A. THE PROPHET
The name Zechariah was not uncommon in Israel. It means “Jehovah remembers” or “Jehovah has remembered” (i.e., by answering the parents' prayers for a baby son). Zechariah, the prophet, is described as “the son of Berechiah” and the grandson “of Iddo the prophet” (1:1). Ezra, on the other hand, refers to him as “the son of Iddo” (Ezra 5:1; 6:14). This discrepancy is more apparent than real. It may be easily removed by assuming that Berechiah died before Iddo and that Zechariah succeeded his grandfather in the headship of David's priestly course.1 There are several instances in the Old Testament where men are called the sons of their grandfathers (Gen. 29:5; cf. Gen. 24:47; I Kings 19:16; cf. II Kings 9:14, 20). “As in these cases,” George Adam Smith observes, “the grandfather was the reputed founder of the house, so in that of Zechariah Iddo was the head of his family when it came out of Babylon and was anew planted in Jerusalem.”2 Ezra's reference to Zechariah as the son of Iddo is therefore to be taken in the more general sense of descendant.
In any event the prophet Zechariah was a member of the priestly family of Iddo which returned to Jerusalem from Babylon under Cyrus (Neh. 12:4). The Book of Nehemiah adds the further note that in the high priesthood of Joiakim, the son of Joshua, the head of the house of Iddo was named Zechariah (Neh. 12:10, 16). If this is our prophet, as it is reasonable to suppose, he was a young man in 520 B.C. and had come to Jerusalem as a child in a caravan from Babylon. The Book of Ezra informs us that Zechariah shared with Haggai in the work of encouraging Zerubbabel and Joshua to rebuild the Temple (Ezra 5:1-2; 6:14).
Zechariah's prophetic career began “in the eighth month of the second year of Darius” (1:1), that is, in November, 520 B.C. The first phase of his ministry continued until the ninth month of the fourth year of the king's reign, or until December, 518 B.C. (7:1). We know nothing of the remaining years of the prophet's life or ministry except for our Lord's statement that he was slain “between the temple and the altar” by rebellious Jews (Matt. 23:35).
B. THE BOOK
The unity of the book has been seriously questioned by scholars. The two main divisions—chapters 1—8, which, for purposes of this discussion, may be designated as Zechariah I; and chapters 9—14, as Zechariah II—are so dissimilar in historical standpoint and style that it has become common to assign these divisions to different authors.
Zechariah I consists of prophecies dated according to the years of King Darius I Hystaspis, from his second to his fourth year (520-518 B.C.). In this division Darius is reigning and the Exile is over (1:12; 7:5). Many Jews, however, are still in Babylon (2:6); others are scattered over the world (8:7). The community in Jerusalem is small and feeble, composed mostly of young and middle-aged men who came to it from Babylon; there are few children and old people there (8:4-5). Joshua and Zerub-babel are the ecclesiastical and political heads of the community (3:1-10; 4:6-10; 6:11-15). The foundations of the Temple are laid but its completion is still future (4:6-10). But as the book unfolds, the Temple is so far built by December, 518 B.C., that the priests are said to belong to it (7:3), and there is no further need of continuing the fasts of the Exile (7:5-7; 8:18-19). The future is bright with Messianic hopes (8:20-23). Most of all, the hard struggles with nature seem to be past and the people have time to lift their eyes to behold nations coming from afar to worship in Jerusalem (8:20-23). These features leave no doubt that the first eight chapters of the book come from the prophet himself and from the period to which he assigns them, November, 520, to December, 518 B.C.
When we pass into chapter 9 we find ourselves in an altogether different historical situation, and the atmosphere is in sharp contrast to that of chapters 1—8. Israel is facing a new set of historical forces, and the words addressed to her breathe a different spirit. There is no reference to the building of the Temple or a single reflection of the events under the shadow of which Zechariah I was written. We encounter the names of heathen powers not mentioned in the first division: Damascus, Hadrach, Hamath, Assyria, Egypt, and Greece. The peace, and the love of peace, so prominent in Zechariah I, have disappeared. War, if not actual, is imminent. For these and other reasons, chiefly stylistic, modern biblical criticism has assigned Zechariah II to another hand.
In 1683, Joseph Mede advanced what has come to be known as the preexilic theory concerning the authorship of Zechariah II. Struck by the facts above and moved by a desire to vindicate the correctness of Matthew's ascription of Zech. 11:12-13 to the prophet Jeremiah (see Matt. 27:9-10), Mede ascribed a preexilic date to Zechariah II. He believed also that many things in the first division apply better to the time of Jeremiah than to that of Zechariah.3 Mede's view eventually gained wide acceptance, and down to the late nineteenth century Zechariah II was regarded by many interpreters as a collection of preexilic prophecies attached by accident to the postexilic prophecy of Zechariah.
Although Grotius (1644) and H. Corrodi (1792) opposed the preexilic theory of Mede and argued for a post-Zecharian dating of Zechariah II, 4 it was Bernard Stade who is credited with turning the course in criticism to what is now known as the post-Alexandrian theory. In 1881, Stade published an article in which he demonstrated, by a study of literary relationships and historical allusions, that these chapters could not be earlier than Ezekiel.5 His own view was that Zechariah II was written during the wars of the Diadochi (the successors of Alexander the Great who fought for control of his empire after his death), from 323 B.C. to about 278 B.C.6
At the present time biblical scholarship is divided between those who hold to the unity of the entire book, dating Zechariah II after 480 B.C. in view of the reference in 9:13 to the threat of Greece, 7 and those who would place the second division in the Grecian or post-Alexandrian period (after 330 B.C.). Those who hold the former view see Zechariah II as coming from the hand of the prophet in his old age. Advocates of the post-Alexandrian view, although they have not been able to agree upon any alternate theory of composition (dating Zechariah II variously from 333 B.C. to 140 B.C.), must of necessity reject the Zecharian authorship of the second division of the book.
C. THE UNITY OF ZECHARIAH
Conservative scholarship has raised serious objections to the post-Alexandrian and post-Zecharian view of Zechariah on the following grounds:
1. The strongest argument adduced in favor of the post-Alexandrian theory is the reference to the sons of Greece in 9:13. Greece is thought to be a threat against Zion and is regarded as the dominant world power of the day. The prophecy, however, is one of a defeat, not a victory, for the sons of Greece. Moreover, 9:12-13 is not a description of an actual battle but is predictive of a future confrontation of Zion and Greece in which Zion would be triumphant. In Zechariah's own time the victories of the Greeks over Xerxes at Salamis, Platea, and Mycale (480-479 B.C.) would be sufficient to bring them to the attention of his contemporaries. Unless one rejects the possibility of predictive prophecy on dogmatic grounds, there is no reason why Zechariah could not have penned these words in the 470's.8
2. Literary arguments are also advanced. The style of Zechariah II is said to differ from that of Zechariah I. The phrase “thus saith the Lord,” so frequent in chapters 1—8, occurs but once in the second division. On the other hand, the expression “in that day” is used eighteen times in Zechariah II as against only three occurrences in Zechariah I. Furthermore, the style of the later section is regarded as more poetic. Conservative scholars, however, point out that there are even more significant traits of style common to both sections. Admittedly, an author's style changes with the passing of years and in dealing with a different historical situation. In the days when the prophet was summoning his fellow Jews to rebuild the Temple, the prophetic “thus saith the Lord” was necessary to enforce the divine authority of that summons. On the other hand, the eschatological phrase “in that day” is more appropriate in prophecies that look to the more distant future of Israel, the theme of Zechariah II.
Defenders of the unity of the authorship of Zechariah point out the persistence of the following stylistic traits:
a. “Saith the Lord” occurs fourteen times in Zechariah I and six times in Zechariah II.
b. The Hebrew phrase “the eyes of the Lord” is found twice in Zechariah I (4:10; 8:6) and once in Zechariah II (9:8; twice if 12:4, “mine eyes,” be allowed).
c. The divine title “the Lord of hosts” is found three times in both divisions.
d. The verb translated “to sit” or “to dwell” in the special sense of “be inhabited” is found twice in each division and very seldom anywhere else in the Old Testament.
e. There is a peculiar five-member type of Hebrew parallelism which is scarcely found outside Zechariah but which occurs once in Zechariah I (6:13) and three times in Zechariah II (9:5, 7;12:4).9
As far as language is concerned, all scholars agree that the Hebrew in both parts is pure and remarkably free of Aramaisms. Pusey remarks, “In both there is a certain fullness of language, produced by dwelling on the same thought or word: in both, the whole and its parts are, for emphasis, mentioned together. In both parts, as a consequence of this fullness, there occurs the division of the verse into five sections, contrary1 to the usual rule of Hebrew parallelism.”10
3. Finally, it should be observed that those who reject the Zecharian authorship of chapters 9—14 are in hopeless disagreement among themselves in regard to an alternate theory. References in cc. 9—14 have led to various datings of its several component parts, ranging all the way from about 330 to 140 B.C., depending on what correlations are made with episodes and characters connected with Hellenistic history.
The admitted dissimilarities between Zechariah I and Zechariah II can be accounted for without surrendering belief in the unity of authorship. Collins has put the case well:
… in i—viii the prophet is principally concerned with contemporary events, particularly the rebuilding of the temple; while in ix—xiv he deals with such future events as the coming of the Messiah and the glory of His reign. Naturally, therefore, the former division is historical in style, whereas the latter is apocalyptic. It is probable also that the first part of the prophecy belonged to Zechariah's early life, and the second to his old age. The internal evidence of the book is favourable, as W. H. Lowe so clearly shows, to the post-exilic origin of both divisions, as well as to the unity of authorship.11
Outline
I. Oracles During the Building of the Temple, 1:1—8:23
A. A Call to Repentance, 1:1-6
B. The Visions of Zechariah, 1:7—6:8
C. The Crowning of the King, 6:9-15
D. An Inquiry and Reply Regarding Fast Days, 7:1—8:23
II. Oracles After the Building of the Temple, 9:1—14:21