2. Of far more weight, however, than the arguments already advanced is the fact that the writer of these last chapters (ix-xiv) shows an acquaintance with the later prophets of the time of the Exile. That there are numerous allusions in it to earlier prophets, such as Joel, Amos, Micah, has been shown by Hitzig {^Comment, p. 354, 2d ed.) ; but there are also, it is alleged, allusions to Zephaniah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the latter part of Isaiah (ch. xl-lxvi). If this can be established, it is evi- dence that this portion of the book, if not written by Zechariah himself, was at least written after the Exile. We find, then, in Zech. ix,2 an allusion toEzek.xxviii,3; in ver. 3 to 1 Kings x, 27 ; in ver. 5 to Zeph. ii, 4 ; in ver.
11 to Isa. Ii, 14; in ver. 12 to Isa. xlix, 9 and Isa. Ixi, 7 ; in x,3 to Ezek. xxxiv, 17. Zech. xi is derived from Ezek. xxxiv (comp. esp. ver. 4 with Ezek. xxxiv, 4), and Zech. xi, 3 from Jer. xii, 5. Zech. xii, 1 alludes to Isa. Ii, 13 ; xiii,8, 9, to Ezek. V, 12; xiv, 8 to Ezek. xlvii, 1-12; ver. 10, 11, to Jer. xxxi, 38-40; ver. 16-19 to Isa. Ixvi, 23 and Ix, 12 ; ver. 20, 21, to Ezek. xliii, 12 and xliv, 9.
This manifest acquaintance on the part of the writer of Zech. ix-xiv with so many of the later prophets seemed so convincing to De Wette that, after having in the first three editions of his Inti'oditction declared for two authors, he found himself compelled to change his mind, and to admit that the later chapters must be- long to the age of Zecliariah, and might have been written by Zechariah himself.
Bleek, on the other hand, has done his best to weaken the force of this argument, first by maintaining that in most instances the alleged agreement is only apparent, and, next, that where there is a real agreement (as in Zech. ix, 12; xi, 3; xii, 1 ; xiv, 16) with the passages above cited, Zechariah may be the original from whom Isaiah and Jeremiah borrowed. It must be confessed, however, that it is more probable that one writer should have allusions to many others than that many others shoidd borrow from one ; and this probability ap- proaches certainty in proportion as we multiply the number of quotations or allusions. If there are pas- sages in Zechariah which are manifestly similar to other passages in Zephaniah, in Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Deutero-Isaiah, which is the more probable, that they all borrowed from him, or he from them ? In ix,
12 especiallj', as Stiihelin argues, the expression is de- cidedly one to be looked for after the Exile rather than before it; and the passage rests upon Jer. xvi, 18, and has an almost verbal accordance with Isa. Ixi, 7.
3. Again, the same critics argue that the hisiorical references in the later chapters are perfectly consistent with a post-exile date. This had already been main- tained by Eichhorn, although he supposes these chap- ters to have been written by a later prophet than Zech- ariah. Stiihelin puts the case as follows : Even under the Persian rule the political relations of the Jews con-
ZECHARIAH, BOOK OF 1075 ZECHARIAH, BOOK OF
tinned very nearly the same as they were in earlier times. They still were placed between a huge Eastern power on the one side, and Egypt on the other, the only difference now being that Egypt as well as J ucUea was subject to the Persians, But Egypt was an unwilling vassal; and as in earlier times, when threatened by As- syria, she had sought for alliances among her neighbors or had etdeavored to turn them to account as a kind of outwork in her own defence, so now she would adopt the same policy in her attempts to cast off the Persian j'oke. It would follow, as a matter of course, that Persia would be on the watch to check such efforts, and would wreak her vengeance on those among her own tributary or dependent provinces which should venture to form an alliance with Egypt. Such of these provinces as lay on the sea -coast must indeed suffer in any case, even if they remained true in their allegiance to the Persians. The armies which were destined for the in- vasion of Egypt would collect in Sj'ria and Phoenicia, and would march by way of the coast; and, whether they came as friends or as foes, they would probably cause sufficient devastation to justify the prophecy in Zech. ix, 1, etc., delivered against Damascus, Phojnicia, and Philistia. Meanwhile the prophet seeks to calm the minds of his own people by assuring them of God's protection, and of the coming of the Messiah, who, at the appointed time, shall again unite the tw^) kingdoms of Judah and Epliraira. It is observable, moreover, that the prophet, throughout his discourses, is anxious not only to tranquillize the minds of his countrymen, but to prevent their engaging in any insurrection against their Persian masters, or forming any alliance with their enemies. In this respect he follows the ex- ample of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and, like these two prophets, he foretells the return of Ephraim, the union of Ephraim and Judah, and the final overthrow both of Assyria (x, 11) — that is, Persia — and of Egypt, the two countries which had, more than all others, vexed and devastated Israel. That a large portion of the na- tion was still supposed to be in exile is clear from ix, 11, 12, and hence ver. 10 can only be regarded as a reminiscence of Mic. v, 10; and even if x, 9 must be explained of the past (with De Wette, Kinleit. § 250, 6, note a), still it appears from Josephus {Ant. xii, 2, 5) that the Persians carried away Jews into Egypt, and from Syncellus (p. 486, Niebuhr's ed.) that Ochus trans- planted large numbers of Jews from Palestine to the east and north ; the earlier custom of thus forcibly re- moving to a distance those conquered nations who, from disaffection or a turbulent spirit, were likely to give oc- casion for alarm, having not only continued among the Persians, but having become even more common than ever (Heeren, liken, i, 254, 2d ed.). This well-known policy on the part of their conquerors would be a suffi- cient ground for the assurance which the prophet gives in X, 9. Even the threats uttered against the false prophets and the shepherds of the people are not in- consistent with the times after the Exile. In Neh. v and vi, we find the nobles and rulers of the people op- pressing their brethren, and false prophets active in their opposition to Nehemiah, In like manner "the idols" (D'^3^5) in xiii, 1-5 may be the same as the ^'Teraphim" of x, 2, where they are mentioned in con- nection with " the diviners" (Di^plpn). Malachi (iii, 5) speaks of " sorcerers" (C^SlTSp), and that such su- perstition long held its ground among the Jews is evi- dent from Josephus {Ant. viii, 2, 5). Nor does xiv, 21 of necessity imply either idol -worship or heathen pollution in the Temple. Ch. xi was spoken by the prophet later than ch. ix and x. In ver. 14 he declares the impossibility of any reunion between Judah and Ephraim, either because the northern territor}' had al- ready been laid waste, or because the inhabitants of it had shown a disposition to league with Phrbnicia in a vain effort to throw off the Persian j'oke, which would