Page:EB1911 - Volume 28.djvu/991

Rh pierced”). It is taken for granted that the readers will know who the martyr is, and the exegesis of the Church applies the passage to our Lord. Chap. xiii. 1-6 is a continuation of chap. xii.; the dawn of the day of salvation is accompanied by a general purging away of idolatry and the enthusiasm of false prophets.

(4) Yet a fourth variation of the picture of the incoming of the Messianic deliverance is given in chap. xiv. The heathen gather against Jerusalem and take the city, but do not utterly destroy the inhabitants. The Yahweh, at a time known only to Himself, shall appear with all His saints on Mount Olivet and destroy the heathen in battle, while the men of Jerusalem take refuge in their terror in the great cleft, that opens where Yahweh sets His foot. Now the new era begins, and even the heathen do homage to Yahweh by bringing due tribute to the annual feast of tabernacles. All in Jerusalem is holy down to the bells on the horses and the cooking-pots.

There is a striking contrast between chaps. i.-viii. and chaps. ix.-xiv. The former prophecy is closely linked to the situation and wants of the community of Jerusalem in the second year of Darius I., and relates to the restoration of the temple and, perhaps, the elevation of Zerubbabel to the throne of David. In chaps. ix.- xiv., however, “ there is nothing about the restoration of the temple, or about Joshua and Zerubbabel; but we read of the evil rulers, foreign and native alike, who maltreat their subjects, and enrich themselves at their expense. There are corresponding differences in style and speech, and it is particularly to be noted that, while the superscriptions in the first part name the author and give the date of each oracle with precision, those in the second part (ix. i., xii. 1) are without name or date. That both parts do not belong to the same author is now generally admitted, as is also the fact that chaps, ix.-xiv. are of much later date. The predictions of these chapters have no affinity either with the prophecy of Amos, Hosea and Isaiah, or with that of Jeremiah. The kind of eschatology which we find in Zech. ix.-xiv. was first introduced by Ezekrel, who in particular is the author of the conception that the time of deliverance is to be preceded by a joint attack of all nations on Jerusalem, in which they come to final overthrow (Ezek. xxxviii. seq.; Isa. lxvi. 18-24; Joel). The importance attached to the temple service, even in Messianic times (Zech. xiv.), implies an author who lived in the ideas of the religious commonwealth of post-exile times. A future king is hoped for; but in the present there is no Davidic king, only a Davidic family standing on the same level with other noble families in Jerusalem (xii. 7, 12). The “bastard” (mixed race) of Ashdod reminds us of Neh. xiii. 23 sqq.; and the words of ix. 12 (“to-day, also, do I declare that I will render double unto thee”) have no sense unless they refer back to the deliverance from Babylonian exile. But the decisive argument is that in ix. 13 the sons of Javan, i.e. the Greeks, appear as the representatives of the heathen world-power. This part of the prophecy, therefore, is later than Alexander, who overthrew the Persian empire in 333. Egypt and Assyria (x. 10, 11) must be taken to represent the Ptolemaic and Seleucid kingdoms, which together made up for the Jews the empire of the sons of Javan.

The whole prophecy, however, is not a unity. By reference to the analysis given above, it will be seen that there are four sections in Zech. ix.-xiv., viz. (1) ix., x. (xi. 1-3); (2) xi. 4-17, xiii. 7-9; (3) xii., xiii. 1-6; (4) xiv., which are more or less independent of each other. Of these (3) and (4) are of marked eschatological character, and show little contact with definite historical events

(except xii. 7, which suggests the Maccabean age). On the othef hand (1) implies a period when the Jews were governed by the Seleucids, since it is against these that the anger of Yahweh is first directed (ix. i, 2). This section, therefore, belongs to the first third of the 2nd century, when the Jews were first held in the power of the Seleucids. The same date may be assigned to (2), where the traffickers in the sheep may be regarded as the Seleucid rulers, and the shepherds as the Jewish high priests and ethnarchs; the prelude to the Maccabean revolt largely consisted of the rapid and violent changes here figured. In particular, the evil shepherd of xi. 15 f. may be Menelaus; whilst the disinterested speaker may be Hyrcanus ben Tobias (cf. xi. 13 and. II. Macc. iii. 11).

Recent criticism (for further details see G. A. Smith, The Book of the Twelve Prophets, ii. pp. 450 f., and Driver, Minor Prophets, pp. 232-234) shows some difference of opinion as to the question, of unity, and also of actual date within the Greek period. Whilst G. A. Smith (following Stade) and Marti find no adequate ground for the further division of Zech. ix.-xiv., Driver (following Nowack) accepts the fourfold division indicated above (“Four anonymous Prophecies, perhaps the work of four distinct Prophets,” op. cit., p. 235). In regard to date, G. A. Smith (here also following Stade) accepts the earlier part of the Greek period (306-278). With this Driver provisionally agrees, whilst Nowack thinks no more can be said than that (1) belongs to the Greek and (2)-(4) to the postexilic period in general. On the other hand, Marti assigns the whole to 160 (Maccabean period; a little later than Wellhausen) and sees a number of references to historical personages of that age. The chief arguments to be urged against this late date are the character of the Hebrew style (Driver, op. cit., p. 233) and the alleged close of the prophetic canon by 200; but perhaps neither of these can be regarded as very convincing.

—Nowack, Die Kleinen Propheten (1897; ed. 2, 1903); Wellhausen, Die Kleinen Propheten,³ (1898); G. A. Smith, The Book of the Twelve Prophets (in The Expositor's Bible), vol. ii. (pp. 253-328, 447-490) (1898); Marti, Dodekapropheton, ii. (1904); Driver, Minor Prophets, ii. (in The Century Bible, 1906; the most useful for the general reader). The article in Hastings's Dictionary of the Bible (vol. iv., pp. 967-970) (1902), by Nowack, is a reproduction from his work cited above; the article in the ''Ency. Bibl.'' by Wellhausen is a revision of his article in the 9th edition of the ''Ency. Brit.'', and the present independent revision is in some points indebted to it.

 ZEDEKIAH (Hebrew for “righteousness of Yah[weh]”), son of Josiah, and the last king of Judah (2 Kings xxiv. 17 sqq.; 2 Chron. xxxvi. 10 seq.). Previously known as Mattaniah (“gift of Yah[weh]”), he was appointed king by Nebuchadrezzar, after the capture of Jerusalem (597 ) and his name changed to Zedekiah. He held his position under an oath of allegiance, but after three years (cf. Jehoiakim, 2 Kings xxiv. i) began an intrigue with Moab, Edom, Ammon, Tyre and Sidon, which the prophet Jeremiah vigorously denounced (Jer. xxvii. seq.; cf. also Ezek. xvii. 11-21). It is possible that he was summoned to Babylon to explain his conduct (Jer. li. 59; the Septuagint reads “from Zedekiah”; see also xxix. 3). Nevertheless, relations were maintained with Egypt and steps were taken to revolt. The Babylonian army began to lay siege to Jerusalem in the ninth year of his reign, and a vain attempt was made by Pharaoh Hophra to cause a diversion. The headings to the prophecies in Ezek. xxix. sqq. suggest that fuller details of the events were once preserved, and the narratives in Jer. xxxii.-xxxiv., xxxvii. give some account of the internal position in Jerusalem at the time. After six months a breach was made in the city, Zedekiah's flight was cut off in the Jordan Valley and he was taken to Nebuchadrezzar at Riblah. His sons were killed, and he was blinded and carried to Babylon in chains (cf. Ezek. xii. 10-14). Vengeance was taken upon Jerusalem, and, on the seventh day of the fifth month, 586, Nebuzaradan sacked the temple, destroyed the walls and houses, and deported the citizens, only the poorest peasantry of the land being left behind. See, § 17 seq.

 ZEEHAN, a town of Montagu county, Tasmania, 225 m. direct N.W. of Hobart, on the Little Henty river. Pop. (1901) 5014. It is an important railway centre, and from it radiate lines to Strahan, its port on the Macquarie Harbour, to Dundas, to Williamsford; and to Burnie, where connexion is made to