The Interrelationship between Vision and Oracle in Zechariah 1-6

THE INTERRELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VISION AND ORACLE IN ZECHARIAH 1–6 Michael R. Stead This essay argues that the ‘vision’ and ‘oracle’ components of Zechariah’s night visions must not be separated from each other, and that each interprets the other. This is, admittedly, an ambitious undertaking, given that there is a trend in biblical scholarship, going back more than a century, that takes for granted that the visions and oracles were composed independently and can be interpreted in isolation from each other. Rothstein’s monograph, Die Nachtgesichte des Sacharja,1 explores the vision components only (1.7-15; 2.1-4; 2.5-9; 3.1-7; 4.1-6, 10-14; 5.1-11; and 6.1-8), without any detailed analysis of the ‘oracles’ in 1.16-17; 2.10-17; 3.8-10; 4.6aβ-10a; and 6.9-15. Since then, there has been a stream of works which have similarly concentrated on ‘Die Nachtgesichte des Sacharja’ (often with the same title)—see, for example, Rignell,2 Bič,3 Seybold,4 Jeremias,5 Bosshard-Nepustil,6 Delkurt,7 1. Johann Wilhelm Rothstein, Die Nachtgesichte des Sacharja: Studien zur Sacharjaprophetie und zur jüdischen Geschichte im ersten nachexilischen Jahrhundert (BWANT, 8; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1910). 2. Lars Gösta Rignell, Die Nachtgesichte des Sacharja: Eine exegetische Studie (Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1950). 3. Milos Bič, Die Nachtgesichte des Sacharja: Eine Auslegung von Sacharja 1–6 (BSt, 42; Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1964). 4. Klaus Seybold, Bilder zum Tempelbau: Die Visionen des Propheten Sacharja (Stuttgarter Bibelstudien, 70; Stuttgart: KBW Verlag, 1974). 5. Christian Jeremias, Die Nachtgesichte des Sacharja Untersuchungen zu ihrer Stellung im Zusammenhang der Visionsberichte im Alten Testament und zu ihrem Bildmaterial (FRLANT, 117; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977). 6. Erich Bosshard-Nepustil, Rezeptionen von Jesaja 1–39 im Zwölfprophetenbuch: Untersuchungen zur literarischen Verbindung von Prophetenbüchern in babylonischer und persischer Zeit (OBO, 154; Freiburg, Schweiz: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997), pp. 377–93. 7. Holger Delkurt, Sacharjas Nachtgesichte: Zur Aufnahme und Abwandlung prophetischer Traditionen (BZAW, 302; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2000). 2 ‘I Lifted My Eyes and Saw’ Behrens,8 and Rokay.9 In general, these works examine only the vision component of Zech. 1–6.10 As a convenient shorthand for the purposes of this essay, we shall refer to this approach as the ‘Rothstein tradition’. Petitjean’s work, Les Oracles du Proto-Zacharie, also assumes the separability of vision and oracle, but explores the division from the opposite direction.11 Petitjean analysed the ‘oracles’ (1.1-6, [14], 16-17; 2.6-13; 3.8-10; 4.6aβ-10a; 6.9-15; 7.4-14; and ch. 8), and argued that they were written as independent literary units (rather than as interpretations of the night visions) and composed by the prophet Zechariah to address three discrete historical phases—the return from exile, the commencement of temple construction, and temple completion.12 An important counter to this trend of separation of vision and oracle is Beuken’s work,13 which understands the visions in Zech. 1–6 with reference to the accompanying oracles. However, Beuken’s approach only gives limited support to the argument of this essay, in that he concludes that Zechariah’s work has undergone a substantial redaction in a Chronistic milieu. Though accepting that elements of the oracles were composed by Zechariah in the historical context c. 518 BCE, Beuken posits that parts of the oracles reflect a much later theological viewpoint, added in a chronistic redaction. For example, Beuken detects the hand of this redactor at several points in Zech. 3 in the exalted role given to the priesthood14 and similarly argues that Zech. 6 (with its depiction of an 8. Achim Behrens, Prophetische Visionsschilderungen im Alten Testament: Sprachliche Eigenarten, Funktion und Geschichte einer Gattung (AOAT, 292; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2002). 9. Zoltán Rokay, Die Nachtgesichte des Propheten Sacharja: Eine einzelexegetische Untersuchung zur Bestimmung ihrer Eigenart (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2011). 10. The exception is Rignell, Nachtgesichte, pp. 58, 81, 135–42, who argues that the oracles have to be interpreted in the context of the visions, even if they might have been composed at an earlier time. 11. Albert Petitjean, Les oracles du Proto-Zacharie: Un programme de restauration pour la communauté juive après l’exil (EBiB; Paris: Lecoffre/J. Gabalda et Cie, 1969). 12. Petitjean, Les oracles, pp. 442–43. Cf. Galling Kurt Galling, ‘Die Exilswende in der Sicht des Propheten Sacharja’, in Studien zur Geschichte Israels im persischen Zeitalter (ed. Kurt Galling; Tübingen: Mohr, 1964), pp. 123ff., who argues that visions 1, 2, 3, and 8 address the period before the return from exile, whereas visions 5, 6, and 7 address the period around temple construction. 13. Willem A. M. Beuken, Haggai–Sacharja 1–8: Studien zur Überlieferungsgeschichte der frühnachexilischen Prophetie (SSN, 10; Assen: van Gorcum, 1967). 14. Beuken, Haggai–Sacharja 1–8, pp. 296–97. 1 STEAD The Interrelationship between Vision and Oracle 3 enthroned Priest apparently on par with a Davidic king) is likewise a product of a later theological era.15 Trend and counter-trend are apparent in the divergent approaches in more recent commentaries, for example in the commentaries by David Petersen and Eric and Carol Meyers. Petersen argues that ‘this distinction [between vision and oracle] is critical since, as many scholars maintain, the visions comprise a quite distinct body of material from the oracles’.16 According to Petersen, the oracles reflect a viewpoint that is more theologically conservative than that reflected in the visions, and that the oracles ‘function as responses to, elucidations of, or corrections to the visions’.17 The visions provide a prominent place for the high priest [whereas] the oracles present the royal figure as having special importance (Zech. 4:610; 6:12-13). The oracles also emphasize the important role of the prophet (Zech. 2:13, 15 [9, 11E]; 4:9; 6:15). To this extent the oracles are conservative, buttressing two traditional and complementary roles, Davidide and prophet—which stem from the polity of the monarchic period. Moreover, the place of Jerusalem, the city of Yahweh, as site of his blessing, is emphasized in the oracles (1:14-16; 2:12 [8E], 14). This too is evidence of a traditional stratum, the conviction that Yahweh will reside where he did in an earlier period.18 In contrast, Meyers and Meyers argue that the oracles are not corrections to, but explanations of the visions. The ideas contained within the oracles amplify themes found in the visions and at the same time are based upon features of these associated visions. In other words, vision and oracle complement and supplement each other. They are alternative modes of prophetic communication, used in tandem by the prophet. Each is particularly suited to an aspect of his message, and so the message is communicated in two modes. But the message is incomplete without the mutuality of these two forms of prophetic language.19 15. Beuken, Haggai–Sacharja 1–8, p. 281. 16. David L. Petersen, ‘Zechariah’s Visions: A Theological Perspective’, VT 34 (1984), pp. 195–206 (196–97). 17. David L. Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia, PA: Westminster John Knox Press, 1984), p. 120. 18. Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, p. 122. It is interesting to note, in passing, that Petersen has come to the opposite conclusion to Beuken, who argued that the oracles give an exalted role given to the priesthood. 19. Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 25B; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1987), p. lix. 4 ‘I Lifted My Eyes and Saw’ The preliminary sketch of trend and counter-trend illustrates that the relationship between vision and oracle in Zech. 1–8 is a vexed one. There is no unquestioned consensus of the scholarly community. For this reason, I will now proceed to test the assumption that vision and oracle are separable and distinct elements. Can Vision and Oracle Be Disentwined from Each Other? It is clear from the brief sketch of the history of interpretation over the last century that there is a significant body of scholarship which treats vision and oracle in Zechariah as separable and distinct. But on what basis is this separation justified? To explore this issue, it is helpful to contrast the different demarcations between vision and oracle in the ‘Rothstein tradition’ and that as argued for by David Petersen. As noted, the Rothstein tradition identifies the visions as 1.7-15; 2.1-4; 2.5-9; [3.1-7];20 4.1-6aα, 10b-14; 5.1-4; 5.511; and 6.1-8. David Petersen gives a different demarcation for three of the vision/oracle complexes. The differences are highlighted in Table 1. Table 1 Petersen 1st vision 1.7-13 Oracle 1.14-17 Rothstein 1st vision 1.7-15 Oracle embedded in vision Petersen 3rd vision 2.5-9 Oracle 2.10-17 Rothstein 3rd vision 2.5-9 Oracle 2.10-17 Petersen.. 4th vision 3.1-5 Oracle 3.6-10 Rothstein 4th vision 3.1-7 Oracle embedded in vision Embedded oracle vv. 8b9 Oracle 1.16-17 Oracle 3.8-10 Not all scholars in the Rothstein tradition provide a rationale for the point of division between vision and oracle. For our purposes, we will use the explanation given by Seybold. Seybold argues for a division based on introductory formulae (Einleitungsformeln). So finden sich die üblichen Einleitungsformeln zu einzelnen Prophetensprüchen, etwa die Botenspruchformel: “So hat Jahwe gesprochen” 20. Zech. 3.1-7 is in square brackets to highlight the fact that some scholars regard this vision as a later addition to the vision cycle. 1 STEAD The Interrelationship between Vision and Oracle 5 (1,[14].16.17; 2,12; 3,7; 4,6; 6,12), die Wortereignisformel: “Das Wort Jahwes geschah zu” (4,8; 6,1 [sic—6,9]), die Kurzformel: “Spruch Jahwes” (1,16; 2,[9].10.14; 3,9.10; [5,4]) und vergleichbare Wendungen (1,17; 3,8; 4,6) innerhalb des Textkomplexes vor allem in den Texten zwischen den Visionen.21 For the purposes of our comparison with Petersen’s approach, it is critical that we note that there are three verse references in square brackets in Seybold’s list—1.14; 2.9; and 5.4. Seybold does not highlight the reason why these verses are bracketed. However, when one compares the bracketed verses to his demarcation of the visions, it is clear that these three verses each occur within a vision, rather than ‘in den Texten zwischen den Visionen’. However, if this is (as it seems) the explanation for the square brackets, then Zech. 3.7 also should appear in brackets. There would appear to be a serious inconsistency between a methodology which purports to separate vision and oracle based on formalae and the actual demarcation of visions in the Rothstein tradition, in that there are four verses where the ‘oracle’ marker occurs within ‘vision’ boundaries: Zech. 1.14 Zech. 2.9 Zech. 3.7 Zech. 5.4 Then the angel who was speaking to me said, ‘Proclaim this word: Thus says YHWH of Hosts (‫)כה אמר יהוה צבאות‬ “I am very jealous for Jerusalem and Zion…’” ‘And I myself will be a wall of fire around it’—Oracle of YHWH (‫‘—)נאם־יהוה‬and I will be its glory within’. ‘Thus says YHWH of Hosts (‫)כה־אמר יהוה צבאות‬: “If you will walk in my ways and keep my requirements, then you will govern my house and have charge of my courts…”’ ‘I will send it out’—Oracle of YHWH of Hosts ( ‫נאם יהוה‬ ‫‘—)צבאות‬and it will enter the house of the thief and the house of him who swears falsely by my name…’ There is no combination of the Botenspruchformel (‫)כה־אמר יהוה‬, Wortereignisformel (‫)ויהי דבר־יהוה אלי‬, and Kurzformel (‫ )נאם יהוה‬or variations thereon which can explain the delineation of oracles as they are (uniformly!) identified in the Rothstein tradition. Petersen’s approach has the advantage of greater consistency. In Petersen’s analysis, the first vision ends in v. 13, and the oracle (which contains both ‫ נאם יהוה‬and ‫ )אמר יהוה‬runs from vv. 14-17. 1:14-17 is an oracular response to the first vision. That first vision concludes in v. 13 with a very general statement of good news, ‘YHWH then answered the messenger who spoke to me with kind and consoling 21. Seybold, Bilder zum Tempelbau, p. 13. 6 ‘I Lifted My Eyes and Saw’ words’. And yet, what precisely was the purport of those kind and consoling words? It is the answer to this question which the oracular additions address.22 Petersen similarly argues that the vision in Zech. 3 concludes at v. 5, and vv. 6-10 contain ‘two oracular responses and one deuteroprophetic response’.23 This means that phrase ‫ כה־אמר יהוה‬in Zech. 3.7 occurs within the oracle component, whereas for scholars in the Rothstein tradition, these words are understood to be an embedded oracle that the interpreting angel speaks on YHWH’s behalf within the context of the vision. Petersen (again consistent with his approach elsewhere) identifies Zech. 2.8b-9 as an oracle—‘the oracle in 2.8b-9 [Eng. 2.4b-5] comprises YHWH’s word to Zechariah, to the ’îš/na‘ar, and to the people’.24 However, it is clear that Petersen regards this ‘oracle’ as an intrinsic part of the third vision, from his concluding comment ‘Such was the task of the third vision and the oracle it contained’.25 I will argue below that the acknowledgment that a vision can (in this instance) contain an oracle is problematic for the wider argument that ‘the visions comprise a quite distinct body of material from the oracles’.26 Zechariah 5.4 is even more problematic. Neither Peterson nor the Rothstein tradition identifies Zech. 5.4 as a separate and distinct oracle, and for good reason. Zechariah 5.4 explains the significance of the flying scroll and is tightly integrated into the sixth vision and into the wider context of Zech. 5.1–6.8, and would leave a gaping hole if it were excised from the text. Thus, while there is a higher degree of consistency to Peterson’s position when compared to those in the Rothstein tradition, even this is not completely consistent with a demarcation on purely formal grounds. If we were consistently to follow the principle indicated by Seybold that oracles were marked by the Botenspruchformel (‫)כה־אמר יהוה‬, the Wortereignisformel (‫)ויהי דבר־יהוה אלי‬, and/or the Kurzformel (‫)נאם יהוה‬, the full list of oracles would be 1.14-17; 2.8b-17 (Eng. 2.4b-13); 3.6-10; 4.6aβ-10a; 5.4; and 6.9-14. This corresponds to the list of oracles identified by Meyers and Meyers.27 Their wide (and consistent) definition of oracle is not problematic for their analysis because they do not 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 1 Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, pp. 120–21. Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, p. 202. Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, p. 172. Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, p. 172, emphasis added. Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, p. 172. Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, p. 132. STEAD The Interrelationship between Vision and Oracle 7 consider vision and oracle to be distinct and separate bodies of material. Rather, as already quoted above, ‘vision and oracle complement and supplement each other. They are alternative modes of prophetic communication, used in tandem by the prophet.’ For the sake of the argument, let us take Seybold’s principle to its consistent conclusion, and treat Zech. 2.8b-9 and Zech. 5.4 also as secondary (and severable) oracular additions. The result of this would be a watertight separation between vision and oracle. However, it is important to realise the implications of such an exegetical move. Excising all oracles entirely mutes the voice of YHWH in all of the visions, except for the contentless reference to his ‘kind and comforting words’ in 1.13. Since YHWH’s speech occurs in oracles, and the oracles are ‘a quite distinct body of material’, YHWH ceases to say anything in the visions.28 The implications of this approach prompt some key questions—should vision and oracle always be entirely separated from each other? Are vision and oracle separate and distinct bodies of material elsewhere in the scriptures, or might we expect a vision to contain an embedded oracle? To address these questions, it is helpful to turn to Long’s analysis of vision reports in the Hebrew Bible. Building on the earlier work of M. Sister and F. Horst, Long identifies three types of vision reports. Long’s first type is the ‘oracle vision’, which consists of ‘a short report, dominated by question-and-answer dialogue, wherein the visionary image is simple and unidimensional, providing an occasion for oracle’.29 Long cites Amos 7.7-8; 8.1-2; Jer. 1.11-14; and 24.1-10 as typical examples. The visions in Zech. 1–6 are a development of this type of symbolic vision exemplified in Amos and Jeremiah. On this basis, it is entirely reasonable for us to expect that an explanatory ‘word of YHWH’ should be part of the vision in Zech. 1–6. As noted by Floyd, ‘[t]he vision report genre typically contains some explication of the symbolic figures that are 28. Jeremias, Die Nachtgesichte, p. 229, argues that the absence of direct speech from YHWH in the visions is part of the emergence of apocalyptic. Whereas in earlier prophecy, YHWH himself spoke directly, now he speaks through an intermediary (an interpreting angel). There is an unacknowledged circularity in this argument. It should hardly be surprising that there is little direct speech by YHWH in the ‘visions’ when a prior decision has been taken to exclude oracles (which—by definition—are the direct speech of YHWH) from the analysis. 29. Burke O. Long, ‘Reports of Visions among the Prophets’, JBL 95 (1976), pp. 353–65 (357), emphasis added. 8 ‘I Lifted My Eyes and Saw’ visualized by prophetic recipients of visions, and this explication frequently takes the form of oracular speech’.30 This observation is confirmed by Behrens’ comprehensive formcritical analysis of the genre of the prophetic vision report.31 Behrens argues that a prophetic vision report consists of two elements—the vision proper and the subsequent dialogue between the prophet and a heavenly figure—and that each of these elements typically shares a common form. Behrens’ analysis recognises that there are instances where an oracle is embedded within a vision. He includes the oracles in Zech. 1.14-15; 3.67; and 5.4 within the boundaries of their respective prophetic vision reports. Based on the examples of prophetic visions elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, we should not expect that vision and oracle will always be distinct bodies of material. Occurrences of formal markers introducing divine speech are not inconsistent with a prophetic vision report. The implication of this is that there is no formal or logical reason why a vision cannot contain an oracle. Distinguishing the ‘Original’ from the ‘Additional’ Oracles Our analysis thus far has led to the conclusion that we ought to at least countenance the possibility that some of the visions in Zech. 1–6 may contain an oracle. How might we distinguish between an oracle that is original to a vision and one that is a secondary addition? There are two broad answers to this question—one which appeals to historical background and the other which uses formal grounds. The first approach analyses vision and oracle in light of a posited historical background, and identifies as secondary additions that which do not fit the historical reconstruction. For example, Redditt argues that the original version of Zech. 1–6 did not contain the three passages that refer to Joshua and Zerubbabel (3.1-10; 4.6aβ-10a; 6.11b-13). ‘The [original] night visions were composed for Jews still in Babylon to urge them to return home and participate in God’s new order’.32 Redditt argues that the oracle in 2.10-17 is part of the original sequence: [t]he exhortation in 2:10-17 calls upon the exiles to flee Babylon, return to Zion, and experience the presence of God… The addition of the 30. Michael H. Floyd, Minor Prophets. Part 2 (FOTL, 22; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), p. 328. 31. Behrens, Prophetische Visionsschilderungen. 32. Paul L. Redditt, ‘Zerubbabel, Joshua, and the Night Visions of Zechariah’, CBQ 54 (1992), pp. 249–59 (254–55). 1 STEAD The Interrelationship between Vision and Oracle 9 Joshua/Zerubbabel materials (4:6b-10a; 6:11b-13; 3:1-10) provided the visions with new contents and directed them to a new audience.33 The problem of this kind of approach is the subjectivity and circularity inherent in the historical reconstruction. We have very little evidence of the historical circumstances of the early post-exilic period apart from that which can be gleaned from texts like Zech. 1–6. Before we excise certain oracles because they do not ‘fit’, we must ask the question whether this is a problem with the oracle or with the historical reconstruction. It is instructive to note that Redditt and the Rothstein tradition come to opposite conclusions on Zech. 2.10-17—for Redditt, it is original, whereas for the others is the secondary. This method is ultimately a self-confirming circularity, because it posits an historical background, excises the texts that do not fit the historical reconstruction, and the congruity of the remaining text ‘confirms’ the initial assumptions about the historical situation. A second approach to this question is to divide Zechariah’s oracles into ‘embedded’ (original) and ‘separate’ (secondary) oracles on formal grounds. For example, Clark distinguishes between an ‘embedded oracle’ and a ‘separate oracle’ based on his analysis of the structural features of Zechariah’s visions and oracles. He argues that 2.10-17, 4.6aβ-10a, and 6.9-15 have little formal connection with their adjacent visions and are best treated as separate units, whereas 1.14-17; 2.8b-9; 3.6-10; and 5.3-4 are embedded oracles that are ‘thoroughly integrated’ with their respective contexts. Zechariah 1.14-17 and 3.6-10 cannot be separated because ‘both constitute a complete angelic utterance, and their removal would leave an opening quotative formula with nothing to follow’.34 Clark concludes that ‘there is no real ground for separating this [embedded oracular] material from its traditional context in the vision. Parallels to such passages may perhaps be seen in Amos 8:3 and Jer. 1:14-19.’35 While there is merit in this distinction between ‘embedded’ and ‘separate’ oracles, it is not without its difficulties. For example, Clark lists 4.6aβ-10a as one of the three separate oracles, but the fact that scholars have to resort to the clumsy notation ‘4.6aβ-10a’ is an 33. Redditt, ‘Zerubbabel, Joshua, and the Night Visions of Zechariah’, pp. 254– 55. Redditt’s approach is both similar and dissimilar to Petitjean and Galling (described above) in that it links particular strata of Zech. 1–6 to the return from exile and to the period around the construction of the temple. 34. David J. Clark, ‘Vision and Oracle in Zechariah 1–6’, in Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics (ed. Robert D. Bergen; Summer Institute of Linguistics; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994), pp. 529–60 (553). 35. Clark, ‘Vision and Oracle in Zechariah 1–6’, p. 554. 10 ‘I Lifted My Eyes and Saw’ indication of just how tightly these verses are integrated into the final form of Zech. 4. Table 2 shows the relevant verses in context. Table 2 4.6aα 4.6aβ-10a 4.10b ‫ויען ויאמר אלי לאמר‬ ‫זה דבר־יהוה אל־זרבבל לאמר‬ ‫שבעה־אלה עיני יהוה המה‬ ‫משוטטים בכל־הארץ׃‬ And he answered and he spoke to me, saying… ‘This is the word of YHWH to Zerubbabel, saying’… Seven these eyes of YHWH. They are roving in all the earth. Even though it is commonplace for scholars to excise Zech. 4.6aβ-10a, what is not sufficiently acknowledged is that taking scissors to the text creates more problems than it solves. I note the following five problems created by the omission of Zech. 4.6aβ-10a. 1. The supposed reconstruction produces an awkward textual transition. As van der Woude notes, ‘the alleged original transition from v. 6aα to v. 10b is not as smooth as has been suggested… If v. 10b were the sequel of v. 6aα, we would expect ’ēlleh šeba‘ (or šib‘ā) ‘ēnē yhwh, “These are the seven eyes of the Lord”, instead of šib‘ā ’ēlleh ‘ēnē yhwh, “These seven are the eyes of the Lord”’.36 2. Zechariah 4:6aβ-10a is left without a satisfactory introductory formula. If Zech 4.6aβ-10a stands alone, then it has as an introductory formula the phrase ‫זֶ ה דבר־יהוה אל־זרבבל‬. There is no other instance in the Hebrew Bible where ‫ זה דבר־יהוה‬occurs as the introductory formula for an oracle. The typical formula is ‫‘( ויהי דבר־יהוה אל־‬And the word of YHWH was to [X]’). This formula introduces the next oracle in Zech. 4.8 (and cf. Zech. 1.1; 1.7; 6.9; 7.1; 7.4; and 7.8). If Zech. 4.6aβ-10a originally stood as a pair of independent oracles, we should expect to have this formula in 4.6. The better explanation is that 4.6a provides the introductory formula, and what follows (‫)לאמר זה דבר־יהוה‬ consists of a speech marker (‫ )לאמר‬followed by direct speech.37 36. Adam S. van der Woude, ‘Zion as Primeval Stone in Zechariah 3 and 4’, in Text and Context: Old Testament and Semitic Studies for F. C. Fensham (ed. W. Claassen; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988), pp. 237–48 (238–39). 37. This is a typical construction elsewhere—Exod. 35.4; Num. 30.1; 1 Kgs 13.3; 2 Kgs 11.5. See also Gen. 5.29; 38.28; Lev. 6.2 [Eng. 6.9], 18 [Eng. 6.25]; 11.2; Num. 34.13; Isa. 30.21. 1 STEAD The Interrelationship between Vision and Oracle 11 3. We are left with an incomplete interpretation. If 4.6aβ-10a is excised from the text, we are left with a text that does not provide an interpretation for a key element of the vision. In vv. 2-5, Zechariah sees a vision of a lampstand, seven lamps, and two olive trees. The amended text only explains the seven lamps and the two olive trees, with no explanation of the significance of the lampstand itself. As I have argued elsewhere, the rhetorical function of 4.6aβ-10a is to provide the explanation for the missing element in the interpretation (i.e., the lampstand represents the temple that Zerubbabel will build).38 4. It removes the only promise of future weal in Zech. 4. Every other night vision includes a promise of future blessing. The removal of 4.6aβ-10a would make the vision in Zech. 4 unique, because it would then be the only vision without a promise of future weal.39 5. There is no credible alternate location for 4.6aβ-10a. As awkward as 4.6aβ-10a seems to be in its present location (and this is acknowledged), no one has been able to suggest a convincing alternate ‘original’ location anywhere in Zech. 1–6. But if, then, these verses must be regarded as a redactional insertion made intentionally into this content, what is the explanation for when and why the insertion occurred, and by whom? Someone must clearly have thought that 4.6aβ-10a did make sense here, otherwise they never would have woven them so tightly into the text by inserting them between 4.6aα and 4.10b. For these five reasons, it is not at all clear that the two oracles in 4.6aβ10a are ‘separate’ from the vision in the remainder of the chapter. Clarke’s other two ‘separate oracles’—Zech. 2.10-17 and 6.9-15—are more neatly severable from their respective contexts, but as we will see below, the removal of these oracles leaves other elements of the visions unresolved. Thus far, we have seen that is no coherent and consistent basis for separating ‘vision’ from ‘oracle’, nor for separating the ‘original oracles’ from the ‘additional oracles’. We should be wary about confident assertions about what is ‘original’ and what is ‘redactional’. As VanderKam comments in relation to Zech. 3, ‘[t]he fact that Petitjean and Meyers and 38. Michael R. Stead, The Intertextuality of Zechariah 1–8 (LHBOTS, 506; London: T&T Clark, 2009), pp. 172–87. 39. See further van der Woude, ‘Zion as Primeval Stone in Zechariah 3 and 4’, pp. 238–39. 12 ‘I Lifted My Eyes and Saw’ Meyers on the one hand and Beuken on the other can come to the opposite conclusion about what is primary and what secondary, suggests that this sort of division is not based on very strong evidence’.40 Our analysis of Zech. 1–6 ought not to be based on mere assumptions that any given individual oracle was original or secondary. Since visions can contain oracles, and since some of the visions in Zech. 1–6 do contain oracles, we must examine every oracle, to see if there are better reasons for excising it from the text than for retaining it. In the remainder of this paper, I will examine the oracles of Zechariah 1–6, to demonstrate that the excision of any oracle creates problems for the interpretation of the whole, and that form, content, and context provide compelling reasons to leave the text intact. Zechariah 1.14[16]-17 As noted above, Petersen is one of the few scholars to argue that the vision ends at v. 13 and the oracle runs from vv. 14-17. However, if the vision originally ended at v. 13, then there would not have been any resolution to the key issue raised by the report of the heavenly scouts in the vision (that the world is at rest and at peace) nor to the question posed by the Angel of YHWH, ‘How long will you withhold mercy?’ Moreover, v. 14 cannot neatly be described as ‘oracle’, because the first half of v. 14 weaves together the vision narrative with an introductory formula for the oracular speech, as shown in Table 3. Table 3 Vision narrative Introduction Oracle ‫ויאמר אלי המלאך הדבר בי‬ ‫קרא לאמר‬ ‫כה אמר יהוה‬ And the angel speaking to me said to me ‘Proclaim, saying’ ‘Thus says YHWH’ It is because of this tight integration of v. 14 within the narrative flow of the first night vision that almost all scholars (contra Petersen) regard (at least) vv. 14-15 as an oracle encapsulated within the original vision, recording the direct speech of the interpreting angel. These two verses provide a resolution to the issue raised by the vision—that the nations are at rest and in peace—because in v. 15 YHWH announces (in the first person, as relayed by the interpreting angel) ‘I am exceedingly angry at the nations’. 40. James C. VanderKam, ‘Joshua the High Priest and the Interpretation of Zechariah 3’, CBQ 53 (1991), pp. 553–70 (562). 1 STEAD The Interrelationship between Vision and Oracle 13 However, once we accept that vv. 14-15 are an oracle embedded within the first vision, the same reasoning ought to apply for the inclusion of vv. 16-17, based on form, content and context.    Form: the two oracles in vv. 16-17 begin with the same Botenspruchformel (‫ )כֹּה ָא ַמר יהוה‬as the oracle in vv. 14-15. The formula in v. 17 is preceded by an introduction that echoes v. 14 (‫)עוד קרא לאמר‬. The word ‫‘( עוד‬again, further’) in this context suggests that this oracle is intended to be read as a continuation of that which precedes it.41 Content: the oracle in vv. 16-17 provides the expected message of weal for Jerusalem in answer to the issue raised in v. 12—that the Lord has been withholding mercy from Jerusalem for 70 years. Without these verses, there are no words of comfort (‫ )נחמים‬that v. 12 has led us to expect. This finally comes in v. 17, where we are told that YHWH will comfort (‫ )נחם‬Zion. Context: The oracle in vv. 14-17 is interlinked with the themes of the next two visions—the woe for the nations in vv. 12-13 introduces the subject matter of the second vision (the casting down of the ‘four horns’ of the nations) and imagery of overflowing towns and a measuring line in vv. 16-17 prepare the way for vision 3. I agree with the conclusion of Meyers and Meyers that the oracle in 1.1417 is integral to the whole chapter and ‘both amplify[ies] and requi[res] ideas enunciated in the visionary section’.42 Zechariah 2.10-17 As noted above there is general acceptance that 2.8b-9 [Eng. 2.4b-5] is an oracle embedded in the second vision and indivisible from it, whereas 2.10-17 are two separate (and separable) oracles. According to this view, the chapter can be divided as shown in Table 4. Table 4 41. Rothstein is one of the few commentators who offers any substantive argument that vv. 16-17 is a later appendix, beyond that of Seybold’s Botenspruchformel argument (which, as demonstrated above, is inadequate, because if applied consistently, it would also classify vv. 14-15 as an oracle). Rothstein, Die Nachtgesichte des Sacharja, p. 55, distinguished the oracles in vv. 16-17 from the preceding oracle on the ground that YHWH is spoken of in the third person in v. 17b (‘he will comfort’ and ‘he will choose’). 42. Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, p. 132. 14 Vision report (2.5-8a) Embedded oracle (2.8b-9) Separate oracle 1 (2.10-13) Separate oracle 2 (2.14-17) ‘I Lifted My Eyes and Saw’ [Vision of a man measuring Jerusalem] Jerusalem will be a city without walls, because of the multitude of people and livestock in her midst. I myself will be a wall of fire around Jerusalem and its glory within. Come! Come! Flee from the land of the north… Shout and be glad, O Daughter of Zion, For I am coming, and I will dwell within you… If, as is generally accepted, vv. 8b-9 form an oracle embedded within the original vision report, a consistent application of the same reasoning would lead to the inclusion of the other two oracles on the basis of form, content, and context.  Form: the oracles in vv. 10-13 and vv. 14-17 each contain the same formal marker (‫ )נאמ־יהוה‬as the oracle in vv. 8-9.  Content: The oracles in vv. 10-13 and vv. 14-17 each develop and extend the core message of the vision and embedded oracle. o Verses 8-9 promise a city overflowing with people. The source of this population explosion is explained in vv. 1011—God’s people are to flee from the Land of the North and return to Jerusalem. o Verses 8-9 promise that YHWH will be a ‘wall of fire’ to protect the vulnerable ‘city without walls’. This protection is described in vv. 12-13 in terms of YHWH’s overthrow of the nations who have plundered his people. o Verse 9 promises that YHWH will be ‘for glory’ in the midst of the city. The oracle in vv. 14-17 develops this theme of God dwelling in the midst of his people.  Context: The oracles in vv. 10-17 are tightly integrated in the wider vision sequence. As Meyers and Meyers note, this section ‘recapitulates, in reverse order, the themes and content of the first three visions’.43 I have argued elsewhere that Zech. 2.10-17 records the prophet Zechariah exercising the commission given to him in 1.14-17. In 1.14, he is told to ‘proclaim’ against the nations, and in 1.17 to ‘again proclaim’ for Jerusalem. Zechariah 2.10-17 contains exactly this—an oracle against the nations (vv. 10-13), and an oracle for Jerusalem (vv. 14-17).44 43. Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, p. 172. 44. See further Stead, The Intertextuality of Zechariah 1–8, pp. 121–23. 1 STEAD The Interrelationship between Vision and Oracle 15 There are other important connections with the wider context. The reference in the oracle to ‘the land of the north’ (2.10) provides the necessary explanation of the same phrase in the vision in Zech. 6.6. The context of the oracle in Zech. 2 explains that the land of the north is Babylon, which explains the ultimate destination of the war-chariots in Zech. 6.6. The final oracle in Zech. 2 finishes on the theme of the ‘Holy land’ and ‘Holy dwelling’ which segues into the subject of the next vision—the impurity of priesthood. Zechariah 3.6[8]-10 As noted above, scholars in the Rothstein tradition generally accept that the oracle in Zech. 3.6-7 is part of the vision report, because it is part of a continuous narrative about the Angel of YHWH. Verse 5 ends with the Angel of the Lord standing (which would otherwise be an odd detail had the vision stopped at v. 5), then v. 6 narrates that the Angel testified to Joshua, ending with ‫ לאמר‬which introduces the direct speech which follows in v. 7. This ‘embedded’ oracle begins with the formula ‘Thus says YHWH of hosts’ (‫)כה־אמר יהוה צבאות‬. It is a first-person address to Joshua, and promises him the proper prerogatives of the priesthood, should he walk in YHWH’s way. Verse 8 continue to address Joshua, but also broadens to include his ‘associates’ (i.e., the priesthood) who are ‘men of sign’ that the Lord is going to bring his servant the Branch. Verse 9 broadens the application further still, focussing on an engraved stone in front of Joshua that relates (in some way) to the removal of the sin of the land in a single day. If we were to suppose that the original vision/oracle complex ended at v. 7, then the message of Zech. 3 about the removal of impurity would be limited to Joshua alone, and be contingent on his obedience alone. The message of 3.8-10 about the removal of sin from the land ‘on that day’ by the Lord’s gracious act would be absent. This is not consistent with the two visions in Zech. 5, which both describe the removal of sin from the land, and describe it occurring as a divine work (‘I will send it out’). The visions of Zech. 5 presuppose something like Zech. 3.8-10, rather than merely 3.1-7, as the background that anchors those visions in an historical context. Zechariah 3.8-10; 4.6aβ-10a; and 6.9-15 There is an even more compelling reason why Zech. 3.8-10 should be included in the original sequence, but this argument depends on analysing Zech. 3.8-10; 4.6aβ-10a; and 6.9-15 together. These three oracles 16 ‘I Lifted My Eyes and Saw’ stand or fall together, because of the interconnections between them. The oracles in Zech. 3 and 6 each refer to the ‘Branch’ (3.8; 6.12). The oracles in Zech. 4 and 6 each refer to one who will build the temple (4.9; 6.13). The oracles in Zech. 3 and 6 each refer to two distinct figures (Joshua and ‘my servant the Branch’ in 3.8, and a Priest and a Branch on respective thrones, with a counsel of peace between them in 6.13). The oracles in Zech. 4 and 6 each link the authentication of the prophet (‘Then you will know that YHWH of Hosts has sent me to you’) to the completion of the temple (4.9; 6.15). If there is a case to remove any one of the three oracles, the other two oracles would need to be removed for the same reasons. But if we (with the Rothstein tradition) excise Zech. 3.8-10; 4.6aβ-10a; and 6.9-15 as secondary additions, we remove all references to the Branch and to Zerubbabel. This removal creates a problem for the fifth vision (Zech. 4), because it erases any clue as to the identity of the second son of oil in Zech. 4.14. Most commentators (including those in the Rothstein tradition) conclude that Joshua and Zerubbabel are the two sons of oil, represented by the two olive trees in the fifth vision, but without the oracles there is no textual basis for this conclusion with respect to Zerubbabel. The ‘sons of oil’ are those who ‘serve the Lord of all the earth’. The promises given to Joshua in Zech. 3.6-7 identify him as one of the two servants of the Lord. Without the oracles, the other servant would remain unidentified. With the oracles, it is perfectly clear. Zechariah 3.8 describes a second figure (not Joshua) as ‘my servant the Branch’. The oracle in Zech. 6.9-15 makes it clear that the role of the Branch is to build the temple of the Lord. The oracle in Zech. 4.6aβ-10a promises that Zerubbabel is the one who will build the temple of the Lord. As I have argued elsewhere, these three oracles work together to identify Zerubbabel as the Branch, who has the messianic role to rebuild the temple and re-establish the Davidic dynastic line.45 These three oracles are essential to decode the identity of the second son of oil in the vision in Zech. 4. The links between these three oracles and vision 4 (Joshua) and vision 5 (menorah) are highlighted in Table 5. 45. Stead, The Intertextuality of Zechariah 1–8, pp. 133–56. 1 STEAD The Interrelationship between Vision and Oracle 17 Table 5 Zech. 3 Zech. 4 Symbolic action Joshua the High involving Joshua Priest standing before the Angel of YHWH  ‘put a turban on his head’ Priesthood You will govern promised my house and have authority charge of my courts (3.7) ‘Branch’ (‫)צמח‬ Joshua and his associates are a sign that ‘I am going to bring my servant the Branch’ (3.8) Temple building The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundation of this house; his hands shall also complete it (4.9a) Two figures Joshua + ‘my Two olive trees servant the Branch’ (4.3); These are (3.8) the two sons of oil who stand before the Lord of all the earth (4.14) Prophetic The hands of authentication Zerubbabel will formula tied to complete the temple building house of YHWH… And you shall know that YHWH of hosts has sent me to you (4.9b) And the word of Narrative YHWH was to me, Introductory 46 saying (4.8) formula Zech. 6.9-15 Set [the crown] on the head of the High Priest, Joshua (6.11) And there will be a priest on his throne (6.13c) Behold, a man whose name is Branch: for he shall branch out in his place… (6.13a) …and he [the shall Branch] build the temple of YHWH (6.13b) There shall be a counsel of peace between the two of them. (Branch + Priest) (6.13d) Those who are far off shall come and build the temple of the YHWH; and you shall know that YHWH of hosts has sent me to you (6.15) And the word of YHWH was to me, saying (6.9) 46. Zech. 4.8 and 6.9 are—uniquely in the night vision—a first-person report from the prophet himself, set within a narrative context of his unfolding prophetic activity. This is paralleled elsewhere (Zech. 7.4; 7.8) where the prophet is asked a 18 ‘I Lifted My Eyes and Saw’ Removing the three oracles makes the identity of the second of the two figures unresolvable, it removes the second symbolic act involving Joshua (which I have argued is the completion of the first symbolic act), and—perhaps most significantly—it removes the substantive references to the rebuilding of the temple (and if 1.16-17 are excised as well, all references to the rebuilding of the temple in Zech. 1–6 are removed). It is curious that scholars in the Rothstein tradition tend to see the rebuilding of the temple as central to Zechariah’s message (rightly, in my view). It is curious because the removal of the oracles removes all references to the rebuilding of the temple, and leaves the visions in Zech. 3 (of a temple priest) and Zech. 4 (of a temple menorah) without a temple in which to function! For these reasons, I conclude that the oracles in Zech. 3.8-10; 4.6aβ10a; and 6.9-15 were part of Zech. 1–6 as originally written, and provide the necessary interpretative framework to understand the visions in Zech. 3 and Zech. 4. The Intertexts of Vision and Oracle The intertextuality of Zech. 1–6 supports the conclusion that vision and oracle were composed as a unity. This is because there are sustained allusions in both visions and oracles to the same passages, especially Lam. 2; Joel 2; Isa. 12–14; 40–55 (esp. ch. 54); Jer. 31–33; 48–51; Ezek. 38–39; 40–48. It is well beyond the scope of this paper to explore this in detail, but a single example is indicative of the wider phenomenon.47 Lamentations 2 provides a set of ‘destruction-and-exile’ metaphors, which are systematically reversed in Zech. 1–2, in order to show that YHWH is about to undo the exile. The time of YHWH’s ‘anger’ is over, and now a ‘measuring line’ will be used to rebuild rather than to judge, and YHWH himself will be their ‘wall’ and a ‘fire’ of protection, not a fire of destruction and a destroyer of their wall. YHWH will ‘comfort’ Zion by rebuilding her. It is now the horns of the nations (not the ‘horn of Israel’) who are about to be cast down, and Israel will no longer bow question about fasting by the delegates from Bethel, and Zechariah reports ‘and the word of YHWH was to me, saying “…”’. 47. See further Michael R. Stead, ‘Sustained Allusion in Zechariah 1–2’, in Tradition in Transition: Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 in the Trajectory of Hebrew Theology (ed. Mark J. Boda and Michael H. Floyd; LHBOTS, 475; London: T&T Clark, 2008), pp. 144–70, and idem, The Intertextuality of Zechariah 1–8, pp. 127– 32. 1 STEAD The Interrelationship between Vision and Oracle 19 the head. As Table 6 shows, these allusions to Lam. 2 span vision and oracle in Zechariah. Table 6 YHWH’s anger (‫ )זעם‬at his people: Lam. 2.6 showing no mercy: Lam. 2.21 stretching the measuring line (‫ קו‬+ ‫)נטה‬: Lam. 2.8 YHWH comforting (‫ )נחם‬Zion: Lam. 2.13 raising up/casting down (‫ידה‬/‫ )גדע‬horns (‫)קרן‬: Lam. 2.3, 17 head bowed to the ground: Lam. 2.10 the wall (‫ )חומה‬of Jerusalem: Lam. 2.8 YHWH a fire (‫ )אש‬consuming its surrounds (‫)סביב‬: Lam. 2.3 Daughter Zion (‫)בת־ציון‬: Lam. 2.1 Zech. 1.12 Zech. 1.12 Zech. 1.16 Vision Vision Oracle Zech. 1.17 Zech. 2.1-4 Oracle Vision Zech. 2.4 Zech. 2.8–9 Vision Embedded oracle Embedded oracle Oracle Zech. 2.9 Zech. 2.14 The sustained allusions to the same passages across the vision and oracle complex are further evidence supportive of the conclusion that vision and oracle are interrelated and must be read together as a unity. Conclusion Vision and Oracle in Zech. 1–6 are not separate and distinct from each other. Once we acknowledge the possibility that some of the visions contain embedded oracles, there are compelling arguments, based on form, content, and context, for reading the sequence as a unity. The oracles stitch the vision sequence together, and explain and interpret the significance of the visions. Without the oracles, the meaning of the vision is indeterminate. Vision and oracle are interrelated because Zech. 1–6 was composed as a literary unit, modelled on the pattern of vision and oracle elsewhere (e.g., Amos, Jeremiah, etc.). This interrelationship is reflected in the intertexts of Zech. 1–6, where allusions to the same passages span both vision and oracle. We have canvassed four arguments sometimes advanced for the exclusion of some oracles. 1. The vision is the primary mode of God’s revelation, and the (secondary) oracles can be isolated on formal grounds, such as prophetic introductory formulae (e.g., Rothstein). 20 ‘I Lifted My Eyes and Saw’ 2. The oracles do not fit with a (posited) historical reconstruction (e.g., Redditt) 3. The oracles represent a different theological viewpoint from the visions (e.g., Petersen) 4. That God is silent in the visions because his speaking role has been taken over by an interpreting angel, as part of a wider shift towards apocalyptic (e.g., Jeremias) These arguments are based on questionable assumptions about the text and historical context of Zech. 1–6, which ought not to be accepted unchallenged. We have explored some of the circularities and inconsistencies in approach that flow from these assumptions. These four arguments provide no compelling reasons to excise any oracle from Zechariah’s night-vision complex. In summary, there are no good reasons to separate vision and oracle in Zech. 1–6 and there are compelling reasons to read them together as a literary unit. There is a tight integration between the visionary and oracular material in Zechariah’s night visions, and each cannot be properly understood apart from the other. 1