Zechariah

One prophet, writing later in life on a different subject

held by the traditional position, held from antiquity and defended in the modern period by Joyce Baldwin (1972), Merrill F. Unger (1963), and others; the argument runs on shared vocabulary, the recurring formula 'saith Jehovah of hosts,' the same concern with Jerusalem chosen and the nations gathered, and the observation that a prophet's undated oracles need not read like his dated ones

Later material joined to Zechariah's own book

held by the majority of critical scholarship since Bernhard Stade's studies in the 1880s, arguing from the absence of dates and names, the changed style, and the mention of Greece at 9:13

Proposed dates for the material range across the Persian and early Hellenistic periods. The Qumran copies of the Twelve set a limit on how late any of it can be.

Zechariah's own oracles, collected by a later editor without their dates

held by commentators who accept an editorial hand at 9:1 while keeping the contents with the prophet

Matthew fuses Zechariah with Jeremiah and names the major prophet

held by the most widely held explanation, and the one that accounts for the details of the fulfilment; ancient citation practice regularly named the more prominent of two prophets drawn on together, and Mark 1:2 does the same thing when it names Isaiah for a citation that opens with Malachi

Jeremiah headed the prophetic scroll, so the name stood for the collection

held by commentators pointing to a Jewish ordering, recorded in the Babylonian Talmud at Bava Batra 14b, in which Jeremiah stands first among the Latter Prophets; on this reading Matthew cites the section by its opening book

A very early copying error

held by a minority proposal; a few witnesses read Zechariah or omit the name, though the great majority of manuscripts read Jeremiah, which is why most editors keep it

The harder reading standing in nearly all the manuscripts is the reason this explanation persuades few. A scribe would be far more likely to correct Jeremiah to Zechariah than the reverse.

The text stands as written: the priest is crowned as an acted sign of the Branch

held by the traditional reading and the reading of most conservative commentaries; the sign works precisely because it is irregular, since no priest could hold a throne under the law, and the oracle at 6:13 names a coming figure rather than the man wearing the crown

The plural is read either as a composite crown of several circlets, which is how a double crown of gold and silver would be described, or as a plural of majesty. Either way one head wears it, and the memorial at 6:14 keeps the sign in the temple rather than making Joshua a king.

Zerubbabel was named in the oracle and the name was later removed

held by a widely repeated critical proposal, arguing that a Davidic governor was originally crowned and the text was adjusted when no king appeared

No manuscript or ancient version supports the change. The Hebrew, the Greek, the Syriac, and the Aramaic all read Joshua, so the proposal rests on what a reconstructed history would expect rather than on textual evidence.

'Unto me' is original, and the shift from me to him is the point

held by the reading of the Masoretic Text, the ASV, and the great majority of translations and commentaries; the change of person within a single verse is common in Hebrew prophecy, and the harder reading is the one a copyist would be tempted to soften rather than create

On this reading the verse says something no other Old Testament text says quite so directly. The one pierced and the one speaking as Jehovah are held together in one sentence, and the New Testament writers who quote it read it exactly that way.

'Unto him' is original and 'unto me' arose in copying

held by a minority position resting on a handful of Hebrew manuscripts and on the difficulty of the change of person

The manuscript support is thin and the versions are divided, which is why standard critical editions print the harder reading in the text.

The chapter describes a coming day in the terms it uses: a real return, a real mountain, a real reign

held by the premillennial reading, which is this site's tradition; it takes 14:4 with Acts 1:11 and 1:12, where the men of Galilee are told that 'this Jesus, who was received up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye beheld him going into heaven,' spoken on the mount called Olivet, the very hill named in 14:4

On this reading the living waters of 14:8, the reign of 14:9, and the nations keeping tabernacles at 14:16 belong to a kingdom on earth, which is how the earliest Christian writers read such passages and how the promises to Israel in the prophets are kept without being transferred to anyone else.

The chapter is a symbolic picture of the church age and the final judgment, with no earthly reign between

held by the amillennial reading, held by a number of honoured teachers in the church's history

Its cost should be stated plainly. This reading has to treat the split mountain, the year-by-year feast, the horse bells, and the cooking pots as figures for something else, and it has to do the same with the corresponding material in Ezekiel 40 to 48 and in Revelation 20. A promise made to Jerusalem and to the house of David is then received by a different body than the one addressed, which is the move Scripture gives no warrant for. The men who hold it are brothers and are not disparaged here; the reading is named, and the weight it cannot carry is named with it.