YHWH, the Divine Beings, and Zechariah 1–6

Monotheism in Late Prophetic and Early Apocalyptic Literature Studies of the Sofja Kovalevskaja Research Group on Early Jewish Monotheism Vol. III edited by Nathan MacDonald and Ken Brown Mohr Siebeck E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission Nathan MacDonald, born 1975; studied theology and classical Hebrew in Cambridge and Durham; currently University Lecturer in Hebrew Bible at the University of Cambridge and Fellow of St John’s College. Ken Brown, born 1982; 2010 MA in Biblical Studies; 2014 Dr. theol. at Georg-August-Universität Göttingen; currently teaching at Whitworth University (Spokane, WA, USA). ISBN 978-3-16-153240-5 ISSN 1611-4914 (Forschungen zum Alten Testament, 2. Reihe) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2014 by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. www.mohr.de This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Laupp & Göbel in Nehren on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany. E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission Contents Preface ………………………………………………………………………V Abbreviations …………………………………………………………….IX KEN BROWN AND NATHAN MACDONALD Introduction ………………………………………………………………XI ULRICH BERGES AND BERND OBERMAYER Divine Violence in the Book of Isaiah ……………………………………1 BERND SCHIPPER ‘The City by the Sea will be a Drying Place’: Isaiah 19.1–25 in Light of Prophetic Texts from Ptolemaic Egypt …………………………………25 MARK S. GIGNILLIAT Who is a God like You? Refracting the One God in Jonah, Micah and Nahum ……….…………………………………………..……………….57 LENA-SOFIA TIEMEYER YHWH, the Divine Beings and Zechariah 1–6 ….………………………73 NATHAN MACDONALD The Beginnings of One-ness Theology in Late Israelite Prophetic Literature …………………………………………………………………103 REINHARD ACHENBACH Monotheistischer Universalismus und frühe Formen eines Völkerrechts in prophetischen Texten Israels aus achämenidischer Zeit ……………125 JAKOB WÖHRLE The God(s) of the Nations in Late Prophecy ……………………………177 JOHN J. COLLINS Cognitive Dissonance and Eschatological Violence: Fantasized Solutions to a Theological Dilemma in Second Temple Judaism ………201 E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission VIII Contents STEFAN BEYERLE Monotheism, Angelology, and Dualism in Ancient Jewish Apocalyptic Writings …………………………………………………………………219 J ENNIE GRILLO Worship and Idolatry in the Book of Daniel through the Lens of Tertullian’s De idololatria …………………………………….…………247 Contributors ………………………………………………………………263 Scripture Index ...…………………………………………………………265 E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission YHWH, the Divine Beings, and Zechariah 1–6 LENA-SOFIA TIEMEYER 1. Introduction What strikes the reader of Zechariah’s vision report is the appearance of a plethora of divine beings. There are not only angels, i.e., divine beings with anthropomorphic form, but also other types of divine beings that elsewhere appear in the context of the divine assembly. This sparks the question as to whether this is either a chronological issue, part of the wider phenomenon of the transformation of the Israelite understanding of God in the early Second Temple period, or a literary issue, the result of Zech 1.8– 6.8 having the literary form of a vision report. This article investigates the depictions of divine beings in Zech 1.8–6.8. I shall explore the roles of the divine beings in the series of eight vision accounts, and compare them with the roles of divine beings in the accompanying oracular material. It is my hope that this investigation will shed new light upon the religion of the people of Yehud and upon the development of monotheism in the early Persian period. In the present essay I shall propose that: First, the wealth of divine beings in Zechariah’s vision report is characteristic of the literary genre of vision reports, rather than the result of changes to the cult of Y HWH in Yehud during the early post-exilic period. Although the appearance of a specific divine being may point to a specific post-exilic development in ancient Israelite religion, the notions of a divine assembly, an opposing force within that assembly, and God’s executive forces on earth which carry out his will, are all attested in texts that, most likely, pre-date the sixth century BCE. Secondly, I will show that it is not unusual for dreamers and seers to see divine beings in their dreams, trances, or experiences of ecstasy.1 In fact, we should not distinguish sharply between the literary 1 See, e.g., the various attestations of divine beings in some contemporary religious experiences. See further RANKIN, Introduction, 93–145. For a discussion of visions, see ibid, 111–113, and of dreams, see ibid, 125–127. For seeing angels, see ibid, 123–125. These contemporary phenomena reflect the modern world and, in many cases, the Judaeo-Christian heritage. Even so, they point to a wide range of types of experiences that the people in Yehud might have experienced. E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission 74 Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer genre of the vision report and the visual impression received during an altered state of consciousness (ASC). The people responsible for writing the vision reports in the Hebrew Bible claim that they actually saw visions.2 It is impossible to go beyond the text and to reach the experience behind it,3 yet at the same time it is important to remember that in the ancient Near East, visions and dreams were considered to be real means by which the deities addressed their intermediaries.4 The present essay is open to the possibility that the earliest layers of Zech 1.8–6.8 (constituting the eight vision accounts) are based upon the seer’s visionary experience(s). Finally, I will argue that later authors/redactors added oracular material.5 These additions were aimed at making the earlier visionary impressions applicable to the contemporary period. In the present context, I shall highlight how these authors/redactors, when moving from the literary genre of the vision account to the literary genre of the oracle, fitted the message of the earlier vision report into a mould where YHWH is the supreme actor and where no other divine beings play a significant role.6 In terms of the meaning(s) of the texts in Zechariah 1–6, I propose that each text potentially has three different meanings. On the most basic level, there are the visual impressions that the seer sees. A horse is a horse, a tree is a tree, a lamp-stand is a lamp-stand etc. When we see a horse, we do not need to interpret it as a symbol of something else. The next level is the meaning that the images receive within the written vision report. When the seer identifies what he sees as a message from God, he opens himself to the possibility that the images mean something beyond what they are. For example, the seer understands the lamp-stand to be an image of God and 2 Zechariah’s vision report opens with Zechariah stating that ‘he saw at night’ (Zech 1.8), Ezekiel’s inaugural vision report in Ezek 1 opens with Ezekiel’s statement that ‘I saw visions of God’ (v. 1), and Dan 7.1 claims that Daniel had a dream and saw visions which he later recorded. 3 What we have are vision reports, not the visions themselves. Cf. B EHRENS, Prophetische Visionsschilderungen, 1: ‘Was wir vor uns haben, sind die Berichte von solchen Erlebnissen, die zudem oft längere Überlieferungs- und Redaktionsprozesse hinter sich haben. Der unmittelbare Gegenstand der Auslegung sind literarische Texte, nicht zuerst die darin geschilderte Ereignisse’. 4 For a substantial discussion of dreams in Mesopotamia and the understanding of them as divine communication, see ZGOLL, Traum, esp. 259–265. See also P ONGRATZLEISTEN, Herrschaftswissen in Mesopotamien, 96–127. 5 It should not be excluded that one of these ‘redactors’ was Zechariah who, at a later stage in his life, interpreted his earlier vision accounts. 6 It should be noted that the depictions of divine beings in Zechariah’s vision report are never dualistic. Nothing in either the vision report or the later oracular material contradicts the monolatry of ancient Israelite faith. See further SMITH, Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 51, who points out that the idea of a divine assembly is not oppositional to Israelite monotheism. E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission YHWH, the Divine Beings, and Zechariah 1–6 75 the two olive trees to be the ‘two sons of oil’ (Zech 4.10b–14). The third level of meaning is located in the oracular material. It removes the descriptions of the visionary elements from their supernatural location and instead anchors them in an earthly context, thus seeking to establish their meaning and relevance within the society of Yehud. 2. What Constitutes a Divine Being? The Hebrew Bible refers to a multitude of divine beings, some appearing in anthropomorphic form and some in other forms. When divine beings appear in anthropomorphic form, they tend to be called ‫מלאך‬, i.e. ‘messenger’ but more commonly translated as ‘angel’. There are angel(s) of God (e.g. Gen 28.12 [‫ )]מלאכי אלהים‬and an/the ‘Angel of YHWH’. There is unlikely to be a distinct border between the different appellations. In Judges 13, for example, Manoah’s wife describes ‘the Angel of Y HWH’ (v. 3) as ‘a man of God’ (‫ )איש האלהים‬who looks like an ‘angel of God’ ( ‫ומראהו כמראה‬ ‫)מלאך האלהים‬, and who is ‘very frightening’ (‫ ;נורא מאד‬v. 6). Further, the extant descriptions in the Hebrew Bible do not always distinguish between divine beings (incorporeal) and humans (of flesh and blood). The term ‘man’ (‫ )איש‬sometimes describes a divine being (as in Gen 18.2; 19.5, 8, 10, 12, and 16 [‫ מלאכים‬in 19.1]; probably also Ezek 9.2, 11; 10.2, 6; 40.3). In other cases, the term ‫ מלאך‬denotes a human messenger (as in Judg 2.1– 5; Mal 3.1; Eccl 5.5; Job 1.14).7 In later biblical texts, divine beings with anthropomorphic form often take on superhuman aspects. Ezekiel 40.3, for example, describes Ezekiel’s guide as a person who had the appearance of copper (‫)מראהו כמראה נחשת‬, and Daniel 10 depicts in awe-inspiring terms (v. 6) a person who ‘looked like a man’ (v. 16) but clearly was some kind of divine being. Other divine beings besides angels may also have been understood as having anthropomorphic form. The Adversary in Job 1–2, referred to within the context of ‘sons of God’ (‫ )בני האלהים‬in Job 1.6, is never explicitly described in anthropomorphic language, yet the overall description of his dialogue with God suggests that he has anthropomorphic form. The strongest indicator of the Adversary’s humanoid form is actually Num 22.22a where the Angel of YHWH acts as an adversary ( ‫ויתיצב מלאך ה' בדרך‬ ‫)לשטן לו‬. The Hebrew Bible contains other kinds of divine being that do not have anthropomorphic form. The seraphim in Isa 6.2–7 are members of the divine council (as implied by the literary context). They can communicate 7 See further SULLIVAN, Wrestling with Angels, 27. E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission 76 Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer with each other and with humans, yet they are clearly not humanoid, given their three pairs of wings and their ability to fly. Likewise, the cherubim in Ezek 10.1–22; 11.22 do not have anthropomorphic form, even though they are described as having some human features (e.g. Ezek 10.8). They have wings and they are attached to wheels etc. The particular cherubim in Ezekiel 10 apparently did not look like ‘normal’ cherubim, as only one of their heads looked like that of a cherub (Ezek 10.14, ‫)פני האחד פני הכרוב‬.8 In the ensuing discussion, I shall look at all the divine characters that inhabit Zechariah 1–6, and see what characterizes them and what characteristics they share. I shall further explore the differences, in terms of their treatment of divine beings, between the vision report and the oracular material in Zechariah 1–6. Most of the sections fall into two parts. The first part discusses the role of the divine beings in the vision account. The second part outlines the message of the accompanying oracular material and explores the way that it has altered the portrayals of the divine beings. The vision accounts are discussed in the following order: Zech 1.8–17; 6.1–8; 2.5–9; 3.1–10; 4.1–14; 2.1–4; and 5.5–11. I shall not discuss the sixth vision account in Zech 5.1–4 because it does not contain any salient information about divine beings. The speaker in 5.2–3, presumably the Interpreting Angel, is not even identified. 3. Zechariah 1.8–17 The text of Zech 1.8–17 can be divided in various ways. Here, I distinguish between the vision account in vv. 8–11, the oracular material in vv. 13–17, and v. 12 which forms a bridge between the two parts. 3.1 Divine Beings in Zechariah 1.8–12 Zechariah 1.8–12 features between one and three anthropomorphic divine beings, depending on how one interprets the text: First, the Angel who speaks with and explains things to Zechariah (v. 9, cf. vv. 13–14aα). For the sake of convenience, I shall refer to him, as is customary, as the Interpreting Angel. The Hebrew name for him, ‫המלאך הדבר בי‬, i.e. ‘the angel who is speaking to me’, is more apt as it captures what the Angel is doing: he is speaking to Zechariah. The Interpreting Angel has two functions in the vision report. First, in the majority of cases (as here in Zech 1.8–12), the Interpreting Angel and Zechariah watch the happenings in the vision8 Alice Wood has offered a detailed study of appearances of the cherubim in the Hebrew Bible, where she argues that the biblical tradition of the cherubim developed over time (W OOD, Wings). E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission YHWH, the Divine Beings, and Zechariah 1–6 77 ary world. The Angel asks Zechariah what he sees and clarifies what it is that Zechariah sees. Secondly, in a few cases, the Interpreting Angel acts within the visionary world itself (e.g. Zech 2.7–8). Secondly, there are potentially two more angels: the man standing near the myrtle (vv. 8, 10) and the Angel of YHWH (vv. 11–12). It is an open question as to whether these characters are two or three individuals or aspects of one and the same character.9 In my view, the identification of the man among the myrtle with the Angel of Y HWH is compelling, given that they are both described as ‘standing among the myrtle’ (vv. 8a, 10a, 11a). It is possible that Zechariah did not identify the humanoid figure that he had first seen among the myrtle (vv. 8, 10) with the Angel until later (v. 11). As to the Interpreting Angel, there is support for differentiating between him and the Angel of Y HWH and seeing them as each other’s alter ego. While the Interpreting Angel’s role is to communicate with Zechariah, the Angel of YHWH plays a role in the visionary world of which Zechariah receives glimpses.10 We thus have one anthropomorphic divine being in the visionary world (vv. 8, 10, 11) and another anthropomorphic divine being speaking with Zechariah (vv. 9, 13–14aα). In addition to the anthropomorphic divine beings, Zech 1.8–12 speaks about horses. Although horses are not normally thought of as divine beings, three aspects of their presentation together suggest that the seer understood them as such. First, the horses are sent by God to ‘roam the earth’ (v. 10, ‫להתהלך‬ ‫)בארץ‬.11 Even though normal horses can also ‘roam the earth’, the particular choice of the Hithpael stem of the root ‫ הלך‬suggests that these horses are something more than natural horses. The verb appears elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible in connection with divine beings. 1. The closest parallel is Job 1.7; 2.2 where the Adversary (‫ )השטן‬reports that he has ‘roamed the earth’. Already Ibn Ezra noted the link and accordingly suggested that the Adversary and the man on the horse were both angelic beings who performed the same task of patrolling the earth.12 9 There are alternative ways of explaining the three names of the anthropomorphic angelic beings, namely as the result of textual growth. H ALLASCHKA, Sacharja, 156–158, for example, who identifies the three men with each other, argues that the confusion in the final text is the result of textual growth as the two angels were added later to the material and identified with each other. See also K RATZ, Serubbabel und Joschua, 85, who maintains that the Interpreting Angel in Zech 1.8–11 and 2.5–9 is secondary. 10 In this matter, I follow M EYERS AND MEYERS, Zechariah, 115. 11 See further T IEMEYER, Busy Night, 189–190. 12 IBN EZRA, Rabbinic Bible, Zech 1.10. Among more modern exegetes, see, e.g., N IDITCH, Symbolic Vision, 144–145. E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission 78 Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer 2. The same verb is used in a similar sense in Gen 3.8, where it denotes God taking a walk in the Garden of Eden. In a sense, God is out patrolling his realm. 3. The verb is further attested in Ps 82.5 in the context of the gods in the divine council. First, the verb ‫( יתהלכו‬v. 5), attributed to the gods, brings Zech 1.10 to mind where the horses have ‘roamed the earth’ (‫)להתהלך בארץ‬. Secondly, the idea that the gods bring havoc upon the earth (v. 5) is reminiscent of Zech 6.8; yet while the divine beings in Ps 82.5 are criticized for their destructive power, the horses in Zech 6.8 execute God’s will ( ‫הניחו את‬ ‫)רוחי בארץ צפון‬. Secondly, given that the horses in Zechariah’s first and last vision and the divine beings in Job 1–2 have similar roles, Ollenburger suggests that the horses, including the mounted rider-angel, form God’s ‘host’ and that the Angel of YHWH personifies that host. This is made explicit in the Angel’s speech in v. 12 where he addresses God as ‘the Lord of Hosts’ ( '‫ה‬ ‫)צבאות‬.13 Furthermore, the horses in Zech 1.8–11 are described as being able to speak. From both a grammatical and a contextual perspective, the horses are the obvious subject of the verb ‫( ויענו‬v. 11).14 Zechariah sees the single man and the horses (v. 8) and asks ‘What are they?’ (‫( )מה אלה‬v. 9a), whereupon the Interpreting Angel says that he will show him ‘what they are’ (‫( )מה המה אלה‬v. 9bβ). The use of the pronoun ‘what’ (rather than ‘who’ [‫ )]מי‬implies that the horses rather than human beings are the subject. Likewise, the plural pronoun ‫ המה‬indicates that the question concerns the (pl.) horses rather than the (sg.) man. This impression is confirmed in v. 10 where the man in the vision states that ‘they’ (again presumably the horses) are God’s patrol. Against this background, it is natural to assume, come v. 11, that the horses are the speakers. Thirdly, archaeological evidence suggests that horses were venerated at the level of family religion. Uehlinger notes that horses constitute by far the most numerous group of Judahite zoomorphic figurines, and speculates about whether such horses were ‘a conspicuous member of the heavenly host’.15 In a joint publication Uehlinger and Keel interpret the zoomorphic figurines as personifications of the ‘host of heaven’ and connect them to the horses and rider(s) in Zech 1.7–11.16 In the later 2 Macc 5.2–4 and 10.29–30, the celestial army was formed of cavalry. 17 The imagery in 2 Maccabees may draw on Zechariah’s vision report or, alternatively, both 13 OLLENBURGER, The Book of Zechariah, 751–752. A small number of scholars are open to the possibility that the horses are the speakers. See, e.g., O’BRIEN, Zechariah, 174, and SWEENEY, Twelve Prophets, 578. 15 UEHLINGER, Riding Horseman, 706. 16 KEEL AND UEHLINGER, Gods, 341–349, esp. 347. 17 UEHLINGER, Riding Horseman, 706. 14 E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission YHWH, the Divine Beings, and Zechariah 1–6 79 texts may preserve an older tradition of horses being part of the heavenly host. After all, the cavalry, alongside chariots, were the most powerful parts of an ancient army. In view of these three aspects of the presentation of the horses in Zech 1.8–12, it is justified to claim that these horses constitute a form of nonanthropomorphic divine beings, whose main roles are to watch over God’s creation, to report to God about the happenings on earth, and to execute his commands. In these roles, they are analogous to the creatures/cherubim in Ezekiel’s vision reports (Ezek 1; 8–11) and to the Adversary of Job 1–2 and Zech 3.1–2.18 To sum up, Zech 1.8–12 is filled to the brim with both anthropomorphic and non-anthropomorphic angelic beings whose task is to convey God’s message to humans and to carry out his actions on earth. 3.2 What does the oracular material in Zechariah 1.7, 13–17 do with the divine beings in the vision account? In contrast to the vision account in Zech 1.8–12, the surrounding oracular material in vv. 7, 13, 14aβ–17 contains no angelic beings. Zech 1.7 introduces the ensuing vision report as ‘the word of Y HWH to Zechariah’ (‫)דבר ה' אל זכריה‬. Likewise, although v. 14aα features the Interpreting Angel, the following material in Zech 1.14aβ–17 is presented as ‘oracles of YHWH’ (vv. 14, 16, 17), and v. 13aα states that YHWH spoke. The possible exception is v. 17. Although the speaker responsible for uttering the divine oracle is anonymous, the final form of the text invites the reader to identify him with the Interpreting Angel, i.e. the speaker in v. 14aα. It is fair to say that the oracular material ignores the divine beings in the first vision account. It refrains from commenting on the imagery of the horses and the man among the myrtle bushes. Instead, it redirects the readers’ attention to the last statement in v. 11b ‘and behold the whole earth is at rest and in peace’ (‫)והנה כל הארץ ישבת ושקטת‬. The oracular material thus presents the vision account as a prophecy about YHWH’s imminent restoration of Judah and Jerusalem. God, rather than the horses, will carry out his will. YHWH is angry (vv. 14–15), he will return to Jerusalem (v. 16), and he will comfort Zion and choose Jerusalem (v. 17). In its final form, Zech 1.7–17 has become a prophecy about YHWH’s actions on behalf of his city. 18 T IEMEYER, Zechariah’s Spies, 109–116. E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission 80 Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer 4. Zechariah 6.1–8 Turning to the last vision account, an account which in many respects corresponds to the first one, the seer reports seeing four chariots ( ‫ארבע‬ ‫)מרכבות‬, drawn by horses. Zechariah asks the Interpreting Angel what they are (v. 4b), and receives the reply that they are the ‘four winds of heaven, going out from standing in the presence of the Lord of the whole earth’ (v. 5b). 4.1 Divine Beings in Zechariah 6.1–8 Zechariah’s last vision account offers a tantalizing and complex web of images denoting ‘horses’, ‘winds’, and ‘cherubim’ which together suggest that the ‘horses’ in Zech 6.1–8 are a kind of non-anthropomorphic divine being. First, the horses in Zech 6.5 are identified as the ‘four winds’. This imagery brings to mind Ps 104.4 which speaks of God’s angels as ‘winds’ (‫ )עשה מלאכיו רוחות‬and as ‘flaming fire’ (‫)משרתיו אש להט‬. The imagery of ‘flaming fire’, in turn, is reminiscent of Gen 3.24 and its description of the cherubim with their revolving, ‘flaming sword’ ( ‫את הכרבים ואת להט החרב‬ ‫)המתהפכת‬. The later vision report in Daniel 7 further connects the four winds of heaven with non-earthly beings (vv. 2–3). Secondly, 2 Sam 22.11//Ps 18.11 depicts how God rides a cherub, flies, and is seen upon the wings of the wind (‫)וירכב על כרוב ויעף וירא על כנפי רוח‬. Again, there is a connection between the cherubim and the winds. In addition, the idea that God ‘rides’ upon the cherub brings to mind the scene in Zechariah’s first vision report where the Angel rides on one of the horses (‫)רכב על סוס אדם‬, using the same verb ‫רכב‬. The imagery in 2 Sam 22.11//Ps 18.11 is further connected to Ezekiel’s vision reports. Mettinger, for instance, compares the notion of a mobile God in Ps 18.10–11 with the image of God in Ezekiel 1 and 8–11.19 Finally, and also related to the imagery in Gen 3.24, intriguing evidence suggests that the horses drawing the ‘chariots’ in Zechariah 6 are somehow connected with the cherubim in Ezekiel 1 and 8–11. In Ezekiel’s vision reports, the singular form ‫ מרכבה‬denotes the chariot, carried by the cherubim, upon which God’s throne is situated. In a similar manner, Zechariah’s final vision account presents four chariots (‫ )ארבע מרכבות‬associated with horses. Three aspects suggest a link between Zechariah’s horses and Ezekiel’s cherubim: First, the cherubim are identified with the wind (Ezek 19 METTINGER, Cherubim, 191. He argues that the verb ‫ רכב‬in Ps 18.11 should not be translated as ‘ride’ but as ‘dahinfahren’, i.e. God is depicted as descending in his cherubim chariot. E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission YHWH, the Divine Beings, and Zechariah 1–6 81 1.12) and so are the horses (Zech 6.5). Secondly, the cherubim are associated with chariot (Ezek 10. 2, 4, 7, 18a, 19bα; 11.23, cf. 2 Sam 22.11) and Zech 6.1–8 contains chariot imagery. Thirdly, the wheels of the cherubim have ‘eyes’ (Ezek 1.18) and God’s patrol are likened to ‘eyes’ (Zech 4.10).20 I do not suggest that the links between the aforementioned passages in Zechariah 1 and 6; Ezekiel 1 and 8–11; 2 Sam 22.11//Ps 18.11; and Gen 3.24 are the result of direct textual allusion, where the seer responsible for the vision report in Zechariah 1–6 would purposefully have picked up the notion of the winds and the cherubim in order to enhance his own message.21 Instead, the textual relationship is better understood as taking place on a more subconscious level, where the seer responsible for Zechariah 1– 6, familiar with the earlier material, transformed those descriptions into something new in order to illustrate his own visionary experience of divine beings in equine form.22 A different aspect of the description of the horses in Zech 6.1–8 suggest that the ‘horses’ constitute some kind of divine beings with anthropomorphic characteristics. First, the preposition -‫ ב‬in 6.2–3 hints at the curious fact that the horses are somehow in the chariots. Verse 2 specifies that in the first chariot (‫ )במרכבה‬are red horses and that in the second chariot are black horses. Verse 3 continues in the same vein and states that in the third chariot are white horses and in the fourth chariot are ‫( ברדים אמצים‬maybe ‘spotted, strong horses’). The preposition -‫ ב‬corresponds to a wide range of prepositions in English. It the present context, the preposition has traditionally been understood to indicate that the chariots are drawn ‘by’ the horses, a natural enough assumption. Yet, in other places where the same preposition is used in conjunction with the term ‫מרכבה‬, it implies ‘inside’ the chariot. In Gen 41.43, Pharaoh let Joseph ride in the second chariot (‫)במרכבת המשנה‬, in 1 Kings 12.18//2 Chron 10.18, Rehoboam hastened to get up into the chariot in order to flee to Jerusalem ( ‫רחבעם התאמץ לעלות במרכבה לנוס‬ ‫)ירושלם‬, and in 1 Kings 22.35 (cf. 2 Chron 18.34), the king remained standing in his chariot (‫)והמלך היה מעמד במרכבה‬. 1 Samuel 8.11 uses the preposition -‫ ב‬differently to state that the king will take the audience’s sons ‘for’ himself and ‘for’ his chariots etc. (‫)את בניכם יקח ושם לו במרכבתו‬. In Zech 6.2–3, the normative meaning of the preposition -‫ ב‬as denoting the English preposition ‘in’ creates the bizarre reading that the horses are, 20 See further T IEMEYER, Zechariah’s Spies, 104–127. Cf. J EREMIAS, Nachtgesichte, 119, who assumes an indirect link between the creatures in Ezek 1 and the heavenly beings drawing the chariots in Zech 6.1 as well as with the angelic beings, among them the Adversary, in Job 1.6; 2.1. 22 Cf. T IEMEYER, Zechariah’s Spies, 127. 21 E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission 82 Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer in some way, inside the chariots. As already noted, the horses in the first vision are unusual in that they are able to talk. Here, they are unusual in that they apparently are in the chariots. What this all suggests is that the horses, although they may look like animals, are a different kind of creatures. The notion that the horses are in the chariots is likewise attested in 6.5aα which reads ‫אשר בה הסוסים השחרים יצאים אל ארץ צפון‬. Secondly, the identification in Zech 6.5 of the horses with the ‘four winds of heaven’, going out from having been ‘standing before the Lord of the whole earth’ (‫)מהתיצב על אדון כל הארץ‬, brings to mind the ‘the two sons of oil’ in 4.14 who are ‘standing before the Lord of the whole earth’ (‫)העמדים על אדון כל הארץ‬. As I hope to demonstrate below, these two ‘sons of oil’ are likely to be two members of the divine assembly who ‘stand by’, i.e. ‘attend to’ God. Thus, the horses, the two divine ‘sons of oil’, and the ‘four winds’ are described by the same kind of imagery. This, in turn, suggests that the author of Zechariah’s vision report understood the horses as divine beings. To sum up, the eighth vision account features some sort of divine beings who set out to execute God’s will. 4.2 What does the oracular material in Zechariah 6.9–15 do with the divine beings in the vision account? It is, on the whole, unclear whether the oracular material in Zech 6.9–15 aims to comment on the eighth vision account. A few scholars attempt to find relevance in the combined text of 6.1–15. Seybold, for example, argues that 6.9–15 reflects on the result of the activity in the Neo-Babylonian Empire of the chariots from the immediately preceding vision account.23 Along different lines, Sellin24 and Baldwin25 propose that v. 15 is the original continuation of v. 8. God’s spirit will come upon the exiles in the North Country (v. 8) and stimulate them to return and rebuild the temple (v. 15).26 In contrast, the intermediate verses, vv. 10–14, are unrelated to the eighth vision account. They are merely an example for the Babylonian Jewry of the happenings under the new spirit.27 In my view, we should assume that the editor of the final text had some reason for placing the material in Zech 6.9–15 where he did. Thus, I agree with Seybold insofar as vv. 9–15 explore a possible application of the eighth vision, and in particular of the statement in v. 8. What is pertinent in the present context is the fact 23 SEYBOLD, Bilder zum Tempelbau, 16. SELLIN, Zwölfprophetenbuch, 515–519. 25 B ALDWIN, Zechariah, 132. 26 ROTHSTEIN, Nachtgesichte, 214–215; CHARY, Aggée-Zacharie, 108–109; RUDOLPH, Sacharja, 126. 27 RUDOLPH, Sacharja, 126. 24 E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission YHWH, the Divine Beings, and Zechariah 1–6 83 that v. 15 ‘historicizes’ the content of the vision account (vv. 1–8). It moves from the mythological description of divine beings and their actions, to the earthly circumstances of the return of the exiles and the building of YHWH’s temple in Jerusalem. Stronger indications suggest that the oracular material in Zech 6.9–15 is connected with the oracular material in 3.8b. Notably, 6.12 and 3.8b share the noun ‘branch’ (‫)צמח‬. The chronological relationship between these two texts is, however, uncertain: does 6.12 comment on 3.8b or vice versa, or do both passages stem from the same author? A plethora of different theories abound. Wöhrle, for example, argues that an early form of 6.9–13* was written by the same author as the oracular material in 4.6aβ–10a, as evident from its shared focus on Zerubabbel. Subsequently, another author wrote 3.1–8, reworked 6.9–13*, and added 6.14 in order to shift the focus from Zerubbabel to Joshua. Wöhrle thus sees 6.12 as primary and 3.8b as secondary. In the first edition of 6.9–13*, Zerubbabel is the ‘branch’ (v. 12). In the later context of 3.1–8; 6.9–14, however, the ‘branch’ has been transformed into a future priestly figure. 28 I agree with Wöhrle insofar as regarding 3.8b as a later addition to Zechariah 3.29 With this in mind, Wöhrle’s suggested redaction history of 6.9–15 appears to be the best alternative when trying to make sense of the complicated final text. As to the specific relationship between 3.8b and 6.12, the two texts use the term ‘branch’ differently. In 3.8b, the ‘branch’ is an anonymous person who is called ‘God’s servant’. It is unlikely that the ‘branch’ in 3.8b should be identified with Zerubbabel, as the use of the participle ‘behold, I am bringing the Branch’ implies that the Branch is not yet present in Judah.30 In contrast, in 6.12 the ‘branch’ in all likelihood symbolizes Zerubbabel, due to the repeated emphasis in 6.12–15 on the building of the temple. The divine statement in 6.12 that ‘behold a man, his name is “Branch”…and he will build the temple of Y HWH’ ( ‫ובנה את היכל‬ '‫ )ה‬makes the most sense when understood as referring to the building activity around 520 BCE. Thus, Rose’s attempt to explain the term ‘branch’ in both texts as a future figure fails to convince,31 as do Jauhiainen’s efforts to regard Joshua as ‘standing in’ for the ‘branch’.32 To conclude, the material in 6.9–15 does not interact with any of the vision accounts to any major extent. Instead, it strengthens the point made in the oracular material in 4.6aβ–10a which identifies Zerubbabel as the builder of the temple. The material in 6.9–15 is furthermore in line with 28 W ÖHRLE, Die Frühen Sammlungen, 359–361, 366. See further T IEMEYER, The Guilty Priesthood, 1–2. 30 T IEMEYER, The Guilty Priesthood, 1–2. 31 ROSE, Zemah and Zerubbabel, 130–141, 173–176, 248–251. 32 J AUHIAINEN, Turban and Crown, 501–511. 29 E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission 84 Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer the rest of the oracular material in Zechariah 1–6 insofar as it does not contain any references to divine beings. On the contrary, it offers a historically anchored reading and implementation of the vision accounts and the accompanying oracular material. 5. Zechariah 2.5–9 Moving to the third vision account in Zech 2.5–9, the text can be divided into an account of a visual impression (vv. 5–8a) and two oracular sayings (vv. 8b, 9). 5.1 Divine Beings in Zechariah 2.5–8a The vision account in 2.5–8a contains several interacting anthropomorphic characters who are all potentially divine. Verses 5 and 6 feature a ‘man’ with a measuring line in his hand (‫)איש ובידו חבל מדה‬. It is unclear as to whether the seer understood this anthropomorphic figure to be human or divine.33 The term ‫ איש‬describes an angel in quite a few texts in the Hebrew Bible (e.g. Gen 18.2; 32.24). A few exegetes identify this man with a specific Angel, such as the Interpreting Angel,34 or the Angel of YHWH,35 yet without firm textual support.36 Other exegetes argue that the man is human, in part owing to his behaviour which is deemed to be ‘too uninformed’ to fit a divine being: an angel would have known about God’s future plans for Jerusalem and thus would not have attempted to measure the city.37 I tend towards understanding the ‘man with the measuring stick’ as an angel, given the overall non-earthly setting of the scenery. Verses 7–8 introduce two new characters, namely the Interpreting Angel and another angel. Although it is hypothetically possible that the ‘other angel’ is identical with the ‘man with a measuring stick’, this is on the 33 Some scholars identify this man with an angel. See, e.g., R IGNELL, Nachtgesichte, 72, REDDITT, Zechariah, 58. See also SULLIVAN, Wrestling with Angels, 60. 34 E.g. RASHI, Rabbinic Bible, Zech 2.7. 35 Contra KEIL, Kleine Propheten, 546, who objects to the notion that the man may simply be a dramatic persona within the vision ‘weil sämtliche in diesen Visionen auftretended Personen bedeutsam sind’. 36 As pointed out by, e.g., RADAK, Rabbinic Bible, Zech 2.5; M ITCHELL, Zechariah, 136; REVENTLOW, Sacharja, 47. 37 Others object to that identification, claiming instead that the word ‘man’ indicates that he is not an angel (see, e.g. DEISSLER, Zwölf Propheten, 275). See also B Ič, Nachtgesichte, 21–22, who argues that the man with the measuring stick is unlikely to be an angel because of his ‘childish’ behaviour. Instead, the importance which he accredits to his measuring activity is typically human. E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission YHWH, the Divine Beings, and Zechariah 1–6 85 whole improbable, given the structure of the passage. 38 Verse 8a further speaks of a ‘young man’ who is either to be identified with the previously mentioned ‘man with a measuring stick’39 or with Zechariah himself.40 Both options are possible, yet overall the former is more likely, given that the man with the measuring stick belongs more firmly to the scene than Zechariah. All in all, the visionary world contains four characters: two angels, the man with the measuring stick who may or may not be an angel, and Zechariah.41 5.2 What does the oracular material in Zechariah 2.9 do with the divine beings in the vision account? In the final form of the text, v. 8b does not constitute a divine oracle.42 Instead it forms the direct speech of the ‘other’ angel to the young man. In contrast, v. 9aα forms a new beginning, as suggested by the phrase '‫נאם ה‬ and as emphasized by the first person divine speech: '‫ואני אהיה לה נאם ה‬. This opening phrase sets the oracular material apart from the preceding vision account, as well as from v. 8b. Structurally, we can thus speak of two different sections. As to the chronological development of the text, my view is in part informed by Hallaschka who postulates a three stage development of 2.5–9. He regards the vision account to be primary and argues that the task of the later oracular material is to expand and explain the former. Hallaschka detects an early core of the vision account in 2.5–6, whilst seeing vv. 7–8 as constituting a later layer. Verse 9 is an even later addition which develops the imagery of v. 8: while v. 8b mentions the people living in Jerusalem, v. 9 speaks of God living there.43 I agree with Hallaschka to the extent that I 38 The exact identify of the latter angel is left unspecified, yet a few scholars equate him with the Angel of YHWH elsewhere in Zechariah’s vision report. 39 See, e.g., MITCHELL, Zechariah, 138; B Ič, Nachtgesichte, 22; RUDOLPH, Sacharja, 85; REDDITT, Zechariah, 58; PETERSEN, Zechariah, 169; REVENTLOW, Sacharja, 47; MEYERS AND MEYERS, Zechariah, 153–154; HANHART, Sacharja, 139; W ILLI-P LEIN, Sacharja, 75; B ODA, Haggai, Zechariah, 223. 40 See, e.g., RASHI, Rabbinic Bible, Zech 2.8; RADAK, Rabbinic Bible, Zech 2.8; IBN EZRA, Rabbinic Bible, Zech 2.8; KEIL, Kleine Propheten, 548; MERRILL, Zechariah, 104– 105; REDDITT, Zechariah, 40; SWEENEY, Twelve Prophets, 585. 41 It can be argued that four characters, three of which are potentially angels, are definitely too many. HALLASCHKA, Sacharja, 186, for example, argues that the original vision account in vv. 5–6 only featured Zechariah and the man with the measuring stick. He regards both the Angel of YHWH and the Interpreting Angel appearing in vv. 7–8 to be later additions. 42 Contra REDDITT, Zechariah, 58, and PETERSEN, Zechariah, 169–172, who read vv. 8b–9 as a divine oracle. 43 HALLASCHKA, Sacharja, 177–186. E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission 86 Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer see v. 9 as a later addition. In contrast, I view vv. 7–8 as part of the original vision account, with the oracular statement in v. 8b as the original ending. Verse 8b does not interact with the characters in vv. 5–8a. Instead, it provides the purpose behind the measuring. If we read vv. 5–8a on their own, we are given no information as to why the ‘man’ is measuring Jerusalem. Verse 8b accordingly serves two purposes. First, it provides the reason for, but also the rejection of, the measuring activity. Jerusalem will be an open region (i.e. without walls). Its population, consisting of both humans and animals, will be so numerous so that no wall will suffice to surround its immense size.44 The divine oracle in v. 9 continues with the same interpretative trend as in v. 8b. Verse 9 expands on the statement in v. 8b and adds a new dimension to it. The issue is no longer population growth (v. 8b) but military security (v. 9). Jerusalem will not need a wall as fortification because God himself will be like a wall of fire around her (v. 9a). He will also be its glory in her midst (v. 9b).45 In a sense, the chronologically later oracular material in v. 9 offers a kind of sermon on v. 8b. As to the divine beings, the oracle in v. 9 changes the scenery. In vv. 5– 8, the angels are in control of the situation and they are responsible for Jerusalem. In contrast, v. 9 places God in the middle and declares emphatically that God himself (‫ )ואני אהיה‬will be a wall of fire around the city and its glory inside of it. The later oracular material in v. 9 thus emphasizes that God, rather than other divine beings, will take care of Jerusalem. 6. Zechariah 3.1–10 Turning to Zechariah 3, the material in this account has a different literary form than the other vision accounts in Zechariah 1–6. In the present context, my interest lies in the structure and chronological development of Zechariah 3, not in its relationship with the other vision accounts. Zechariah 3 can be, and has been, divided in various ways. From the perspective of literary genre, the chapter falls into two parts. The material in 3.1–5 describes the happenings in the divine assembly. 46 In contrast, vv. 6–10 consist of divine oracles, transmitted in the final form of the text by the Angel 44 See further the discussion in M EYERS AND MEYERS, Zechariah, 155. See, e.g., REDDITT, Zechariah, 58–59. 46 E.g. T IDWELL, Wāʾōmar, 347; VANDERKAM, Joshua the High Priest, 554; PETERSEN, Zechariah, 190–191. 45 E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission YHWH, the Divine Beings, and Zechariah 1–6 87 of YHWH (vv. 7–9, 10).47 Alternatively, it is possible to distinguish between vv. 1–7 and vv. 8–10, based on the change of scenery: vv. 1–7 take place in the divide assembly while vv. 8–10 take place in the temple.48 From a chronological perspective, much favours accepting vv. 6–7 as the earliest continuation of the vision account, as well as vv. 8a and 9, while treating vv. 8b and 10 as a later addition.49 6.1 Divine Beings in Zechariah 3.1–5 The vision account contains some new and some already familiar divine beings: the Angel of YHWH ('‫)מלאך ה‬, the Adversary (‫( )השטן‬v. 2), and presumably also other, yet unspecified, angels (v. 5). The phrase ‘those standing before him’ (‫ )העמדים לפניו‬is likely to denote other members of the divine assembly. 50 It is furthermore possible that the Interpreting Angel appears as the speaker in v. 1 (‫)ויראני‬.51 6.2 What is the oracular material in Zechariah 3.6–10 doing with the divine beings in the vision account? In contrast to the plethora of divine beings in the vision account in vv. 1–5, the oracular material in vv. 6–10 features only God and the Angel of YHWH, and only as speakers, not as actors. In many ways, the oracular material in vv. 6–10 interprets the visual impression in vv. 1–5. In the present context, I wish to highlight four ways in which the oracular material brings the issues of vv. 1–5 ‘down to earth’. First, v. 7a suggests to the reader that the undressing and dressing of Joshua in the divine assembly are connected with his role as High Priest in the earthly temple. As emphasized by the vocabulary, v. 7a refers to Joshua’s priestly duties in the temple.52 The terms ‫ ביתי‬and ‫ חצרי‬denote 47 See, e.g., BEUKEN, Haggai-Sacharja, 290–300; PETERSEN, Zechariah, 202, 208, 211–214. 48 AMSLER, LACOCQUE AND VUILLEUMIER, Aggée, 83; RUDOLPH, Sacharja, 99; VAN DER WOUDE , Zion as Primeval Stone, 238. See also B IČ , Nachtgesichte, 36–37, and P ARKER, Council, 206. 49 See further T IEMEYER, Guilty Priesthood, 1–3. 50 Cf. MITCHELL, Zechariah, 151; MEYERS AND MEYERS, Zechariah, 188. 51 See, e.g., SWEENEY, Twelve Prophets, 594–595. Sweeney suggests that the Interpreting Angel is the subject. He is also open to the possibility that the speaker, in this vision, is identical with the Angel of Y HWH. Alternatively, some exegetes argue that the speaker is God. See, e.g., KEIL, Kleine Propheten, 552, FEINBERG, God Remembers, 42–43, because of the analogy with Zech 2.3. More recently, B ODA, Haggai, Zechariah, 250, identifies the speaker with God because he is the last person referred to in the preceding text, Zech 2.13. 52 T IEMEYER, Priestly Rites, 252–254. E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission 88 Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer (parts of) the temple complex, thus indicating that Joshua is given the highest authority there.53 In this manner, the oracular material recontextualizes the visionary impression and re-interprets it as a message concerning the earthly temple. While the vocabulary in vv. 1–5 could (but need not) be related to the temple and to Joshua’s priestly role, the oracular material in v. 7a closes the openness of the visionary impression and guides the reader firmly towards an interpretation related to the temple. Second, the material in 3.9 brings down the cleansing of Joshua from the divine assembly to earth. It interprets Joshua’s change of clothing in vv. 3–5 as a heavenly precursor to the removal of the sins of the community through the earthly celebration of the Day of Atonement in 3.9.54 Third, there is a change from ‘those standing before him’ in v. 5 to ‘those sitting before him’ in v. 8. The divine beings in vv. 1–5 are transformed into Joshua’s earthly, priestly colleagues. Finally, the adversary disappears as we move from vision account to oracular material. 7. Zechariah 4 Looking at Zechariah 4, most critical scholars distinguish between the vision account in Zech 4.1–6aα, 10b–11, 13–14 (v. 12 is often considered to be secondary) on the one hand, and the oracular material in vv. 6aβ–10a on the other hand. 7.1 Divine Beings in Zechariah 4.1–6aα, 10b–11, 13–14 The only obvious divine being in the vision account in Zechariah 4 is the Interpreting Angel. However, there are compelling arguments to suggest that the lamp-stand represents God, the seven eyes represent his heavenly host, and the two olive-trees in attendance represent two members of the divine assembly. The lamp-stand and the eyes together form one overarching image of God and his divine agents (vv. 2–3, 10b). As suggested by Oppenheim, the image of God’s eyes in 4.10 is probably influenced by the Persian intelligence service and network of espionage. As the Persian king’s ‘eyes’ rode across the Persian Empire gathering information about the situation in the 53 Cf. JEREMIAS, Nachtgesichte, 214–215, who argues convincingly that the term ‫בית‬ must refer to the temple and not to the people of Judah. See also V ANDERKAM, Joshua the High Priest, 559. 54 For Zech 3.9 being a reference to an early form of the Day of Atonement, see T IEMEYER, Guilty Priesthood, 1–19. E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission YHWH, the Divine Beings, and Zechariah 1–6 89 realm, so God’s ‘roaming eyes’ traverse the earth collecting data.55 The eyes in 4.10 are further connected with the horses in 1.8–11 and 6.1–8.56 In fact, God’s omniscience (patrolling forces/all-seeing eyes) is a Leitmotif throughout Zechariah’s vision report. In the first vision account, the horses and their riders return in order to report to God (1.10–11). In the last vision account, they set out again to execute the decision of the divine assembly (6.7). The eyes in 4.10, half-way between these two happenings, constitute God’s patrols at rest in the divine assembly. The horses and the eyes are thus symbols of the same thing, that is, God’s omnipresence.57 The image of the flying scroll in the sixth vision account complements this picture, as the scroll flies around seeking out those individuals who are impure.58 The image of God’s all-seeing eyes in Zech 4.10 in all likelihood depends on two main biblical traditions. First, it draws on Ezekiel’s inaugural vision report and the notion of eyes of God’s throne chariot.59 Ezek 1.18 describes the creatures’ wheels as having eyes (‫ )עינים‬all around their rims (‫)וגבתם מלאת עינים סביב לארבעתן‬. These eyes are best understood as symbols of the cherubim’s all-seeing character and constant watchfulness,60 although they may also have had a physical dimension as eye-shaped gem stones that gave them a sense of majesty and awesomeness ( ‫וגביהן וגבה להם‬ ‫‘ = ויראה להם‬as for their rims, they had height and they had fear’).61 As noted above, the portrayal of the horses in Zechariah 1 and 6 is influenced by the portrayal of the creatures/cherubim in the vision reports in Ezekiel 1 and 8–11.62 As in the case of the horses, the links in Zechariah 1; 4; and 6 to Ezekiel 1 and 8–11 do not fall into the category of textual allusions. Rather, Ezekiel’s descriptions of the creatures/cherubim are better viewed as part of the pre-history (in terms of ideas and images) of Zechariah’s vision report.63 Zechariah reused but also altered parts of Ezekiel’s descriptions as he strove to put into words his own visionary experience. Secondly, the image of God’s all-seeing eyes draws on Job 1–2. In many respects, the seven eyes have a corresponding function to that of the Adver55 OPPENHEIM , Eyes of the Lord, 173–180. See further my discussion in T IEMEYER, Busy Night, 187–207. See also REVENTLOW, Sacharja, 59, and W ILLI-P LEIN, Sacharja, 95. 56 See also MITCHELL, Zechariah, 163, and N IDITCH, Symbolic Vision, 111–112. 57 See further T IEMEYER, Busy Night, 189–190, 200. 58 NIDITCH, Symbolic Vision, 112. 59 SWEENEY, Twelve Prophets, 613. 60 GREENBERG, Ezekiel’s Vision, 167, I DEM, Ezekiel 1–20, 58. 61 E.g. B LOCK, Book of Ezekiel, 100–101. For the grammatical understanding of Ezek 10.8, see W ALDMAN, Note, 614–618, who understands ‫ וגביהן‬as a casus pendens (cf. vv. 10, 11, 13). 62 T IEMEYER, Zechariah’s Spies, 109–116. 63 T IEMEYER, Zechariah’s Spies, 116. E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission 90 Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer sary, 64 as suggested by the shared vocabulary of Zech 4.10b ( ‫המה משוטטים‬ ‫ )בכל הארץ‬with the Adversary’s answer in Job 1.7 ( ‫ויאמר משוט בארץ מהתהלך‬ ‫)בה‬. As the Adversary, the ‘eyes’ in Zechariah 4 ‘roam the earth’ with the aim of gathering information. Summing up, the textual allusions to Ezekiel and Job and the occurrences of ‘eyes’ throughout Zechariah’s vision report together suggest that the ‘eyes’ in Zech 4.10 constitute a symbol of the heavenly host. Turning to the two olive trees in Zech 4.3, 11, 13–14, two key factors make it likely that they are members of the heavenly host. First, the olive trees (vv. 3, 11) are identified in v. 14 as the ‘two sons of oil’ ( ‫שני בני‬ ‫‘ )היצהר‬who are standing before the Lord of the whole earth’ ( ‫העמדים על‬ ‫)אדון כל הארץ‬. The last statement serves to link the two ‘sons of oil’ with the four horses/chariots in 6.5. Identified as the ‘four winds’ (‫)ארבע רחות‬, the horses/chariots are going out into ‘the whole world’ ( ‫מהתיצב על אדון כל‬ ‫)הארץ‬.65 Secondly, the link between the two olive trees and divine beings is further emphasized by the preposition ‫ על‬in v. 3 and the expression ‫ עמד על‬in v. 14. The verb ‫ עמד על‬is elsewhere used in conjunction with heavenly beings who stand around God’s throne (Isa 6.2; 1 Kgs 22.19; cf. Job 1.6 ['‫)]להתיצב על ה‬.66 In particular, the two trees in Zech 4.3, 14 have affinity with the seraphim in Isa 6.2. As the seraphim in Isa 6.2 ‘stand above’ the Lord (‫)שרפים עמדים ממעל לו‬, so the trees are ‘above’ the lamp-stand (v. 3, ‫ )עליה‬and the ‘sons of oil’ ‘stand above’ the Lord of the whole earth (‫)העמדים על אדון כל הארץ‬. Both the seraphim and the trees represent the allseeing power of YHWH’s divine assembly. 67 Furthermore, the expression ‫ וקרא זה אל זה‬in Isa 6.3a may imply that just as there were two trees in Zech 4.10, there were two seraphim in Isa 6.3.68 Based on the accumulated textual evidence, I follow Rose’s conclusion that the ‘sons of oil’ in Zech 4.14 are two members of the divine assembly who ‘stand above’, i.e. ‘attend to’ God.69 7.2 What is the oracular material in Zechariah 4.6aβ–10a doing with the divine beings in the vision account? In the oracular material in vv. 6aβ–10a all the divine beings have disappeared and the imagery has been brought down to a human level. This change is visible on three fronts. First, the oracular material encourages the 64 T IDWELL, Wāʾōmar, 347. Cf. T IEMEYER, Busy Night, 204. 66 JUNKER, Die zwölf kleinen Propheten, 141. 67 CARROLL, What Do We Know, 42. 68 METTINGER, Seraphim, 743. 69 ROSE, Zemah and Zerubbabel, 204–207. 65 E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission YHWH, the Divine Beings, and Zechariah 1–6 91 reader of the final form of Zechariah 4 to interpret the image of the two olive trees as symbols of the earthly leaders Joshua and Zerubbabel.70 As the oracle in vv. 6aβ–7 is directed towards Zerubbabel, and as the oracle in vv. 8–10a is about Zerubbabel, the reader of the final form of Zechariah 1– 6, reading the vision report and the oracular material together, is led towards identifying one of the trees with the earthly leader Zerubbabel.71 In the same way, the material in Zechariah 3 and 6.9–15 suggests identifying the other tree with Joshua.72 The oracular material thus transforms the trees from divine beings into earthly men. Secondly, and likewise, the oracular material in 4.6aβ–10a transforms the image of the lamp-stand and its eyes from being symbols of God and his heavenly host into a picture of the earthly temple. The reference to the ‘top stone’ (‫ )האבן הראשה‬in v. 7b, as well as the reference to Zerubbabel laying the foundation of ‘this house’ (‫ )ידי זרבבל יסדו הבית הזה‬in v. 9a causes the reader of the final form of Zechariah 4 to identify the lamp-stand with the temple.73 Thirdly, the oracular material in 4.6b further picks up the notion of ‘wind/spirit’ from the eighth vision account (6.5). In 6.5, the image of the ‘wind’ is intertwined with the images of the horses, the chariots, and the eyes. The oracular material in 4.6b, however, emphasizes that it is God’s wind/spirit (‫ )כי אם ברוחי‬who will act directly through the human Zerubbabel. 8. Zechariah 2.1–4 The final two vision accounts to be discussed – Zech 2.1–4 and 5.5–9 – differ from the pattern that we have seen so far in that they lack an oracular component. Beginning with the vision account in Zech 2.1–4, its structure falls easily into two parts; vv. 1–2 and vv. 3–4. The situation is more complicated from an exegetical perspective. It is possible to view v. 4b as a concluding divine oracle, as it culminates the vision account and as it potentially constitutes a divine oracle, depending on how one understands 70 Many scholars read Zech 4 as a unity and allow their interpretation of the oracular material to influence their understanding of the surrounding vision account. See, e.g. B ALDWIN, Zechariah, 119, 125; STEAD, Intertextuality of Zechariah, 172–173, 176; F INITSIS, Visions, 132–133. 71 Cf. W ILLI-P LEIN, Sacharja, 95–96; W ÖHRLE, Die Frühen Sammlungen, 338. 72 The strength of this interpretation is evidenced by the majority of commentaries who identify the two olive trees in Zech 4.14 as Zerubbabel and Joshua. 73 As do a number of scholars. See especially VAN DER W OUDE, Zion as Primeval Stone, 239–240, and O’BRIEN, Zechariah, 192–196. E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission 92 Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer the subject of the verb ‫( ויאמר‬which follows the ethnachta). Yet, this reading of the text fails to take into account the special features of the second vision account and thus ultimately does the text an injustice. It is therefore preferable to view Zechariah’s second vision account as unaccompanied by an oracle and thus on a par with the seventh vision account. 8.1 Divine Beings in Zechariah 2.1–4 It is difficult to determine the number of divine beings in the second vision account in Zech 2.1–4. The Interpreting Angel reappears (v. 2). We also, somewhat surprisingly, meet YHWH. The vision account in 2.1–4 stands out from the other vision accounts in that YHWH is an actor within the vision account (v. 3), something which elsewhere occurs only in 3.2. Zechariah 2.3 assigns to YHWH acts which in 1.9 are attributed to the Interpreting Angel. It is furthermore unclear as to whether the speaker in v. 4a (‫ )ויאמר‬is YHWH or the Interpreting Angel.74 Turning to the horns and the artisans, they may qualify as or at least symbolize divine beings. The reference to ‘craftsmen’ (‫ )חרשים‬in Zech 2.3 brings to mind Kothar wa-Hasis, the Ugaritic deity who is smith, craftsman, engineer, architect, and inventor. In Ugarit cosmology, he is part of the four-tiered divine council. As discussed by Smith, the top level contains El and his consort Athirat, the second level contains the rest of the major figures of the pantheon (e.g. Yamm, Anat, Mot, Baal). The third tier is poorly represented in the Ugaritic texts. According to Smith, it is likely that Kothar wa-Hasis belongs there. He serves the upper two tiers of the council, as builder of palaces and maker of weapons. The fourth tier contains minor deities, including the messenger-gods.75 It is, in my view, possible that the imagery of the ‫‘( חרשים‬craftsmen’), the destroyers of nations (v. 3), is influenced by the notion of a craftsman deity whose speciality was to make weapons. 74 The fact that YHWH is the last person mentioned (v. 3) favours seeing God as Zechariah’s interlocutor in v. 4. According to this reading, God would show Zechariah the four ‫( חרשים‬v. 3), Zechariah would ask [God] what they are (v. 4a), and [God] would tell him. In addition, the fact that God has usurped the task of the Interpreting Angel in v. 3 opens the possibility that he is doing the same in v. 4 (Cf. SCHÖTTLER, Gott inmitten seines Volkes, 60; O’BRIEN, Zechariah, 178). The alternative reading, namely that the Interpreting Angel is Zechariah’s interlocutor, is supported by the fact that nothing in v. 4b implies that it is a divine oracle. (In comparison, Zech 5.4 states explicitly that God is taking over from the interpreting angel [v. 3] as the speaker.) Instead, v. 4 continues the train of thought of v. 2. Furthermore, as the task of explaining the visionary impression to Zechariah elsewhere in Zech 1–6 falls on the Interpreting Angel, it is natural to assume that it does so here as well (Cf. PETERSEN, Zechariah, 164). 75 SMITH, Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 45–46. E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission YHWH, the Divine Beings, and Zechariah 1–6 93 Tigchelaar’s interpretation of Zech 2.1–4 points in the same direction. He sees the vision account as steeped in the language of myth and magical language, and argues that the verb ‫ לידות‬in v. 4 provides the solution to its imagery. On the basis of comparative Semitics, he derives the infinitive ‫ לידות‬from the root ‫ ידי‬which he identified as a cognate of the Ugaritic root ydy, meaning ‘to cast out’ or ‘to expel’. The ‫ חרשים‬in vv. 3–4 are thus given the task of expelling the ‘horns’. This action suggests that the horns are a kind of demons, in the same way as the horns in Dan 7.7–8, 11, 20– 21, 24 are hybrid characters with evil intent which can be likened to demons. The horns in 2.1–2 are thus not nations, or even leaders of nations; rather, they signify demons in charge of and representing the nations.76 Tigchelaar further proposes that the ‫ חרשים‬are skilled workers in the sense that they are experts in uttering spells (analogous to the people in Ezek 21.36 who are ‘skilled in destruction’ [‫)]חרשי משחית‬.77 The combination of the terms ‫ חרש‬and ‫ משחית‬in Isa 54.16 conveys the same nuances of destruction.78 As these ‘craftsmen’ expel the ‘horns’, i.e. the demons, Tigchelaar maintains that the ‘craftsmen’ accordingly must represent heavenly actors who determine the course of history. Zechariah 2.1–4 is steeped in the language of myth and magical language.79 I am not fully convinced by Tigchelaar’s identification of the horns with demons. It is unlikely that Zechariah would have seen demons and then used the term ‘horn’ to describe what he saw. Tigchelaar begins with the divine word and works ‘backwards’ towards the image, thus allowing his interpretation of the images to be influenced by the interpretation in v. 4. Instead, I suggest that Zechariah saw a picture of something akin to four animal horns (v. 1). This image is primary and leads only subsequently to the interpretation of the horns as symbols of earthly powers (v. 2). In contrast, I find Tigchelaar’s interpretation of the craftsmen as symbols of heavenly actors convincing. It gains additional credence when one reads Zech 2.1–4 as the direct continuation of Zech 1.8–11(13). As the account of the horses and the rider standing among the myrtle belongs in a mythological realm, so would the account of the horns and the craftsmen. It therefore cannot be excluded that the horns and the craftsmen in Zech 2.1– 4 represent more than what meets the eye and may in fact denote divine beings. 76 T IGCHELAAR, Prophets of Old, 47–55. The link between Zech 2.3 and Ezek 21.36 is noted by several scholars, among them MERRILL, Zechariah, 101; M EYERS AND MEYERS, Zechariah, 139; ROKAY, Nachtgesichte, 72; DELKURT, Nachtgesichte, 93–96, 101. 78 HALLASCHKA, Sacharja, 174. Cf. also STEAD, Intertextuality of Zechariah, 107, and DELKURT, Nachtgesichte, 93–96, 101. 79 T IGCHELAAR, Prophets of Old, 47–55. 77 E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission 94 Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer 8.2 Is there oracular material in Zechariah 2.1–4? As noted above, Zechariah’s second vision report is unaccompanied by any oracular material and it is unlikely that any part of the text is a later interpretation of an earlier stratum. As a result, Zech 2.1–4 stays within the realm of the visionary world and there is no transformation of divine beings into any earthly equivalence. The lack of a clearly defined divine oracle may in part stem from the existence of a degree of explanatory material embedded in the vision account in itself. The horns are identified indirectly in v. 2 as ‘the nations’ and directly in v. 4 as ‘the horns of the nations’. The craftsmen are described as those able to destroy the horns. Beyond that, the vision report does not interpret itself and the function and the identity of the characters involved are never fully elucidated. The extant characters could be other nations, divine beings, or still something else. Furthermore, the horns and the craftsmen are never substituted for something else in the accompanying explanation but remain symbols throughout the vision account.80 Thus, the text never spells out the earthly repercussions of the characters’ actions. Recently Hallaschka has suggested, on the basis of the slight discrepancy in the use of the horn-motif between vv. 1–2 (four specific nations) and 3–4 (nations in general), that the original text only consisted of vv. 3– 4. In that text, God was the sole actor (v. 3) and speaker (v. 4). Verses 1–2 and thus the persona of the Interpreting Angel were added later to the text.81 If Hallaschka’s claim were correct, it would challenge my claim that the later textual layers of Zechariah 1–6 contain fewer divine beings than the earlier ones. However, the problem lies within v. 4 alone: 4bα echoes v. 2 while v. 4bβ adds a new touch to the horn motif.82 To differentiate between vv. 1–2 and vv. 3–4 therefore does not solve the aforementioned discrepancy. With this in mind, it is preferable to treat 2.1–4 as an authorial unity. 9. Zechariah 5.5–11 The seventh vision account in Zech 5.5–11 is similar to the one in 2.1–4 in two respects. First, neither account contains a divine oracle which interprets the visual imagery. Secondly, both accounts contain a relatively high level of explanatory information. In the seventh account, the Interpreting 80 NIDITCH, Symbolic Vision, 126. From a different perspective but making the same point, see LOVE, The Evasive Text, 136–137. 81 HALLASCHKA, Sacharja, 169. 82 See further T IEMEYER, Review. E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission YHWH, the Divine Beings, and Zechariah 1–6 95 Angel assigns symbolic quality to several of the images (e.g. the woman is wickedness), something which gives the vision account an allegorical quality. This quality is on a par with the situation in the second account wherein the horns are explained as the entities which scattered Judah etc. (2.2).83 Zechariah 5.5–11 contains a large number of divine beings. The Interpreting Angel appears throughout the entire account (vv. 5–6, 8, 10–11). In addition, there is the woman in the ephah, and the two stork-like women (vv. 9–11) who carry her to Shinar. Beginning with the stork-like women, they are most likely some kind of divine beings, akin to the cherubim. This identification is based on three factors. First, the phrase ‘wind in their wings’ (‫)ורוח בכנפיהם‬84 implies that they have wings and that they can fly. This phrase appears elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible in 2 Sam 22.11//Ps 18.10 in the context of God riding upon a cherub.85 There, the cherub and the ‘wings of the wind’ are parallel expressions, something which may indicate that ‘wings of the wind’ is an epithet of a cherub (‫על כנפי רוח‬//‫)וירכב על כרוב‬. The same expression appears also in Hos 4.19 in an oracle that blames the Israelites (f. sg.) for idolatry and claims that a wind will bind her up with its wings (‫ )צרר רוח אותה בכנפיה‬so that she will be ashamed. These three examples together make it likely that the two winged women in Zech 5.9 are acting on God’s behalf. Secondly, the women’s task in 5.9–11 is reminiscent of the tasks of the cherubim in Ezekiel 8–11, as well as of those of other divine beings. As the cherubim in Ezek 11.22–23 remove God’s glory from Jerusalem, so the composite creatures in Zech 5.11 remove personified wickedness from the land (of Judah).86 Körting, for example, points out that the two winged women in Zechariah 5 move in the same sphere between heaven and earth as the prophet Ezekiel (Ezek 8.3) and the Angel of Y HWH (1 Chron 21.16). Thus they are likely to be God’s agents. By carrying the ephah to Babylon, they are doing God’s work which brings salvation to Israel. They are feminine, to set them apart from God and the angels.87 Thirdly, the impression that the women serve God is further strengthened by the double entendre of the Hebrew term ‫ רוח‬which also means ‘spirit’. The ‘wind’ is God’s agent in Gen 8.1; Exod 15.10; Jer 10.13; and 83 Cf. NIDITCH, Symbolic Vision, 168. The m. pl. pronominal suffix may attest to the dominance of the masculine grammatical forms. 85 Cf. MEYERS AND MEYERS, Zechariah, 305. 86 See further also B ARKER, The Evil in Zechariah, 24–26, and M EYERS AND MEYERS, Zechariah, 305–306. 87 KÖRTING, Sach 5,5–11, 482. See also CURTIS, Up the Steep and Stony Road, 142, who calls them ‘the Bible’s only female angels’, as does SALS, Reading Zechariah 5.5– 11, 199. 84 E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission 96 Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer Num 11.31.88 As Merrill points out, God’s spirit is empowering the two winged women in their current endeavour in the same way as it is strengthening Zerubbabel in Zech 4.6 (‫)כי אם ברוחי‬.89 Along similar lines, Baldwin argues that the link to Zech 4.6 indicates that the removal of ‘wickedness’ is God’s doing.90 Taken together, the comparative textual evidence suggests that the stork-like women in 5.9–11 are God’s agents who carry out his work. Their description is influenced by that of the cherubim, especially in Ezek 8–11, and they can be understood as the cherubim’s female counterpart. As mentioned earlier, there are intriguing similarities in the depiction of the creatures/cherubim in Ezekiel 1 and 8–11, the Adversary in Job 1–2, the horses in Zechariah 1 and 6, and the Adversary in Zechariah 3.91 It is possible that Zechariah understood the stork-like women to fall into the same category of divine beings. If so, then the stork-like women (7th account), the horses (1st and 8th account), the divine beings represented by the eyes of the lamp-stand (5th account), the two ‘sons of oil’ (5th account), and the Adversary (4th account) would all be members of YHWH’s host. Turning to the woman sitting in the ephah, the situation is different. For convincing reasons, she has often been interpreted either as a goddess (e.g. Asherah,92 or Ishtar93) or as a statue of a goddess. What is more uncertain, however, is whether the woman is a goddess or whether she merely represents one. Notably, she is called a woman, i.e. a human being (‫זאת אשה אחת‬, v. 7bα). This textual detail sets the woman in the ephah apart from the divine beings in Zechariah’s vision report. The horses, the olive trees etc., are divine beings in themselves: the trees are ‘the sons of oil’ (vv. 11, 14), and the horses are God’s winds (6.4–5). In contrast, the woman is not a goddess. Instead, she is ‘the wickedness’ (‫)זאת הרשעה‬. The explanation of this difference lies, in my view, in the woman’s status vis-à-vis YHWH. All the divine beings that we have encountered so far in Zechariah 1–6 have been God’s subordinate servants who have carried out his commands. This includes the Adversary who, as a member of the divine assembly, is subordinate to its leader YHWH (3.1–2). In contrast, the woman in the ephah is not affiliated with YHWH and is not part of his entourage. Thus, from the perspective of the author(s) of Zechariah 1–6, she is not a divine being. The fact that the woman in the ephah is explicitly 88 PETERSEN, Zechariah, 259, including n. 7. MERRILL, Zechariah, 156–157. 90 B ALDWIN, Zechariah, 129. 91 T IEMEYER, Zechariah’s Spies, 104–127. 92 EDELMAN, Provoking, 336–337. 93 E.g. DELCOR, La vision de la femme, esp. 143–144; SWEENEY, Twelve Prophets, 620. 89 E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission YHWH, the Divine Beings, and Zechariah 1–6 97 identified as a woman (5.7) suggests that Zechariah 1–6 does not allow for divine beings outside YHWH’s host. She might represent a goddess but she is not one. (In contrast, the Adversary in Zechariah 3 is still considered one of YHWH’s associates and thus not a rival independent deity.) Conclusion Having surveyed Zechariah 1–6, the actual vision report contains a multitude of different divine beings. This is true also for the material in 3.1–5 which may have been written subsequently to the other seven vision accounts. We meet angels as well as other kinds of divine beings (horses, the Adversary, ‘sons of oil’, winged birdlike women) who are members of the divine assembly and parts of YHWH’s host. In contrast, the oracular material in Zechariah 1–6 persistently focuses on YHWH alone. For instance, the vision accounts depict the action as being carried out by divine beings (e.g. 1.8–11; 2.5–8), while the oracular material maintains that Y HWH is the principal actor (e.g. 1.13–17; 2.9). In several case the oracular material also transforms the visionary material in order to adapt it to issues ‘down on earth’. For example, scenes from the divine assembly are translated to reflect the earthly temple (Zechariah 3) and divine beings are transformed to be understood as representing earthly persons (Zechariah 4). Reflecting on these differences raises the question as to whether they point to a change of historical circumstances94 or a change of literary genre, or both. I tend towards the last interpretation for two reasons. First, from the perspective of the text of Zechariah 1–6, it is likely that many, if not all, of the verses containing divine oracles stem from chronologically later redactions. As we have seen, the oracular material expands on and interprets the vision accounts (e.g. 1.14–15 interprets 11b; 2.9 interprets 2.8b). At the same time, I do not detect any wider chronological gap between the vision accounts and most of the oracular material. On the contrary, the latter is firmly anchored within the sixth century BCE, as indicated by the focus on the historical characters Zerubbabel and Joshua. Secondly, from the perspective of the rest of the Hebrew Bible as well as the inter-testamental literature and the New Testament, a decrease in terms of references to divine beings in chronologically later texts makes little sense. 94 In this context, I find it unhelpful to speak about authorship. Given our lack of information about Zechariah as a person, it is impossible to distinguish between a situation where Zechariah reinterpreted his earlier vision report and a situation where someone else reinterpreted Zechariah’s vision report. What matters is the chronological aspect, i.e. that one set of texts was written in different social and historical circumstances than another set of texts. E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission 98 Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer On the contrary, later Jewish literature testifies to an increased number of references to divine beings, especially to angels. Taken together, these two factors suggest that we should look primarily to the genre of the material. This, in a sense, is self-evident, yet it nevertheless needs to be spelled out. The oracular material in Zechariah 1–6 brings the visionary impression down to earth, making it applicable to the events in Yehud around 520 BCE and thus relevant to the people living at that time. The happenings in the divine assembly had relevance for the audience of the vision report only insofar as it touched their present lives on earth. We may also conclude that the divine imagery throughout all of Zechariah 1–6 is strictly monotheistic. In an even more conspicuous manner than in Pss 82.1–7; 89.6–8 or Exod 15.11, texts which declare Y HWH’s supremacy over all other divine beings, no inkling in Zechariah’s vision report hints at a situation where the divine beings would be on a par with YHWH. Instead, they are all subordinate to YHWH and carry out his will. The one exception is the woman in the ephah, yet, as we have seen, her appearance actually confirms the rule. In contrast to both the angels and the nonanthropomorphic divine beings, she is not described as a goddess, even though she may symbolize one. On the contrary, she is a ‘woman’ (v. 7b), i.e. a human being, thus set apart from the divine beings, and she is ‘the wickedness’ (v. 8a), i.e. a personification of and symbol for ethical and religious crime. Bibliography AMSLER, S. et al., Aggée, Zacharie 1–8; Zacharie 9–14, Malachie (Commentaier de l’ancient Testament XIc), Paris 1981 B ALDWIN, J. G., Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (TOTC), Leicester 1972 B ARKER, M., The Evil in Zechariah, HeyJ 19 (1978) 12–27 B EHRENS, A., Prophetische Visionsschilderungen im Alten Testament: Sprachliche Eigenarten, Funktion und Geschichte einer Gattung (AOAT 292), Münster 2002 B EUKEN, W. A. M., Haggai-Sacharja 1–8: Studien aur Überlieferungsgeschichte der Frühnachexillischen Prophetie (SSN), Assen 1967 B Ič, M., Die Nachtgesichte des Sacharja (BSt 42), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1964 B LOCK, D. I., The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24 (NICOT), Grand Rapids, Michigan 1997 B ODA, M. J., Haggai, Zechariah (The NIV Application Commentary), Grand Rapids, Michigan 2004 CARROLL, R. P., So What Do We Know about the Temple? The Temple in the Prophets’, in: Second Temple Studies. 2. Temple and Community in the Persian Period (JSOT.S 175), eds. T. C. Eskenazi and K. H. Richards, Sheffield 1994, 34–51 CHARY, T., Aggée-Zacharie Malachie (Sources Bibliques) Paris 1969 CURTIS, B. G., Up the Steep and Stony Road: The Book of Zechariah in Social Location Trajectory Analysis (SBLAB 25), Atlanta 2006 E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission YHWH, the Divine Beings, and Zechariah 1–6 99 DEISSLER, A., Zwölf Propheten III: Zefanja, Haggai, Sacharja, Maleachi, Würzburg 1988 DELCOR, M., La vision de la femme dans l’épha de Zach. 5,5–11 à la lumière de la litérature hittite, RHR 187 (1975), 137–145 DELKURT, H., Sacharjas Nachtgesichte: Zur Aufnahme Und Abwandlung Prophetischer Traditionen (BZAW 302), Berlin 2000 EDELMAN, D., Provoking Yahweh Killed His Wife (Zechariah 5.5–11), BibInt 11 (2003) 335–344 FEINBERG, C. L., God Remembers: A Study of Zechariah, Eugene, Oregon 1965 F INITSIS, A., Visions and Eschatology: A Socio-Historial Analysis of Zechariah 1–6 (LSTS 79), New York 2011 GREENBERG, M., Ezekiel’s Vision: Literary and Iconographic Aspects, in: History, Historiography and Interpretation: Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform Literatures, eds. H. Tadmor and M. Weinfeld, Jerusalem 1984, 159–168 – Ezekiel 1–20 (AB 22), Garden City/New York 1983 HALLASCHKA, M., Haggai und Sacharja 1–8: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (BZAW 411), Berlin 2011 HANHART, R., Sacharja (BKAT XIV/7), Neukirchen-Vluyn 19912 J AUHIAINEN, M., Turban and Crown Lost and Regained: Ezekiel 21.29–32 and Zechariah’s Zemah, JBL 127 (2008) 501–511 JEREMIAS, C., Die Nachtgesichte des Sacharja: Untersuchungen zu ihrer Stellung im Zusammenhang der Visionsberichte im Alten Testament und zu ihrem Bildmaterial (FRLANT 117), Göttingen 1977 J UNKER, H., Die zwölf kleinen Propheten, II (HSAT 8), Bonn 1938 KEEL, O. and C. UEHLINGER, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel (trans. T. H. Trapp) Minneapolis 1998 KEIL, C. F., Die zwölf kleinen Propheten (BKAT), Leipzig 1888 KÖRTING, C., Sach 5,5–11 – die Unrechtmässigkeit wird an ihern Ort verwiesen, Biblica 87 (2006), 477–492 KRATZ, R. G., Serubbabel und Joschua, in: I DEM, Das Judentum im Zeitalter des zweiten Tempels (FAT 42), Tübingen 2004, 79–92 LOVE, M. C., The Evasive Text: Zechariah 1–8 and the Frustrated Reader (JSOT.S 296), Sheffield 1999 MERRILL, E. H., Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi: An Exegetical Commentary, Chicago 1994 METTINGER, T. N. D., Cherubim ‫כרובים‬, DDD, 189–192 – Seraphim ‫שרפים‬, DDD, 742–744 MEYERS, C. L. AND E. M. MEYERS, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8 (AB 25b), New York 1987 M ITCHELL, H. G., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Haggai and Zechariah (ICC), Edinburgh 1912 N IDITCH, S., The Symbolic Vision in Biblical Tradition (HSM 30), Chico, California 1980 O’B RIEN, J. M., Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries), Nashville 2004 OLLENBURGER, B. C., The Book of Zechariah, NIB 7, Nashville 1996, 733–840 OPPENHEIM , A. L., The Eyes of the Lord, JAOS 88 (1968) 173–180 P ARKER, S. B., Council ‫סוד‬, DDD, 204–208 PETERSEN, D. L., Haggai & Zechariah 1–8: A Commentary (OTL), Philadelphia 1984 P ONGRATZ-LEISTEN, B., Herrschaftswissen in Mesopotamien: Formen der Kommunikation zwischen Gott und König im 2. und 1. Jahrtausend v.Chr. (SAAS X), Helsinki 1999 E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission 100 Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer RANKIN, M., An Introduction to Religious and Spiritual Experience, London/New York 2008 REDDITT, P. L., Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (NCBC), London 1995 REVENTLOW, H. G., Die Propheten Haggai, Sacharja und Maleachi (ATD 25,2), Göttingen 1993 R IGNELL, L. G., Die Nachtgesichte des Sacharja, Lund 1950 ROKAY, Z., Die Nachtgesichte des Propheten Sacharja: Eine einzelexegetische Untersuchung zur Bestimmung ihrer Eigenart, Frankfurt am Main 2011 ROSE, W. H., Zemah and Zerubbabel: Messianic Expectations in the Early Postexilic Period (JSOT.S 304), Sheffield 2000 ROTHSTEIN, J. W., Die Nachtgesichte des Sacharja: Studien zur Sacharjaprophetie und zur Jüdischen Geschichte im Ersten Nachexilischen Jahrhundert (BWAT 8), Leipzig 1910 RUDOLPH, W., Haggai - Sacharja 1–8 - Sacharja 9–14 - Maleachi (KAT XIII/4), Gütersloh 1976 SALS, U., Reading Zechariah 5.5–11: Prophecy, Gender and (Ap)Perception, in: Prophets and Daniel: A Feminist Companion to the Bible (Second Series), ed. A. Brenner, London 2001, 186–205 SCHÖTTLER, H.-G., Gott inmitten seines Volkes: Die Neuordnung des Gottesvolkes nach Sacharja 1–6 (Trierer theologische Studien 43), Trier 1987 SELLIN, E., Das Zwölfprophetenbuch (KAT 12), Leipzig 1922 SEYBOLD, K., Bilder zum Tempelbau: Die Visionen des Propheten Sacharja (Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 70), Stuttgart 1974 SMITH, M. S., The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts, Oxford 2001 STEAD, M. R., The Intertextuality of Zechariah 1–8 (LHBOTS 506), London 2009 SULLIVAN, K. P., Wrestling with Angels: A Study of the Relationship between Angels and Humans in Ancient Jewish Literature and the New Testament (Geschichte des Antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 55), Leiden 2004 SWEENEY, M. A., The Twelve Prophets, 2 (Berit Olam), Collegeville, Minnesota 2000 T IDWELL, N. L. A., Wāʾōmar (Zech 3.5) and the Genre of Zechariah’s Fourth Vision, JBL 94 (1975), 343–355 T IEMEYER, L.-S., A Busy Night at the Heavenly Court, Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok 71 (2006), 187–207 – The Guilty Priesthood (Zech 3), in: The Book of Zechariah and Its Influence, ed. C.M. Tuckett, Aldershot 2003, 1–19. – Zechariah’s Spies and Ezekiel’s Cherubim, in: Tradition and Innovation in Haggai and Zechariah: Tradition in Transition (LHBOTS 475), eds. M.J. Boda and M. Floyd, London/New York 2008, 95–119 – Priestly Rites and Prophetic Rage: Post-Exilic Prophetic Critique of the Priesthood (FAT II/19), Tübingen 2006 – Review of Martin Hallaschka, Haggai und Sacharja 1–8, 2011, Review of Biblical Literature (2012) www.bookreviews.org T IGCHELAAR, E. J. C., Prophets of Old and the Day of the End: Zechariah, the Book of Watchers, and Apocalyptic (OtS 35), Leiden 1995 UEHLINGER, C., ‘Riding Horseman’, DDD, 705–707. VANDERKAM, J. C., Joshua the High Priest and the Interpretation of Zechariah 3, CBQ 53 (1991) 553–570 W ALDMAN, N. W., A Note on Ezekiel 1.18, JBL 103 (1984) 614–618 W ILLI-P LEIN, I., Haggai, Sacharja, Maleachi (ZBAT 24.4), Zurich 2007 E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission YHWH, the Divine Beings, and Zechariah 1–6 101 W ÖHRLE, J., Die frühen Sammlungen des Zwölfprophetenbuches (BZAW 360), Berlin 2006 W OOD, A., Of Wings and Wheels: A Synthetic Study of the Biblical Cherubim (BZAW 385), Berlin 2008 W OUDE, A. S. VAN DER, Zion as Primeval Stone in Zechariah 3 and 4, in: Text and Context, ed. W. Claassen, Sheffield 1988, 237–248 ZGOLL, A., Traum und Welterleben im antiken Mesopotamien (AOAT 333), Münster 2006 E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission