Tiemeyer, The Haggai Zechariah 1-8 Corpus

The Haggai–Zechariah 1–8 Corpus Lena-So a Tiemeyer 1 Introduction Although speaking of a scholarly consensus potentially invites trouble, it is nevertheless fair to say that most scholars view Haggai–Zechariah 1–8 as a distinct redactional unity. In fact, the notion of a booklet containing Haggai– Zechariah 1–8 is one of the oldest redaction critical theories in the research of the Book of the Twelve. Although the text itself acknowledges multiple authors—the prophets Haggai and Zechariah—the overarching structuring of the material invites readers to approach it as a single whole. This cohesion is emphasized not only by the fact that the various sections are assigned a date in the early years of King Darius’s reign (presumably Darius , giving a date around 520 , see further below) but also by the structural similarities of the dating formulas themselves. Furthermore, Haggai–Zechariah 1–8 conveys, at least to a certain degree, thematic consistency due to the occurrence of shared motifs throughout the text: the same dramatic personae, namely Joshua and Zerubbabel, appear across Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, and many of the individual pericopae focus on the shared topic of temple building. In this essay, we shall explore the key aspects that hold these ten chapters together, as well as what keeps them apart. In parallel, we shall look at the various redaction critical models that have sought to account for both the similarities and the di ferences by postulating schemes of series of redactions and of gradual textual growth. 2 The Dating Formulas The eight dating formulas in Haggai–Zechariah 1–8, positioned unevenly across the textual corpus, lend the corpus a sense of cohesion but, in parallel, also point towards its history of gradual growth. The book of Haggai contains ve dating formulas (Hag 1:1, 15; 2:1, 10, and 20) and the book of Zechariah contains another three (Zech 1:1, 7; 7:1) (Table 2.1). See, e.g., Schart, Entstehung, 256–257; Wöhrle, “Formation.” © 9789004423244_Tiemeyer et al_text_proof-03.indb 38 , , | : . / _ 30 Mar 2020 4:02:39 pm – . – The dating formulas in Haggai–Zechariah 1–8 Passage Formula Hag 1:1 Hag 1:15b Hag 2:1 Hag 2:10 Hag 2:18 Hag 2:20 Zech 1:1 Zech 1:7 ‫ב נת תים לדריו המלך בחד ה י ביום אחד לחד‬ ‫ביום ע רים וארבעה לחד ב י ב נת תים לדריו המלך‬ ‫ב ביעי בע רים ואחד לחד‬ ‫בע רים וארבעה לת יעי ב נת תים לדריו‬ ‫מיום ע רים וארבעה לת יעי‬ ‫בע רים וארבעה לחד‬ ‫בחד ה מיני ב נת תים לדריו‬ ‫בט ב נת‬ ‫ביום ע רים וארבעה לע תי־ע ר חד הוא־חד‬ ‫תים לדריו‬ ‫ויהי ב נת ארבע לדריו המלך היה דבר־ה' אל־זכריה בארבעה‬ ‫לחֹד הת עי בכסלו‬ Zech 7:1 The dating formulas are very similar, yet some minor di ferences exist. First, Zech 1:7 (Shevet) and Zech 7:1 (Kislev) contain the (Babylonian) name of the month. While this may be a matter of style, it may also indicate that a di ferent hand was responsible for the dates in Zech 1:7 and 7:1. Secondly, Hag 2:10, 18, and 20 date events to the ninth month, whereas Zech 1:1 dates the events to the eighth month of what is presumably the same year (Darius’s second year of reign). While this chronological overlap in itself is no problem, this arrangement, whereby Zech 1:1–6 is assigned chronological precedence, nevertheless suggests that someone wished to emphasize the priority of the message in Zech 1:1–6 up and against that in Hag 2:10–19, 20–23. These dating formulas raise two interconnected questions. First, do these dates re ect the historical date of the following textual sections? As we shall discover, one group—consisting predominantly of English speaking scholars—accepts the dates in the two books as by and large reliable. As a result, they assume a relatively simple development of the text and accordingly date the greater part of Haggai–Zechariah 1–8 to the early Persian period. Secondly, were these dating formulas written by the same hand as the ensuing material or are they redactional in character? If the latter, are we talking about one redactor responsible for them all or, as possibly indicated by the di ferences in form, a series of editors? As we shall see, another group— chie y but not limited to German scholars—detect a longer text-historical development with several consecutive editions of the material in Haggai and Zechariah 1–8. While the earliest layers may indeed stem from the early 9789004423244_Tiemeyer et al_text_proof-03.indb 39 30 Mar 2020 4:02:40 pm Persian period, subsequent layers betray later situations. According to this latter view, Haggai–Zechariah 1–8 is lent cohesion by the dating formulas that appear throughout the material, yet these same dating formulas betray redactional activity. Scholars have long noted the structural a nity between Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 created by the dating formulas and, on this basis, argue for common or at least overlapping redactional schemes. Klostermann proposed already in 1896 that the shared characteristic of the detailed dating formulas in Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 testify to an early collection of Haggai–Zechariah 1–8. In Klostermann’s view, there was no need to postulate a separate editor; the prophet Zechariah was responsible not only for the material in Zech 1–8 but also for adding the chronological framework to his own and to the work of the prophet Haggai. In contrast, several more recent scholars have attributed signi cance to the slight di ference between the dating formulas in the two texts and, in conjunction with other perceived di ferences, favour two di ferent redactors. Rudolph, for example, argues for the priority of the dating formulas in Zechariah. He begins by highlighting the problem with the aforementioned chronological overlap between the last section in Haggai and the rst section in Zechariah (Zech 1:1–6). In his view, it is unlikely that two prophets, who never acknowledge one another in their writings, were active at the same time. Thus, rather than two contemporaneous prophets, we are more likely dealing with two consecutive ones. As to the relative chronology of the nal form of the texts of Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 respectively, Rudolph maintains that the dating formulas in the latter are, in fact, the earliest. According to Rudolph, Haggai’s followers wished at a later stage to stress the chronological priority of Haggai’s message regarding the temple building and thus inserted dates—earlier than those in Zech 1–8—into the text of Haggai. We are thus, according to Rudolph, seeing the works of two di ferent authors, each of them responsible for one set of dating formulas. Lux also notes the signi cance of the 24th day of the ninth month, mentioned three times in Haggai (2:10, 18, and 20), as well as the chronological overlay between this date and the one in Zech 1:1, dated earlier to the eighth month. In his view, the date in Zech 1:1 was added to convey the impression that the events of the 24th of the ninth month were the result of the (prior) Klostermann, Geschichte, 213. He is followed by many more recent scholars (see further below). Rudolph, Haggai, 46–47. 9789004423244_Tiemeyer et al_text_proof-03.indb 40 30 Mar 2020 4:02:40 pm – – call to repentance. Looking at the wider redaction of Haggai–Zechariah 1–8, Lux postulates an early collection of Haggai and Zechariah 1–8*. In that collection, the reader progressed systematically from the earthly (Hag 2:20–23) to the heavenly (Zech 1:7–6:15) changes that God would generate. The redactor responsible for bringing these chapters together also added the dating formulas in Zech 1:7 and 7:1 (i.e. the ones with the names of the months). A subsequent redactor then composed the material in Zech 1:1–6 and 7:7–14. Following suit, Wöhrle maintains that the di ferences between the dating formulas attested in the book of Haggai and the ones in Zechariah 1–8 are germane to understanding the various redactions that the two sets of texts underwent. In contrast to Rudolph, however, Wöhrle assigns priority to the dating formulas in Haggai. He argues that the so-called Word Redaction (R ) (see further below) attached Zech 1–8* to the already existing book of Haggai. To link the two textual corpora and to create a larger Haggai–Zechariah corpus, R composed the dating formula in Zech 1:1 (as well as the ones in Zech 1:7 and 7:1) that resembled the already existing one in Hag 2:10, 18, and 20. Wöhrle thus does not see any original “two-book redaction.” Rather, in his view, Zech 1–8* was added to an already existing and redacted book of Haggai. By adding the dating formula in Zech 1:1, R created the impression that the temple building depended upon the people’s repentance (cf. Rudolph): the people heard the sermon (Zech 1:1–6) and, as a result, laid the foundation of the temple (Hag 2:10–19). R thus aligned the theology of Haggai with the tenets of the Deuteronomistic theology. The temple no longer constituted the reason for God’s return; rather the people’s repentance brought about the building of the temple (and God’s return). Pola, also having noted the interlocking character of the dating formulas in the Haggai–Zechariah corpus, maintains that the shorter formula in Zech 1:1 is a later addition whereas the longer one in Zech 1:7 is original. In his view, Zech 1:1, as well as verses 2–6, was added to the earlier vision report. Its shorter form indicates its subordinate character (to Zech 1:7); it is not a sign of originality. In parallel, Pola challenges the commonly held view that the chronological framework in Haggai is secondary. In his opinion, this view stems rather from the di culty in harmonizing the material in Haggai with that in Ezra 1–6 than from any discrepancy within the book of Haggai itself. Lux, “Zweiprophetenbuch,” 5–8. Lux, “Zweiprophetenbuch,” 10–11. Lux, “Zweiprophetenbuch,” 22–23. Lux, “Zweiprophetenbuch,” 24–25. Pola, Priestertum, 43. 9789004423244_Tiemeyer et al_text_proof-03.indb 41 30 Mar 2020 4:02:40 pm The chronological framework provides structure to the text of the Haggai– Zechariah corpus in the same way that the dating formulas in the book of Ezekiel do. What we consequently have, according to Pola, is a well-integrated text where the chronological references in Haggai are primary insofar as they were written by the same circle as the one responsible for the rest of the book of Haggai. Floyd concurs with Pola’s last point. He expresses scepticism towards our ability to distinguish redactional material from source material and therefore advocates abandoning the endeavour. In fact, separating the framework from the oracles may cause readers to miss “the whole point of the story.” In the particular case of Haggai, Floyd highlights the lack of clear transitions from narrative to prophetic speech. There is little in terms of a shift in linguistic structure, perspective, and diction to justify di ferentiating between the two types of material. In addition, the superscriptions in Haggai di fer markedly from those in other prophetic books: they form complete sentences and, as such, report communication of prophecies. They are furthermore well integrated with the ensuing oracles through grammatical connections to the degree that readers cannot easily determine whether the narrator or the prophet is speaking (e.g. 1:2). For Floyd, this kind of ambiguity may be the result of the literary compositional process that is “characterized by the deliberate mixing of perspectives than as a result of a tradition-historical process.” Expressed in terms of form-criticism, the changes between narrative and oracle is a feature of the literary genre of Haggai, and the reasons for these changes should be sought in the literary conventions that govern that genre. Tollington, who also regards the dating scheme as the result of a later compiler wishing to refocus Haggai’s message, emphasizes its theological import. She suggests that the date in Hag 1:15 (24th of the last month) symbolizes the turning point that coincides with the end of the year. The next date in Hag 2:1 (21st of the seventh month) falls during the festival of Succoth, thus creating a link to the memory of the people’s time in the wilderness prior to entering the Promised Land. Remembering God’s past faithfulness o fers hope for the future and encouragement for the community to believe that they will yet again Pola, Priestertum, 40–42. Floyd, “Narrative,” 479. Floyd, “Narrative,” 481–482. Floyd, “Narrative,” 476–478. Floyd, “Narrative,” 483. Floyd, “Narrative,” 487. Tollington, “Readings,” 201. 9789004423244_Tiemeyer et al_text_proof-03.indb 42 30 Mar 2020 4:02:40 pm – – have a temple and a monarch, and receive future blessings. Finally, looking at the last dates in Hag 2:10, 20 (24th day of the ninth month), Tollington highlights its signi cance during the Maccabean era when, in 164 , this was the date before the rededication of the temple, later commemorated by the Hanukkah celebration. Rather than postulating a Maccabean date of this formula, however, Tollington argues that the description in 1 Macc 4:36–51 of the programme of cleansing and rebuilding depends on Haggai. Yet again, a few scholars, most prominently Kessler, maintain that the similarities, as well as the di ferences, between the dating formulas in Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 do not imply that the two books were redacted together. Rather, according to Kessler, these formulas re ect the scribal customs of the time. It is therefore equally reasonable to argue that Zechariah was written after Haggai and that Zechariah 1–8 was written “to complement the text of Haggai.” To support the chronological priority of Haggai, Kessler appeals to Lemaire’s claim that formulas without reference to months are more common in earlier (e.g. Ezekiel) than in later (e.g. Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther) texts. The insights reached by the studies of the dating formulas across Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 have wide-ranging repercussions for our understanding of the gradual growth of this material. In this section, we shall look at a wide range of models that seek to explain the a nity and the divergence of these ten biblical chapters. This issue covers two distinct approaches. As we have already observed, some scholars treat Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 as two distinct units. Accordingly, they postulate two independent redactional processes up and until the nal stage when the two units were combined. Other scholars maintain that Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 never existed independently from one another and thus propose a series of redactions that span the entire corpus of 10 chapters. Yet other scholars fall somewhere in between these two extreme views: they detect early independent compilations of Haggai and Zechariah that were fused together before reaching their nal form and then supplemented with additional redactional layers. Common to most of them, however, is the idea, hinted at above, that the last oracles in Haggai (2:20–23) and the rst oracle in Zechariah (1:1–6) are among the latest material in Haggai–Zechariah 1–8 and thus pivotal for determining the date of their nal redaction. Tollington, “Readings,” 202–203. Tollington, “Readings,” 205–208. Kessler, Haggai, 57. Kessler, Haggai, 48–49. See Lemaire, “Datation en Palestine,” 65–66. 9789004423244_Tiemeyer et al_text_proof-03.indb 43 30 Mar 2020 4:02:40 pm 3 The Growth of Haggai The book of Haggai can easily be read as an independent book. The question here is, however, whether this book constitutes an authorial or a redactional unity. Although scholars di fer widely on the nal details pertaining to its gradual growth, most agree that the (aforementioned) dating formulas and the nal oracle in 2:20–23 constitute later additions. Furthermore, several scholars do not consider the material about Joshua and Zerubbabel to be original. 3.1 Structure of the Book of Haggai The structure of the book of Haggai is shown in Table 2.2. . The structure of the book of Haggai Passage Content 1:1a 1:1b Date formula Prophetic word formula to Haggai, addressed to Zerubbabel and Joshua Report of the people’s speech Prophetic word formula to Haggai v. 4–6: Question and answer v. 7–11: Divine speech The response of the community, headed by Zerubbabel and Joshua Divine oracle uttered by Haggai Report of Y ’s actions Date formula Date formula Prophetic word formula to Haggai Divine oracle to Zerubbabel and Joshua v. 2: Address to Zerubbabel, Joshua, and the remnant of the people v. 3: Speech about the temple v. 4–5: Speech about the Exodus v. 6: Speech about cosmic upheaval v. 7–9: Speech about cosmic upheaval and the temple Date formula Prophetic word formula to Haggai Report by Haggai about divine oracle about priestly ruling Report by Haggai about the situation following the beginning of the temple building v. 18bα: Date formula 1:2 1:3 1:4–11 1:12 1:13 1:14 1:15 2:1a 2:1b 2:2–9 2:10a 2:10b 2:11–14 2:15–19 9789004423244_Tiemeyer et al_text_proof-03.indb 44 30 Mar 2020 4:02:40 pm – . – The structure of the book of Haggai (cont.) Passage Content 2:20 2:21–23 Date formula v. 21: Word addressed to Zerubbabel v. 22: Word about cosmic upheaval v. 23: Word address to Zerubbabel 3.2 The Redactional Unity of Haggai Ackroyd was among the rst scholars to question the authorial unity of Haggai. Seeking to clarify its composition history, Ackroyd distinguished between the oracles that likely date to the prophet himself (although in his view probably not in their present form) and the non-oracular material. He then divided the latter material into two categories: 1) Material that relates directly to the oracles (1:12–14; 2:3–5, 11–14a); 2) Material that is of independent character, such as the dating formulas, the prophetic word formulas, and information about the addressees (1:1, 3, 15; 2:1–2, 10, 20–21a). On this basis, Ackroyd postulated a model of gradual growth: 1) The prophetic oracles were rst delivered and transmitted orally. 2) At one point, either the prophet himself or someone from his circle wrote the material about Zerubbabel and Joshua in Hag 1:12–14 and modi ed the material in 2:3–5 and in 2:11–14a. 3) This initial collection was later supplemented with the dating formulas etc. The book of Haggai probably reached its nal, present form 100–200 years after the prophet’s own ministry. Beuken follows Ackroyd insofar as he also identi es an early collection containing the prophet’s words. This collection of originally independent oracles (Hag 1:3–11, 12b; 2:15–19) was organized into what Beuken calls Auftrittsskizzen, i.e. sketch scenes. They present Haggai as a man—a farmer—in Judah whose main concerns were the di cult agricultural situation in the land and the rebuilding of the temple. In parallel, the lack of reference to the exile in these oracles suggests that Haggai was not part of the group of returning exiles; Ackroyd, “Studies,” 166–173. Ackroyd, “Studies,” 164, 174. Ackroyd, “Studies,” 166–169, 174. Ackroyd, “Studies,” 169–174. Beuken, Haggai-Sacharja 1–8, 184–229. 9789004423244_Tiemeyer et al_text_proof-03.indb 45 30 Mar 2020 4:02:40 pm instead he was a representative of the indigenous Judahites, who sought to return to the way of life prior to the Babylonian onslaught in 586 . It follows that this early collection never refers to Zerubbabel and Joshua. At a later stage, this initial collection was redacted by the Chronist, whose work resulted in the present form of Haggai. (Likewise, the Chronist transformed the extant text of Zech 1–6,* thus creating the nal form of Zech 1–8.) This redaction turned the earlier Auftrittsskizzen in Haggai into Episoden and, in doing so, also changed their overarching message. First, by adding references to Joshua and Zerubbabel, the redactor portrayed the restoration as the joint work of prophets and monarchs: the prophet o fers divine words to the leaders of the community, and clari es that just as the rst temple was built by a son of David, so should the second temple. Secondly, and connected with the former point, the redactor emphasized the signi cance of prophecy in history: through Haggai’s words, God was able to mobilize Joshua and Zerubbabel to carry out the divine plans (Hag 1:12–14; Zech 1:6b; 7:7–14). Moreover, the prophet was able to keep the community on the right path and to teach them about ritual purity (Hag 2:1–9, 10–14). Thirdly, this redaction added the notion of covenant renewal: the people had sinned against God and thus broken the covenant but, after due repentance, they returned to him and the covenant could be renewed (Hag 2:4–5, cf. Zech 1:3; 7:13). Coggins, building on Beuken’s view, suggests that this Chronist editing of Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 took place in the fth century in the same (temple) circles that had edited Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah. Nogalski follows suit insofar as he also argues for a Chronist redaction of Haggai and emphasizes the di ferences between, on the one hand, the clearly Deuteronomistic material in the so-called “Book of the Four” (Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah) and, on the other hand, the Haggai–Zechariah 1–8 corpus. The idea of a Chronist redactor has been challenged by Mason. He begins his investigation by isolating Hag 1:1, 3, 12, 13a, 14, 15; 2:1–2, 10, and 20, i.e. the third person dating formulas, as well as the material about Zerubbabel and Joshua (except for the nal oracle to Zerubbabel in 2:21–23 which he considers to be original), as the work of a later redactor. Given the lack of unease vis-à-vis Beuken, Haggai-Sacharja 1–8, 228–229. Beuken, Haggai-Sacharja 1–8, 27–83. Beuken, Haggai-Sacharja 1–8, 32, 334. Beuken, Haggai-Sacharja 1–8, 56. Beuken, Haggai-Sacharja 1–8, 332. Beuken, Haggai-Sacharja 1–8, 334. Coggins, Haggai, 29–31. Nogalski, Literary Precursors, 216, 221, 230, 236. 9789004423244_Tiemeyer et al_text_proof-03.indb 46 30 Mar 2020 4:02:40 pm – – the dual role of Joshua and Zerubbabel, it is in Mason’s view likely that the editorial additions were composed fairly shortly after Haggai’s oracles. Mason further highlights the a nity of these additions with Deuteronomy: the redactional material has a distinctive theology that emphasizes obedience to God’s words through the prophet (Hag 1:12, 14; 2:2) and addresses predominantly the leaders of the community. Moreover, the later editor uses the expression “the whole remnant of the people” (‫כל ארית העם‬, Hag 1:12a, 14) to refer to a faithful nucleus. In contrast, the earlier material addressed the people as a single entity. Building upon especially Mason’s and Beuken’s work, Wol f envisages three stages of formation. His redaction critical scheme is informed by the perceived di ferences in language and ideology between the various parts of Haggai. Beginning with the matter of language, while the earlier Hag 1:12b–13 speaks of “the people,” the later Hag 1:12a and 14a (i.e. the work of the Haggai Chronist) speak of “the remnant of the people” (cf. Mason). Likewise, while the earlier material refers to Haggai as “Y ’s messenger” (1:13, ‫)מלאך ה׳‬, the additions made by the Haggai Chronist call him “the prophet” (1:1, 3, 12a; 2:1, 10, ‫)הנביא‬. Yet again, while the earlier textual units use the expressions “thus says Y ” (‫כה‬ ” (‫נאם ה׳‬, e.g. 1:1, 13), the Haggai Chronist ‫אמר ה׳‬, e.g. 1:2, 5) or “oracle of Y employs the phrase “the word of Y through Haggai” (‫ביד חגי דבר ה׳‬, 1:1, 3; 2:1, 10, 20). Turning to matters of ideology, the earlier material does not distinguish between the people in the land and the returning exiles (e.g. 1:2, 12b, 13a), whereas the later redactional material introduces a distinction between the returning exiles (i.e. Joshua, Zerubbabel and the “remnant of the people”) and those who had remained in the land. – The rst stage, which stems from the prophet himself, contains ve sections (Auftrittsskizzen) in Hag 1:4–11; 2:3–9*, 14, 15–19*, 21b–23, as well as three sections in Hag 1:2, 12b–13; 2:11–13 that comment on the situation. – At the second stage, a redactor added what Wol f calls Wortereigniseinführungen. These additions consist of introductions to the earlier material (1:1–3, 15a, 15b–2:2; 2:10, 21a) and of material containing dates, names of the recipients of the oracles, and other supplementary details (1:12a, 14a). That same redactor also added material to the already existing sections (2:3–9 Mason, “Editorial Framework,” 413–421; idem, Haggai, 8–10. Wol f, Haggai, 4–5, 17–18. Wol f, Haggai, 5. Wol f, Haggai, 5. Wol f, Haggai, 6. Wol f, Haggai, 3–5. 9789004423244_Tiemeyer et al_text_proof-03.indb 47 30 Mar 2020 4:02:40 pm and 2:15–19) such as the reference to Joshua in 2:4a, the opening word ‫ועתה‬ in 2:15a, and the date in 2:18b. – At an even later date, smaller details were added to complement the already existing text. Material was added to Hag 2:5aα (‫את הדבר א ר כרתי אתכם‬ ‫)בצאתכם ממצרים‬, Hag 2:17 was composed, the last two words in Hag 2:18 (‫ ) ימו לבבכם‬and the rst four words in 2:19aβ (‫ )ועד הגפן והתאנה והרמון‬were written, and other material that exists only in the of Haggai but not in the MT was created. Tollington follows suit, yet advocates a signi cantly earlier date for the penultimate form of Haggai and a signi cantly later date for the nal form. Her starting point is the discrepancy between the indicated audience in Hag 1:2 (the people) and that in Hag 1:1 (Zerubbabel and Joshua). In her view, this redirection of the oracles towards Joshua and Zerubbabel, visible in Hag 1:1 and 2:2, 4, is the work of a later compiler. In fact, according to Tollington, if one removed all references to Joshua and Zerubbabel, the text of Haggai would present no problems. In more detail, Tollington detects a set of two original proclamations (1:2–11* and 2:3–9/1:13b; 2:11–19*, 21b–23). A few years later, the framework (1:1, 3, 12–13a, 14–15; 2:1b–2, 20–21a) was written by someone who was an ardent supporter of the temple and regarded Joshua and Zerubbabel as paramount to its rebuilding. Given the assumption that Zerubbabel disappeared prior to the completion of the temple, the framework of the book of Haggai was presumably composed very shortly after the ministry of Haggai the prophet. At an unknown later date, the gloss in Hag 2:5a was added. Signi cantly later during the Maccabean age, another redactor composed the dating formulas in Hag 2:1a, 2:10; and 2:18. These formulas re-contextualized the earlier prophecies in Hag 2:20–23 (including the date formula in 2:20 that originally referred back to the month mentioned in 1:15), in order to serve as a source of inspiration for the rededication of the temple in 164 and the ensuing celebration of Hanukkah. Taking a step back, all of the above-mentioned scholars treat the material about Joshua and Zerubbabel as later additions. The same is true for several other scholars who have written less comprehensive treaties on Haggai. Steck, for example, looking at Hag 1:1–15, argues for an original text of 1:3–11. It Wol f, Haggai, 4, 42, 43, 53. Wol f, Haggai, 4. Tollington, Tradition, 19–23. Tollington, Tradition, 19–23; eadem, “Readings,” 197–199, 207. Tollington, Tradition, 19–23; eadem, “Readings,” 199–200, 207. Tollington, “Readings,” 198, 207. Tollington, “Readings,” 203–207. 9789004423244_Tiemeyer et al_text_proof-03.indb 48 30 Mar 2020 4:02:40 pm – – consists of two independent oracles in Hag 1:2, 4–8 and in 1:9–11 that stem from the prophet Haggai. In contrast, the material about Joshua and Zerubbabel in Hag 1:1 and 1:12–15 forms later editorial additions. As a result, it can be argued (although the argument is to a certain extent circular) that the original book of Haggai was anti-monarchic. 3.3 The Growth of Haggai in Its Wider Context In parallel with the above-mentioned suggestions that focus on the book of Haggai alone, scholars further explore how the editing of Haggai ts in with the editing of the Haggai–Zechariah 1–8 corpus. Several of these scholars (e.g. Sérandour, Albertz) agree with the aforementioned scholars that the dating formulas and the material about Joshua and Zerubbabel are treated as later additions. Sérandour postulates a single redaction of the material in Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi in the fth century that emphasized the role of the leaders in the community. Speaking about Haggai in particular, Sérandour recognizes an original layer uttered by the prophet Haggai, which was addressed solely to the people. Around 450 a redactional layer, stretching across Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, was composed. It added the persons of Joshua and Zerubbabel to stress their signi cance in the temple building project. Albertz detects a more complex two-step redactional scheme of Haggai– Zechariah 1–8. The rst redaction added Hag 1:1–3*, 13–15; 2:1–2, 4, 10, 20; and Zech 8:9–13 to the original documents. This redaction turned the text of Haggai into a temple building chronicle, thus emphasizing those parts of the prophecies that had already been ful lled and, in parallel, marginalizing the other parts that had not (yet) been ful lled (such as an independent Judah under a domestic king). The subsequent second redaction added Hag 2:5a; Zech 1:1–6; 6:15b; 7:1–8, 19. In Albertz’s view, this redaction is Deuteronomistic in language and theology and aims to align Zechariah with pre-exilic prophecy through its emphasis on the need for repentance and on establishing social justice for the ful lment of God’s promises. More recent scholars have asked more widely how the redaction of Haggai ts in with the gradual growth and redaction of the Book of the Twelve. Beginning with Nogalski, he asked the pertinent question whether the Haggai– Zechariah 1–8 corpus was inserted into the growing Book of the Twelve in its current form or whether it underwent redaction once it had been brought Steck, “Zu Haggai 1 2–11,” 355–379. Sérandour, “Ré exions,” 76, 80. Albertz, History, 2:454–455. 9789004423244_Tiemeyer et al_text_proof-03.indb 49 30 Mar 2020 4:02:40 pm together with the “Book of the Four” (Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah). Overall, he detects very little editing on the level of its incorporation (into the Book of the Twelve) and thus suggests that Haggai–Zechariah 1–8 was initially transmitted as an independent corpus. In more detail, Nogalski explores the interplay between the material in Haggai–Zechariah 1–8 and other texts in the Twelve. Noting the a nity between Hag 1:1–11 and Zeph 3:18–20, he argues that the latter is a redactional addition that facilitates the transfer from Zephaniah to Haggai. He further detects a nity between Hag 2:17, regarded as a gloss, and Amos 4:9 (cf. also Joel 1–2 and redactional glosses in Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah). Along similar lines, Nogalski highlights that the gloss in Hag 2:19 evokes the imagery of Joel 1–2. Likewise, “the parenthetical account” in Hag 2:22 about God’s cosmic upheaval, also likely to be a gloss, reverses the imagery in Joel 2:4–11 and shows a nity with the imagery of Obad 15–21. Taken together, Nogalski tentatively argues that these three glosses (2:17, 19, and 22) may be the work of the scribes who incorporated Haggai–Zechariah 1–8 into the Book of the Twelve. Nogalski likewise con rms the scarcity of redactional activity in Zech 1–8 associated with its incorporation into the Book of the Twelve. Although Zech 1:1–6 is clearly editorial in character, nothing indicates that it was composed at the level of the Book of the Twelve; rather it serves either as an introduction to Zech 1–8 or as a bridge between Haggai and Zechariah 1–8. Likewise, Zech 8:14–17 appears to be an inclusio with the beginning in Zech 1:2– 6, thus also being part of the redaction of Haggai–Zechariah 1–8. This lack suggests, in Nogalski’s view, that Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 circulated independently as a single corpus before being included into the growing body of the Twelve. A rare exception to this rule may be Zech 1:14b, 15 that, due to its negative assessment of the nations in conjunction with its a nity with Joel 2:18; Nah 1:2–8; and Zeph 1:18; 3:8b, may be the work of a later editor at the level of the Book of the Twelve. It is also possible that Zech 8:20–22, through its a nity with Mic 4:1–5, may re ect editorial work at the same level. Nogalski, Literary Precursors, 221, 234–235. Nogalski, Literary Precursors, 219–221, 235. Nogalski, Literary Precursors, 226–228. Nogalski, Literary Precursors, 228–229. Nogalski, Literary Precursors, 230–233, 235. Nogalski, Literary Precursors, 235–236. Nogalski, Literary Precursors, 247, 255–257, 272. Nogalski, Literary Precursors, 247. Nogalski, Literary Precursors, 267. Nogalski, Literary Precursors, 250–255. Nogalski, Literary Precursors, 270–271. 9789004423244_Tiemeyer et al_text_proof-03.indb 50 30 Mar 2020 4:02:40 pm – – Wöhrle and Hallaschka, following in Nogalski’s footsteps, have suggested more complex redactional schemes. Their schemes, although di fering from one another in the details, share three key features: 1) Both models maintain that the earliest material focused on the building of the temple. 2) Both models see the following three sets of texts are later additions, namely (1) the chronological formulas, (2) the oracle in Hag 2:10–14, and (3) the material in Hag 2:21b–22 (due to its perceived eschatological avour). 3) Both models position the nal redaction of Haggai within the context of the Book of the Twelve. Wöhrle proposes four distinct stages of growth, as well as a few individual additions (Hag 2:5aα, 17, 18bα): 1) The earliest book of Haggai (1:2, 4–11, 12b, 13; 2:3, 4, 5*, 9, 15–16, 18*, 19, 23) aimed to motivate Zerubbabel to build the temple. It should thus be dated to around 520 . 2) The so-called “Haggai Chronicle” consists of Hag 1:1, 3, 12a, 14–15; 2:1–4*, 10, 20, 21a. This redaction does not presuppose a nished temple, and it is likely that Zerubbabel was still alive. 3) The oracle against the priests in Hag 2:10–14 appears to presuppose a rebuilt temple. The precise date for this oracle is, however, impossible to establish. 4) A few passages (2:6–8, 21b, 22) were added even later in the so-called “Foreign Nation Redaction ,” a redaction that was carried out across the Book of the Twelve. These two passages convey a universal-eschatological tone, as well as a reinterpretation of the character of Zerubbabel, which is di cult to account for in the sixth century . Hallaschka, following suit, detects no less than six stages of growth in Haggai: 1) The earliest layer (1:1*, 4, 8; 1:15b–2:1; and 2:3, 9a) focused on the building of the temple. It was composed around 520 . For a more comprehensive overview and critique, see my review in Tiemeyer, “Review of Jakob Wöhrle.” Wöhrle, Sammlungen, 313–317. Wöhrle, Sammlungen, 317–320. Wöhrle, Sammlungen, 320–321. Wöhrle, Sammlungen, 321. For a more comprehensive overview and critique, see my review in Tiemeyer, “Review of Martin Hallaschka.” Hallaschka, Haggai, 120–124. 9789004423244_Tiemeyer et al_text_proof-03.indb 51 30 Mar 2020 4:02:40 pm 2) The blessing and curses in Hag 1:5–7 and 2:15–19* were added in 500 (Fluch-und-Segen-Bearbeitung). 3) Shortly afterwards the narrative framework, which consists of the chronological formulas (1:1–3*, 12a, 14; 1:15a–2:2), was added. 4) Hag 2:10–14 was written in the late Persian period, at the same time as the basic layer of Malachi. 5) Hag 2:2–9*, 17–18* were added even later. 6) Hag 2:20–23, which predicts the overturning of heaven and earth, was composed in the Hellenistic period. These two models o fer a solution to the problem of address, noted by many scholars, in the opening section of Hag 1:1–4. While 1:1b addresses Zerubbabel and Joshua, 1:2 addresses “this people” in the 3m.sg., and 1:4 addresses them in the 2m.pl. Hallaschka’s model further targets the issue that verses 4 and 8, through their shared focus on the temple, appear to belong together. To solve this matter, Hallaschka postulates an original oracle in verses 4 and 8 that addressed the people. This oracle was later extended to include verses 5–7. Through language typical of covenant curses, these three verses clarify that the delay in building the temple had caused a crisis. Turning to matters of dating, Hallaschka’s proposal that Hag 2:10–14 was composed at the same time of the earliest layer of Malachi is informed by their shared critical disposition towards the priesthood. Along similar lines, Hallaschka’s dating of Hag 2:6–7 to the fth century is due to its perceived similarity with Isa 60:5, 13, which, in turn, is informed by Steck’s dating of the latter passage. A rejection of the latter would accordingly change the date of the former. Finally, Hallaschka’s dating of Hag 2:20–23 to the time of Alexander the Great and the power struggle during the Diadochi stems from his view that Zerubbabel, like David, functions as a cipher for a future saviour. 3.4 Other Approaches Not all scholars have accepted the methodology of those trying to isolate the prophet’s message from that of later redactors. Kessler, for example, Hallaschka, Haggai, 126–133. Hallaschka, Haggai, 133–136. Hallaschka, Haggai, 136–137. Hallaschka, Haggai, 137–138. Hallaschka, Haggai, 138. Hallaschka, Haggai, 15–21. Hallaschka, Haggai, 68, follows Steck, Studien, 101–102, in dating the germane Isaianic material to the fth century. 9789004423244_Tiemeyer et al_text_proof-03.indb 52 30 Mar 2020 4:02:40 pm – – stresses the theological similarity between oracles and framework: both show Deuteronomistic in uence and both display thoughts inherited from the priestly source. In his view, the dating formulas were added shortly after the actual delivery of the oracles. The resulting text is an interconnected unity that stems from the late sixth century . Floyd likewise emphasizes cohesion on syntactical and literary grounds and argues that, in contrast to many other prophetic texts, the chronological formulas in Haggai are well integrated in their literary context. Therefore, according to Floyd, it is inappropriate to treat Haggai’s introductions like superscriptions. In fact, if we strip these narrative introductions away in an attempt to reach some form of genuine prophetic prophecy, we miss “the whole point of the story.” The ambiguity that is created between the narrative elements and the oracular elements in the book are better explained as the result of a deliberate mixing of the perspective than as the result of a tradition-historical process. 3.5 Summary Summing up, there are two ways of regarding Haggai. On the one hand, we can explore its very likely composite nature and gradual growth and focus on the way that the prophetic message has been reinterpreted in its various compositional stages. On the other hand, we can look at the nal form and investigate the message that the nal redactors sought to convey. Both are worthy endeavours and neither replace nor contradict one another. As to our ability to detect and isolate the work of the redactor, we are dealing with models that seek to explain the extant discrepancies in the text in the best possible manner. At times, we may not be able to discern the redactor’s hand, yet this, by itself, is not a reason to give up trying. 4 The Growth of Zechariah 1–8 The structure of the book of Zechariah is not easily de ned. On the one hand, its overarching structure is delimited by a trio of dating formulas: 1:1–6; 1:7–6:15; 7:1–14:21. The concluding section in 7:1–14:21 is then divided into three parts by help of the opening formula “a burden/message of the word of Y ” (‫מ א‬ Kessler, Haggai, 54–55. Kessler, Haggai, 50–51, 55. Floyd, “Narrative,” 474–477. Floyd, “Narrative,” 479. Floyd, “Narrative,” 483. 9789004423244_Tiemeyer et al_text_proof-03.indb 53 30 Mar 2020 4:02:40 pm ‫ )דברי ה׳‬that appears in 9:1 and 12:1, thus suggesting that chapters 7–8 are dis- tinct from chapters 9–11 and chapters 12–14 respectively. In parallel, the expression ‫ מ א דבר ה׳‬in 9:1 and 12:1 connects Zech 9–11 and 12–14 with each other and also with Mal 1:1, which contains the similar but longer phrase ‫מ א דבר ה׳‬ ‫אל י ראל ביד מלאכי‬. On the other hand, this overarching structure is challenged by the results of source-criticism. Due to strong stylistic and thematic reasons, it has been deemed unlikely that the material in Zech 7:1–8:23 was written in the same time period and addressed the same issues as Zech 9:1–11:17 and 12:1– 14:21. As pointed out by Gonzalez, any reading which presupposes that one and the same prophet, in a single day (7:1), answered questions about fasting, made a massive proclamation concerning the international political situation, accomplished several sign acts, and made another proclamation concerning the relationship between Jerusalem and the nations, is not the easiest reading! As a result therefore, few scholars argue for common authorship of the book of Zechariah. In the present context, we shall focus on Zech 1–8 and its redaction history. Did some form of Zechariah ever exist as an independent text or was it always the continuation of Haggai? Furthermore, what redactional additions took place on the level of the Haggai–Zechariah 1–8 corpus and what took place on the level of the Book of the Twelve? 4.1 Structure of Zechariah 1–8 The structure of Zechariah 1–8 is laid out in Table 2.3. . The structure of Zechariah 1–8 Passage Content 1:1 1:2–6 1:7 1:8–11 1:12–14aα, 14aβ–16, 17 2:1–2 2:3–4 2:5–8a Date formula Oracular saying Date formula First visionary impression Oracular sayings Second visionary impression Oracular sayings Third visionary impression Gonzalez, “Zechariah 9–14.” For this structure, see further Tiemeyer, Zechariah and His Visions; eadem, Zechariah’s Vision Report. 9789004423244_Tiemeyer et al_text_proof-03.indb 54 30 Mar 2020 4:02:40 pm – – . The structure of Zechariah 1–8 (cont.) Passage Content 2:8b, 9 2:10–11, 12–13a, 13b, 14, 15, 16, 17 3:1–5 3:6–10 4:1–6aα, 10b–14 4:6aβ–10a 5:1–2 5:3–4 5:5–11 6:1–7 6:8 6:9–15 7:1–3, 4–6, 7–14; 8:1–3, 4–8, 9–13, 14–17, 18–19, 20–23 Oracular sayings Oracular sayings Fourth visionary impression Oracular sayings Fifth visionary impression Oracular sayings Sixth visionary impression Oracular sayings Seventh visionary impression Eighth visionary impression Oracular sayings Oracular sayings Oracular sayings 4.2 The Redactional Unity of Zechariah Much of the debate regarding the composition history of Zechariah 1–8 concerns the relation between the individual eight vision accounts and the accompanying oracular material (sayings). Beginning with those scholars who distinguish between the two types of literature, I shall here discuss (in chronological order) Schöttler, Wöhrle, Hallaschka, and my own contribution. Schöttler speaks only about Zech 1–6 and connects his redactional scheme to neither the development of Haggai nor the Book of the Twelve. He postulates a complex ve-stage-development: 1) The basic layer contains a sequence of ve vision accounts that depict situations that take place on earth. In these accounts, the Interpreting Angel is Zechariah’s interlocutor: a) Early versions of the rst, third, fth, seventh, and eighth visionary impressions (1:8*, 9a, 9bα, 10b, 11b/2:5–8/4:1, 2*, 3a, 4–6aα, 14*/5:5*, 6a, 8aα, 9*, 10, 11/6:1a, 2, 3*, 4aβ, 4b, 5aβ, 5b*, 7aα*, 7b). b) Two oracular statements o fer explanatory comments (Zech 1:14/2:14). Schöttler, Gott inmitten seines Volkes, 49–168. For a fuller evaluation of Schöttler’s redactional scheme, see Tiemeyer, Zechariah’s Vision Report, 14–18. 9789004423244_Tiemeyer et al_text_proof-03.indb 55 30 Mar 2020 4:02:40 pm 2) At the time of the re-dedication of the temple in 515 , the original sequence of ve vision accounts was redacted to emphasize God’s role. a) Early versions of the second and fourth vision accounts were composed (2:3, 4*/3:1aα, 1b, 2aα, 2b, 3a, 4, 9bβ). These two accounts depict situations which take place in the heavenly realm and where God is Zechariah’s interlocutor. b) The extant fth vision account was extended. The new material stresses God’s sovereignty (Zech 4:10*) and his care for the community in Zion (Zech 4:11, 12bβ). c) Oracular material was added to the rst, third, and fth vision accounts (Zech 1:15/2:11/Zech 4:6b). 3) At the time of Nehemiah in the middle of the fth century , the vision report was redacted anew. The result was a sequence of eight vision accounts, with a double-vision (Zech 3–4) as its centre that focused on Zerubbabel and Joshua. This redaction also incorporated the notion of “the land of the North” into the existing sequence of seven vision accounts, and composed material which advocates the need of inner cleansing of the people of Yehud and the expulsion of idolatry. a) The rst, second, fourth, seventh, and eighth vision accounts were extended (1:9bβ, 10a, 11a, 12–13/2:1–2*, 4b*)/3:1aβ, 5*, 6–7/5:5b, 6b, 7, 8aβ, 8b, 9aα*/6:3bβ, 4aα, 5aα, 5b*, 6, 7a*). b) The sixth vision account was added to the vision sequence (5:1, 3a, 4ab, 4b*). c) Three sets of oracular material (4:6aβ, 7, 10a/4:8–9/6:8) were added to the fth and eighth vision accounts. d) The oracular material in Zech 2:10a, 12–13* was written. 4) In the end of the fth century/beginning of the fourth century , another two sets of additions about Joshua were added. a) An initial set of addition (Zech 3:8aα, 9aα, 9bα/6:9, 10bβ, 11, 13a) depicts sign-acts that emphasize the high priestly power. b) These additions were later adjusted through the supplement of the motif of the “branch” (Zech 3:8aβ and 8b/6:12, 13b, 14aαb). 5) In the nal redaction of Zech 1–6, taking place in the third century , the material in Zech 1:1–6 and 6:15b was added. This proposal agrees with many of the above-mentioned proposals vis-à-vis Haggai insofar as the material regarding Zerubbabel and Joshua are considered to form later additions. The obvious di culty with Schöttler’s suggested scheme is his dating of the material about Joshua and Zerubbabel to a time long after the death of the two historical men bearing these names: why would anyone compose future prophecies concerning long dead persons? 9789004423244_Tiemeyer et al_text_proof-03.indb 56 30 Mar 2020 4:02:40 pm – – At the other end of the spectrum, Wöhrle places the various textual strands in Haggai and Zechariah within the wider framework of gradual growth and successive redactions that he postulates for the Book of the Twelve. 1) Wöhrle argues for an originally independent version of Zechariah’s vision report (1:8–6:8*) written around 520–515 . It consists of an early version of all the vision accounts, except for the fourth vision account (Zech 3). The temple plays no role in this early sequence. 2) Shortly afterwards, a redaction took place that re ected issues pertaining to the early post-exilic period, with focus on the temple building and the hopes centred on Zerubbabel. This redaction added oracular material to the fth vision account (4:6a–9a, 10a), composed an early version of Zech 6:9–15 (6:9–13*), and wrote a set of oracles following the vision report (7:2–6/8:18–19a). 3) Soon after the building of the temple, the Joshua Redaction (R ) took place. This redaction transformed the text by (1) de-emphasizing Zerubbabel and instead (2) highlighting Joshua’s role. It created an early version of the fourth vision account (3:1–8) and extended the oracle in Zech 6:9–13* through the addition of 6:14. 4) In the rst half of the fth century , the “Word Redaction” (R ) added strategically placed material that created a ring-structure around the vision report, such as the dating formulas (1:1, 7; 7:1), as well as other oracular material (1:2–6, 14–17; 2:10–14; 7:7–14; 8:1–5, 7–8, 14–17, 19b). This redaction encouraged the exiles to return, yet also preached that the people’s repentance was a precondition for God’s return. The composition of the three dating formulas (1:1, 7; 7:1) meant that, in the nal form of the text, the foundation of the temple in Hag 2:10–19 ended up being chronologically later than the sermon in Zech 1:1–6, thus creating the impression that the building of the temple depended upon the people’s repentance (cf. above). According to Wöhrle, R stems from a time when people were disillusioned because things had not happened in accordance with their expectations. This redaction thus endeavoured to inspire people to turn anew to God and to hope for his salvation. 5) At one point after this, the historical situation changed and, as a result, the material in Zech 1–8 demanded updating to address the new concerns. At this point, Zech 1–8* was fused with the originally independent collection of oracles in Haggai in the so-called “Haggai Redaction.” The textual additions in Zech 8:6, 9–13, display strong verbal and thematic For this evaluation, see further Tiemeyer, Zechariah’s Vision Report, 19–22. Wöhrle, Sammlungen, 375–380. 9789004423244_Tiemeyer et al_text_proof-03.indb 57 30 Mar 2020 4:02:41 pm similarities with Haggai (hence the name of the redaction) and thus lend cohesion to the extended corpus. According to Wöhrle, this redaction took place at a time when the people needed comfort and assurance that God would bring his salvation. This new material in 8:6, 9–13 thus moderates the demand to repent and instead focuses on God’s compassion. In doing so, the updated text reduced the task of the people and placed more emphasis on God’s freedom to turn to his people (regardless of any repentance on their part). 6) After the inclusion of the Haggai–Zechariah 1–8 corpus into the gradually growing Book of the Twelve, the so-called “Salvation for the Nations Redaction” added positive references to the nations and their anticipated pilgrimage to Jerusalem across the Book of the Twelve. At this point, Zech 2:15–16 and 8:20–23 were composed. 7) Finally, smaller, individual verses (2:17; 3:9, 10; 4:12; 7:8) were added at unknown points. Between Schöttler’s narrow focus on Zech 1–6 and Wöhrle’s wide focus on the Haggai–Zechariah corpus within the Book of the Twelve, another two recent proposals have focused on Zech 1–8. According to Hallaschka’s proposed redactional scheme, the material in Zech 1–8 falls into nine di ferent textual layers: 1) The basic layer, stemming from ca. 519 , contains an early version of the rst and third vision accounts (1:8–11*/2:5–6). 2) The second layer, written around 500 , creates a vision report consisting of ve vision accounts: it adds material to the existing rst and third vision accounts (1:9b, 14/2:7a, 8); it composed the fth account (4:1–6, 10– 14*); an early form of the sixth account (5:1, 3); and an early form of the eighth account (6:1–8*). At this point, the character of the Interpreting Angel is introduced to the vision report. 3) In the middle of the fth century, this early form of the vision report became linked with the existing material in Haggai by help of added oracular material that focuses on the building of the temple (1:7, 16–17/2:10a, 11, 14/4:6–10*). 4) Sometime at the end of the fth century/beginning of the fourth century , the vision report is extended to include the seventh vision account (5:5–11). 5) At a later point, the oracular material relating to fasting was composed (7:2–3; 8:18–19a). Wöhrle, Sammlungen, 380–383. Wöhrle, Sammlungen, 356–366 (summary, see also the table on p. 366). For this evaluation, see further Tiemeyer, Zechariah’s Vision Report, 22–25. 9789004423244_Tiemeyer et al_text_proof-03.indb 58 30 Mar 2020 4:02:41 pm – – 6) Even later, in the fourth century , an early version of the second vision account was written (2:3–4), as well as the oracular material relating to the diaspora (1:15; 2:10b, 12*; 6:5b, 6–7*) and other oracular texts elaborating on Zech 6:5–7* (7:1; 8:1–13). 7) The vision report reaches its present eight-vision-form only in the late Persian or early Hellenistic period. At this time, the material about Joshua (the fourth vision account in Zech 3; the material in 6:9–15) and the material about the Angel of Y (Zech 1:11a, 12, 13) were composed. The core of Zech 3 is located in verses 1a and 4b. This material extends the thoughts found in the divine oracle in Zech 1:11a, 12–13. The fourth vision account is subsequently extended with the speeches in 3:5*, 6–7, and later also with verse 9aβ. At a later stage, the material about the Accuser is added (3:1b, 2*, 9bβ). In addition to a few smaller supplements, verses 8 and 10 constitute the latest material. A parallel development took place with Zech 6:9–14, where verses 9, 10a, 11, 13a form the core text. It is later supplemented with verse 10b, and even later with verses 12, 13b, 14. 8) Shortly afterwards, the framework which connects Zechariah’s vision report to the material in Haggai (Zech 1:1–6; 7:7–14; 8:14–17, 19b) was written. 9) Lastly, the material that predicts salvation for the nations was penned (Zech 2:15–16; 6:15a; 8:20–23). As we can see, Hallaschka envisages a very long textual development of Zechariah 1–8 that lasts from the early Persian period well into the Hellenistic era. It is especially notable that, along the lines of Schöttler, he detects a gradual development of the vision report itself, where the individual vision accounts were added step-by-step. Hallaschka further maintains that the vision report is rst connected to Haggai in the middle of the fth century and that this connection is strengthened in the third century by the framework in Zech 1:1–6; 7:7–14; 8:14–17, 19b. Most recently, I have discussed the redactional growth of Zechariah 1–8. My own suggestion lies closer to that of Wöhrle than to those of Schöttler and Hallaschka in that I detect an early vision report which contains all vision accounts except Zech 3. My starting point di fers from all the above-mentioned proposals, however, as does my envisaged time span. I detect few compelling reasons to postulate a centuries-long development of most of the vision report, even though I am open to the possibility of a few very late additions. Hallaschka, Haggai, 293–323. For a detailed summary and critique of Hallaschka’s proposal, see Tiemeyer, “Review of Martin Hallaschka.” My discussion here builds upon Tiemeyer, Zechariah’s Vision Report. 9789004423244_Tiemeyer et al_text_proof-03.indb 59 30 Mar 2020 4:02:41 pm 1) 2) 3) In my view, the original text consisted of seven vision accounts (1:8– 11/2:1–4*/2:5–8/4:1–6aα, 10b–14*/5:1–3/5:5–11/6:1–7). These accounts were characterized by their visual imagery and their paucity of allusions to earlier texts. As these vision accounts also lack any clear references to historical characters or events, they cannot be dated with any certainty. There is, however, no good reason to doubt that they were written by the prophet Zechariah in the last quarter of the sixth century . Soon afterwards, Zechariah added a set of divine statements to the vision report (1:12–14aα, 17aβ–bβ/2:9/5:4/6:8) that concluded the rst, third, sixth, and eighth vision account. These oracular sayings drew out the historical implications of the extant vision report. Anew, the exact date of composition cannot be determined, yet it is likely that they stem from ca. 520 , as indicated by the statement in 1:12b to “seventy years.” Around the same time, someone, again possibly the prophet Zechariah, composed a set of temple-related additions (1:7, 14aβ, 17aα/3:1–8a, 9/4:6aβ–10a/6:9–13*). They emphasized the necessity of building the temple and stressed the signi cance of the historical characters Joshua and Zerubbabel. Given this focus, a date around the time of the commencement of the building of the temple (ca. 520 ) is feasible for this redaction. At that time, the dating formula in Zech 1:7 was also added. This dating formula emphasizes that the visions, as seen by the prophet Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, had relevance for the precise situation during Darius’s second year of his reign (520 ). It further encouraged the readers to interpret the vision report as being a prophecy of what Y would do in Yehud in the very near future. It nally also ascertained that Y is the ultimate author of the vision report: even though the deity seldom appears in the vision report, it contains his words. A few individual glosses which extended the oracular material associated with the second and fth vision account (2:4*/4:12) were also composed, with the aim of clarifying matters that were considered too vague or ambiguous. At a later point, when the political circumstances had changed and Zerubbabel was no longer present/alive, a non-homogenous group of individual expansions of the oracular material was composed to adjust the vision report to t the new historical circumstances. These expansions were associated with the third and fourth vision account (2:10–11, 12–13, 14/3:8b, 10), as well as with the material in Zech 6:9–15* (6:14). They Cf. Behrens, Visionsschilderungen, 279. 9789004423244_Tiemeyer et al_text_proof-03.indb 60 30 Mar 2020 4:02:41 pm – 4) 5) – transformed the texts about the historical character Zerubbabel into future-looking predictions. The same or another editor wrote and compiled Zech 7:1–8:19. Although this material was probably written in stages over several years, there is no need to envisage a century-long writing process. On the contrary, as above, it cannot be ruled out that Zechariah composed this material at later points in his life. The new dating formula in Zech 7:1, adhering to the same style as the one in 1:7, served two functions. First, it encouraged the reader to read the oracular material in Zech 6:9–14 alongside the preceding vision report. Zech 6:9–14 was thus meant to comment on the preceding visions instead of being read together with the following oracles in Zech 7:1–8:19. Secondly, it indicated that the message of Zech 7–8 was relevant to the historical situation in Judah around 518 during the fourth year of Darius ’s reign. At this point, it is likely that the material in Zechariah 1–8* came to be associated with the formerly independent book of Haggai. Building upon the insight of especially Wöhrle, the thematic a nity between Zech 8:6, 9–13 and the material in Haggai, makes it likely that Zechariah 1–8* was henceforth transmitted together with the book of Haggai. At an even later date, Haggai–Zechariah 1–8* was included in the gradually developing Book of the Twelve. The redactor responsible for its incorporation wrote the sermon in Zech 1:2–6 and gave it an appropriate date (Zech 1:1). He also added Zech 6:15 to serve as a new conclusion of the vision report. The dating formula in Zech 1:1, as well as the material in 1:2–6, clearly testify to the existing Haggai–Zechariah 1–8 corpus. I view Zech 1:1–6 as a conscious editorial attempt to align the material in Haggai–Zechariah 1–8* with the tenets of the Deuteronomistic theology of the rest of the then extant Book of the Four. In this way, these additions brought Zechariah’s vision report in line with Israel’s wider prophetic heritage. In particular, the future promises in Zechariah’s vision report ceased to be unconditional and came to be contingent on Israel’s obedience to Y . Finally, we can observe another set of very late, single expansions (2:15– 16; 2:17/8:20–23). These additions were likely part of a wider redaction of the Book of the Twelve which re ects the belief that the Gentiles can partake in the cult of Y . The exact notion of authorship is unimportant; what matters are that these additions relate to surrounding circumstances that di fer from those associated with the earliest layer. 9789004423244_Tiemeyer et al_text_proof-03.indb 61 30 Mar 2020 4:02:41 pm My dating scheme is consciously vague. Except for those texts that explicitly mention historical persons and/or the building of the temple (Zech 1:12–17/ 4:6aβ–10a), I consider it impossible to provide a speci c date for each individual verse/set of verses. I furthermore do not wish to postulate a series of redactions to Zech 1–8 if by the term “redaction” we mean an expansion of a larger set of texts by a redactor, with the result that we have several redactional layers that reach across Zech 1–8. Rather, my suggestion is closer to the idea of Fortschreibung, i.e. individual expansions of single pericopae. In my view, these individual expansions are unlikely to have been carried out in any systematic fashion. 5 Conclusion In this essay, I have discussed the gradual formation of the material in Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, the creation of the redactional unit of a Haggai– Zechariah 1–8 corpus, and the incorporation of this corpus into the growing Book of the Twelve. Although there is little in terms of consensus vis-à-vis the ner details of its gradual composition, there is overall a strong sense in contemporary scholarship that a Haggai–Zechariah 1–8 corpus existed. The rst indicator of such a corpus is the dating formulas across Haggai and Zechariah 1–8. It is unclear whether these formulas (1) were written by one and the same redactor, (2) were written by two redactors, one copying and adjusting the work of another, or (3) formed part of the earliest strata of the two texts, their a nity being the result of Persian-period scribal conventions; yet their current existence in the nal form of the text invites readers to approach Haggai–Zechariah 1–8 as a textual unity. The second indicator relates to content. Both sets of texts display, in their present form, a concern for the leadership of Yehud and the building of the temple. Again, the reason for this a nity is unclear. It may be the result of (1) redactors who added strategic material across the combined Haggai– Zechariah 1–8, (2) redactors who added material to one body of texts to align it with the message of the other body of texts, or (3) the result of shared political and religious circumstances in Yehud in the early Persian period. In my view, the post-monarchic setting of both sets of texts can, to a large extent, explain (a) the shared convention of dating texts using standardized formulas and (b) the shared focus on the political, agricultural, and religious situation in Yehud. At the same time, I do not doubt that redactions of both sets of texts took place and that these redactions had as their aim to create a more closely connected body of texts, united by their shared religious and societal concerns. 9789004423244_Tiemeyer et al_text_proof-03.indb 62 30 Mar 2020 4:02:41 pm – – The Haggai–Zechariah 1–8 corpus was subsequently incorporated into the growing Book of the Twelve, yet only limited redactional activity can be traced back to this stage. At an even later time, Haggai–Zechariah 1–8 was connected with Malachi and, lastly, with Zechariah 9–14. Bibliography Ackroyd, Peter R. “Studies in the Book of Haggai.” 2 (1951): 1–13. Albertz, Rainer. A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period. Translated by John Bowden. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1994. Behrens, Achim. Prophetische Visionsschilderungen im Alten Testament: Sprachliche Eigenarten, Funktion und Geschichte einer Gattung. 292. Münster: Ugarit, 2002. Beuken, Willem A.M. Haggai-Sacharja 1–8: Studien zur Überlieferungsgeschichte der frühnachexilischen Prophetie. 10. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1967. Coggins, Richard J. Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. Old Testament Guides. She eld: for the Society for Old Testament Study, 1987. Floyd, Michael H. “The Nature of the Narrative and the Evidence of Redaction in Haggai.” VT 45 (1995): 473–474. Gonzalez, Hervé. “Zechariah 9–14 and the Continuation of Zechariah During the Ptolemaic Period.” JHebS 13 (2013). Hallaschka, Martin. Haggai und Sacharja 1–8: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung. 411. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2010. Kessler, John. The Book of Haggai: Prophecy and Society in Early Persian Yehud. VTSup 91. Leiden et al.: Brill, 2003. Klostermann, August. Geschichte des Volkes Israel: Bis zur Restauration unter Esra und Nehemia. München: Beck, 1896. Lemaire, André. “Datation en Palestine.” Pages 65–66 in Ezekiel and His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and Their Interrelation: Papers read at the 35th Colloquium Biblicum Lovaniense, 8/27–29/85. Edited by Johan Lust. Leuven: Leuven University, 1986. Lux, Rüdiger. “Das Zweiprophetenbuch: Beobachtungen zu Au au und Struktur von Haggai und Sacharja 1–8.” Pages 3–28 in Prophetie und Zweiter Tempel: Studien zu Haggai und Sacharja. 65. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Mason, Rex A. The Books of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. . Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University, 1973. Mason, Rex A. “The Purpose of the ‘Editorial Framework’ of the Book of Haggai.” VT 27 (1977): 413–421. Nogalski, James D. Literary Precursors to the Book of the Twelve. 217. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 1993. 9789004423244_Tiemeyer et al_text_proof-03.indb 63 30 Mar 2020 4:02:41 pm Pola, Thomas. Das Priestertum bei Sacharja: Historische und traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur frühnachexilischen Herrschererwartung. 35. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Rudolph, Wilhelm. Haggai—Sacharja 1–8—Sacharja 9–14—Maleachi. 13,4. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1976. Schart, Aaron. Die Entstehung des Zwölfprophetenbuchs: Neubearbeitungen von Amos im Rahmen schriftenübergreifender Redaktionsprozesse. 260. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1998. Schöttler, Heinz-Günther. Gott inmitten seines Volkes: Die Neuordnung des Gottesvolkes nach Sacharja. TThSt 43. Trier: Paulinus, 1987. Sérandour, Arnaud. “Ré exions à propos d’un livre récent sur Aggée-Zacharie 1–8.” Transeu 10 (1995): 75–84. Steck, Odil H. “Zu Haggai 1 2–11.” 83 (1971): 355–379. Steck, Odil H. Studien zu Tritojesaja. 203. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1991. Tiemeyer, Lena-So a. “Review of Martin Hallaschka, Haggai und Sacharja 1–8: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung.” , 10 March, 2012 (http://www.book reviews.org/pdf/8248_9019.pdf). Tiemeyer, Lena-So a. “Review of Jakob Wöhrle, Die frühen Sammlungen des Zwölfprophetenbuches and Der Abschluss des Zwölfprophetenbuches.” Å 77 (2012): 373–378. Tiemeyer, Lena-So a. Zechariah and His Visions: An Exegetical Study of Zechariah’s Vision Report. 605. London: Bloomsbury, 2015. Tiemeyer, Lena-So a. Zechariah’s Vision Report and its Earliest Interpreters: A Redaction-Critical Study of Zechariah 1–8. 626. London: Bloomsbury, 2016. Tollington, Janet E. Tradition and Innovation in Haggai and Zechariah 1–8. JSOTSup 150. She eld: , 1993. Tollington, Janet E. “Readings in Haggai: From the Prophet to the Complete Book, a Changing Message in Changing Times.” Pages 194–208 in The Crisis of Israelite Religion: Transformation of Religious Traditions in Exile and Post Exilic Times. Edited by Bob Becking. 42. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Wöhrle, Jakob. “The Formation and Intention of the Haggai-Zechariah Corpus.” JHebS 6 (2006). Wöhrle, Jakob. Die frühen Sammlungen des Zwolfprophetenbuches: Entstehung und Komposition. 360. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2006. Wöhrle, Jakob. Der Abschluss des Zwölfprophetenbuches: Buchübergreifende Redaktionsprozesse in den späten Sammlungen. 389. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008. Wol f, Hans W. Haggai. Vol. 6 of Dodekapropheton. BK 14,6. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1986. 9789004423244_Tiemeyer et al_text_proof-03.indb 64 30 Mar 2020 4:02:41 pm