[714] Only in xxxiv. 24, xxxvii. 22, 24.
[715] נשׂיא: cf. Skinner, Ezekiel (Expositor’s Bible Series), pp. 447 ff., who, however, attributes the diminution of the importance of the civil head in Israel, not to the feeling that he would henceforth always be subject to a foreign emperor, but to the conviction that in the future he will be “overshadowed by the personal presence of Jehovah in the midst of His people.”
[717] LXX. enlarges: and the sea and the dry land.
[718] Heb. sing. collect. LXX. plural.
[719] Again a sing. coll.
[722] Ezra v. 1, vi. 14.
[723] i. 12, vii. 5: reckoning in round numbers from 590, midway between the two Exiles of 597 and 586, that brings us to about 520, the second year of Darius.
[724] ii. 6 (Eng., Heb. 10). On the question whether the Book of Zechariah gives no evidence of a previous Return from Babylon see above, pp. 208 ff.
[725] viii. 7, etc.
[726] viii. 4, 5.
[727] iii. 1–10, iv. 6–10, vi. 11 ff.
[728] viii. 9, 10.
[729] i. 1–6.
[730] i. 7–17.
[731] iv. 6–10.
[732] i. 7–21 (Eng., Heb. i. 7—ii. 4).
[733] iv. 6 ff.
[734] iii., iv.
[735] i. 16.
[736] v.
[737] vii. 3.
[738] vii. 1–7, viii. 18, 19.
[739] viii. 20–23.
[740] viii. 16, 17.
[741] viii. 20–23.
[742] ii. 10 f. Heb., 6 f. LXX. and Eng.
[743] Though the expression I have scattered you to the four winds of heaven seems to imply the Exile before any return.
[744] For the bearing of this on Kosters’ theory of the Return see pp. 211 f.
[746] Outside the Visions the prophecies contain these echoes or repetitions of earlier writers: chap. i. 1–6 quotes the constant refrain of prophetic preaching before the Exile, and in chap. vii. 7–14 (ver. 8 must be deleted) is given a summary of that preaching; in chap. viii. ver. 3 echoes Isa. i. 21, 26, city of troth, and Jer. xxxi. 23, mountain of holiness (there is really no connection, as Kuenen holds, between ver. 4 and Isa. lxv. 20; it would create more interesting questions as to the date of the latter if there were); ver. 8 is based on Hosea ii. 15 Heb., 19 Eng., and Jer. xxxi. 33; ver. 12 is based on Hosea ii. 21 f. (Heb. 23 f.); with ver. 13 compare Jer. xlii. 18, a curse; vv. 21 ff. with Isa. ii. 3 and Micah iv. 2.
[747] E.g. vii. 5, צַמְתֻּנִי אָנִי for צַמְתֶּם לִי: cf. Ewald, Syntax, § 315b. The curious use of the acc. in the following verse is perhaps only apparent; part of the text may have fallen out.
[748] Though there are not wanting, of course, echoes here as in the other prophecies of older writings, e.g. i. 12, 17.
[749] לאמר, saying, ii. 8 (Gr. ii. 4); iv. 5, And the angel who spoke with me said; i. 17, cf. vi. 5. All is inserted in i. 11, iii. 9; lord in ii. 2; of hosts (after Jehovah) viii. 17; and there are other instances of palpable expansion, e.g. i. 6, 8, ii. 4 bis, 6, viii. 19.
[750] E.g. ii. 2, iv. 2, 13, v. 9, vi. 12 bis, vii. 8: cf. also vi. 13.
[751] i. 8 ff., iii. 4 ff.: cf. also vi. 3 with vv. 6 f.
[752] E.g. (but this is outside the Visions) the very flagrant misunderstanding to which the insertion of vii. 8 is due.
[753] v. 6, עינם for עונם as in LXX., and the last words of v. 11; perhaps vi. 10; and almost certainly vii. 2a.
[754] Chap. iv. On 6a, 10b-14 should immediately follow, and 6b-10a come after 14.
[755] vi. 11 ff. See below, pp. 308 f.
[756] Chief variants: i. 8, 10; ii. 15; iii. 4; iv. 7, 12; v. 1, 3, 4, 9; vi. 10, 13; vii. 3; viii. 8, 9, 12, 20. Obvious mistranslations or misreadings: ii. 9, 10, 15, 17; iii. 4; iv. 7, 10; v. 1, 4, 9; vi. 10, cf. 14; vii. 3.
[757] זֶכֶרְיָה; LXX. Ζαχαρίας.
[758] i. 1: בֶּן־בֶרֶכְיָה בֶּן־עִדּוֹ. In i. 7: בֶּרֶכְיָהוּ בֶּן־עִדּוֹא.
[759] Ezra v. 1, vi. 14: בַּר־עִדּוֹא.
[760] Gen. xxiv. 47, cf. xxix. 5; 1 Kings xix. 16, cf. 2 Kings ix. 14, 20.
[761] Isa. viii. 2: בֶּן־יְבֶרֶכְיָהוּ. This confusion, which existed in early Jewish and Christian times, Knobel, Von Ortenberg, Bleek, Wellhausen and others take to be due to the effort to find a second Zechariah for the authorship of chaps. ix. ff.
[762] So Vatke, König and many others. Marti prefers it (Der Prophet Sacharja, p. 58). See also Ryle on Ezra v. 1.
[763] Neh. xii. 4.
[764] Ib. 16.
[765] This is not proved, as Pusey, König (Einl., p. 364) and others think, by נַעַר, or young man, of the Third Vision (ii. 8 Heb., ii. 4 LXX. and Eng.). Cf. Wright, Zechariah and his Prophecies, p. xvi.
[766] v. 1, vi. 14.
[768] More than this we do not know of Zechariah. The Jewish and Christian traditions of him are as unfounded as those of other prophets. According to the Jews he was, of course, a member of the mythical Great Synagogue. See above on Haggai, pp. 232 f. As in the case of the prophets we have already treated, the Christian traditions of Zechariah are found in (Pseud-)Epiphanius, De Vitis Prophetarum, Dorotheus, and Hesychius, as quoted above, p. 80. They amount to this, that Zechariah, after predicting in Babylon the birth of Zerubbabel, and to Cyrus his victory over Crœsus and his treatment of the Jews, came in his old age to Jerusalem, prophesied, died and was buried near Beit-Jibrin—another instance of the curious relegation by Christian tradition of the birth and burial places of so many of the prophets to that neighbourhood. Compare Beit-Zakharya, 12 miles from Beit-Jibrin. Hesychius says he was born in Gilead. Dorotheus confuses him, as the Jews did, with Zechariah of Isa. viii. 1. See above, p. 265, n. 761.
Zechariah was certainly not the Zechariah whom our Lord describes as slain between the Temple and the Altar (Matt. xxiii. 35; Luke xi. 51). In the former passage alone is this Zechariah called the son of Barachiah. In the Evang. Nazar. Jerome read the son of Yehoyada. Both readings may be insertions. According to 2 Chron. xxiv. 21, in the reign of Joash, Zechariah, the son of Yehoyada the priest, was stoned in the court of the Temple, and according to Josephus (IV. Wars, v. 4), in the year 68 A.D. Zechariah son of Baruch was assassinated in the Temple by two zealots. The latter murder may, as Marti remarks (pp. 58 f.), have led to the insertion of Barachiah into Matt. xxiii. 35.
[769] ii. 13, 15; iv. 9; vi. 15.
[770] LXX. Ἀδδω. See above, p. 264.
[771] Heb. angered with anger; Gr. with great anger.
[772] As in LXX.
[773] LXX. has misunderstood and expanded this verse.
[774] It is to be noticed that Zechariah appeals to the Torah of the prophets, and does not mention any Torah of the priests. Cf. Smend, A. T. Rel. Gesch., pp. 176 f.
[776] This picture is given in one of the Visions: the Third.
[777] iv. 6. Unless this be taken as an earlier prophecy. See above, p. 260.
[778] ii. 9, 10 Heb., 5, 6 LXX. and Eng.
[779] See above, p. 214, where this is stated as an argument against Kosters’ theory that there was no Return from Babylon in the reign of Cyrus.
[780] Vv. 17 and 19.
[781] See Zechariah’s Fifth Vision.
[782] xliv. 1 ff.
[783] xlv. 22.
[784] xliv. 23, 24.
[785] Its origin was the Exile, whether its date be before or after the First Return under Cyrus in 537 B.C.
[786] Fourth Vision, chap. iii.
[787] vi. 9–15.
[789] ii. 20–23.
[790] iii. 8.
[791] חִלָּה אֶת־פְנֵי יהוה. The verb (Piel) originally means to make weak or flaccid (the Kal means to be sick), and so to soften or weaken by flattery. 1 Sam. xiii. 12; 1 Kings xiii. 6, etc.
[792] First Vision, chap. i. 11.
[793] Second Vision, ii. 1–4 Heb., i. 18–21 LXX. and Eng.
[794] Eighth Vision, chap. vi. 1–8.
[795] xxi. 36 Heb., 31 Eng.: skilful to destroy.
[796] See next chapter [XXII].
[797] Jer. xxv. 12; Hag. ii. 7.
[798] Myrtles were once common in the Holy Land, and have been recently found (Hasselquist, Travels). For their prevalence near Jerusalem see Neh. viii. 15. They do not appear to have any symbolic value in the Vision.
[799] For a less probable explanation see above, p. 282.
[801] Ewald omits riding a brown horse, as “marring the lucidity of the description, and added from a misconception by an early hand.” But we must not expect lucidity in a phantasmagoria like this.
[802] מְצֻלָה, Meṣullah, either shadow from צלל, or for מְצוּלָה, ravine, or else a proper name. The LXX., which uniformly for הֲדַסִּים, myrtles, reads הרים, mountains, renders אשר במצלה by τῶν κατασκίων. Ewald and Hitzig read מְצִלָּה, Arab, mizhallah, shadowing or tent.
[803] Heb. שרקים, only here. For this LXX. gives two kinds, καὶ ψαροὶ καὶ ποικίλοι, and dappled and piebald. Wright gives a full treatment of the question, pp. 531 ff. He points out that the cognate word in Arabic means sorrel, or yellowish red.
[804] Who stood among the myrtles omitted by Nowack.
[805] Isa. xxxvii. 29; Jer. xlviii. 11; Psalm cxxiii. 4; Zeph. i. 12.
[806] Or for.
[807] Who talked with me omitted by Nowack.
[808] Heb. helped for evil, or till it became a calamity.
[809] Marcus Dods, Hag., Zech. and Mal., p. 71. Orelli: “In distinction from Daniel, Zechariah is fond of a simultaneous survey, not the presenting of a succession.”
[810] For the symbolism of iron horns see Micah iv. 13, and compare Orelli’s note, in which it is pointed out that the destroyers must be smiths as in Isa. xliv. 12, workmen of iron, and not as in LXX. carpenters.
[811] Wellhausen and Nowack delete Israel and Jerusalem; the latter does not occur in Codd. A, Q, of Septuagint.
[812] Wellhausen reads, after Mal. ii. 9, כפי אשר, so that it lifted not its head; but in that case we should not find ראׁׁשׁוֹ, but ראׁׁשָׁהּ.
[813] החריד, but LXX. read החדיד, and either that or some verb of cutting must be read.
[814] The Hebrew, literally comes forth, is the technical term throughout the Visions for the entrance of the figures upon the stage of vision.
[815] LXX. ἵστηκει, stood up: adopted by Nowack.
[816] Psalm xxiv.
[817] Isa. xvii. 12–14.
[818] Psalm cxxii. 3.
[819] Some codd. read with the four winds. LXX. from the four winds will I gather you (σὺνάξω ὑμᾶς), and this is adopted by Wellhausen and Nowack. But it is probably a later change intended to adapt the poem to its new context.
[820] Dweller of the daughter of Babel. But בת, daughter, is mere dittography of the termination of the preceding word.
[821] A curious phrase here occurs in the Heb. and versions, After glory hath He sent me, which we are probably right in omitting. In any case it is a parenthesis, and ought to go not with sent me but with saith Jehovah of Hosts.
[822] So LXX. Heb. to me.
[823] Cf. Zeph. i. 7; Hab. ii. 20. “Among the Arabians, after the slaughter of the sacrificial victim, the participants stood for some time in silence about the altar. That was the moment in which the Deity approached in order to take His share in the sacrifice.” (Smend, A. T. Rel. Gesch., p. 124).
[824] Cf. vv. 1 and 2.
[826] In this Vision the verb to stand before is used in two technical senses: (a) of the appearance of plaintiff and defendant before their judge (vv. 1 and 3); (b) of servants before their masters (vv. 4 and 7).
[827] See below, p. 294, n. 835.
[828] Isa. iv. 2, xi. 1; Jer. xxiii. 5, xxxiii. 15; Isa. liii. 2. Stade (Gesch. des Volkes Isr., II. 125), followed by Marti (Der Proph. Sach., 85 n.), suspects the clause I will bring in My Servant the Branch as a later interpolation, entangling the construction and finding in this section no further justification.
[829] Or Adversary; see p. 317.
[830] To Satan him: slander, or accuse, him.
[831] That is the Angel of Jehovah, which Wellhausen and Nowack read; but see below, p. 314.
[832] This clause interrupts the Angel’s speech to the servants. Wellh. and Nowack omit it. העביר cf. 2 Sam. xii. 13; Job vii. 21.
[833] So LXX. Heb. has a degraded grammatical form, clothe thyself which has obviously been made to suit the intrusion of the previous clause, and is therefore an argument against the authenticity of the latter.
[834] LXX. omits I said and reads Let them put as another imperative, Do ye put, following on the two of the previous verse. Wellhausen adopts this (reading שימו for ישימו). Though it is difficult to see how ואמר dropped out of the text if once there, it is equally so to understand why if not original it was inserted. The whole passage has been tampered with. If we accept the Massoretic text, then we have a sympathetic interference in the vision of the dreamer himself which is very natural; and he speaks, as is proper, not in the direct, but indirect, imperative, Let them put.
[835] צָנִיף, the headdress of rich women (Isa. iii. 23), as of eminent men (Job xxix. 14), means something wound round and round the head (cf. the use of צנף to form like a ball in Isa. xxii. 18, and the use of חבשׁ (to wind) to express the putting on of the headdress (Ezek. xvi. 10, etc.)). Hence turban seems to be the proper rendering. Another form from the same root, מצנפת, is the name of the headdress of the Prince of Israel (Ezek. xxi. 31); and in the Priestly Codex of the Pentateuch the headdress of the high priest (Exod. xxviii. 37, etc.).
[836] Wellhausen takes the last words of ver. 5 with ver. 6, reads עָמַד and renders And the Angel of Jehovah stood up or stepped forward. But even if עָמַד be read, the order of the words would require translation in the pluperfect, which would come to the same as the original text. And if Wellhausen’s proposal were correct the words Angel of Jehovah in ver. 6 would be superfluous.
[837] Read מַהֲלָכִים (Smend, A. T. Rel. Gesch., p. 324, n. 2).
[838] Or facets.
[839] E.g. Marti, Der Prophet Sacharja, p. 83.
[840] Hitzig, Wright and many others. On the place of this stone in the legends of Judaism see Wright, pp. 75 f.
[841] Ewald, Marcus Dods.
[842] Von Orelli, Volck.
[843] Bredenkamp.
[844] Wellhausen, in loco, and Smend, A. T. Rel. Gesch., 345.
[845] So Marti, p. 88.
[846] 1 Kings vii. 49.
[847] 1 Macc. i. 21; iv. 49, 50. Josephus, XIV. Ant. iv. 4.
[848] LXX. Heb. has seven sevens of pipes.
[849] Wellhausen reads its right and deletes the bowl.
[850] ואען. ענה is not only to answer, but to take part in a conversation, whether by starting or continuing it. LXX. rightly ἐπηρώτησα.
[851] Heb. saying.
[852] In the Hebrew text, followed by the ancient and modern versions, including the English Bible, there here follows 6b-10a, the Word to Zerubbabel. They obviously disturb the narrative of the Vision, and Wellhausen has rightly transferred them to the end of it, where they come in as naturally as the word of hope to Joshua comes in at the end of the preceding Vision. Take them away, and, as can be seen above, ver. 10b follows quite naturally upon 6a.
[853] Heb. gold. So LXX.
[854] Wellhausen omits the whole of this second question (ver. 12) as intruded and unnecessary. So also Smend as a doublet on ver. 11 (A. T. Rel. Gesch., 343 n.). So also Nowack.
[855] Heb. saying.
[856] LXX. I.
[857] Or Fair, fair is it! Nowack.
[858] The stone, the leaden. Marti, St. u. Kr., 1892, p. 213 n., takes the leaden for a gloss, and reads simply the stone, i.e. the top-stone; but the plummet is the last thing laid to the building to test the straightness of the top-stone.
[859] A. T. Rel. Gesch., 312 n.
[860] מגלה roll or volume. LXX. δρέπανον, sickle, מַגָּל.
[861] A group of difficult expressions. The verb נִקָּה is Ni. of a root which originally had the physical meaning to clean out of a place, and this Ni. is so used of a plundered town in Isa. iii. 26. But its more usual meaning is to be spoken free from guilt (Psalm xix. 14, etc.). Most commentators take it here in the physical sense, Hitzig quoting the use of καθαρίζω in Mark vii. 19. מִזֶה כָמוֹהָ are variously rendered. מזה is mostly understood as locative, hence, i.e. from the land just mentioned, but some take it with steal (Hitzig), some with cleaned out (Ewald, Orelli, etc.). כָמוֹהָ is rendered like it—the flying roll (Ewald, Orelli), which cannot be, since the roll flies upon the face of the land, and the sinner is to be purged out of it; or in accordance with the roll or its curse (Jerome, Köhler). But Wellhausen reads מִזֶה כַמֶּה, and takes נִקָּה in its usual meaning and in the past tense, and renders Every thief has for long remained unpunished; and so in the next clause. So, too, Nowack. LXX. Every thief shall be condemned to death, ἕως θανάτου ἐκδιθήσεται.
[862] Heb. lodge, pass the night: cf. Zeph. ii. 14 (above, p. 65), pelican and bittern shall roost upon the capitals.
[863] Smend sees a continuation of Ezekiel’s idea of the guilt of man overtaking him (iii. 20, xxxiv.). Here God’s curse does all.
[864] This follows from the shape of the disc that fits into it. Seven gallons are seven-eighths of the English bushel: that in use in Canada and the United States is somewhat smaller.
[865] Ewald.
[866] Upon the stage of vision.
[867] For Heb. עֵינָם read עוֹנָם with LXX.
[868] By inserting איפה after מה in ver. 5, and deleting היוצאת … ויאמר in ver. 6, Wellhausen secures the more concise text: And see what this bushel is that comes forth. And I said, What is it? And he said, That is the evil of the people in the whole land. But to reduce the redundancies of the Visions is to delete the most characteristic feature of their style. Besides, Wellhausen’s result gives no sense. The prophet would not be asked to see what a bushel is: the angel is there to tell him this. So Wellhausen in his translation has to omit the מה of ver. 5, while telling us in his note to replace האיפה after it. His emendation is, therefore, to be rejected. Nowack, however, accepts it.
[869] LXX. Heb. this.
[870] In the last clause the verbal forms are obscure if not corrupt. LXX. καὶ ἕτοιμασαι καὶ θήσουσιν αὐτο ἐκεῖ = לְהָכִין וַהֲנִיחֻהָ שָׁם; but see Ewald, Syntax, 131 d.
[871] Wellhausen suggests that in the direction assigned to the white horses, אחריהם (ver. 6), which we have rendered westward, we might read ארץ הקדם, land of the east; and that from ver. 7 the west has probably fallen out after they go forth.
[872] Heb. I turned again and.
[873] Hebrew reads אֲמֻצִּים, strong; LXX. ψαροί, dappled, and for the previous בְּרֻדּים, spotted or dappled, it reads ποικίλοι, piebald. Perhaps we should read חמצים (cf. Isa. lxiii. 1), dark red or sorrel, with grey spots. So Ewald and Orelli. Wright keeps strong.
[874] Wellhausen, supplying ל before ארבע, renders These go forth to the four winds of heaven after they have presented themselves, etc.
[875] Heb. behind them.
[876] אמצים, the second epithet of the horses of the fourth chariot, ver. 3. See note there [n. 873].
[877] Or anger to bear, Heb. rest.
[878] The collective name for the Jews in exile.
[879] LXX. παρὰ τῶν ἀρχόντων, מִחֹרִים; but since an accusative is wanted to express the articles taken, Hitzig proposes to read מַחֲמַדַּי, My precious things. The LXX. reads the other two names καὶ παρὰ τῶν χρησίμων αὐτῆς καὶ παρὰ τῶν ἐπεγνωκότων αὐτήν.
[880] The construction of ver. 10 is very clumsy; above it is rendered literally. Wellhausen proposes to delete and do thou go ... to the house of, and take Yosiyahu’s name as simply a fourth with the others, reading the last clause who have come from Babylon. This is to cut, not disentangle, the knot.
[881] The Hebrew text here has Joshua son of Jehosadak, the high priest, but there is good reason to suppose that the crown was meant for Zerubbabel, but that the name of Joshua was inserted instead in a later age, when the high priest was also the king—see below, note. For these reasons Ewald had previously supposed that the whole verse was genuine, but that there had fallen out of it the words and on the head of Zerubbabel. Ewald found a proof of this in the plural form עטרות, which he rendered crowns. (So also Wildeboer, A. T. Litteratur, p. 297.) But עטרות is to be rendered crown; see ver. 11, where it is followed by a singular verb. The plural form refers to the several circlets of which it was woven.
[882] Some critics omit the repetition.
[883] So Wellhausen proposes to insert. The name was at least understood in the original text.
[884] So LXX. Heb. on his throne.
[885] With this phrase, vouched for by both the Heb. and the Sept., the rest of the received text cannot be harmonised. There were two: one is the priest just mentioned who is to be at the right hand of the crowned. The received text makes this crowned one to be the high priest Joshua. But if there are two and the priest is only secondary, the crowned one must be Zerubbabel, whom Haggai has already designated as Messiah. Nor is it difficult to see why, in a later age, when the high priest was sovereign in Israel, Joshua’s name should have been inserted in place of Zerubbabel’s, and at the same time the phrase priest at his right hand, to which the LXX. testifies in harmony with the two of them, should have been altered to the reading of the received text, priest upon his throne. With the above agree Smend, A. T. Rel. Gesch., 343 n., and Nowack.
[886] Heb. חֵלֶם, Hēlem, but the reading Heldai, חלדי, is proved by the previous occurrence of the name and by the LXX. reading here, τοῖς ὑπομένουσιν, i.e. from root חלד, to last.
[887] חן, but Wellhausen and others take it as abbreviation or misreading for the name of Yosiyahu (see ver. 10).
[888] Here the verse and paragraph break suddenly off in the middle of a sentence. On the passage see Smend, 343 and 345.
[889] So Robertson Smith, art. “Angels” in the Encyc. Brit., 9th ed.
[890] So already in Deborah’s Song, Judg. v. 23, and throughout both J and E.
[891] Cf. especially Gen. xxxii. 29.
[892] Judg. vi. 12 ff.
[893] Robertson Smith, as above.
[894] 2 Sam. xiv. 20.
[895] Exod. xiv. 19 (?), xxiii. 20, etc.; Josh. v. 13.
[896] 2 Sam. xxiv. 16, 17; 2 Kings xix. 35; Exod. xii. 23. In Eccles. v. 6 this destroying angel is the minister of God: cf. Psalm lxxviii. 49b, hurtful angels—Cheyne, Origin of Psalter, p. 157.
[897] Balaam: Num. xxii. 23, 31.
[898] vi. 2–6.
[900] ix.
[901] xl. 3 ff.
[902] xliii. 6.
[903] Zech. i. 18 ff.; Ezek. ix. 1 ff.
[904] Zech. i. 8: so even in the Book of Daniel we have the man Gabriel—ix. 21.
[905] i. 9, 19; ii. 3; iv. 1, 4, 5; v. 5, 10; vi. 4. But see above, pp. 261 f.
[906] i. 8, 10, 11.
[907] iii. 1 compared with 2.
[908] iii. 6, 7.
[909] vi. 5.
[910] i. 9, etc.
[911] iii. 1. Stand before is here used forensically: cf. the N.T. phrases to stand before God, Rev. xx. 12; before the judgment-seat of Christ, Rom. xiv. 10; and be acquitted, Luke xxi. 36.
[912] iii. 4. Here the phrase is used domestically of servants in the presence of their master. See above, p. 293, n. 826.
[913] ii. 3, 4.
[914] Hab. ii. 1: cf. also Num. xii. 6–9.
[915] First Vision, i. 12.
[916] x. 21, xii. 1.
[917] Isa. xxiv. 21.
[918] Book of Daniel x., xii.; Tobit xii. 15; Book of Enoch passim; Jude 9; Rev. viii. 2, etc.
[919] Psalm lxxviii. 49. See above, p. 312, n. 896.
[920] Amos iii. 6.
[921] 1 Kings xxii. 20 ff.
[922] 2 Sam. xxiv. 1; 1 Chron. xxi. 1. Though here difference of age between the two documents may have caused the difference of view.
[923] There are two forms of the verb, שׂטן, satan, and שׂטם, satam, the latter apparently the older.
[924] Num. xxii. 22, 32.
[925] 1 Sam. xxix. 4; 2 Sam. xix. 23 Heb., 22 Eng.; 1 Kings v. 18, xi. 14, etc.
[926] Zech. iii. 1 ff.; Job i. 6 ff.
[927] 1 Chron. xxi. 1.
[928] i. 6b.
[929] See Davidson in Cambridge Bible for Schools on Job i. 6–12, especially on ver. 9: “The Satan of this book may show the beginnings of a personal malevolence against man, but he is still rigidly subordinated to Heaven, and in all he does subserves its interests. His function is as the minister of God to try the sincerity of man; hence when his work of trial is over he is no more found, and no place is given him among the dramatis personæ of the poem.”
[930] Cheyne, The Origin of the Psalter, p. 272. Read carefully on this point the very important remarks on pp. 270 ff. and 281 f.
[931] Cf. chap. vii. 3: the priests which were of the house of Jehovah.
[932] Jer. xli. 2; 2 Kings xxv. 25.
[933] The Hebrew text is difficult if not impossible to construe: For Bethel sent Sar’eser (without sign of accusative) and Regem-Melekh and his men. Wellhausen points out that Sar’eser is a defective name, requiring the name or title of deity in front of it, and Marti proposes to find this in the last syllable of Bethel, and to read ’El-sar’eser. It is tempting to find in the first syllable of Bethel the remnant of the phrase to the house of Jehovah.
[934] To stroke the face of.
[935] The fifth month Jerusalem fell, the seventh month Gedaliah was murdered: Jer. lii. 12 f.; 2 Kings xxv. 8 f., 25.
[936] So LXX. Heb. has acc. sign before words, perhaps implying Is it not rather necessary to do the words? etc.
[937] Omit here ver. 8, And the Word of Jehovah came to Zechariah, saying. It is obviously a gloss by a scribe who did not notice that the כה אמר of ver. 9 is God’s statement by the former prophets.
[938] Cf. the phrase with one shoulder, i.e. unanimously.
[939] So Heb. and LXX.; but perhaps we ought to point and I whirled them away, taking the clause with the next.
[941] Cf. especially Isa. xl. ff.
[942] Isa. i. 26.
[943] Not merely My people (Wellhausen), but their return shall constitute them a people once more. The quotation is from Hosea ii. 25.
[944] So LXX.
[945] But he that made wages made them to put them into a bag with holes, Haggai i. 6.
[946] Read כי אזרעה השלום for כי זרע השלום of the text, for the seed of peace. The LXX. makes זרע a verb. Cf. Hosea ii. 23 ff., which the next clauses show to be in the mind of our prophet. Klostermann and Nowack prefer זַרְעָהּ שָׁלוֹם, her (the remnant’s) seed shall be peace.