (p. 134), 
 though he admits that Egypt might mean the Ptolemies, holds 
 that it is doubtful whether ^^lUX means the Seleucidae. He, 
 therefore, finally concludes that Assyria means here the Persian 
 monarchy, and that Assyria and Egypt together refer to the 
 different parts of the Persian kingdom. Kuenen maintains 
 (p. 413) that Stade's "claim is entirely unproven." According 
 to our opinion, there is positive biblical proof for interpreting 
 Assyria to mean Persia. For example in Ezr. 6:22 the King of 
 Persia is unmistakably called the "King of Assyria." This 
 passage, we maintain, is a legitimate parallel to Zech. 10:10, 11, 
 and of itself is sufficient to justify an interpretation of our 
 passage in keeping with Persian times. But there are also 
 reasons for thinking that the ancient names Assyria and Baby- 
 lonia lingered in the memories of exilic and post-exilic writers 
 (c/. Kuiper p. 134), and that they were used by them to express 
 new conditions. Thus Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, is 
 called in 2 Kgs. 23:29 "King of Assyria;" Cyrus, King of 
 Persia is spoken of in Ezr. 5:13 as "King of Babylon," so also 
 Artaxerxes, King of Persia is called in Neh. 13:6 "King of 
 Babylon." In a similar manner the term "Assyrians" is employed 
 where "Babylonians" is intended (c/. Jer. 2:18; Lam. 5:6). A 
 like use of ancient names for modern conditions is pointed out 
 by McCurdy [History, Prophevy and the Monuments, I., p. 
 158, 1894), in the case of "Canaan" — the ancient name of 
 Palestine — which long after the Hebrews occupied the land still 
 
THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHAKIAH 67 
 
 clung to it and was used instead of "land of Israel" (c/. 1 Sam. 
 13:19,2Kgs. ():23, Isa. 19:24). In explanation of this McCurdy 
 remarks, '"the ancient appellation was not excluded, inasmuch as 
 the Bible interests itself primarily not in places, but in their 
 inhabitants." This we claim holds true in the case of our 
 prophecy, especially 10:11. (c) Again, the context is opposed 
 to Stade's interpretation. In 10:10 Egypt and Assyria are 
 spoken of as the lands to which the people of Ephraim had been 
 banished and from which they were to be brought back to Gilead 
 and Lebanon [cf. Zech. 8:7, where it is said they shall be 
 brought back from the east country and the west country, as in 
 Isa. 43:5, 6; 49:12; cf. also Hos. 7:16; 8:13; 9:3, 6; 11:5, 11, 
 which predict their places of banishment). The allusion in 
 Zech. 10:10, therefore, is naturally to ancient Egypt and ancient 
 Assyria. If so, it is unreasonable to suppose that the prophet 
 in the next verse under the same terminology refers to the 
 Seleucidae and the Ptolemies. And the fact that the prophet 
 here mentions the "pride" of Assyria and the "scepter" of 
 Egypt does not necessarily place him after 306 B.C., when these 
 countries were no longer a unit under Alexander the Great ; for, 
 in 9:6 our prophet speaks also of the "pride" of Philistia, and 
 as a matter of history the "scepter" of Egypt was actually taken 
 away by Darius in 517 B.C. On the other hand, the prominence 
 with which Egypt is referred to in 14:19 points rather to Persian 
 than Greek times ; for then Egypt in consequence of her 
 perpetual efforts to throw off the Persian yoke, was naturally 
 brought under the observation of the Jews in Palestine who 
 repeatedly beheld the Persian armies passing on their way to the 
 valley of the Nile. Hence we maintain that Zech. 10:10, 11 is 
 not a witness to the Graeco-Maccabean origin of these prophecies. 
 5. Zech. 9:13, the Sons of Greece. ''For I have bent 
 Judah for vie. I have jiUed the bow with Ephraim : and I will 
 stir iijt ihij sons, () Zion, against thij sons, Greece, and will 
 make tlice as the sirord of a wii/hti/ wan." This is the chief and 
 all-impoi'tant passage in support of the post-Zecharian hypothesis. 
 More emphasis is placed upon this passage than upon all others 
 together. Kuiper, e. ;/., (p. 160) in summing up throws the whole 
 weicrht of Ills artrument in favor of a Greek date on this verse 
 
68 THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHARIAH 
 
 Wellhausen (p. 183) makes it decide the date of these prophecies, 
 while Stade (II, p. 275) declares that the announcement of the 
 "|V ''3S is alone sufficient to prove that these prophecies are after 
 333 B. C. It is. in short, claimed that we are no longer in the 
 Assyrian, nor the Chaldean, nor indeed the Persian times, but in 
 the Grecian. Two things are especially emphasized in connection 
 with this important passage: (a) that the Sons of Javan are the 
 world-power of Deutero-Zechariah's day, /. <\, the Gr£eco-Macca- 
 bean world-power; and (6) that they are the enemies of Zion. 
 But in opposition to these claims it should be observed (n) that 
 the Sons of Javan are but one of several world-powers within the 
 range of our prophet's horizon (c/. 9:1-7, Syria, Phoenicia, Phil- 
 istia; 12:2sg., 14:2sg., all nations, and 10:10, 11 Assyria and 
 Egypt; cf. also Hag. 2: 22, 23) . (6) That the Greeks under Alex- 
 ander were not "the enemies of Zion," and did not fight against 
 the Jews but against the Persians. 
 
 In discussing this passage, it is useless to question the gen- 
 uineness of Zech. 9, 13, as Kuenen does [Einleit. §81, n 6), or 
 call it a gloss of Maccabean times, as Kirkpatrick {Doc. of Proph- 
 ets, pp. 472-3) ; for the mention of the Sons of Greece is so char- 
 acteristic of the whole section in which it stands and is so inter- 
 woven with the very texture of the entire ninth chapter that to 
 eliminate it destroys the prophet's message concerning the ''king 
 of Zion" (9:9). The defeat of Javan inaugurates the Messianic 
 age. Hence we propose to treat 9:13 as an integral portion of 
 the entire context. We are unable, however, to agree with those 
 who advocate its Grseco-Maccabean origin. The following reasons 
 have led us, after considerable study, to the conclusion that it is 
 Persian, (a) The prophecy, according to our opinion, is far too 
 indefinite to have been uttered just after the invasion of Alexander 
 the Great (vs. Kuiper). No such vague description, or allusion 
 to the march of Alexander can be found elsewhere, so far as we 
 are aware, in all literature. {It) The passage does not describe a 
 victory for the Sons of Javan, but rather a defeat. This fact in itself 
 is enough to render Kuiper's hypothesis improbable, (c) Stade 's 
 interpretation rests on the hypothesis that 9 : 1-7 describes the 
 expedition of Soleucis ; but, as Kuiper remarks in answer to Rubin- 
 kam, any ow of n hnlf-dozcn invasions of Palestine from north to 
 
THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHAKIAH 69 
 
 south would satisfy the description quite as well; e, g., that of 
 Shalmaneser II, or of Nebuchadnezzar {cf. Grutzmacher, pp. 
 37-40). (J) Zech. 9:11, 12 contains an appeal to those still in 
 exile to return, which, according to our opinion, would have been 
 quite meaningless after the conquest of Alexander; and indeed 
 after Ezra and Nehemiah not so appropriate as earlier, (p) In 
 short, 9: 13-17 as a whole is not a picture of actual war, but rather 
 an apocalyptic vision of the struggle of Israel with the world- 
 power of the West, — hence its indefinite character and its figura- 
 tive language. 
 
 It is objected, however, that in Zechariah's days the Greeks 
 were still unimportant and had not as yet assumed the r6le of a 
 world-power (Driver). This statement is not supported, however, 
 by all the facts of Scripture and history. In the literature of the 
 Old Testament, for example, Javan appears as a nation of consid- 
 erable importance before the beginning of the 5th century B. C. 
 In Gen. 10:2 (assigned to P*', which, according to Dillmann, 
 Kueneu, Budde, Wellhausen, Cornill, Kautzsch, and others, was 
 written before 500 B. C.) Javan occurs as one of the seven sons 
 of Japheth. In Isa. 66:19 (exilic, according to Driver, Dillmann, 
 Doederlein, Eichhorn, Rosenmuller, deWette, Gesenius, Hitzig, 
 Ewald, and Kuenen; or, shortly after the Restoration — Konig, 
 Ryssel, and Bleek), Javan is mentioned as one of the remote 
 peoples who had not heard of the fame or seen the glory of the 
 Jewish Jehovah. In Ezek. 27:13 (confessedly exilic) Javan is 
 represented as in commercial relations with Phoenicia. In Joel 
 4:() (by many pre-exilic, but doubtful), Javan is a market where 
 the Phoenicians and Philistines found sale for Jewish slaves. 
 Further, in Gen. 10: 1-5 " the isles," or coast lands are mentioned 
 as among the Sons of Javan. In Ezek. 39:6 fire is sent "on 
 Magog and them that dwell securely in the isles." In Zeph. 2: 11, 
 "even all the isles of the nations" are represented as worshiping 
 Jehovah. In Isa. 59:18 the Lord is going to pour out his fury 
 upon his adversaries, yea "to the islands he will repay recom- 
 pense." The cause is not stated, but for some reason Jehovah is 
 about to visit the isles with fury. From these passages it is to 
 be observed, (a) that Javan is conceived of as a distant but impor- 
 tant nation before the beginning of the 5th century B. C; 
 
70 THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHARIAH 
 
 (6) that our prophet in Zech. 9:13 is moving within the sphere 
 of acknowledged earlier prophecies; and (c) that he reechoes the 
 spirit of the former prophets. 
 
 Turning to history we obtain more light. {Cf. Noldeke, Aiif- 
 sdtze zur persischcn Geschichte, 1887, translated in Enciiclopcvdia 
 Brltannica, IX. ed., article "Persia:" and Duncker, Geschichte 
 lies Altertums). Darius Hystaspes was elevated to the throne of 
 Persia in 521 B.C., and ruled 36 years (521-486). His seat was 
 not firm at first (Herodotus 3:127). From the Behistun inscrip- 
 tion we learn that at his accession the empire was in an unsettled 
 condition. One province after another made insurrection against 
 the central government. Noldeke records twelve different revolts 
 which happened in the first three years (521-519) of Darius' 
 reign, principally in the north and east. The west alone remained 
 quiet, but it was partly in the hands of governors of doubtful loy- 
 alty. In 518, however, Darius was compelled to move westward 
 at the head of the royal armies. In 517 Aryandes, governor of 
 Egypt, was removed for having assumed the royal privilege of 
 minting money (c/. Wiedemann, Gesch., p. 236). But the king's 
 visit to Egypt was cut short by the disturbances of the Greeks, who, 
 like the Egyptians, were the perpetual haters of Persian domina- 
 tion. According to Ducnker (IV., p. 491, and VI., p. 496), in the 
 year 516 the Greeks of the Hellespont and Bosphorus with the 
 island of Samos were made to submit to Persian rule. The next 
 year (515) Darius led an expedition against the Scythians across 
 the Danube, the failure of which encouraged the lonians subse- 
 quently to revolt. In 500 B. C. the great Ionian revolt took 
 place. In 499, Sardis, the most important stronghold for Persia 
 in Asia Minor, was burned by the Athenians. An army was dis- 
 patched by Darius to restore the Persian frontier. In 493 the 
 islands of the J5gean were recovered, but the Greeks were hard 
 to suppress. The next three years were spent in planning an 
 invasion of Greece. Immense preparations were made, as the 
 undertaking was considered prodigious. Soldiers were drawn 
 from all parts of the empire, but to no purpose. In 490 Mara- 
 thon was fought and Persia was conquered. Tlint defeat marks 
 a turning point in the current of tlie world's history. The Sous of 
 Javan on the plain of Marathon met the largest and strongest and 
 
THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHARIAH 71 
 
 best organized of Oriental monarchies and came off victorious. 
 Persia rallied, but never really recovered from the shock. Deci- 
 mated but not vanquished, preparations were begun for a renewed 
 attack on this new world-power. But as the army was about 
 ready to start on a second campaign into Greece, Egypt revolted 
 and the projected invasion was necessarily postponed. Before 
 Egypt was again reduced Darius died (486 B. C). Xerxes 
 succeeded to the throne and attempted to carry out his father's 
 project to reduce Greece, but like him was disappointed. His 
 defeat at Salamis in 480 B. C. need not be rehearsed, nor need 
 we sketch the history of Javan further. Enough has been related 
 to show that already in the reign of Darius Hystaspes, the Sons 
 of Greece were a world-power. Not that Greece was ihe world- 
 power of Darius' reign, but that it was a world-power and a threat- 
 ening world-power. Zech. 9-14 does not demand that we should 
 think of Greece as the onJij world-power of the prophet's day. 
 The prophet betrays rather a feeling of insecurity from all quar- 
 ters, which indicates that a general upheaval was taking place. 
 The Sons of Javan were but one of Israel's enemies in the prophet's 
 day, but the Sons of Javan, at the same time, were of great impor- 
 tance, inasmuch as the victory over them carried with it so momen- 
 tous Messianic interests. The language of ch. 9 is vague and, 
 in our judgment, too vague and too indefinite to have been uttered 
 after Marathon (490 B. C), or even after the burning of Sardis 
 (500 B. C); for in that case, the author would have been influ- 
 enced more by Greece and less by the movements and commotions 
 of the nations. Accordingly we are inclined to believe that our 
 prophet most probably lived in the period before the revolt of the 
 lonians and the burning of Sardis by the Athenians. Or, more 
 definitely, in view of the political insecurity which these prophe- 
 cies reflect throughout, that he lived in the time when Darius' 
 armies were moving westward to protect Persian interests in 
 Egypt and Asia Minor, i. e., in the period from 518 till 516 B. C. 
 How admirably these years suit the character and contents of 
 these prophecies will be manifest from what follows. Not that 
 all the events of Zech. 9-14 can be fitted into and explained by 
 the history of these three years, for this is impossible on any 
 hypothesis, whether pre-exilic or post-Zecharian; but, what to us 
 
72 THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHAEIAH 
 
 is far more important, the events of these three years have left 
 an unmistakable impress upon these confessedly obscure oracles, 
 which must be recognized. We make no attempt to square all 
 the prophetical statements of our author by the facts of history, 
 nor do we presume to interpret any given passage in such a man- 
 ner that it may meet the requirements of the greatest event of its 
 kind in all history; bu.t on the contrary, we have endeavored to 
 grasp first the sj^irit of the author's oracles, and then to trace, as 
 far as possible, their source and inspiration in history. We have in 
 this way become convinced that our author does not reflect the spirit 
 of his alleged contemporaries in pre-exilic times : nor, on the other 
 hand, breathe the atmosphere of the Jewish theocracy in Graeco- 
 Maccabean times; but that he does reflect, on the contrary, the 
 last three years before the dedication of the temple (518-516 
 B. C). 
 
 Our principal reasons for thinking that these prophecies reflect 
 the events of this period are these: 
 
 1. The temple was still in process of construction. This is seen 
 (a) in ttie Messianic and eschnioJociical character of these prophe- 
 cies. In no period was the Jewish mind more aglow with Messianic 
 hope and expectation than in the period just after the return from 
 exile (c/. Wellhausen, p. 174), but especially when the temple 
 was reaching completion. Then the hopes of the theocracy prac- 
 tically knew no bound (Zech. 6:12, 13). Their expectations 
 became ideal. The vision, for example, of all nations coming 
 up to Jerusalem to keep the feast of tabernacles (ch. 14) is in 
 the highest degree ideal, and was most probably inspired by the 
 hope that when the temple should be completed Zion would 
 become the center of the world's religious life. The author 
 makes no attempt to " plunge into Jewish ceremonial legality "' {cf. 
 Delitzsch, Mess. Proph., p. 223,) "but only develops a thought 
 already expressed in the old prophetic word (Isa. 2 : 2 sg. ; Mic. 
 4:lsg)," hence the objection raised by Kautzsch [Stud. u. Krit., 
 p. 777, 1890; Die heil. Schrift., etc.. p. 203) and Graetz (JQB., 
 p. 211, 1891), that this vision of Zech. 14 must be later than 
 Ezra and Nehemiah, as not until then did the precept to "dwell 
 in booths" came to be generally observed (Neh. 8:14-17) is 
 groundless, (b) In the fact tliul tlie proplict bases his cxiiorta- 
 
THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHAZIAH 73 
 
 lions for the present on the history of the post (11:1-3; 11:4-17; 
 10:2 SQ.; 9:l-4s5.,- 14:20,21). This is exceedingly important, 
 inasmuch as it reveals the prophet's method. Haggai and Zech- 
 ariah employed the same method (Hag. 1:6, 9; 2:3; Zech. 1:4-6; 
 7:7, 12, cf Borchert, Stud. u. Krit., II, 1895, pp. 228, 247 sg.). 
 Our prophet frequently emphasizes his message to Israel by refer- 
 ring to their experience in the past. And here again, according 
 to our opinion, no period would so readily suggest this method of 
 exhortation or warrant its use, as a time in which the prophet had 
 before him the actual ruins of Israel's former splender. (c) In 
 the fact that the prophet makes Israel's chief interests center in 
 Jerusalem (9:8-12; 12:2-11; 13:1; 14:2,8-17,21). This is 
 also the case in Zech. (1:12-17; 2:6, 8, 16; 8:8, 4, 8, 15, 22), 
 and no period could more naturally have caused a prophet to 
 think and speak thus than when the colony was small and dwelt 
 in Jerusalem and the near vicinity. But further, three times the 
 prophet assures his hearers that "Jerusalem shall again be inhab- 
 ited in her place" (12:6; 14:10, 11) — a thought which, it must 
 be admitted, would have been quite superfluous after the city had 
 been rebuilt and surrounded by walls (cf. again, Zech. 1:16, 17; 
 2:8, 16; 8:4, 8). (d) In the fact that certain allusions are best 
 explainedin these times, (a) Zech. 9:9, 10; 14:9. In the first of 
 these passages it is stated that the dominion of the Messiah shall 
 extend "from sea to sea and from the river to the ends of the 
 earth;" and in the second that "Jehovah shall be king over the 
 whole earth." Of Alexander the Great could it hardly be said that 
 his dominion should reach only ■• from sea to sea," for it extended 
 indefinitely into Europe, Asia, and Africa. Of Xerxes it was not 
 the case ; nor of Cyrus, for he had no power in Egypt ; nor even of 
 Darius after the battle Marathon, for his dominion was then crip- 
 pled; but of Darius in the period between 518 and 516 the descrip- 
 tion is exact, for then his dominion did extend from sea to sea 
 and from the river unto the ends of the earth, and he was king 
 (as far as the Jews of Jerusalem understood) of the whole earth. 
 This is an important observation because these thoughts are of 
 such paramount consequence to the prophet. (/3) 9:1-8 is a 
 proof of the prophet's confidence that Jerusalem would not be 
 molested. It mattered not if the royal armies were humbling 
 
74 THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHARIAH 
 
 Syria, Phoenicia and Philistia on their way to Egypt, they would 
 not harm Jerusalem for she was a loyal Persian city, (y) 9:12 
 reflects the hope of the prophet as he addresses the remaining 
 Jews in Babylon and bids them return to the stronghold, — pris- 
 oners of hope, nipnn ^"I^Cyt. (S) 9: is and 14:20 refer to the 
 nSTw , built by the Jews shortly after their arrival in 536 B. C. 
 (Ezr. 3:2). («) 13:2-6 is especially appropriate to the period 
 of temple-building, when the people saw the idols of their fore- 
 fathers prostrate about them and were assured by the prophet 
 that the day would come when every vestige of idolatry and false 
 prophecy would disappear out of the land; "the mention of tera- 
 phim and soothsayers (10:2) would be," as Kautzsch [Die heil. 
 Schrift, p. 204) remarks, "very strange in Grecian times." 
 ((;) 14 : 10 does not describe the " gates " of the Jerusalem of Nehe- 
 miah's time, e.g., the "p/2^^S "^T^ is mentioned in Jer. 37:13; 
 88:7 and Zech. 14:10, but'not 'in Neh. 3; and the D"3Sn y^ , 
 which occurs also in 2 Kgs., 14:13, 2 Chron. 26:9, Jer. 31:38, 
 was a gate in the first wall of Jerusalem, according to Guthe 
 {Zcifs. deidsch. Pal. Vcrcws, VIII, p. 280. {■>,) 14: 18 particular- 
 izes Egypt, but this is explained by Darius' prolonged attempt to 
 win the loyalty of the Egyptians by moderating the taxes and 
 ordering, according to Polyaenus, a canal to be built between 
 the Nile and the Ked Sea. All these passages point more or less 
 definitely to the period just before the completion and dedication 
 of the temple in 516 B. C. Even chapter 11 finds its best 
 historic setting in these years, for, as we have shown, the author 
 was arguing on the basis of the past.* And we further main- 
 tain that our author more truly reflects the political conditions 
 of these years (518-516), than the prophet Zechariah does the 
 historical events of the years 521-518. These were the years 
 when Darius with the royal armies was putting down insurrec- 
 tion after insurrection in the north and east ; yet, Zechariah says 
 in chapter 1:11, that "all the earth sitteth still and is at rest,"— 
 a statement which was only relatively true, ('. e., true for the con- 
 gregation in Jerusalem.-j- 
 
 * According to Eichhom (Einleit. IV., p. 449), " chapters 11 : 1-13 : 6 have no contents by 
 which we can determine the period of their authorship," 
 
 t Kostors' idea (Thfolog. TZ/rfs., 1., 189ri, pp. :)r>:i-84) that Zech. 1 : 11 and Hag. 2:18 are wit- 
 uessos BKainst tlie re.stiiration of Israel under ('yrus, and consequently, that the first return 
 
THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHABIAH 75 
 
 2. Negatively also, there are proofs that Zech. 9-14 were 
 delivered before 516 B. C, e. (j., (a) the entire absence of any 
 sort of allusion, direct or indirect, to the revolt of Javan (500 
 B. C), to the victories of Greece over Persia (490-480), to Ezra 
 and Nehemiah, to the Great Synagogue, to Alexander the Great, 
 to the influences of Greek civilization and Greek thought, to the 
 growing claims of the individual as opposed to the nation {cf. the 
 Wisdom of Solomon), make it improbable that our author lived 
 after these events. Again [h] the absence of any direct rebuke 
 of glaring sins such as we find in Mai., e. y., the offering of pol- 
 luted bread (Mai. 1:7), profaning the table of the Lord (1:12), 
 sacrificing the lame and the sick (1:13, 14), causing to stumble 
 at the law, corrupting the covenant of Levi (2:8), dealing treach- 
 erously every man against his brother (2:10, 11), even with the 
 wife of his youth (2:14), the putting away of wives (2:16), prac- 
 ticing sorcery, committing adultery and swearing falsely (3:5); 
 or, as in Nehemiah 's time, neglecting the Levitical tithes (Neh. 
 13:10), forsaking the house of the Lord (13:11), treading wine- 
 presses and bearing burdens on the Sabbath (18:15, 16), and 
 marrying wives of the heathen (13:23) — the absence of all allu- 
 sion to any of these sins of the later post-exilic congregations, 
 leads to the conclusion, not only that the prophet prophesied 
 before the people had fallen into these sins, but that our prophet 
 spoke to encourage, not to rebuke, and that his chief aim was, in 
 the midst of surrounding opposition, to inspire Israel to finish the 
 house of the Lord.* 
 
 IV. 
 
 THE INTEGRITY OF ZECHARIAH 9-14. 
 
 In the examination of the two hypotheses (the pre-exilic and 
 the post-Zecharian) which has hitherto been made, it is clear that 
 in order to find any really suitable historic setting for these last 
 
 from exile must have taken place in the time of Ezra, has too little in its favor to warrant 
 our further notice here. Cf. B. D. Eordman's article, " De historische .\chtorgrond van Zach. 
 1-8" (Theolog. Tijds. I., 1895, pp. 152-184). 
 
 * Stade^s objection (II., p. 16:1) that Doutoro-Zechariah must have lived after Ezra 
 because though sh(»wing acquaintance with the law he makes no attempt to introduce it, 
 assumes that no propiiet writiuK before Ezra could betray familiarity with the law without 
 at the same time showing a marked tendency to extendi its influence — an assumption which 
 is entirely unwarranted. The prophet's m<»tivo was not legal or political, but moral and 
 reli^ous, and as such was in perfect keeping witli the years of temple-building. 
 
76 THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHARIAH 
 
 six chapters of Zechariah, both hypotheses are embarrassed (espe- 
 cially the former) by the necessity of separating these prophecies 
 into two or more parts and of assigning them to different periods. 
 Individuals differ, however, as to where the divisions shall 
 be made. Rubinkam suggests a break after ch. 9:10; Bleek, 
 at the end of ch. 9; Paulus adds 10:1 to ch. 9; Grraetz sep- 
 arates ch. 14 from the rest; Montet and Sharpe divide the 
 whole into iive distinct, independent oracles. Staerk excerpts 
 two small sections (11:4-17; 13:7-9) from the body of the proph- 
 ecy and assigns them to a different age. The majority are con- 
 tent with an almost equal division in two halves (9-11; 12-14). 
 A few representatives of both schools, however, being unwilling 
 to carry the process of dissection quite so far, maintain the integ- 
 rity of 9-14 at any cost. These are Hitzig, Rosenmliller, Pressel, 
 and Davidson of the pre-exilic school ; and Stade, Cornill, Cheyne, 
 Delitzsch, Kuiper, and Wellhausen of the post-Zecharian. 
 
 1. Against Rubinkam, who divides ch. 9:1-10 from the 
 rest, and observes that the author in 1 Maccabees also springs 
 over a period of 150 years, from Alexander the Great to Antio- 
 chus Epiphanes, it may be shown with Cornill, (a) that the 
 "brotherhood" in 11:14 implies, and is explained by ch. 9 
 where it is taken for granted. (6) And with Wellhausen that 
 the "sons of Ephraim" Du'j^ (10:7) are as little differentiated 
 from Ephraim, as the "foal of an ass" (9:9) from ass; which 
 shows a similarity in mode of expression, (c) But especially the 
 idea contained in 9:8, that "7io more" shall Israel be disturbed 
 by the enemy. In 14:11 there is no more utter destruction; in 
 14:21 no more Canaanites are to be found in the house of the 
 Lord; and in 13:2 no more idols. (</) Various expressions in 
 language bind 9:1-10 to the remaining parts: e.g., ni^in tl'tiS 
 (9:3; 10:5),n-J3p (9:10, 13) "1X3 (9:B; 10: 11; 11:3), the use 
 of D3 (9:7; 11:12), also -"JirTn ->i« (9:7) quoted in 12:5, 6 
 with an implied parenthesis "of whom I spoke before." (<?) More- 
 over, as Ewald observes, the paragraph beginning with 9:9 ends 
 at 10 : 2. Hence the proposed division of Rubinkam at 9:10 is 
 practically impossible. 
 
 2. Against Bleek, who divides ch. 9 from ch. 10, it is obvious 
 that the blessings alluded to in 9:17 are closely connected 
 
THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHARIAH 77 
 
 with those alhided to in 10:1, 2, being of the same temporal 
 character. For this reason Paulus (III., p. 120 sg.) joins 10:1 
 to ch. 9. The uncommon expression """i";23 occurs in 9:15 
 and again 10:7. Chapter 9:1'4-16 also tinds a close parallel 
 in 10:5. In the one case arrow, trumpet and sling-stones bring 
 victory; in the other, superior zeal, for they tread down their 
 enemies in the mire of the streets (c/. 10:5 and 9:3). Stade 
 observes a further characteristic common to these chapters, viz., 
 "to announce a fact and then give reasons for it." For example, 
 in 9 : 9 the liberation of Zion from the heathen and the conversion 
 of the heathen to the Messiah are first announced and then the 
 events leading up to it are described (vs. 11-17). So in 10:6, 7 
 the return of Ephraim is first announced as a result, and then the 
 means of its accomplishment are explained in vs. 8-12.. For sim- 
 ilar reasons, Eichhorn {Eiitl. IV.. p. 479) pronounced chs. 9 
 and 10 a unit. 
 
 3. Against Staerk, who separates chs. 11:4-17; 13:7-9 from 
 the remaining portions by a space in time of 150 years, on 
 the following grounds: (a) the author of 11:15, he says, appears 
 as a prophet, but the author of 13:2-6 will not be a prophet. 
 (6) The author of 11:4 sg., is full of vain scolding and is pessi- 
 mistic through and through; Deutero-Zechariah, on the contrary, 
 wishes only to comfort; (c) 11:8, 14, which on Stade's hypoth- 
 esis is inexplicable, he claims is capable of explanation when 
 transferred to other conditions from chs. 9, 10, 12-14. But, 
 (o) Staerk's division is based on the false view of Stade that 
 Deutero-Zechariah is only a scribe and will not be a prophet; and 
 (6) on a completely erroneous interpretation of 11:4-17, refer- 
 ring it to the present only, whereas it is an allegory of the past 
 without the slightest touch of pessimism, (c) Moreover, the claim 
 that 11:8, 14 can be explained out of Maccabean conditions is 
 very questionable, as no one has ever been able to explain satis- 
 factorily the "three shepherds cut off in one month" (11:8) on 
 the basis of any hypothesis. To these may be added linguistic 
 reasons which oppose the theory of Staerk, e. tj., n^lS (9:11; 
 11:10), m5< (11:3, 13), nilXTTSn (11:9; 12:14), "Ifl^ (13:8; 
 14:2), □-nirf-l (10:10; 13:7)" 'ii?-; (11:13; 14:6), ""SbS HSn 
 (11:6, 16; 12:2, cf. Eckardt, p. 102); the use of certain words in 
 
78 THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHARIAH 
 
 a good sense in both parts, e. [/., yiT (10:9), "pS (12:4), on the 
 one hand, and iViT , (13:7) on the other; and of the Inf. Abs. 
 (11:17; 12:3), etc. We accordingly conclude that these two 
 sections (11:4-17 and 13:7-9) are part and parcel of the entire 
 prophecy (chs. 9-14), or, as Kuiper puts it (p. 130), that they are 
 the indispensable links between the other portions. 
 
 4. Against Berfholdt, Knohel, Maurer, Ewald, Bleelc, v. 
 Orfenberg, Kuenen. and oihers, who divide chs. 9-14 into two 
 oracles of almost equal length (9-11; 13:7-9 and 12-14). 
 This division is conditioned, however, by the successful removal 
 of 13:7-9 from its present position to the end of ch. 11 in order 
 to furnish the first oracle with a suitable conclusion. Ewald 
 was the first to make this transference; followed by v. Orten- 
 berg, Dillmann, Reuss, Stade, Wellhausen, Grtitzmacher. and 
 others. Though such a transposition may be possible, there are 
 serious objections to it; (a) 13:7-9 is not parabolic as is 11:4-17, 
 but prophetic; (6) 13:7-9 treats of the future; 11:4-17 of the 
 past (c/. Wellhausen, p. 186); (c) 13:7-9 is joined in thought 
 to 14:1, 2 sq., cf. the fractional remnants in 13:8 and 14:2. {Cf. 
 Schlatter, p. 272; and Montet p. (58. who prefers to join 13:7-9 
 and 14:1-21 together as one oracle), {d) 13:7-9 describes in 
 detail the results of the siege portrayed in ch. 12, and on the 
 other hand, prepares for the apocalyptic description which fol- 
 lows in ch. 14. ((') The shepherd in 13:7 is the Messiah-Shep- 
 herd; the "my" standing in contrast to the evil shepherd of 
 11:15-17 and also the false prophets of 13:2-6. Compare the 
 expression ni"' Dilin (13:3) and r^aJS (13:9). Hence the 
 present position of these verses is justified, if not essential to the 
 correct understanding of the prophecy ((/. Elmslie, p. 332, and 
 Bruston, p. 129). Against the unity of these two oracles, how- 
 ever, our opponents present four different lines of argument, viz., 
 language, thought. Messianic expectation and historical situation. 
 (a) Shjlc and, langnagc. Kuenen. Grutzmacher. and others, note 
 the following inconsistencies: (a) ^'^Vit^ Di^S occurs only twice 
 in the first section (9:16; 11:11), but 14 times in the second, — a 
 fact which, as Eckardt shows (p. 100), is explained at once (as 
 also n*~1 , used 15 times), by the difference in subject matter. 
 (i5)"|V:i is used for Jerusalem (9:9, 13); whereas TT^I TT'Z. stands 
 
THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHAEIAH 79 
 
 for the royal house (12:7, 8, 10, 12; 13: 1). But this is a specious 
 sort of fallacious reasoning, as in 9:9,10 Zion and Jerusalem stand 
 side by side, while in 12: 10; 13: 1 Jerusalem and TTl tV3, are dis- 
 tinctly differentiated, (y) Certain words have different meanings 
 in the two sections ; <^.</., n"l^X (11:3) glory, (13:4) mantle. But as 
 Cornill (p. 200) shows, tTTlS of 11:3 and n"l^i< of 13:4 are two 
 entirely different words, only similar in sound. Our author was 
 fond of words of similar sound, e. g., XITll i^"in (9:5). also 
 nirn nirn (9:5, 6). and D^n'Hit (11:2) with Dn-^^N (11:3). 
 Again, "^112 (9:3) stronghold, but (12:2) siege. But nr^'Z 
 (9:3) is, as Eckardt points out (p. 100), a pun with "lij; . b't! 
 (9:4) power; (14:14) wealth. But the bT! in 9:4 comes from the 
 root hTt not 5'" (Arab. Sjj^ cf. Socin's Kurdische Sammlunycu, 
 I., 297 ) meaning a small frontier wall before a fortress wall ; whereas 
 bTi in 14:14 is the construct state of b'H (Arab, j"^ ^ Ju^) wealth. 
 (S) Certain ideas are expressed by different words in the two sec- 
 tions: P. (/.," pride" is expressed in 11:3 by "iXii, in 12:7 by IT^lSliri; 
 and "collect" in 10:8. 10 by 'inp, but in 12:3; 14:2, 14 by rCX. 
 But almost any author ought to be allowed two synonyms, espe- 
 cially when attempting to express slightly different shades of 
 meaning. These are all the linguistic inconsistencies that really 
 exist between these two oracles. On the other hand, the similar- 
 ities are quite important. Eckardt (p. 101) points out the fol- 
 lowing: b-N in sense of destroy (9:4, 15; 11:1, 9, 16, but also 
 12:6), ■'jT in a religious sense (10:9; 13:2), Z'Z'' in passive (9:5; 
 12:6 probably also 14:10, 11), ri^3 Hiph. (9:6, 10; 13:2), 
 rCZrib'Z (9:10; 10:3, 4.5; 14:2), TOH (9:4; 10:11; 13:7; 12:4; 
 13^:6). nsa Niph. (9:7; 11:9; 12^^:14). ms (11.1; 13:1. rf. 
 npS 12:4), qb5< (9:7; 12:5, 6). From this list, it is evident, 
 that the style of the two sections is not "entirely different" 
 (Griltzmacher, p. 41); but rather the difference is due to the ele- 
 vated and poetic character of chs. 9-11, which naturally affords 
 a greater treasury of words, and also to the author's s[)ecial 
 dependence in these chapters on older prophecy [rf. Kiiiper, pp. 
 
80 THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHAEIAH 
 
 144-5). (b) Thouyld. The dcnkhcelden, according to Kuenen, 
 are different and require a double authorship. Thus, in the first 
 section there is no storm of the people against Jerusalem, no 
 complaint against false prophets, no outlook leading up to the 
 conversion of the heathen ; while in the second section there is no 
 mention of Ephraim, or of the return of the exiles, or of a pun- 
 ishment of the shepherds, or of the coming of the Messiah. But 
 Kuenen likewise admits of no unity in chs. 9-11; e.g., 9:1-5, 
 8-10; 10:2, 10, 11: 11:4-14 are pre-exilic; but9:ll, 13; 10:6-9, 
 etc., post-exilic. For similar reasons Montet, (p. 68) and Sharps 
 [Hist, of Hcbreio Nation and Lit., 1882) separate the whole into 
 five independent units. There are, however, reasons for thinking 
 that the author of both sections moved in the same circle of ideas ; 
 r. fj., in 10: 2 and 13:2 there is a similar, passing allusion to idol- 
 atry. In both sections also there is a similar use made of the 
 same former prophets. Apocalyptic wars leading up to Messianic 
 times are portrayed in both sections. Old proper names cling in 
 the prophet's memory, e. g., Hadrach (9:1) and Hadadrimmon 
 (12:11). The heathen are subjects of God's mercy (9:10; 14: 
 16-19). And the punishment of the shepherds in 11:15-17 is, 
 as Kuiper insists, not entirely absent from 12:8 sq. The absence 
 of the name Ephraim in the second section may be explained in 
 two ways: (a) either as Hitzig [Stud. u. Krit. I., 1830), on the 
 ground that 11:14 gives up the hope of ever uniting the two 
 kingdoms; or better (^) as Cornill and Kuiper, on the ground 
 that ch. 12 is a necessary conclusion to chapter 11. For the 
 breaking of the staff' Beauty (11:7, 10) brings the nations against 
 Jerusalem; and the breaking of Bands (11:7, 14), the disappear- 
 ance of Ephraim. 11:10 prepares the way for chs. 12-14, and 
 11:14 for 12:1,2. No prophecy could well close with 11:17. 
 But further, as Delitzsch observes [Mess. Proph., p. 219), there 
 is a "retrogressive movement" of what is prophesied in both sec- 
 tions. "The two prophetic images in chs. 9:11 are a hysteron 
 proteron; for first the future one consumes himself in work for 
 his people, and tlien is raised from lowliness to a kingdom which 
 rules the world." Sudden transitions are another characteristic 
 of both sections, as Stade proceeds to show. In the first section 
 the author passes quickly from the invasion of Syria, Phcenicia, 
 
THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHARIAH 81 
 
 and Pliilistia by a temporal king (9:1-8), to the coming of the 
 Messiah King (9:9), and then back quite as abruptly to the res- 
 toration of the exiles who still remained in captivity (9:11). In 
 the second section at the close of 12:8 the prophet's mind leaps 
 from the time when the nations shall be repulsed from Jerusalem 
 to an age of spiritual deliverance (12:10). Again, both sections 
 paint shocking pictures of the destruction and wasting away of 
 the enemies of God's people (11:17; 14:12); on the other hand, 
 the hopes of both sections in behalf of Israel are the same, (c) 
 Messianic expectation. Grutzmacher argues (p. 42), that, because 
 in chs. 9-11 the prophet expects an individual Messiah — a 
 king, who would bring peace to the people, while in chapters 
 12-11 the coming of Jehovah is expected, who will bring salva- 
 tion to his people but judgment upon the heathen, therefore it is 
 "impossible" to suppose that both sections were written by the 
 same author. But this opinion is based, (a) on a transposition 
 of 13:7-9 from its true position; (/8) on a misunderstanding of 
 12:10; 13:1, and (y) on his unwillingness to recognize inch. 
 14 an apocalypse of the future. Hence there is no cause for 
 division on this basis, (d) Historical situation. The first author 
 names Israel and Judah side by side (9:13; 10:6; 11:14); the 
 second, only Judah and Jerusalem. In the first section, Syria, 
 Phoenicia, Philistia, Greece, Assyria, and Egypt are threatened; 
 in the second, "all nations" in general and only Egypt by name 
 (Grlitzmacher, pp. 42, 43). But, as has been already shown, 
 these peculiarities are due to other causes than difference of 
 authorship. 
 
 5. Against Graetz, and others who separate chapter 14 from 
 the rest of these prophecies. This is the most difficult problem, 
 according to our opinion, in these prophecies. The difficulty con- 
 sists in reconciling the two pictures of the nations coming up against 
 Jerusalem in chs. 12 and 14 with unity of authorship. Kuenen 
 (p. 419) does not hesitate to say, that 12;4-fi and 14:12-14 are 
 onvereenigbaar. Graetz remarks with considerable force {JQR 
 III., 1891, p. 208), "if both chapters refer to the same event the 
 prophet should have begun with the description of the siege given 
 in ch. 14, which is far more dramatic than the short sentence 
 'I shall make of Jerusalem a cup of confusion for all nations' 
 
82 THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHAEIAH 
 
 (12:1)." He further maintains that the faint resemblance 
 between these prophecies vanishes on a closer examination. In 
 eh. 12 Jerusalem is described as receiving no injury; in ch. 14, 
 the city is captured. "How can utterances so different," Graetz 
 asks, "have been linked together in one prophecy?" It must 
 be confessed that the contradiction of statements in this case is 
 without a parallel elsewhere, not even between Parts I. and II. 
 But in our judgment the contradiction is superficial. Chapter 14 
 is a separate oracle, quite independent of the preceding chapters 
 written by the same prophet but later and under different circum- 
 stances, — very possibly shortly before the dedication of the tem- 
 ple in 516 B. C This is evident from the conclusion of chapter 
 13:9, "I will say, It is my people: and they shall shall say. The 
 Lord is my Grod," which forms a most suitable ending to the 
 former oracles. Chapter 14, however, belongs to chs. 9-13, as the 
 language witnesses; e. g., there is the same regard for Judah in 
 ch. 14 as elsewhere, tTiiri"' DjI (12:2; 14:14). The following 
 expressions occur in both sections, J^pS (12:11; 14:4); DoJa 
 (14:17; 10:1) ;"1i:' (11:13; 14:6) ;ri3S (10:4; 14: 10) ; especially 
 the use of py'Z near nnrj (9:15; 14:20, pointed out by Cornill, 
 p. 200); the mention of the " Canaanites " (according to LXX.) 
 in 11:7,11; 14:21; the use of Niphals, e. ^., ^in^ (13:8; 14:16), 
 rrnS (9:10; 13:8; 14:2) and Dnb (10:5; 14:3, 14), the employ- 
 ment of "i^'Z (9:2, 5, 9; 14:4, 14) ; the tendency to reminiscence, 
 e.g., the allusions to Josiah and Uzziah (12:11; 14:5); TM'H 
 (9:8), cf. ri"""- (14:15); and, finally, the author's indifferent 
 use of n-B'Jr-b'2 (12:2, 3; 14:12) and D-;i3ri-b3 (14:2; 14:16; 
 12:9). These instances are enough to show the close relation of 
 ch. 14 to chs. 9-13. And when it is remembered that we are 
 dealing with an apocalypse, all apparent inconsistencies dis- 
 appear. 
 
 Accordingly we conclude, in view of the above observations, 
 that Zech. 9-14 are from the same hand, though we admit with 
 Stade (p. 307), that it can never, of course, be proven that such 
 mnst be the case.* 
 
 ♦ Cheyne (JQI'. I., 1889, p. 81) declares, that " with perhaps one or two exceptions, clie. 
 9-11 and 12-1*1 are so closely welded together that oven analysis is impossible." 
 
THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHARIAH 83 
 
 V. 
 
 THE RELATION OF CHAPTERS 9-14 TO ZECH. 1-8. 
 
 Though tradition has never without exception denied the 
 Zecharian authorship of chs. 9-1-i, yet being of an uncritical 
 character, it behooves us critically to examine into the juxtaposi- 
 tion of these chapters in relation to Zech. 1-8. What especially 
 warrants our investigation of this relation of Part II. to Part I. 
 is the fact that even those who defend the integrity of chs. 9-14, 
 deny the integrity of the entire book. The arguments of many, 
 however, are too often overstated and too minutely drawn out. 
 Two caveats are necessary: (a) objections which disprove the 
 unity of chs. 9-14 should never be used against the unity of 
 Zechariah by those who maintain the integrity of the former; and 
 (b) arguments which prove the unity of the entire Old Testament 
 are of no value in substantiating the genuineness of chs. 9-14. 
 
 I. The objections to the Zecharian origin of chapters 9—14. — 
 1. No visions are found in these chapters as there are in Part I. 
 Though this is a very common objection it rests, in our judgment, 
 upon a false basis, viz., that if a prophet sees visions at one time 
 and records them, he must continue to do so, or otherwise keep 
 silence. Amos 1-6 and Hos. 4-14, however, contradict this prin- 
 ciple. Even Zech. 7 and 8 do not contain visions and yet they are 
 not denied to Zechariah on this account. Indeed, as a matter of 
 fact, visions actually occur in Part II. only of an historico-para- 
 bolic {e.g., 11:4-17) and eschatological character (9:13-17, 12 
 and 14). As Driver allows (p. 332), "this objection in itself is 
 not incompatible with identity of author." 2. No dates, as in 
 Zech. 1:1; 7 ; 7:1 and Haggai. But dates are frequently attached 
 to visions in the Old Testament {cf. Isa. 6:1; Ezek. 1:1-3; 8:1; 
 40:1; Dan. 7:1), whereas oracles {iX^'Q) such as 9-11; 12-14, 
 are always (one exception only in entire Old Testament, viz., Isa. 
 14:28), found without dates as here {e.g., cf. Isa. 13:1; 15:1; 
 17:1; 19:1; 21:1, 11,13; 22: 1 ; 23: 1; 30:6; Nah. 1:1; Hab. 1:1; 
 Mai. 1:1). 3. No Satan is mentioned in Part II. But Satan 
 is never mentioned in any prophecy of the Old Testament else- 
 where than in Zech. 3:1, 2. 4. No infcrprrfiug angel in 9-14. 
 
84 THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHARIAH 
 
 But this is a most superficial objection as the nature of the oracles 
 in Part II. requires no interpreting angel. The Angel of Jehovah, 
 on the contrary, is mentioned in both parts (3:1 sq., and 12:8), 
 — a fact which is far more noteworthy (c/. Griltzmacher p. 31). 
 Moreover the D^TIJIp'bS of 14:5 are universally interpreted 
 "accompanying angels"; consequently the two parts of Zech. 
 from the standpoint of angelology are not diverse (c/. 1:9, 11; 
 2:1; 3:7, 6:1). 5. No "eyes" in Part II., as in 3:9; 4:10, as 
 though one might reasonably expect to find eyes in the limbs of 
 a human body as well as in the head! 6. Proper names are 
 wanting in Part II., e. g., Zerrubabel and Joshua. But neither 
 do these names occur in chs. 7 and 8. Joseph and Ephraim, on 
 the other hand, which are not mentioned in Part I., are synonyms 
 of Israel (9:10, 13; 10:6, 7), and their absence proves nothing. 
 On the contrary, Jerusalem, Judah, house of Judah, and Zion are 
 common to both parts. 7. The sins alluded to in the two parts 
 are different (Griitzmacher, p. 32) ; e. g., theft and false-swearing 
 in 5:3, 4, enmity toward one another in 8:17; while in 10:2 seek- 
 ing teraphim, and in 13:2 sq., false prophecy. But these sins are 
 not of such a nature that they are mutually exclusive, so that it 
 were impossible for them to have existed side by side. What is 
 far more noteworthy is that in both parts the prophet declares 
 that these evils shall be taken away and removed out of the land 
 {cf. 3:9; 5:9-11; 13:1, 2). 8. The Messianic pictures are dif- 
 ferent. In Part I. the Messiah is n7j;2— Priest (3:8, 9; 6:12,13); 
 in Part II. Tjb'J , king (9:9, 10). This objection is urged by 
 Kuiper also. But the same argument weighs quite as heavily 
 against the unity of chs. 9-14, which Kuiper passes as of no par- 
 ticular value. Objection is also made to the different pictures 
 given in Parts I. and II. concerning the conversion of the heathen. 
 But in both parts the promises are eschatalogical [vs. Kuiper, p. 
 94) ; in both the heathen worship Jehovah voluntarily [vs. Mon- 
 tet, pp. 89, 90), and in both the language and thought are similar 
 [vs. Griitzmacher, p. 32). The one particularly noteworthy pic- 
 ture common to both parts is the coming up of the nations to 
 Jerusalem,— "the middle point of the world" (2: 15; 8:20-23; 9:7; 
 14:16-19, cf. Marti, Sach. p. 121). 9. The diction and style 
 are diverse; Part I. being prose, but Part II. poetry, (in truth. 
 
THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHAEIAH 85 
 
 however, only chs. 9, 10, and 11: 1-3 are poetic). Special empha 
 sis being laid on certain formulae of expression characteristic o 
 one part but disappearing in the other. For example, n^ni occurs 
 twice in Part I. (6:15; 8:13) ; whereas in Part II. 18 times. But 
 the same expression is used to prove the disunity of chs. 9-14 
 (e. f/., it occurs but once in 9-11, but 17 times in 12-14) ; it may 
 be still further employed in the interests of Staerk's hypothesis, 
 for the ratio here is 1 to 17. Hence the force of such argumen- 
 tation! The same may be said of such expressions as, "I7I!!< TO 
 
 niN22 nin% ^snb-jj ninn:;: "^ ^3, -b^ nin-' inn ^nn, nissi 
 
 T ; T : . - T : T : • t : - : • : - t .- t 
 
 «"lt<1 ■'D'y , and 'pSirTbll "ins; . The prophetic expression DS3 
 nin*' occurs frequently in both parts, but being so common a 
 formula in the prophets, proves nothing. Also SWH Di^S , which 
 occurs but 3 times in Part I. (2: 15; 3: 10; 6: 10), whereas in Part 
 II. 19 times, carries no force with it; for it is to be observed that 
 when Zechariah rises to an apocalyptic vision he uses the same 
 mode of expression (<■/. nann DT::^3, 8:23). Again, this expres- 
 sion is used by Kuenen to disprove the unity of chs. 9-14 (for in 
 9-11 it occurs but twice; in 12-14, on the contrary, 14 times); 
 but in that case it was explained by the difference in subject 
 matter — an explanation which holds good in the present case 
 quite as well. 
 
 To these Eckardt (p. 104) adds a list of words which, in his 
 judgment, are irreconcilable with unity of authorship. The fol- 
 lowing are those of real importance: (a) Certain tcords are 
 employed in different senses in Parts I. and II. Thus mX^ is 
 used in chs. 1-8 mostly in connection with prophetic appearance; 
 in 9-14, never. But compare 12:4; 9:14 and 9:8, which last 
 implies all the visions of chs. 1-6, "For now have I seen (HK^) 
 with mine eyes." Further Eckardt observes, that Y"ilS!n"b|l in 
 Zech. 1-8 always implies "the whole earth" ; whereas in 9-14, 
 Palestine only. Bute/. 5:3 and 14:9 — two undeniable excep- 
 tions. Likewise "bij exiles in 6:10, but exile in 14:2, and niPI 
 
 T 
 
 glory in 6:13, but splendor in 10:3. One of Zechariah's charac- 
 teristics, however, is to use words in different senses, e. <j., "33 
 wing in 5:9, but skirt in 8:20; nxtsn. sin in 13:1, but plague in 
 14:19; Z^J) midst in 14:1, but battle in 14:3; T\T\ wind (2:10; 
 
86 THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHARIAH 
 
 5:9; 6:5), but spirit (4:6; 6:8; 7:12, cf. 12:1; 13:2; 12:10). 
 This argument also is used against the unity of chs. 9-14, which 
 unity Eckardt defends, (b) Certain words in Part I. are 
 expressed in Fart II. by means of synonyms. Thus ri'l^TT rem- 
 nant in 8:6,11,12 is expressed by in;; in 14:2. But cf. nilNoJsn 
 (11:9; 12:14). Again lysH youth (2:8), but D^n^nn (9:17). 
 But cf ^ysn (11:16) and ^■^^^-'S?^ (13:5). Further, rn'Q'J (6:11, 
 14), but -ITD (9:16); t^p2 staff (8:4), but bp"^ (11:7, 10, 14); 
 •py iniquity (3:5,9), but nj^EjIl (13:1); bnj possess (2: 16; 8:12), 
 but &-^Tl (9:4); DM desolate (7:14), but ITiiJ (11:2,3). But 
 the use of synonyms is another prominent characteristic of Zech- 
 ariah,e.^., Ipline (1:16), but m-f blin (2:5) ; n^S temple, 1:16; 
 3:7; 4:9; 7:3; 8:9), but b^^n (6:12, 13, 14; 8:9); T3' stand 
 (3:4), but n:2; (6:5). Cf. the idea "without walls" in niPB 
 (2:8) and Tr« T\'2T\ (2:9). And in Part II., mSS^H plague 
 (14:12,15), but ni^an (14:19); brii< tent (12:7), but Hj™ 
 (14:15); niy flock (10:3), but "X:: (9:16; 10:2); nb'^ (11:1), 
 but "i""IJ (14:10). (c) Syntax, e. g., the Inf. Abs. which in Zech. 
 '1-8 stands sometimes before (0:15), sometimes after (8:21) the 
 verb intended to be strengthened ; in 9-14 on the contrary always 
 before. But the Inf. Abs. occurs but twice in 1-8, and but three 
 times in 9-14 (viz., 11:17 twice, and 12:3), a fact which makes 
 Eckardt's argument somewhat specious {cf further 3:4; 7:5; 12: 
 10). Again Eckardt calls attention to Zechariah's fondness for 
 the figura etymologica, or object accusative in narrower as well as 
 broader sense. But the same is true of chs. 9-14; indeed there 
 are exactly eight instances in Part I. and seven in Part II.: ~^|5 
 r^p (1:2, 15), nbilj nx:p J^jp (1:14; 8:2),nTJT2Jp -}-2^ (3:7), 
 PlWp7p-by -S^n (5:11), X2B'£il2 tOSir (7:9;8:16); and in Part II., 
 
 ^p'''ip;(ii:i3),^n'3n nas'inisan (13:6), nsap-:; (14:12,18), 
 
 yn jyn (14: 16, 18, 19). In this connection it is also to be 
 observed that in both parts the definition of a proper name is 
 explained by means of a common noun or verb; e. g., . . . '^O'^tTi 
 
 •ijpirb (3:1), n?^^-; . . nrjis (6:12) and li'i'Q li:: "iznT (9:3). 
 
THE PROPHECIES OF ZEOHARIAH 87 
 
 Further, Eckardt observes that in Zech. 1-8 the prophet shows a 
 preference for nX with suffixes, rather than for verbal suffixes. But 
 according to his own count (pp. 97 and lOG) ITIX with suffixes 
 occurs in Part I. 10 times and verbal suffixes 17 times; whereas, 
 in Part II. the proportion is 6 to 22, — a not very decisive difPer- 
 ence, especially since the proportion in Part II. proves (as seen 
 above) the exact opposite of Eckardt's hypothesis, viz., the early 
 post-exilic origin of Zech. 9-14. 
 
 These are the chief objections to the genuineness of chs. 9-14. 
 We grant that there are differences between them and Zech. 1-8 
 which at first glance are striking, yet we are not able to conclude 
 that these differences are too great to admit of their integrity, 
 nor to say with Rubinkam, that "what is most characteristically 
 present in 1-8 as a whole, is most characteristically absent from 
 9-14 as a whole." 
 
 II. The arf/Hineufs hi favor of the Zechan'an origin of chs. 
 9-14. — In addition to what has already been claimed in support 
 of the genuineness of these prophecies, we offer the following 
 considerations : 
 
 1. The fundamental ideas of hath j)ar/s are the same. By 
 this we mean that the deeper we go the nearer we approach unity. 
 We are here forced to differ with Driver (p. 332) who claims that 
 "the dominant ideas and representations of chs. 1-8 are very dif- 
 ferent from those either of chs. 9-11 or of chs. 12-14." On the 
 contrary the fundamental difference between Parts I. and II. is 
 not subject but nature (c/. Wellhausen, Encyc. Brit.). Certain 
 similarities are especially noteworthy, viz., (a) An iinusiadly 
 deep, spirifnal tone 2)cri'ades the eniire hook. The call to a true 
 repentance, first sounded forth in the introduction (1:1-7), is 
 developed more and more throughout the entire fourteen chapters, 
 e. g., in the sanctifying of Joshua (3:4), in the message to Zerub- 
 babel, " not by might nor by power but by my S[)irit " (4: 6) , in the 
 conditions of future blessing (6:15), in the answer to the Bethel 
 deputation (7:5-9; 8:10 sq.) ; and in Part II. in the consecration 
 of the remnant of the Philistines (9:7), in the blessings to 
 Ephraim (10:12), in the l)aptism of grace upon Jerusalem 
 (12:10), in the fountain for sin (13:1), in the worship of Jeho- 
 vah (13:9), in the living waters going forth from Jerusalem 
 
0» THE PKOPHECIES OF ZECHARIAH 
 
 (14:8), and in the dedication of everything as holy unto the 
 Lord (14:20, 21). The tone which tempers these prophecies is 
 an extraordinarily deep and spiritual one. (b) There is a similar 
 atiitude of hope and exxteciation in both jiarfs. This is especially 
 important. For example, (a) the return of the whole nation is a 
 prevailing idea of happiness in both parts (2:6, 10; 8:7, 8; 9:12; 
 10:6, 7). (/3) The expectation that Jerusalem shall be inhabited 
 (1:16,17; 2:16; 8:3,8; 12:6; 14:11; 14:10). (y) And that the 
 temple shall be built and become the center of the nation's relig- 
 ious life (1:16,17; 3:7; 6:15; 7:2,3; 9:8; 14:20,21). (8) Mes- 
 sianic hope is peculiarly strong in both (3:8,9; 6:12,13; 9:9,10; 
 11: 12; 12: 10; 13: 1, 7-9). («) Peace and prosperity are expected 
 (3:10; 1:17; 6:13; 8:12,19; 9:10,12,17; 10:1,7,8,10,12; 12:8; 
 14:11; 14:16-19). [i) The idea of God's providence as extend- 
 ing to the whole earth (1:14-17; 2:9, 12; 4:10; 6:5; 9:1, 8, 14; 
 10:3, 5, 9, 12; 12:2; 12:3, 4, 8; 13:7; 14:3, 9). (c) The proph- 
 et's attitude toward Judah is the same in both parts. It is an 
 attitude of supreme regard for Judah's interests, making them 
 second only to the capital (2:2,4, 16; 8:19; 1:12; cf. 8:13, 15; 
 12:2; 14:14; 10:3; 12:4,6,7; 14:21; c/. 9:9, 13; 10:6; 11:14; 
 14:5). (d) The j^rophet's attitude toward the nations, the enemies 
 of the theocracy, is the some in both parts. The whole assembled 
 world are the enemies of Israel [cf. Wellhausen. p. 174). But 
 though they have scattered Judah, Israel and Jerusalem (1:11, 
 and are still coming up to besiege Jerusalem (12:2; 14:2), yet 
 they shall be joined to the Lord in that day (2:15) and worship 
 Jehovah like the Jews (8:20-23; 14:16-19). These are all strik- 
 ing instances of similarity in the fundamental ideas of the two 
 parts. 
 
 2. There arc jwculiarities of iJiumjht common to both parts. 
 (a) TJw habit of dwelling on the same thoiujht. For example, 
 twice in rapid succession the prophet announces Jehovah's prom- 
 ise to Zion, "I will dwell in the midst of thee" (2:14, 15). Twice 
 it is told that the branch shall build the temple of Jehovah 
 (6:12, 13). Twice the nations are described as seeking the Lord 
 of hosts to pray to him (8:21, 22). And twice he pictures the 
 scenes in the streets of Jerusalem in that day (8:4, 5). On the 
 other hand, in Part II. twice in one verse the prophet declares, 
 
THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHARIAH 89 
 
 "And I fed the flock" (11:7). Twice he designates the parents 
 of a false prophet as "the father and the mother who bore him" 
 (13:3). Twice in one verse he predicts, "and ye shall flee" 
 (14:5). And thrice he uses the expression, "to keep the feast 
 of tabernacles" (14:16, 18, 19). (b) The habit of expanding 
 one fundamental thought into the unusual number of five paral- 
 lel clauses (first observed by Koster) ; e. g., 6. -13, 
 (a) "And he shall build the temple of the Lord"; 
 (/3) "And he shall bear the glory"; 
 
 (y) "And shall sit and rule upon his throne"; 
 (8) "And shall be a priest upon his throne"; 
 (e) "And the counsel of peace shall be between them both" ; 
 (c/. 9:5, 7; 1:17; 3:8, 9; 12:4). (c) The habit of referring to a 
 thouglit already introduced; e. g., to the Branch (3:8 and 6:12); 
 "eyes" (3:9 and 4:10); measuring line (1:16 and 2:5, 6); idea 
 of choosing Jerusalem (1:17; 2:16 and 3:2); removing iniquity 
 (3:9; 5:3 s^. and 13:2) ; measurements (2:6; 5:24 and 14:10) ; 
 colors of horses (1:5 and 6:2, 6); the idea of Israel as a "flock" 
 (9:16; 10:2; 11:4 sg.; 13:7); idols (10:2 and 13:2); of "all 
 nations" (11:10; 12:3sg., and 14:2 sg.); shepherds (11:3 sg. 
 and 13:7). Also the "one day" of 3:9 and the day of atonement 
 in 14:16. The author of Job furnishes in this instance a good 
 parallel (e. g., Job 39; 9-11; 21-23). (d) The use made of the 
 cardinal number ^"-two" ; thus two olive trees (4:3), two women 
 (5:9) ; two mountains (6:1), two staves (11:7), two parts (14:2,4) 
 with which cf. 6:13; 9:12; 14:8. (e) The resort made by the 
 prophet to symbolic actions as a mode of iiistructio7i; e. g., the 
 coronation scene in 6:9-15 and the breaking of the two staves in 
 11:4-14. (f) The habit of drawing lessons from the past; e g., 
 1:1-7, 15; 7:7,11-14; 8:11, 13; 9:8; 10:1, 2; 11:4-17 {cf 
 Ezek. 17 and 19 — also parables concerning the past), 12:11; 
 14:5, 3, 21. All these are peculiarities of thought quite charac- 
 teristic of our prophet, and worthy of more than passing notice. 
 
 3. Certain peculiarities of diction and style favor unity of 
 axdhorship. Eckardt (p. 104) frankly allows that the following 
 word-list has weight in favor of the unity of Zechariah; thus bb'JJ 
 (2:13; 14:l),-l5ilJ (8:10; 11:12), npiT (5:4; 8: 17; 10:2; 13:3^)^ 
 Orn (1:12; 10:6^)', on: (1:17; 10:2), TCH 3:4; 9:7) Toyn (3:4; 
 
90 THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHARIAH 
 
 13:2). For "south" both parts have 3j3 (7:7; 14:4, 10), and 
 also -7rn (6:6; 9:14)). Especially 2Tr; pass. (2:8; 9:5; 12:6; 
 c/. I4I1O, 11), "OJpn with b and Inf. (6:7^; 12:9) but also in sense 
 of quaero (8:2l',"22; 11:16); and the very noteworthy ^1570 
 niB'-^ (7:14; 9, 8). These coincidences in vocabulary are unde- 
 niably powerful witnesses in favor of unity. To these may be 
 added the following, which in many respects are quite as remark- 
 able; e.g., nSC (7:5; 12:10), nb^rj (1:8; 10:11), ^^n (3:3,4; 
 14:4),n7pTi: (2':14;4:10;10:7),V^"aJri(5:8;ll:12),r!t:3(l:16; 
 12:1), b^5'(3:2; 11:6), blS-jir-b^l "fr"by (4:11; 12:67c/. 4:3; 
 3:1), ^in 0-2:10; 11:17), -i^r^S (2:li; 9 = 9), -n (4:7; 12:10), 
 ly© (8:16; 14:10), ba:^ (6:13; 9:10), n-Jli^ (9:16; 2:16; 18:5), 
 'iO; (4:9; 12:1), i'JS (5:3; 9:15; 10:2,778), nyt-J (6:10; 7:12; 
 l7lO; 14:17; cf. 12 privative in 7:14; 9:8; LXX., Lowe, p. 82). 
 The use of the expression "one toward another" in its different 
 forms r™-ns< :2J'S< (7:9,10) and ^TO-^S ^^ (8:10, 16, 17; 3:10; 
 11:6,9; 14:3), n-« for the indefinite article (5:7; 12:7). The 
 expressions "holy land" (2:l(j) and "mount of Olives" (14:4) 
 nowhere else used in the O. T. The similar modes of expression 
 and terminology: (a) ^"^TJ (3:8) and "^ and '^r^y (13:7). 
 (6) •'n^H': (8:23) and "C^r (9:7). (c) rrJZLVJ'] nyTf (4:2) and 
 lr\iMS'>r7.2 minE'if^J (12:12). The author's preference for and fre- 
 quent use of vocatives, c. (j., Zion (2:11; 9:13), great mountain 
 (4:7), daughter of Zion (2:14; 9:9), O all flesh (2:17), Satan 
 (3:2), Joshua (3:8), O sword (13:7), daughter of Jerusalem 
 (9:9), prisoners of hope (9:12), O Lebanon (11:1), O fir-tree 
 and Oaks of Bashan (11:2), O poor of the flock (11:7). Again, 
 clumsy diction is a characteristic of both parts, c. y., IV (4 times 
 in 1:17). Uri (4 times in 8:19), ]r,'j (3 times in 8:12),lnsiT 
 (3 times in 5:5-8), "lab (11 times), n"E-JJ?p (9 times) and t^^'ji'i 
 (5 times in 12:12-14). Lastly, the .^cn'ptio plena and Aci-iptio 
 defecfiva alternate most remarkably in both parts: thus in Part I., 
 DrriiaS (1:2,5), but nrnhX (1:4,6;8:14); nnujr (2:11;5:7), 
 but niTC^ (1:11; 7:7); D^Xi::' (3:3), but D-J^Sin (3:4), nisiypl 
 (5:8),' but niS5 (5:7); niS^^V (5:9; 6:5), but nisr (6:1); 
 niltjy (6: 11), but n'ntjyn (6:14); X^rb (8:10),but Xr (2:7); 
 
THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHAKIAH 91 
 
 TO (1:17; 2:17), but "!? (8:20); ''nTOV and ^ri- (8:20). In 
 Part II., Tli^nin (9:5), but Wah (10:5,11); TT'^t (10:4), but 
 "j;:b (9:9); TSn (ll:10),but nsri (11:14); nb-fi^T j-oir (12:8), 
 but nb'C^T n-a^ (12:7) ; ninsdTi , but also nhs-oJTJ (12:14). in 
 what other book is the orthography so vacillating? But cf. 
 further, "msr^ and "n-^3 (14:5), istSSnS Niph. Inf. (13:3) and 
 inSjSnS (13:4) also Niph. Inf. from the same root, but formed 
 after the n"b manner. Likewise DTizirni (10:10; 13:7) and 
 Q-'rnn-din'l (10:6); and -XSS (9:16) with -s:2 rz'Z (10:2). In 
 our judgment the orthography of the Book of Zechariah is one 
 of the strongest evidences that it was all written by one hand. 
 
 4. Zech. 1-8 shows familiarity with the same books of j>i'oph- 
 ecy as those so often quoted by the author ofchs. 9-14. (a) Zech. 
 1-8 sJioivs familiarity with Ezekicl. One or two examples will 
 suffice. In Ezek. 35 the announcement "ye shall know that I 
 am the Lord " occurs in vs. 9, 12 and 15. The same thought is 
 found in Zech. 2:13, 15; 4:9; (k15. This, however, is not so 
 noteworthy in itself; but when it is observed that the unusual 
 idiom 212"^ ~CS'2 (Zech. 7:14) is found in essentially the same 
 form in Ezek. 85:7, it becomes more striking, as it illustrates 
 the fact that whole sections of earlier prophecy are reechoed 
 in the book of Zechariah, — and no book more naturally than 
 Ezekiel. Especially is this phenomenon noteworthy when we 
 remember that the preceding chapter (Ezek. 34) containing the 
 figure of the shepherd and his flock was found to form the basis of 
 the allegory in Zech. 11:4-14. The natural conclusion is, that 
 Zechariah was familiar with Ezekiel, and that only when both 
 both parts of his prophecies are studi(^d together is their inter- 
 relation explained. For other instances, (f. Ezek. 11:19, with 
 Zech. 7:12 and Ezek. 11:20 with Zech. 8:8. (b) Zech. 1:8 
 exhibits acquaintanceship tvith Jeremiah. Thus the inquiry, 
 "would it be marvelous in my eyes?" (Zech. 8:6) seems to have 
 a basis in Jer. 32:27, "Is anything too hard for me?'' Also the 
 clause "i^iy^a'an yi73li-nS ""m ( Zech. 6:15) is found in Jer. 17:24. 
 
 1;;.- T . tt:' ' 
 
 But especially the double allusion in Zech. to the "Branch" (3:8; 
 6:12) which has its foundation in Jeremiah's "Branch of right- 
 
92 THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHARIAH 
 
 eousness" 23:5; 33:15). Dependent relations also exist between 
 Zech. 7:13 and Jer. 11:11, Zech. 7:14 and Jer. 16:13, Zech. 8:8 
 and Jer. 31:23. Likewise, according to Wildeboer [Entstehung 
 des A. T. Kanons, % 26), between Zech. 1:12 and Jer. 25:11, 12; 
 29:10, etc. (c) Close resemblances also exist between Zech. 1-8 
 and Isa. 40-66. In Isa. 48:20 Jacob is exhorted to "flee from 
 the Chaldeans," so Zion in Zech. 2:10, cf. Isa. 52:11. The 
 expression "in truth and righteousness" (Zech. 8:8) stands in 
 contrast with that in Isa. 48:1, "not in truth nor in righteous- 
 ness.' Zechariah's idea of fasting (chs. 7 and 8) that it termi- 
 nates on the individual and is of little importance in comparison 
 to executing judgment and mercy, is but an enlargement of the 
 idea in Isa. 58:3-7, where the prophet teaches that true fasting 
 consists in feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, removing 
 burdens and letting the oppressed go free. 
 
 5. Finally, the history of modern critical opinion is a tacit 
 proof of the unity of Zechariah. As we have already seen, the 
 variety of critical opinion is simply marvelous. To almost every 
 century, from Amos to Judas Maccabeus, has modern scholarship 
 assigned chs. 9-14, with comparatively little unanimity. This 
 fact in itself, in our opinion, gives room for doubt as to the 
 present results of criticism; but on the other hand, teaches the 
 appropriateness of prophecy to speak to every age. 
 
 One further question remains: viz., how came chs. 9-14, if 
 anonymous, to be added to Zech. 1-8? Answers: 1. Stade replies 
 that they were not intended so, as chs. 9-14, with Malachi, formed 
 at one time a small collection by themselves, the antithesis of Mai. 
 1: 11 and 14:9 having caused their separation (c/. Kuiper). But 
 this explains only how Malachi and Zech. 9:14 were separated, 
 which is altogether gratuitous, as there is no proof whatever that 
 they ever formed one anonymous collection by themselves. The 
 real problem rather is, how came chs. 9-14 to be added to Zecha- 
 riah's prophecies? 2. Cornill (p. 204) answers that "chs. 9-14, 
 like Malachi, were anonymous, but beiiig less of a unit than Mal- 
 achi they were united to Zech. 1-8, whereas Malachi was set ofp 
 by itself." (So also Wildel)oer.) But this only shows that chs. 
 9-14 are not a unit or complete in themselves {cf. Kuenen, p. 
 
THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHAEIAH 93 
 
 425; Grutzmacher, pp. 50, 51; Kirkpatrick, p. -tS'i; Cheyne, JQR. 
 I., 1889, p. 80). We grant the similarity of the three titles, 
 9:1; 12:1 and Mnl. 1:1; but, on the other hand, we ask: (a) If 
 chs. 9—14 are of pre-exilic origin, why were they added to the 
 post-exilic prophecies of Zechariah and not to Obadiah or Jonah ? 
 (h) If of GrsBco-Maccabean origin, how found they place in the 
 prophetic Canon while Daniel did not? Or, if this is not so diffi- 
 cult, why were they not added to Haggai instead of Zech. 1-8? 
 (c) What real evidence have we that 12:1 is not original? 
 
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION. 
 
 Summing up the results of our study of the prophecies of 
 Zechariah we conclude: 
 
 1. That chs. 9-14 are of jjost-exilic origin; because (a) 
 the exile is represented as an event of the past. (6) The author 
 dissociates himself from pre-exilic events, (c) Certain passages 
 promising victory and temporal prosperity are so unlike the 
 prophecies of Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, and Jeremiah, — the alleged 
 contemporaries of the authors of 9-14 — that they could only have 
 been misleading to peoples confronted by the catastrophies of 
 722 and 586 B. C. {d) The development of the Messianic idea 
 demands a late date, not only on account of the newness of the 
 prophet's pictures and his attempt to unify previous predictions, 
 but also on account of the highly apocalyptic character of these 
 oracles throughout, [e) The manifest dependence of the prophet 
 on Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Isa. 40-00 corroborates the same con- 
 clusion. And further, because all the passages brought forward 
 in favor of the pre-exilic origin of these prophecies can, in our 
 judgment, be better explained in the period after the exile; e. g., 
 9:13, concerning the "T ^DS , which is confessedly inexplicable in 
 the eighth century B. C. 
 
 2. TItat these chapters are not, however, late post-exilic; 
 because, (r/,) in matters pertaining to language and style the dis- 
 tinctive characteristics of the Hebrew of Grnieco-Mnccabean times 
 are chiefly wanting. Thus, there are few Aramaisms. The scriptio 
 plena and scriptio defectiva are strikingly confused. The late 
 form of the Pers. Pron. 'IS does not predominate over 'jbS. The 
 ending "li is used but twice and consequently has no weight. The 
 
94 THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHAEIAH 
 
 nota accKsatict tM^ with suffixes occurs less often in clis. 9-14 
 than in Zech. 1-8. The article is not specially wanting; neither 
 is the use made of the Inf. Abs. nor of clumsy diction more pro- 
 nounced in Part II. than Part I. (h) On the other hand, the 
 historical data alleged in favor of a Grseco-Maccabean date are. in 
 our judgment, quite foreign to the prophecies; e. g., (a) 14:9, 
 instead of being a polemic against Mai. 1:11 by a writer living in 
 Grecian times, as Stade claims, is a simple reflection of the age of 
 Darius Hystaspes when the whole world was practically under 
 one sovereign. (S) 12:2 6, instead of making Judah fight with 
 the enemy against Jerusalem, represents Judah as fighting with 
 Jerusalem against the enemy, (y) 12:12-14 divides the congre- 
 gation into civil and ecclesiastical divisions, and portrays not 
 Greek but early Persian times before the house of David had 
 degenerated. (S) Another is 10:10, 11, in which, as in Isa. 
 27:12; Ps. 83:9; Mic. 5: 4, i3, there is absolutely no basis for inter- 
 preting Assyria and Egypt to mean the Seleucidse and Ptolemies ; 
 but which, on the contrary, after the analogy of Ezr. 6:22 (c/. 
 2 Kgs., 23:29; Ezr. 5:13; Neh. 13:6) implies Persia and Egypt, 
 (e) Also 9:13 — the chief passage in favor of a late date. For, 
 in our opinion, the reference to the "T '''23, is too indefinite to be 
 after 333 B. C Javan experiences defeat instead of victory. The 
 context does not suit Grecian times. Furthermore, the subsequent 
 description in 9 : 14-17 is apocalyptic. 
 
 3. Th((f tlicse chapters had their origin in the period between 
 518 and 516 B. C. For, [a) Javan was already a world-power 
 before the beginning of the 5th century B. C, as shown by both 
 scripture {rf. Gen. 10:2; Isa. 66:19; Ezek. 27:13; Joel 4:6), 
 and history; r. g., in 516 B. C. Darius was suddenly called to 
 look after Persian interests in Asia Minor; in 500 the lonians 
 revolted; a year later the Athenians burned Sardis, and in 490 
 Marathon was fought and Persia was defeated. These facts show 
 clearly enough that Javan was a, world-power in Darius' reign. 
 Our prophecies do not require us to think of the Greeks as the 
 only world-power of the prophet's day. [h) The temple was still 
 in process of construction. This is evident (a) irom the exultant 
 Messianic hope and expectation which chai'acterizes these prophe- 
 cies, and which no age would so naturally have produced as when 
 
THE PKOPHECIES OP ZECHARIAH 95 
 
 the temple was reaching completion. (/3) From the hortatory 
 tone of the prophet, which was especially appropriate in this 
 period, — particularly the prophet's frequent reference to history 
 as an argument for the present, (y) From the fact that Israel's 
 chief interests are made to center in Jerusalem where the temple 
 was. (8) Certain passages are best explained in this period (e. g., 
 9:8, 10, 12: 10:2; 13:2-6; 14:9,10; 18:20). (e) The absence 
 of all allusion to any single event after the dedication of the tem- 
 ple in 516 B. C. (c) Again, no period allows of the unity of 
 chs. 9-14 so well as the years 518-516 B. C. 
 
 4. That these chapters stand in close relation to chs. 1-8, 
 having most prohahhj been composed by Zecliariah himself. The 
 common objections to the unity of the book of Zechariah, viz., 
 that in Part II. there are no visions, no dates, no Satan, no inter- 
 preting angels, no eyes, etc., as there are in Part I., have, in our 
 judgment, but little force. Even Eckardts arguments on the 
 basis of language lose their value, inasmuch as the use of words 
 in different senses and the employment of synonyms are quite as 
 characteristic of each part separately as of both parts together. 
 On the other hand there are positive reasons for attributing these 
 last six chapters to Zech, viz., (a) the fundamental ideas of both 
 parts are the same. Thus the same spiritual tone and the same 
 attitude of hope and expectation pervade both parts. Likewise 
 the prophet's attitude toward Judah and toward the enemies of 
 the theocracy is the same throughout. (&) Certain peculiarities 
 of thought are common to both parts, e. g.. the habit of dwelling on 
 the same thought, of expanding it into separate ideas, and of refer- 
 ring to a thought already introduced, especially the habit of draw- 
 ing lessons from the past, (c) Certain peculiarities of diction 
 and style bind Parts I. and II. together, in our opinion, quite as 
 firmly as those which unite chs. 9-11 to chs. 12-14, e. g., (o) the 
 words 2Ztj and "^Tl for "south" in both parts, wp2l in sense of 
 qiiaero, and with ^ and Inf. in the sense of .tfiidco, both in both 
 parts, etc. (/3j the freqvient use of vocatives throughout, (y) The 
 clumsy diction and frequent repetitions in i)()tli parts. (8) But 
 especially the alternating use of scriptio jdena and scriptio defec- 
 tiva, which characterizes so conspicuously both parts and renders 
 it almost conclusive that one author wrote the whole book. 
 
BSlfe65.4 .R66. 
 
 The prophecies of Zechariah : with 
 
 Princeton Theological Semmary-Speer Library 
 
 1 1012 00056 7810 
 
 044BCE,, 289 
 
 86-26-07 32180 MC