joel barker thesis on zechariah

7/30/2019 Joel Barker Thesis on Zechariah

1/10

LEADERSHIP RENEWED, REBUKED AND

REPLACED:

An Analysis of the Vision for the Royal, Priestly and

Prophetic Leadership Streams in the Book of Zechariah

by

Joel Barker

A thesis submitted tothe Faculty of McMaster Divinity Collegein partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of Masters of Arts

McMaster Divinity CollegeHamilton, Ontario2005


2/10

132

requires and that the king of 9:9 demonstrated.61

Consequently the shepherds will cry

out as YHWH will judge them. The function of these verses is to serve as an

introduction to 11:4-17 which provides greater detail on the reasons behind this

judgment on the shepherds and concludes with an oracle indicating the nature of that

judgment.62

4.3.2.2. 11:4-17:

Following these two brief references, Zechariah 9-14 turns to the core of the

prophetic message concerning the shepherds. It occurs in the extended description of

the action found in 11:4-17. This passage is set apart from the rest of the material in

Zechariah 9-14 by the obscure introductory formula yh*l)a$ hwhy+ rma* hK) and the shift in

the first person referent.63 In the rest of Zechariah 9-14, the first person pronoun

indicates YHWH himself, but in this passage it refers to the prophetic figure who

undertakes this action for YHWH.

Scholars advance several proposals for understanding the form of this prophetic

action. Many view it as an allegory making reference to an actual historical event.64 In

particular, they look at 11:8 which refers to three other shepherds whom the appointed

one removes. However, much like the march of the divine warrior in 9:1-8, there are so

61Mason, Use, 89.

62Redditt, Israel's Shepherds, 634.

63 Petersen, Zechariah 9-14, 90-1, notes that although this particular introductory formula is unusual,prophets did refer to YHWH as yh*l)a$, my God. He suggests that one might even expect such apersonalization as it is the prophet himself who has been called on to enact Gods word. See alsoMason, Use, 97, who argues that this formula was used to set YHWH over and above any other gods.64

See for example A. Caquot, Brves remarques sur l'allgorie des pasteurs en Zacharie 11, inMlanges Bibliques et Orientaux en l'honneur de M. Delcor, ed. A. Caquot, S. Lgasse and M Tardieu(Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1985), 44-55; L. V. Meyer, An Allegory Concerning theMonarchy: Zech 11:4-17; 13:7-9, in Scripture in History and Theology, ed. A. L. Merrill and T. W.


3/10

133

many possibilities advanced for the identity of the three shepherds that it seems to be a

fruitless exercise.65 Neither are there clear indications concerning what the remaining

figures in the passage are to represent, and so to call this passage an allegory does not

help with its interpretation. Kline views it as an act of prophetic commissioning, arguing

that YHWH calls the prophet to actually take on the role of shepherd-ruler over the

community.66

Meyers and Meyers argue that this seems unlikely as not all of the

actions are definitively caused by divine agency, and this categorization oversimplifies

the complex nature of the language and the images employed.67

This identification is

also unlikely as there is absolutely no evidence anywhere to support a prophetic figure

assuming this kind of leadership function in the Yehudite community. If this is an act of

commissioning, then it appears that the prophetic figure was commissioned to an office

he never actually assumed.

Another possibility for the form of this passage is the prophetic sign-act. Friebel

would most likely caution against such an identification, as it is highly unlikely that this

action was ever performed. He understands sign-acts as rhetorical non-verbal

communication in which the accomplishment of the act itself presents a message that

the prophet uses to communicate a message from God to the intended audience.68

When it is unlikely that the action was ever performed, it is hard to see how this could

be classified as a sign-act. However, the shared shepherd imagery between this

Overholt (Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1977), 225-40; L. Waterman, "The Camouflaged Purge of ThreeMessianic Conspirators," JNES 13 (1954): 73-78.65

Meyer, Allegory, 233. Meyer views this passage as an allegory, and he thinks that it might haveoriginally made reference to an actual historical event. However, even he concedes that the search forthe specific event is most likely futile. See also Redditt, Two, 632-6 for a review of previous attempts tospecify historical referents for these three shepherds.66

Meredith G. Kline, Glory in our Midst: A Biblical-Theological Reading of Zechariahs Night Visions(Overland Park: Two Age Press, 2001), 245.67

Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9-14, 298.


4/10

134

chapter and two prophecies found in Ezekiel 34:11-31 and 37:15-28 potentially

suggests a way to understand this passage as a sign-act. The connection to Ezekiel

37:15-28 is particularly persuasive as it is a sign-act in which YHWH commands the

prophet to bind two pieces of wood together into a staff.69 The pieces of wood are

labelled, Judah and Joseph, which is a synecdoche for the Northern and Southern

kings. The breaking of the second staff in Zechariah 11:14 shatters the bond between

Judah and Ephraim, which is another synecdoche representing the two kingdoms.

Consequently, this Zechariah passage appears to play off the imagery of the Ezekiel 37

sign-act. Taken alongside the shared metaphor of the shepherd, these connections

suggest that understanding this passage as a literary adaptation of the sign-act genre is

a viable possibility. It is likely that the writer of this passage adapted the sign-act form

found commonly in Ezekiel in order to shape a response to two of Ezekiels prophecies.

On a literary level, this passage also contains the required structural elements for

it to be considered a sign-act. There are three elements that are necessary according

to Friebel for a passage to be considered a sign-act. These are the divine command to

perform and action, an account that it was done, and an interpretation of that action.70

All three of these occur several times in this passage. There are divine commands to

perform three specific actions at 11:4, 13a, 15, reports of the execution of these actions

at 11:7-12, 11:13b, 15 and interpretations of the first and third of these actions at 11:6

and 16. An explanation of the second action is not present, which possibly suggests

that its interpretation is tied in with the first action.71

There are then two fully functioning

68Friebel, Jeremiah, 20-34.

69Friebel, Jeremiah, 362-4.

70Friebel, Hermeneutical, 28.

71See the chart breaking down these sign-acts in Boda, Reading, 280.


5/10

135

prophetic sign-acts in this passage, focusing on two different shepherds who are to tend

the same flock and a third action of the throwing away payment that is not explained

explicitly, but that is tightly connected to the actions of the first shepherd in this section.

These structural similarities along with the close tie to Ezekiel indicate that this passage

is best understood as a literary adaptation of the earlier prophetic form of sign-act.

After identifying the form of this passage, there are several textual difficulties

within it that need to be clarified before making conclusions on what it says about the

function of leadership. The first issue occurs in a collocation found in 11:7, 11. The MT

reads yY}n]u& /k@l*, which is generally understood as for the poor/afflicted ones.72

However, many scholars argue that the LXX which reads at this point is

preferable. This reading involves eliminating the space between the two words found in

the MT, and instead reading them as one word. This creates a reading of a noun

preceded by the preposition lamed with a translation value of for/on behalf of the

Canaanites. The key to this argument is to understand that the noun /un~K= can also

refer to merchants or traders, besides its most common use as a reference to a people-

group.73

According to this reading, the shepherd tends the flock on behalf of the

merchants, who are probably the buyers and sellers mentioned in 11:4. Finley argues

that the second occurrence of this collocation at 11:11 tips the balance towards this

reading. The shepherd breaks one of his staffs, and then the text tells us that the ones

implied by this collocation knew that it was a word of YHWH. In 11:12 the shepherd

demands his wages from


6/10

136

person masculine plural suffix. This suffix most likely refers to the disputed phrase from

the previous verse. Finley claims that it is much more likely that the shepherd would

demand wages from the merchants, not from the afflicted ones of the flock.74

However, there are good reasons to maintain the MT reading in these verses. It

appears to offer the more difficult reading of the text as one might expect a shepherd to

tend the flock for its owners, and to receive his wages from them. Finley attempts to

argue that the LXX reading is actually the more difficult one because Zechariah 14:21

declares that there will be a time when there will be no yn]u&n~k= in the house of YHWH. He

wonders how then the prophet could tend a flock on behalf of these people, or how they

would realize that his staff breaking exercise was the word of YHWH.75

This argument

is mistaken as Finley has misunderstood the context created by the LXX reading. The

merchants here are the buyers and sellers of 11:5. These are not positive figures, as

they gloat over the destruction of the flock in 11:6. Therefore even though the prophetic

figure performing the sign-act might tend the sheep on behalf of these figures, this

would not prevent YHWH from indicting them in 14:21. The LXX reading is very

understandable once placed in this light. The MT is actually more difficult as it involves

using the conjunctions /k@l*in 11:7, and /k@ in 11:11 in ways that are not well attested.

These grammatical peculiarities make the MT reading difficult, although certainly not

impossible, and on those grounds, it is to be preferred on this occasion.

The divine command of the second sign-act is also obscure. In 11:13, YHWH

tells the prophet to throw his thirty pieces of silver to rx@oYh^. This word is generally

74Finley, Sheep, 64.

75Finley, Sheep, 59.


7/10

137

translated as potter, or someone who fashions objects out of earth. This is strange as

the second half of the verse locates this potter within the Temple. Many scholars

including Meyers and Meyers, and Petersen, follow the Syriac reading at this point .76

They instead propose reading the text as rx#oah*, which would indicate a treasury, a

proper place to cast coins. This reading is not likely to be original as it eliminates the

interpretive difficulties of this verse.77 It is also possible to make sense of the MT at this

point. Sweeney notes that the term rx@oYh^ does not necessarily refer to someone who

forms things out of earth. Instead, it is used to refer to one who forms or fashions

things, and it is often used of YHWH himself.78

C. C. Torrey suggests that instead this

term can also apply to people who create things out of metal.79

Consequently the

command from YHWH is to cast the payment to this individual. This reading is difficult

as there is no indication as to the role or status of this individual, other than the fact that

they were in the Temple (11:13). However, it is more likely that this reading gave rise to

the Syriac, and it should probably be preferred on those grounds.

There is also a debate over the significance of the value of the payment made to

the first shepherd. Zechariah 11:12-13 states that he was paid thirty silver shekels,

which YHWH then told him to throw away. Many have noted that according to Exodus

21:32, thirty shekels is the price that the owner of a goring ox must pay if it kills a male

or female slave.80 Based on that passage, Baldwin argues that this is a significant

amount, and that it represented more than sufficient payment for the shepherd figure.

81

76Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9-14, 276; Petersen, Zechariah 9-14, 87.

77Sweeney, Twelve, 681.

78Sweeney, Twelve, 681. Sweeney lists Gen 2:7, 8; Isa 27:11, 43:1, 21; 44:21; 45:7, 11.

79C. C. Torrey, The Foundry at the Second Temple at Jerusalem, JBL 55 (1936): 247-60.

80Petersen, Zechariah 9-14, 96.

81Baldwin, Haggai, 184; See S. Feigin, Some Notes on Zechariah 11:4-17, JBL 44 (1925): 203-13.


8/10

138

However, many disagree with this assessment and consider the thirty shekels to

represent an insignificant amount. Redditt argues that it indicates that the ones paying

the shepherd regarded him as no more valuable than a slave. The prophets

description of his fee as a rq*y+h^ rd\a#is therefore pure sarcasm.82 Other scholars find

further evidence for this understanding on the basis of a metaphorical sense of this

phrase. K. Luke notes a parallel from the Gilgamesh epic which describes Gilgamesh

donning armour metaphorically weighing fifty minas, which seems to be a heavy

amount. But to him, it only felt like thirty shekels, the implication being that was a trifling

amount.83

Similarly Lipinski identifies the same expression in Akkadian as a way

illustrating an insultingly low wage.84

This weight of evidence suggests that the sum

paid to the prophet at the end of his first shepherd portrayal should be understood as an

insulting amount.

There is also debate over how to understand the first shepherd portrayed in the

sign-act of 11:4-17. In both cases, the prophet is fulfilling the commands of YHWH in

how he performs his duties, but there are questions about the quality of their leadership

over the flock. It is clear from 11:16 that the judgment of the second shepherd is

negative, but the nature of the first shepherd is not quite as apparent. Redditt views this

first shepherd as an evil figure because he quarrels with the other shepherds (11:8) and

he abandons the flock when difficulties arise. This leaves them defenceless and in

response the shepherd states that they should let the dying ones die (11:9).

85

However,

there are also strong indications that this shepherd should be viewed as a positive

82Redditt, Two, 684.

83K. Luke, The Thirty Pieces of Silver (Zch 11:12f), ITS 19 (1982): 15-32, 30.

84Lipinkski, Recherches, 54-5.

85Paul L. Redditt, The Two Shepherds in Zechariah 11:4-17, CBQ 55 (1993): 676-86, 682.


9/10

139

figure. Maintaining the afflicted of the flock reading in 11:7,11, it would seem that this

shepherd was to have taken on this role with the proper motives at heart. Psalm 72

calls the royal house to care for the oppressed among it, and so becoming the shepherd

for the afflicted of this flock is the proper action of a ruling figure.86 This idea is also

present in Zechariah 1-8 since Zechariah 7:8-10 echoes this call to care for the weak as

proper action before YHWH.

The failure of this shepherd appears to be related as much to his rejection by the

flock in 11:8 than to any inappropriate actions that he himself undertakes.87

The

shepherd grows weary of the flock

88

and they in turn detest him.

89

It is interesting to

note that the condemnation does not fall entirely on the shoulders of the shepherd

leader at this point, there is also a sense in which the flock brought this upon itself by

rejecting him. Also, if the payment given to the shepherd signifies an insignificant

amount, then it appears that the community bears some responsibility as they

effectively scorn the one whom YHWH appointed to rule over them. Luke suggests that

the actual price that the shepherd wanted was the flocks obedience to his rule that

YHWH had commissioned.90

This passage then concludes with a prophetic woe oracle against the bad

shepherd in 11:17. It pronounces judgment on the worthless shepherd and threatens

him with partial blinding and maiming. This would render him powerful and unable to

86Boda, Reading, 282.

87Duguid, Messianic, 274.

88The verb used here is rxq=T!w. The appropriate gloss is one which has a basic range of meaning of

being impatient, being short, grow tired. Other examples of this gloss are found at Jdg 10:16, 16:16;Mic 2:7.89

The verb used here (hl*j&B*) is a hapax legomenon. Its meaning is not clear, but most scholars,including Meyers and Meyers accept BDBs proposal that this verb denotes despising, or feelingloathing towards. See Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9-14, 266.90

Luke, Thirty, 22.


10/10

140

function, since taken together the images of arm and right eye could represent his

physical and mental abilities.91 In this way, this oracle proposes that his physical

condition match his unworthy leadership ability. The flock has been given over to him

because they reject the good shepherd, but this proclamation of woe against him

suggests the possibility of restoration and return as YHWHs judgment will fall upon

him.92

This woe oracle will be echoed and expanded in the remaining shepherd

passage of 13:7-9.

4.3.2.3. 13:7-9

This final shepherd reference occurs in the second aC*m^ of these chapters. It is a

prophetic oracle that first pronounces judgment against a shepherd. The judgment is

probably more severe than that found in 11:17 as in this passage it looks as though the

sword raised against him should kill him. In concert with the attack on the shepherd, the

flock is scattered, and YHWH turns his hand on them in judgment. In 13:8, there is a

description of this judgment which states that

joel barker thesis on zechariah

Documents