later contains dark prophecies of the future, the date and p1ace of whfJse delivery were of no practical importance. The course of his predictions did not load the prophet to speak of Satan in the second part, and the omission of all mention of the evil spirit is equally a feature in the books of other prophets. 4. The absence of visions and the change of figures and imagery entirely separate the second from the former part. But really the answer already given to objection 1 applies equally to this criticism. The changes observed are no more than such as might reasonably be expected from the differing subjects. In the one case the prophet had to narrate visions, and to give practical warnings and exhortations; in the other he was carried away into the tlistant future, rapt in anticipations of coming glory. What wonder is it that the form of his utterances was alteretl, and tropes and figures hitherto unused were introduced? We may add, t00, that Amos has visions in one part of his book, and in the other only denunciations, and that the first part of our book comprises two chapters in which there are no visions; yet no one has disputed the integrity of the prophecy of Amoe, or doubted that the author of oh. i.-vi. of Zechariah and vii., vi4., was one and the same. But there is another positive argument for the integrity of the book ( which also helps to decide its date) that must not be neglected, and this is the apparent use made in both parts of the earlier and post-exilian prophets. In his opening address, and after- wards, Zechariah 1·efers to "the former prophets " ( eh. i. 4---6 and vii. 7, 12), and commentators have gathered numerous such allusions. Thus the mention of the vine and fig tree (oh. iii.10) seems to come from Micah iv. 4; the remarkable prediction that when the king came to Zion chariots and horses should be cut off from Jerusalem ( eh. ix. 10 ), is also renewed from Micah (v. 10); the exhortation to "flee from the land of the north" (eh. ii. 6, Authorized Version) is founded on that of Isaiah (xkiii. 20), "Flee ye from the Chaldeans;" the words, "Every one that is left of all the nations shall go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Tabernacles" (oh.xiv. 16), are a remembrance of Isa. lxyi. 23, "From one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord" (comp.Lia. lx. 6-9); the words (oh.xiii. 9), "I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The Lord is my God," are almost verbally from Hos. ii. 23; the use of the title of the Messiah, "The Branch" ( eh. iii. 8; vi. 12), is in accord- ance with Isa. iv. 2 and Jer. xxiii. 5; xxxiii. 15; the loosing of the exiles from the pit, and the rendering of double unto them ( eh. ix. 11, 12), are found in Isa. li. 14 and lxi. 7 ; oh. ix. 5, in which is announced the desola- tion of Ashkelon, Gaza, and Ekron, is taken from Zeph. ii. 4; the lauguage ( eh. x. 3) concerning '' the shepherds" and the "goats" is borrowed from Ezek. xxxiv. 2, 17; from Ezek. xxxiv. comes the whole allegory of eh. xi.; from Ezek. v. 2, 12 is derived the warning (eh. xiii. 8, 9) that two parts of the people shall be cut off, while a third is left in the land; the prophecy of the four chariots ( eh. vi.) would be unintelligible without th6 INTRODUC'l'ION TO
Yisions in Dan. ii., Yii.; the expression, "the pride of Jordan" (oh. xi. 3), is taken from Jer. xii. 5; xlix. 19. "\Ve need not multiply instances further. If these examples are worth anything, and are themselves g01rnine, they are sufficient to show that t.he author makes ample use of the prophets that were before him, and likewise, in the second part, quoted largely from post-exilian writers, thus determining, one would infer, his own date. B. The second head of objections is concerned with historical and chrono- 'logical references. Critics, as we said above, have divided oh. ix.-xiv. among two writers, sometimes assigning eh. ix.-xi. to one, a contemporary of Amos and Isaiah; and the remainder to another, whose date is more unce1t.ain, but at any rate was pre-exilian. Another theory, which places t.he author in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes, needs no refutation in the face of the only consistent exegesis. The point of the former objection is that the whole part is thought to show indubitable proof that it was written before the Captivity. l. The kingdom of the ten tribes is supposed to be still standing ( eh. ix. 10, 13; x. 6, 7, 10; xi. 14); the prophecy against Damascus, etc. (eh. ix. 1-7), would have been meaningless if the peoples therein denounced had already lost their national existence and suffered punishment for their sins against the Hebrews. But this prophecy may be regarded as especially applicable to the Persian period, and the teni.tory named is that which Persian armies would traverse in their march south- wards; it belonged according to promise to the Israelites, and the fate announced for its inhabitants was intended as an assurance to the returned Jews that God watched over them still, and would in the end punish those- who usurped their privileges. Nothing can be inferred from the use of the terms "Ephraim," "Judah," and "Israel," for they are employed indiscriminately to express the whole people in or after the Captivity (comp. Jer. m. 3, 4; xxxi. 6, 27, 31; xxxiii. 14; Ezek. xxxvii. 16; Ezra i. 3; iii. 1; iv. 1, 3, 4; vii. 13, 14). 2. Idolatry is still practised ( oh. x. 2), which was not the case after the return. But it is very probable that the prophet in this passage is referring to past transgressions; nothing is said of idolatry being a sin of his days; though a warning against superstitious practices connected with teraphim and divination may have been needed then, as indeed it might be now in the case of some of the inhabitants of Palestine. 3. The mention of Assyria instead of Babylon in eh. x. 10 shows that the prophecy was composed when Assyria was still a flourishing kingdom. In answer it may be said that the country is referred to whither the tribes had been deported, and where doubtless they had suffered much cruelty at the hands of the Assyrians, though these were now a conquered people. The name "Assyria," too, is used in a loose way for Babylon and Persia in Ezra vi. 22; Judith i. 7; ii. 1 ( comp. 1 Esdras ii. 30 and vii. 15). 4. The state of things described in eh. xi. 2, 3, 6, 8, belongs to the period c,f anarchy after the death of Jeroboam H. (2 Kings xv. 8-16). The de,;c:ription, however, would equally well 1mit any invasion which occasioned w i<lespn-ad ruin and destruction, and might be applied to the Roman or TIIE 1300K OF ZIWHARIAII.