Copyright holder: Tyndale University, 
3377 Bayview Ave., Toronto, Ontario, Canada M2M 3S4 
Att.: Library Director, J. William Horsey Library

Copyright: This Work has been made available by the authority of the 
copyright owner solely for the purpose of private study and research 
and may not be copied or reproduced except as permitted by the copyright 
laws of Canada without the written authority from the copyright owner. 

Copyright license: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International 
License

Citation: Kessler, John. “Diaspora and Homeland in the Early Achaemenid Period: Community,
Geography, and Demography in Zechariah 1-8.” In Approaching Yehud: New
Approaches to the Study of the Persian Period, edited by Jon L. Berquist, Pages 137-
166. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007. (Semeia Studies; no. 50)

***** Begin Content ******

TYNDALE
UNIVERSITY
3377 Bayview Avenue
Toronto, ON
M2M 3S4

TEL: 416.226.6620

www.tyndale.ca

Note: This Work has been made available by the authority of the copyright owner solely
for the purpose of private study and research and may not be copied or reproduced
except as permitted by the copyright laws of Canada without the written authority from
the copyright owner.

Kessler, John. “Diaspora and Homeland in the Early Achaemenid Period: Community,
Geography, and Demography in Zechariah 1-8.” In Approaching Yehud: New
Approaches to the Study of the Persian Period, edited by Jon L. Berquist, Pages 137-
166. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007. (Semeia Studies; no. 50)

[ Citation Page ] 



APPROACHING YEHUD
New Approaches to the Study
of the Persian Period

Edited by
Jon L. Berquist

Society of Biblical Literature
Atlanta

[ Title Page ] 



APPROACHING YEHUD
New Approaches to the Study of the Persian Period

Copyright © 2007 by the Society of Biblical Literature

All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form
or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by
means of any information storage or retrieval system, except as may be expressly permit-
ted by the 1976 Copyright Act or in writing from the publisher. Requests for permission
should be addressed in writing to the Rights and Permissions Office, Society of Biblical
Literature, 825 Houston Mill Road, Atlanta, GA 30329 USA.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Approaching Yehud : new approaches to the study of the Persian period / edited by Jon L.
Berquist.
p. cm. — (Society of Biblical Literature Semeia studies ; no. 50)
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN: 978-1-58983-145-2 (paper binding : alk. paper)
1. Jews—History—586 B.C.-70 A.D.—Historiography. 2. Judaism—History—
Post-exilic period, 586 B.C.-210 A.D.—Historiography. 3. Bible. O.T.—Historiography.
4. Yehud (Persian province)—Historiography. 5. Judaea (Region)—Historiography. I.
Berquist, Jon L.
DS121.65.A82 2007b
933.03—dc22	2007035327

15 14 13 12 11 10 09 08 07	54321
Printed in the United States of America on acid-free, recycled paper
conforming to ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (R1997) and ISO 9706:1994
standards for paper permanence.

[ Title Page Verso ]



Diaspora and Homeland in the Early
Achaemenid Period: Community, Geography
and Demography in Zechariah 1-8

John Kessler

i.o. Introduction

One of the most intriguing features of Judean history in the Persian period
is the emergence of several widely dispersed communities in various parts of
Mesopotamia, the Levant, and Egypt consisting of inhabitants of the former
northern and southern kingdoms. Persian-period scholarship has devoted
significant attention to various issues such as the population, borders, and
governance of Yehud, the region’s internal sociopolitical structure, as well
as the impact of Achaemenid imperial policy upon polity in Yehud. More
recently, fresh attention is being devoted to the issue of how the commu-
nity in Yehud and the other Israelite/Judean communities beyond its borders
defined and understood themselves, as well as how they viewed other Yah-
wists who stood at some distance, either ideologically or geographically,
from themselves. The present study will seek to contribute to this discus-
sion by analyzing Zech 1-8 with a view to determining this text’s particular
understanding of the composition, nature, geographic location, and future
of the community of Yahweh. Such an analysis will enable us to glimpse
one distinct perspective on the question of how the pastiche of Judean com-
munities described above understood one another in the context of the
Achaemenid period.

1.1. Zechariah 1-8 as a Source for the Persian Period

The question of the literary history of Zech 1-8 is a complex one and cannot
be discussed in detail here. Nevertheless, the present study assumes it to be a
relevant source for the period at hand and makes four assumptions. The first
is that Zech 1-8 is a discrete and distinct literary entity, separate from (albeit

[ Page ] 137



[ Page ] 138	

related to) both Zech 9-14 and Haggai and should be read as such.1 Second,
redactional complexities notwithstanding, Zech 1-8 can be viewed as consist-
ing of two major blocs of material: (1) a sermonic framework (henceforth
SF) consisting of 1:1-6; 7:1-8:23 and (2) a visionary-oracular complex (VOC)
consisting of 1:7-6:15. It is generally agreed that, while both sections reflect
complex literary development and contain both earlier and later material,
the SF represents the work’s last major compositional stage (Beuken 1967;
Redditt: 40-43; Amsler: 43-46; Petersen: 124). The date of this final form
is ascribed by some to the time around 515 b.c.e. (Redditt: 42; Meyers and
Meyers 1987:xlv), by others to the late sixth or early fifth century (Amsler,
Lacoque, and Vuilleumier: 63; Petitjean: 440; Rudolph 1970), or to the mid-
to late fifth century (Ackroyd 1968; Beuken 1967; Coggins: 31).2 While I
personally favor a dating in the late sixth or early fifth centuries, this only
marginally affects my conclusions. The creation of such texts as Haggai and
Zech 1-8 in the early Achaemenid period should not be deemed improb-
able. Despite its reduced size (see below), Yehud was nevertheless the locus
of significant literary activity (Carter 1999:286-88; Ben Zvi 1996; 1998; Kes-
sler 2001). Third, while significant portions of the material contained in Zech
1-8 likely date from various moments early in the Achaemenid period, this
material has been subject to ongoing reflection. As Chary (43) appropriately
comments, the older material “is not an immutable monolithic piece. It is
rather the property of the community which meditates upon it and completes
it as new religious needs arise.” Thus Zech 1-8 may be read as a textual unity
comprising ongoing theological reflection at various moments. Fourth, Zech


________________________

	1. On the relationship between Zech 1-8 and 9-14 in current scholarship, see Floyd
2002:303-8; Boda 2003. Zech 1-8 is frequently read together with Haggai (so Meyers
and Meyers 1987) or with Haggai, Zech 9-14, and Malachi (thus Serandour; Bauer). My
reading of Zech 1-8 does not deny that Haggai and Zech 1-8 share certain thematic and
ideological preoccupations and a common historical matrix. Nor do I deny the possibility
that at some point Haggai and Zech 1-8 were incorporated into a common literary and
theological collection. What I do affirm, however, is that in form and content Haggai and
Zech 1-8 are sufficiently distinct to be evaluated independently from one another (Kessler
2002: esp. 56-57; Coggins: 44-45; Boda 2003:49-54, with bibliography). Furthermore, the
arguments adduced in favor of a late-sixth-century composite redaction of Haggai-Zech
1-8 (thus Meyers and Meyers 1987; Lux) or a mid-fifth-century work including Malachi
(Serandour: 75-84, esp. 76) appear inconclusive in that they could all equally be used to
demonstrate that Zech 1-8 and/or Zech 1-8; 9-14 and Malachi were all united to the book
of Haggai already in existence.

	2. Lipinski (1970) views 8:20-23 as a far later addition, stemming from the late Per-
sian or Hellenistic period, due to its use of the pilgrimage motif. This, however, is far from
certain; see Petitjean: 419-38).



[ Page ] 139

1-8 reflects a Yehudite, rather than a diasporic, perspective (Petitjean: 442-
43).3 Zion is the central point from which the world is viewed or to which the
world comes.

	1.2. Yehud and the Diaspora in the Early Persian Period

Amidst the torrent of scholarly interest in the Persian period over the past
twenty years one can speak of a certain emerging critical consensus that
views Yehud as a Persian province whose territory and population were vastly
diminished when compared with the situation at the end of the monarchic
period. In contrast to the position proposed by Albrecht Alt and followed
by several scholars such as Galling (1964), Petersen (26-27), and McEv-
enue, wherein Yehud/Judah was annexed to Samaria and governed from
there until the time of Nehemiah, or to the approach taken by Sacchi, Bian-
chi, and Niehr, which views Yehud as a quasi-independent kingdom within
the Persian Empire ruled (at least in the early period) by a Davidic scion,
a significant number of scholars view Yehud as a subunit within the fifth
satrapy, initially ruled over by a governor of Davidic stock (Avigad; Wil-
liamson 1998; Lemaire 1994; Carter 1999:50-52; Naaman). The province
itself consisted of a rather small swath of territory lying around Jerusalem.
Two major positions have emerged here. The first is that of Ephraim Stern
(1982), who favors a somewhat larger province, including such sites as Lod
and Ono in the northwest, Hazor in the north, and Beth-zur in the south.
This contrasts with the narrower boundaries proposed by scholars such as
Carter (1999:97) and Lemaire (1994:21). Lemaire views the province as con-
sisting of the area within a radius of some twenty-five miles around Jerusalem
(1994:20-21). Despite some extremely high estimates of the population of
the province (Weinberg 1996:37), the application of modern demographic
analysis, which involves such matters as spatial analysis, carrying capacity,
water supply, and the establishment of a population co-efficient, has yielded
far lower estimates.4 Two major positions appear in the recent literature.5 The
first is that of Carter (1999:201-2), who suggests that the maximal population

________________________

	3. Cf. Redditt (42), who argues on the basis of 2:10-17 (2:6-13) that the visions and
accompanying oracles were formulated in Yehud and sent back to Babylon. Thus the exiles
were the “original audience to whom the visions were directed.” Similarly Petitjean (127-
28) sees the purpose of 2:10-17 as being “to support the return-from-exile movement.”

	4. For a history of modern demographic analysis, including the work of Y. Shiloh, R.
Gophna, M. Broshi, I. Finkelstein, and J. Wilkinson, see the surveys in Carter 1999:195-
99; Lipschits 2003:324-26.

	5. Cf. The earlier suggestion of Albright (87) of about twenty thousand in Yehud.



[ Page ] 140	

of the province during the Persian period to have been approximately twenty
thousand. Oded Lipschits is critical of Carter’s methodology6 and suggests
a maximal population of about thirty thousand for the Persian period as a
whole (2003:363-64). While an increase of 50 percent from Carter’s sugges-
tion (or a decrease of 30 percent from Lipschits’s) is certainly significant in
relative terms, in absolute terms both estimates reflect a sparsely populated
province, especially when compared with the situation on the eve of the Bab-
ylonian conquests, at which time the population of Judah was about 110,000
(Lipschits 2003:363-64). Especially striking here are Carters and Lipschits’s
perceptions of the situation in Jerusalem. Carter (1999) assumes Jerusalem
to have had a population of less than one thousand in the period between
538 and 450.7 Lipschits (2006) and also independently Lemaire (2003:291-
92) view Jerusalem to have been largely desolate until its refortification in the
mid-fifth century. Both view the capital of Yehud as having been situated at
Mizpah until that point. Blenkinsopp (1998:34) views Mizpah as the political
and religious capital of Babylonian Judah until the coup d’etat of Ishmael, after
which the religious center moved to Bethel. David Ussishkin similarly views
Jerusalem as having been territorially quite large but severely underpopulated
during the Persian period. Lipschits (2006) further argues that the presence
of an elite in the mid-fifth century initiated the redevelopment of Yehud but
that real growth did not occur until the emergence of an even more signifi-
cant elite in the Hellenistic period.8

	Concurrent with this developing consensus regarding a reduced Yehud
there has been a growing body of evidence regarding the presence of descen-
dants of the inhabitants of the northern and southern kingdoms in a variety
of locations beyond the borders of Yehud. This population is frequently des-
ignated by the term “Jewish”; however, such a term is problematic in that it is
somewhat ambiguous, potentially anachronistic,9 somewhat ill-fitting for the
inhabitants of Samaria, and in danger of homogenizing quite disparate groups.
Elsewhere (2006) I have suggested the designation “Yahwistic.” However, this

_______________________

	6. Specifically Carter’s periodization of the evidence into Persian I and Persian II
(Carter 1999:199; Lipschits 2003:359-60). Readers of the two works may become confused
here. Lipschits refers to Carter’s two periods as Persian A and B, while Carter himself actu-
ally dubs them Persian I and Persian II.

	7. Carter posits a settled area of 25-30 dunams of settled area in the early period
(1999:148). Using his population coefficient of 25 persons per dunam—a figure Carter
views as maximal—the result would be 625-750.

	8. On the fortification of Jerusalem in this period, see Bodi: 37-55.

	9. See Knauf (2002), who seeks to avoid anachronism by speaking of a “pre-biblical
Judaism” at Elephantine.


[ Page ] 141

is also not without problems of its own, since the terms yehudilyehudim were
widely used at the time as self-designations in Yehud and at Elephantine
(Neh 1:2; Esth 2:6; Porten and Yardeni: A.4.7; Cowley: 30).10 For the present
study I will use the term “Israelite/Judean” to describe these communities.
Whatever term is used, however, evidence of the presence of such a popula-
tion, in such forms as biblical texts, extrabiblical literary materials, Yahwistic
names in inscriptions and numismatics, is available for the following regions:
Samaria, Egypt, Babylonia-Elam, and several of the regions surrounding
Yehud, including Edom, Galilee, Ashdod, Idumaea, Moab, and Ammon (see
Japhet 1983 for an earlier survey and Kessler 2006 for a survey of the more
recent evidence, both with bibliography). Given the highly fragmentary state
of our knowledge of these communities, it is virtually impossible to suggest
any specific estimate of their demographic proportions vis-a-vis Yehud.

	1.3. Studying the Judean Communities in the Achaemenid Empire

We thus are faced with a highly disparate mosaic of diverse yet related com-
munities tracing their origins to the earlier kingdoms of Israel and Judah.
One may summarize this complex tapestry as follows: (1) golah returnees
in Yehud; (2) golah remainees in Babylonia;11 (3) Yehudite remainees; (4)
Israelite/Judean residents in Egypt; (5) Israelite/Judean inhabitants in the
province of Samaria; and (6) other Israelite/Judeans in the various regions of
the Levant. As noted above, one of the most fascinating questions to emerge
in the analysis of these diverse communities is how they viewed one another.
Certain studies have begun to address this question. Significant attention has
been paid to the relationship between the returnees and the nondeported
Judean remainees (Kessler 2001; Ben Zvi 1995:109-10; Williamson 1998:159)
and between the returnees and the population in Samaria to the north (Ben
Zvi 1995; Diebner; Knoppers). Others have investigated relations between
the returnees and the Babylonian remainees (Bedford), between the Egyptian
Diaspora and the communities in Jerusalem and Babylon (Bar-Kochva; Garb-
ini: 133-50; Phillips; de Pury and Romer) or between the population in Yehud
and the surrounding provinces (Rappaport). Still others have reflected upon
Jewish identity formation (Hamilton; Cohen; Berquist 2006; Dombrowski).

______________________

	10. For a summary of the use of the term, see Schmid.

	11. The existence of other Israelite/Judean communities in the east is often speculated
upon; see Smith-Christopher 2002:71, who suggests that Judeans may have been con-
scripted for military service by Nabonidus and scattered in Arabia. See also Oded (481),
who suggests that exiles from the former northern kingdom were found among the Baby-
lonian-Elamite Judean population.



[ Page ] 142	


	Other studies have sought to understand the community in Yehud in
terms of broader sociological dynamics. Most significant here are Causse’s
pioneering study (1937), Weinberg’s citizen-temple community (1992), and
Smith-Christopher’s study of the impact of the exile on the Golah (1989;
2002).12

	In a recent study (2006) I proposed viewing the Yehudite returnee com-
munity as a charter group. Based on the sociological model elaborated by
John A. Porter in his study of colonial elite groups, I define a charter group
as a geographically transplanted elite. As described by Porter, such an elite
moves into a depopulated or underpopulated territory and establishes itself
as the hegemonic sociopolitical force within the region, controlling its social,
political, and economic institutions and leaving its impress for generations
to come. Such hegemony is frequently achieved and maintained via political
and economic support from outside the region itself. Viewing the returnees
as functioning as a charter group is not meant in any way to predict out-
comes or to form a grid through which to read the data. Rather, it offers
a heuristic vantage point from which to observe the social, religious, and
political dynamics at work in Persian Yehud and to view the similarities
and dissimilarities that may exist between that situation and other analo-
gous contexts. One especially significant issue is how such groups deal with
questions of identity, membership, exclusion, and inclusion. It is to such
questions that we now turn.

	2.0. The View from Zechariah i-8

The present study, however, seeks to address the question of Israelite/Judean
identity from the ideological perspective of one contemporary literary source,
Zech 1-8. As such, I am not engaging in any kind of “concordist” enterprise,
that is, asking this text to confirm or deny any of the historical, demographic,
or sociological reconstructions mentioned above. My purpose is rather to
examine the text in order to ascertain its own ideological perception and
evaluation of the community in Jerusalem/Yehud and its relationship to the
Israelite/Judean communities external to it. Once this ideological perspective
is ascertained, I will seek to reflect on how the perceptions in Zech 1-8 relate
to two specific and critical questions in the Achaemenid period: Jewish iden-
tity; and the future of Jerusalem and Yehud. In conclusion, I will offer some
reflections on what such a perspective might reveal about the community that

________________________

	12. See also Fried; Tollefson and Williamson. On the need for extreme caution in the
use of sociological analogies, see Carter 1996.



[ Page ] 143

produced it, when read against the backdrop of the realities of life in early
Persian Yehud.

	As noted above, Zech 1-8 views the world from the vantage point of
Jerusalem (Petitjean: 442-43). The primary addressee, then, is the commu-
nity in Yehud that is in the process of restoring the temple and reconstituting
communal life. This provides a fixed point of reference and center of focus
for the text as a whole (Petersen: 119; Meyers and Meyers 1987:lvi). However,
it is also immediately apparent that the world of the text radiates outward
from this one fixed point both chronologically and spatially. Chronologically,
the text’s purview extends to both past and future communities related to the
one in Jerusalem. Spatially, the text’s interest emanates outward from Jerusa-
lem, to the cities of Judah, to Israel, Babylon, and beyond.13 The present study
will look at the data from the perspective of the narrative continuum created
within the world of the text, as it moves from past to present to future. Within
this framework, the text’s geographical/spatial movement, from Israel, Judea,
and Jerusalem, to the distant regions of the earth and back again, will become
apparent. Methodologically, each segment of the narrative continuum will be
analyzed first from the perspective of the SF, then from that of the VOC.

	2.1. The Community of the Past

2.1.1. The Sermonic Framework: i:i—6; 7:1-8:23

Zechariah 1-8 opens with a word from Yahweh in the eighth month of Dar-
ius’s second year, thus October 520.14 The reader is immediately struck by
absence of any specified audience for the oracle (cf. the clearly expressed
addressees in Hag 1:1; 2:1, 10, 20). Rather, attention is immediately focused
upon a community of the past—consisting of “the ancestors” (’btkm)—who
lived prior to the community presently addressed. No further designation
of the identity of this earlier group is given in the opening section. The text
simply describes the fact that they refused to hear (sm‘) or pay heed (hiphil of
qsb) to Yahweh’s warnings to them through the “former prophets” (1:4). This
resulted in Yahweh’s intense anger (1:2; where the verb qsp is strengthened via
a cognate accusative) and judgment, (described as his word “overtaking the
fathers” [hiphil nsg, 1:6]). Zechariah 7:1-8:23 likewise mirrors this percep-
tion of the past, albeit in greater detail. While the term “ancestors” does not

______________________

	13. Meyers and Meyers (1992) and Floyd (1997) discuss the cosmic aspects of our
text, but this theme cannot be pursued here.

	14. On the scribal computation system in Haggai and Zech 1-8, see Kessler 1992;
2002:41-51, with bibliography.



[ Page ] 144	

reappear in this section, the same group is clearly referred to in the oracles in
7:1-7 and 8-14 (on the structure of these sections, see Floyd 2000:418-27).
They refuse to hear (infinitive absolute of stn, 7:11; cf. 1:4) or pay attention
(hiphil of qsb-, cf. 1:4). This section adds the further terms “to refuse,” “to set a
defiant shoulder,” and “to block the ears and make the heart as stone” (7:11—
12; Meyers and Meyers 1987:403-4). As a result, Yahweh became exceedingly
angry with them (here qsp gdwl; cf. 1:2), scattered them (sr; only here for
scattering in Zechariah) among the nations they had not known (7:14, a Deu-
teronomism; cf. Deut 13:2; 28:36, 64; Jer 22:28; cf. 8:13 and 8:7).15 As a result,
Jerusalem, the cities of Judah, the Negev, and the Shephelah were depopu-
lated (7:7), the land was desolated ( rs nsmh), and the beautiful land made a
desolation (rs hmdh smh, 7:14).

2.1.2. Visionary-Oracular Complex: 1:7-6:15

A similar perspective is found in the VOC. While there is no explicit men-
tion of the “ancestors” here, the concept is clearly present and implicit in the
description of the nations’ (2:2 [1:19]) and Yahweh's (2:10 [2:6)]) scattering of
the community. The second vision (2:1-4 [1:18-23]) refers to the scattering
(zrh) of Judah, Israel, and Jerusalem by the “horns” (qrnwt). Several points
are worthy of attention here. First the verb zrh (“to scatter”) is a crucial one
used to describe the exile and is found in a variety of traditions (Lev 26:33;
1 Kgs 14:15; Jer 31:10; 49:32; Ezek 5:2, 10, 12; 6:8; 12:14, 15; 20:23; 22:15;
36:19; Ps 106:27). Second, the precise localities to which these dispersed ones
have been scattered are not explicitly stated in the vision. The mention of the
four horns in 2:1 (1:18) may refer to Assyria and Babylon as the agents of
this dispersion (Boda 2005) or may have a more general referent.16 However
that may be, the location of the dispersed persons is not specified. Third, the
text links all the dispersed Israelite/Judean communities to this scattering. No
account is taken of any who have engaged in voluntary emigration17 or mili-

_______________________

	15. 8:7,13-15 will be discussed in greater detail below.

	16. Boda 2005 suggests the image of two animals with two horns each. He notes
Vanderhooft’s evidence for the Assyria-Babylon amalgam in various contexts (207). Alter-
nately, Chary (64-65) among many others suggests that the four horns do not designate
Babylon in particular but rather “the collective responsibility of all the Gentile nations for
the evil done to the elect people.” The number four is thus an expression of universality,
similar to the four winds of 2:10 (6) and 6:5; see also the same image in Jer 49:36; Ezek
37:9; Dan 7:2; 8:8; 11:4.

	17. It could be argued that any such emigration was redactionally subsumed under
the concept of scattering. This appears to be the assumption of Petitjean (100-101). On



[ Page ] 145

tary colonization (such as the community at Elephantine).18 Fourth and most
significantly, in 2:2 (1:19) the dispersed ones include "Israel.” The mention of
Israel in such a context is surprising, given the more frequent exilic designa-
tion of the objects of the nations’ dispersal and Yahweh’s renewed favor as
“Judah and Jerusalem” (Zech 1:12; 2:16 [12]; 8:15; 2 Kgs 23:1, 2, 5, 24; 24:20;
Isa 40:9; 44:26; Jer 1:15; 11:3; 18:1; Joel 4:1 [3:1]; 4:6 [3:6]; Zech 12:2, 5, 6,
7; Mal 2:11, 3:4). Furthermore, in 2:4 (1:21) only Judah is mentioned. How-
ever, despite the absence of the name “Israel” in the lxx, with Barthelemy
(936-37), Meyers and Meyers (1987:138), Petersen (161), and Chary (64)
but pace Redditt, I retain the entire phrase.19 “Israel” here likely refers to
those Israelites exiled by the Assyrians (Petersen: 163; Barthelemy: 977) and
also possibly to those northerners who may have come south after 722 and
were exiled by the Babylonians (Meyers and Meyers 1987:138). Later in the
same vision (2:4 [1:21]) the exile is said to have been enacted upon “Judah”
(yhwdh) and “the land of Judah” (rs yhwdh). The reason for the absence
of the name Israel here (cf. 2:2 [ 1:19] )20 may be due either to a desire to
focus on the south (Petersen: 164) or because the activity of the “smiths”
(hrsym)21 is seen as consisting in the eviction of all foreign powers from
the territory of Yehud (Chary: 66) or due to the specific interest in the “the
restoration of self-governance in Yehud” via Persia’s routing of Babylonian
hegemony (Meyers and Meyers 1987:140, 145-46). In this vision it is the
Gentile nations who have done the scattering.

	The oracular additions to the third vision provide further detail. The
exiles have been dispersed to a wide variety of locations, as symbolized by
the four winds (2:10 [6]),22 specifically to the north (spwn, 2:10 [6]), to Baby-
lon (bt bbl 2:11 [5]). Here it is noteworthy that Yahweh is the author of the
dispersion and that, unlike 2:2 and 4 (1:19, 21), where zrh is used, here prs

____________________

questions of immigration and the movement of persons, see Limet; Garelli; and on roads,
see Graf 1993. Mobility is an absolutely critical issue for the understanding of our period;
see below.

	18. On the origins of this colony, see Knauf; Porten 1984:378-83; 2003.

	19. Amsler (67) follows Duhm, Mitchell, Sellin, Jepsen, Elliger, Delcor, and Rudolph
in retaining Israel but seeing it as a secondary insertion intended to further generalize the
referent of the vision. Barthelemy (937), however, notes that this is a literary, not a textual,
judgment.

	20. LXX does add “and Israel” at 2:4 (1:21); however, this is clearly an interpolation
from 2:2 (1:19; see Barthelemy: 932).

	21. The meaning and identity of the image here cannot be discussed in the present
study; cf. the extensive literature in the commentaries.

	22. Also 6:5 and the same image in Jer 49:36; Ezek 37:9; Dan 7:2; 8:8; 11:4
(Petitjean: 100-101).



[ Page ] 146	

is employed.23 The text would thus appear to recognize a past, widespread
dispersion and a more focused one (Babylon). A careful distinction must be
made here. On one hand, Assyria and Babylon are widely recognized as the
agents of dispersion in the Deuteronomistic tradition, as well as in Chronicles
and various prophetic texts.24 This should not, however, be used to collapse
all the expatriate communities into the one in Babylon.25

	In sum, then, both the SF and the VOC view the addressees of Zech 1-8
as the descendants of an earlier community that had hardened its hearts and
refused Yahwehs word and that was scattered abroad, leaving the land a deso-
lation. Thus the community of the past is perceived as having once existed in
Jerusalem, Israel, and Judah but as having been dispersed to various localities.
While certain differences in vocabulary and emphasis exist between 1:1-6
and 7:1-8:23, on the one hand, and 1:7-6:15, on the other, the basic perspec-
tive of the two blocs is the same.

	2.2. The Community of the Present

In contrast with the community of the past, which was portrayed as having
been dispersed, the community of the present exists in two geographical/spa-
tial foci: (1) Jerusalem (and possibly elsewhere in Yehud);26 and (2) various
regions beyond Yehud where Israel and Judah’s descendants are now found.
This perspective is present in both the SF and the VOC.

_______________________

	23. On the use of prs here, see Petitjean: 98-100.

	24. Boda 2005 cites the following: 2 Kgs 20//Isa 39; 2 Kgs 24-25; 2 Chr 32:31; 33:11;
36; Ezra 5:12; Jer 21:11-12; 29-30; Ezek 17-32; Isa 13:1-14; 21:1-10; Hab 1:5-11.

	25. Lust argues that the notion of a widespread regathering in Ezekiel is a late Persian
or Hellenistic creation. He seeks to distinguish the notions of galut and diaspora, arguing
that the notion of galut is limited to Babylon, in contrast to the wider diaspora. He does
not deal with Zech 1-8, which seems to locate the golah (8:10, 14) in the context of the
wider dispersion.

	26. Clearly a community is implied as present at Jerusalem. If Bethel is read as the
subject of 7:2 (on which, see below), population is recognized in that city as well. In 7:7 a
former time is described when Jerusalem, the cities of Judah, the Negev, and the Shephelah
were inhabited (ysbt). As will be argued below, however, this implies that Zech 1-8 views
these regions as still totally deserted.



[ Page ] 147

2.2.1.	The Community in Yehud

2.2.1.1. The Sermonic Framework: 1:1-6 and 7:1-8:23

As noted above, Zech 1:1-6 opens with a word from Yahweh to the com-
munity in Jerusalem.27 The oracle implies a direct link and inherent continuity
between the community of the past and the addressees. Thus the oracle in
1:2, set off by a Wortereignisformel preceding it (1:1) and a Gottesspruchformel
formula following it (1:3), confronts the community of the present with the
extreme anger of Yahweh vis-a-vis “your ancestors.” The present community
is then called to manifest behavior that stands in contrast to that of the ances-
tors, who were overtaken by the judgment28 proclaimed by Yahweh through
his prophets. Zechariah 1:6 ends on an optimistic note. Members of the pres-
ent generation29 have returned/repented (on the double significance of swb
here, see Petersen: 110-11). A similar perspective is found in 8:1-17,30 where
the themes of the nonrepentance of the ancestors, the result of their actions,
and the renewal of the present generation are taken up. The foundational
unity between the community of the past and that of the present is expressed
in the strongest of terms in 8:14-15. Here Yahweh states: “Just as I purposed
to do evil to you [Ikm] when your ancestors [ ’btkm] provoked me ... so I have
thought to do good to Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.” The implication
is that the judgment on the ancestors can be seen as having been experienced
by the present generation (you), in that the two groups constitute an extended
unity. The use of the vocatives “house of Judah and house of Israel” (8:13) or
the terms “Jerusalem and the house of Judah” (8:15) similarly reveal the book’s

_________________________

	27. This localization is not explicitly stated but may be implied from the parallel in
7:1-14.

	28. This is the sense of nsg here. In the Jeremiah prose tradition it refers both to literal
pursuit and capture (39:5; 42:16) as well as to a more generalized description of destruc-
tion (42:16) and captivity (Lam 1:3). Rudolph 1970:70 stresses the importance of Deut
28:2, 15, 45 here.

	29. 1:6b could be an allusion to the return to Zion by the present generation, thus
Petersen (100-101) or Meyers and Meyers (1987:96), who relate it to the effects of the
preaching of Haggai. Amsler (57) following Rothstein, Beuken, and Petitjean, views it as
a narrative conclusion describing the effect of the preaching of Zechariah in l:l-6a upon
his hearers. In favor of this latter position is the fact that Hag 1:1-15 follows a very similar
pattern: 1:1-3 contains a complex and somewhat idiosyncratic merging of date formula,
addressees, and oracles; and 1:12-15 contains a summary of the effects of the preaching
of Haggai (Kessler 2002:112-12; Floyd 2000:266-72). The exact group that constitutes the
subject of swb in Zech 1:6b remains, however, rather ambiguous.

	30. Floyd 2002:427-36 affirms the essential unity of this long section.



[ Page ] 148	

understanding of its addressees as members of a broader unity, such that the
present generation can be said to have been the recipients of Yahwehs actions
in the past. This is identical to the perspective in Hag 2:5, where the text31
speaks to the Persian-period community of “the covenant I made with you
when you came out of Egypt” Similarly, 8:13 also extends this unity in both a
past and a future sense. There Yahweh declares to the (present) Yehudite com-
munity, “just as you were a curse among the nations so I will save [ys'] you.”
Thus the first “you” is tied to the present community in Yehud (contextually
the “you” in 8:13 is the same “you” addressed in 8:9 and described as being
“those who in these days hear these words from the mouths of the prophets
present on the day of the foundation of the house of Yahweh Sebaoth.” The
second “you” clearly refers to the diaspora members whom Yahweh will bring
back to Yehud as a future date. Thus the Yehudite community is the visible
manifestation of the broader entity that extends chronologically into both the
past and future and that radiates geographically outward form Jerusalem.

	The present community in Yehud is further glimpsed in 7:1-7. Zechariah
7:2 has been the subject of extensive inquiry due to its extreme ambiguity.
Neither the question of the subject and objects of the verb slh nor their iden-
tities, functions, or places of origin can be discussed in detail here.32 It is
widely affirmed that a question is sent to the Jerusalemite temple,33 with its
functioning priests and prophets, by those living at a distance from it. What
is significant for our purposes, however, is that a new designation for the
community in Yehud is introduced here. The prophet uses the question as
a springboard for a response to “all the people of the land” (’l-kl-‘am hars).
As in Hag 2:4, the term describes the general population of Yehud (Nichol-
son 1965:66; Rudolph 1970:144; Boda 2003:398-99; Amsler, Lacoque, and
Vuilleumier:115).34 It is significant to note that the present community in
the land is called to a renewed commitment to Yahweh. This hortatory tone,
largely ethical in nature, is a hallmark of Zech 1:1-6; 7:1-8:23 (see Boda
2003:60-61). The generation of the ancestors has passed. Now the present
generation is called to return (swb) to Yahweh (1:3), not to be like (7 thyw

_______________________

	31. On the textual issue here, see Kessler 2002:160.

	32. See, provisionally, the analysis in Meyers and Meyers 1987:379-84; Baldwin: 141-
42; Petersen: 281-82; Barthelemy: 967-98.

	33. Thus, Meyers and Meyers 1987:384-85; Amsler: 114; Lemaire 1970; but cf. Blen-
kinsopp 1998, who argues that the question is sent to Bethel but responded to from a
Jerusalemite perspective.

	34. Amsler (15) suggests that the term is explicitly inclusive of the remainees, on
which see below. Gunneweg views the reference here as to the upper-class land owners,
but this limitation is not warranted by the context.



[ Page ] 149

k-) the ancestors (1:4), and to pursue diligently (’hb here, as in Prov 4:6)
“truth and peace” (8:19).

	Finally, in 8:6, 11 the present generation is described as a remnant (s’ryt).
As in Hag 1:12 and 2:4, the term here clearly refers to the numerically small
proportions of the Yehudite community (vis-a-vis the diaspora) as well as,
albeit subtly, to their renewed relationship to Yahweh (cf. Hag 1:1-15; Zech
1:6b).35

2.2.1.2. The Visionary-Oracular Complex: 1:7-6:15

The VOC similarly views a community present in Yehud. However unlike
the SF this section does not describe the community in relationship to earlier
generations, few epithets are attached to it, and it receives no commands or
exhortations as a group. An appellative for the community as a whole does
occur, however, in 2:14 (10), where the term “daughter of Zion” (bt sywn)
is employed.36 Here the personified Jerusalem designates the community
gathered in proximity to Jerusalem, which is called to rejoice due to the great-
ness of the future blessing of Yahweh. If the oracle here specifically addresses
Jerusalem (as opposed to Yehud as a whole),37 the contrast between present
petitesse and future grandeur is indeed an immense one, given the fact that
Jerusalem may have been a mere village at the time.38 Amsler (76) suggests
that the term “Jerusalem” includes both returnees and remainees; however,
such a suggestion remains conjectural.

________________________

	35. On the use of s’ryt here, see Meyers and Meyers 1987:417, who affirm the theo-
logical significance of the term in Zechariah but deny any such significance in Haggai.
However, the fact that the term is used in Haggai only following the people’s obedience
in 1:12 is surely significant. Amsler (122) sees the term only as an image of smallness. A
similar perspective is found in Conrad (144-45). On Hag 1:12-15 as a covenant renewal,
see Beuken 1967:45-46; Kessler 2002:550 n. 327.

	36. On the sense of the feminine term here, see Petersen: 179-80.

	37. Petitjean (129-30) notes that while the term bt sywn frequently refers to the city
of Jerusalem here as in Mic 4:10, 13; Zeph 3:14; Zech 9:9, Jerusalem has a metonymic
value, and designates the broader community gathered around it. Amsler (1988:76) and
Meyers and Meyers (1987:417) appear to limit it to the population of Jerusalem. On the
one hand, the unity of Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, seen elsewhere in the book (1:12,
17; 2:4, 16), the reference to the desolation of the “beautiful land” in 7:7,14, and the fact
that the basic division in Zech 1-8 is between two groups (homeland and diaspora) rather
than three (Jerusalemites, Yehudites, and diaspora members) would favor Petitjean’s view.
On the other hand, however, the Jerusalemite temple, as the dwelling of Yahweh, receives
special attention in Zech 1-8 (1:14,16 [2x], 17; 3:2; 8:3).

	38. Carter 1999; Lipschits 2003.



[ Page ] 150	

	The VOC mentions various specific members of the community in
Yehud, as well as their roles and activities: Joshua the high priest (3:1);
Zemach/the Branch (3:8; 6:12) and servant of Yahweh;39 Zerubbabel (4:6,
7, 9, 10) the temple builder.40 Zerubbabel and Joshua may be clearly identi-
fied as returnees (see Hag 1:1). Zechariah 6:10, 14 mentions Heldai, Tobijah,
and Jedaiah,41 all of whom are associated with the community of returnees
(gwlh, 6:10), who have come to the house of Josiah. Commentators see either
all of these individuals as returnees from the diaspora who have come with
an offering for the temple (Amsler, Lacoque, and Vuilleumier: 105; Rudolph
1970:129; Redditt: 77) or, alternatively, only Heldai as a recent returnee, while
the others are earlier returnees now resident in Yehud (Meyers and Meyers
1987). Petersen (274) suggests that Josiah's father Zephaniah may have been
a remainee. However one understands the time of their arrival, the presence
of these individuals forms a bridge between the community in Yehud and
the broader Israelite/Judean community beyond it.42 Just as 1:1-6 and 7:8-14
presuppose a unity between the ancestors and the present generation, and
8:13-15 envisages a unity between the returnees and the diaspora, here this
text views the nonreturned exiles in the diaspora as an extension of the com-
munity in Yehud.43 If these individuals have indeed come to Yehud to take
up residence, bearing gifts from the diaspora (thus Chary: 109), this event
prefigures the yet-future and greater ingathering of the exiles spoken of else-
where in Zech 1-8.

______________________

	39. The identity of this individual has been much discussed. Rose and Meyers and
Meyers (1987:372-73) see it as a symbolic-messianic figure. Amsler (108-9), following a
long interpretive tradition, sees it as a reference to Zerubbabel. Lemaire (1996:51) notes
the presence of Zemach-Zerubbabel as a double name in the inscriptional evidence.

	40. Note that, unlike Haggai, Zechariah mentions neither Zerubbabel’s political status
not his Davidic genealogy.

	41. On the various possibilities for understanding hn in 6:14, see Meyers and Meyers
1987:340-43. The hypothesis of a double name seems quite probable, given the frequency
of such names at the period; see Demsky; Lemaire 1996:51.

	42. As noted, mobility is an absolutely critical issue for the understanding of home-
land-diaspora relations in our period. The degree to which the community in Babylon
may have been involved in the life of the community in Yehud is contingent on the degree
of facility of interchange between the two; see Limet; Garelli.

	43. Meyers and Meyers (1987:339) aptly comment, “The ambivalence of the term
‘exiles’ helps to demonstrate the unity of a community acknowledging Yahweh as God,
apart from the form or identity of the political state in which those who acknowledge
Yahweh may live.” See also Rudolph 1976:129, who sees this as a demonstration of the
participation of the nonreturnees in the project in Yehud.



[ Page ] 151

2.2.2. The Community outside Yehud

2.2.2.1. The Sermonic Frame: 1:1-7; 7:1-8:23

Zechariah 1:6 makes only an oblique reference to Judeans outside Yehud.
Thus, as noted above, Yahwehs judgment upon the ancestors (1:4-6) is a way
of speaking of destruction and, by extension, exile. Zechariah 8:1-7, how-
ever, makes it clear that dispersion is an ever-present reality. In 8:7 a further
designation for the Judean community (“my people” [‘my]) is added to those
already mentioned. Here, then, the members of the people of Yahweh are
seen as living in the east and the west (m’rs mzrh wm’rs mbw’ hsms; cf. Ps
50:1). This may be a simple merism, thus designating the exiles wherever they
may be (thus Meyers and Meyers 1987:418, who note the parallel with Isa
43:5-7; Rudolph 1970:148), or the mention of the west may be an explicit
inclusion of the Egyptian diaspora (Ackroyd 1968:213; cf. Phillips). In 8:13
the community outside Yehud is seen as belonging to the “house of Israel and
house of Judah” whom Yahweh will deliver in the future. Finally, in the con-
cluding oracle, 8:20-23, the diaspora community is described via the locution
’ysyhwdy. The termyhwdy carries ethnic (Jer 34:9, 40:11-12; 41:3; Neh 5:8),
territorial (Jer 43:9; 44:1; 52:28), and linguistic (2 Kgs 18:28; Neh 13:24) over-
tones. In a more general sense it is used, as here, to denote members of the
southern kingdom or their descendants living in exile (Esth 2:5; Lemaire
1970: 43-44).44

2.2.2.2. The Visionary-Oracular Complex: 1:7-6:15

The VOC similarly takes into account the existence of the diaspora beyond
Yehud. Zechariah 2:2 (1:19) understands the past scatterings to be an ongoing
reality. As already noted, the oracle in 2:10-17 (6-13),45 while acknowledging
a broader diaspora, focuses on the community in Babylon (bt bbl).46 In this

_______________________

	44. See Schmid. Meyers and Meyers understand the term Yehudite here as meaning
“citizen of Yehud who has accepted the new reality of postexilic Israel: its new adminis-
trative structure, its restored temple, and Yahweh’s sovereign presence” (1987:441). This
however, seems, unwarranted, as the term is more naturally to be taken as a simple gen-
tilic-religious designation here.

	45. On the delimitation of this oracle, see Amsler: 73; Petitjean: 91-94; Floyd
2002:365-70.

	46. On the sense and use of this expression, see Petersen: 175-76, who renders it
“fair Babylon.” Meyers and Meyers (1987:164) render it simply “dwellers of Babylon.” As
Petersen (175) notes, in the leremianic tradition the exiles in Babylon appear to function



[ Page ] 152	

context the exiles are called “Zion” (2:11 [7]).47 Significantly, whereas in the
second vision the focus of interest was the territory of Yehud, here the use of
the term Zion lays stress on the identity of the exiles as those who, despite
their dwelling in places far removed from Yehud, still stand in relationship to
Jerusalem as the religious center of the territory and the place where Yahweh’s
future dwelling will be realized.48

	In the analysis of the community in Yehud, mention was made of the
individuals named in 6:10 and 14. These individuals have come from the
golah and in some sense represent the nonreturnee community.49 A further
designation of the diaspora community occurs in 6:15a, at the end of a sec-
tion that Floyd (2002:409) labels a report of a prophetic symbolic action. In
this context it is promised that “those who are afar off” (rhwqym) will come

____________________

as the concrete manifestation of the more general exile (see Jer 6:22; 16:15; 23:8; 31:8). The
implication of this would be that the specific call to flight addressed to the exiles in Baby-
lon would be paradigmatic and applicable by extension to the exiles as a whole.

	47. I take Zion here to be a vocative (see Petersen: 172—73). Meyers and Meyers
(1987:164) treat Zion here as an accusative of direction. This is possible but unlikely due
to the clear parallelism between Zion and “the one who dwells in Babylon.” In a similar
vein Petitjean (105-7) prefers a vocative due to the likelihood that a vocative would follow
the interjection hwy and the similarities between our text and Isa 40:9; 52:1-2; Zeph 3:16;
Zech 9: 13; Pss 146:10; 147:12. He further notes the parallel between 2:11 (7) and the calls
to the “daughter of Zion” in Isa 52:1-2; Zeph 3:14,16, and Zech 9:9, 13.

	48. See Petitjean: 105-7 for a detailed discussion of the terms Jerusalem and Zion
in Isa 40-55 and Zech 1-8. Petitjean discerns two principal referents for these terms: (1)
Jerusalem/Zion as the capital and religious center of the new community (Isa 51:3; 52:7-8;
Zech 1:14, 17; 8:2-3); and (2) a designation of the people as a whole (Isa 40:9; 41:27; 46:13;
Zech 2:11). In summary, he states, “The use of Zion to designate the deportees in Babylon
serves to place the dramatic situation created by the exile in stark relief. Israel has been
snatched away from its land and from the religious centre which Yahweh has assigned to
his people—Jerusalem and the hill of Zion. Put another way, Zion is no more in Zion.”
Amsler (74) similarly suggests that Zion is used to stress the relationship of the exiles to
the promises made to Zion in Isa 40:9 and 51:16. Ackroyd (180) similarly comments, “It is
significant that the sense of belonging to the community even while in exile is expressed so
strongly that the exiles can be described as ‘Zion who dwells in Babylon.”’ See also Meyers
and Meyers 1987:339.

	49. Meyers and Meyers (1987:368-68) view each of the individuals in the list as con-
stituting “a carefully chosen set” in which “each individual represents a group of Yahwists
that has a special relationship with the territory of Yehud and to the Temple of Yahweh
being rebuilt there.... [T]heir inclusion by Zechariah in his account of such an event
apparently reveals the prophets awareness of the geographical diversity that characterized
the Yahwist community in his day.” This suggestion is an interesting one that cannot be
evaluated here.



[ Page ] 153

and build the temple of Yahweh. The term is one frequently used for the dias-
pora population (Isa 33:13; 43:6; 49:12; 60:4, 9; Jer 30:10; 51:50; Dan 9:7).

	3.0. Demographics and the Future of Jerusalem and Yehud

The narrative continuum of Zech 1-8 can be summarized as follows. The SF
and VOC both portray a similar image of the community of Yahweh. Yahwehs
people formerly dwelt in Judah, Israel, and Jerusalem. The city of Jerusa-
lem was of special importance, as it was there that Yahweh also dwelt, in his
temple. Due, however, to their refusal to heed the word of Yahweh, his people
were scattered to diverse nations, and the land and its cities became desolate.
A new era, however, had dawned. A community now existed in Jerusalem and
Yehud that was in the process of rebuilding and reconsecrating the temple.
Nevertheless, a significant portion of the people of Yahweh remained outside
the land, particularly in Babylon. From the perspective of Zech 1-8, how-
ever, this bifurcation into two groups, one in the land and the other outside of
it, is, in the final sense, anomalous and provisional. The text therefore looks
ahead and depicts the relationship between Yahweh and his people as having
a future phase. A survey of the data in both major sections of Zech 1-8 will
demonstrate that Yahwehs ultimate purposes are understood as involving an
undoing of the earlier scattering, and a restoration to the land.

3.1. The Sermonic Frame: Zechariah 1:1-6; 7:1-8:23

Zechariah 1:1-6 has little to say about either the existence of the diaspora
or its return. That theme, however, does appear in 7:1-8:23. Zechariah 7:7
bemoans the depopulation and economic devastation of all of the southern
kingdom: Jerusalem, the cities of Judah, the Negev, and the Shephelah; 7:14
similarly reflects on the land’s devastation. The theme of its restoration is
taken up in 8:1-17 and 18-23.50 Zechariah 8:3 announces Yahweh’s immi-
nent return to Zion.51 In addition to the religious and ethical components of

_______________________

	50. On the division of these sections, see Floyd 2002:427-36.

	51. See Petitjean (1969:369-71), who notes the parallelism here with 1:14— 16b and
2:14-15 (10-11). The perfects sbty in 1:16 and 8:3 would thus be read as examples of the
perfectum confidentiae stressing the certainty of Yahweh’s return (see Amsler, Lacoque,
and Vuilleumier:66) and the imminence of the event expressed by the futurum instans in
2:14-15. Alternatively, Meyers and Meyers (1987:122) see the perfect in 1:16 as indicating
that the oracle viewed Yahwehs return as having already taken place, whereas the futurum
instans in 2:14 (10) is a real future, indicating that the oracle stems from a time before the
rededication ceremony (1987:168). At 8:3 they argue that the implication is that the dwell-



[ Page ] 154	

Jerusalem’s future described in 8:3, a demographic dimension is introduced
in 8:4-6. Zion’s future is unveiled in three stages. First, an image is drawn of
an inhabited Jerusalem (note the use of ysb in 8:4, parallel to Yahweh’s own
dwelling in 8:4). The description of the city’s inhabitants is significant. The
reference to old men and women leaning upon their staffs and to children of
both genders playing describes a situation of blessing, peace, and security.52
Zechariah 8:7-8 indicates the source, at least in part, of this future popula-
tion. Through a futurum instans indicating imminence (cf. Hag 2:6, 21) it
is stated that Yahweh will deliver his people (hnny mwsy')53 from the east
and west (likely inclusive of the Egyptian diaspora) and bring them (hiphil
of bw’) to dwell (ysb) in Jerusalem. Zechariah 8:13 takes up the same theme
and describes this event as a coming deliverance.54 This future repopulation
is seen as a manifestation of Yahweh’s decision to do good (ytb) to Jerusalem
and to Judah (8:15). In the concluding oracles of this section (8:20-22, 23)
reference is made once again to the exilic community at large as well as to
the Gentiles. To stress the extreme value placed upon the exilic community
by the Gentile nations around them, ten non-Jews55 are said to take hold of
the garment of an individual of Israelite/Judean origin (ys yhwdy) who is en
route to Jerusalem.56

____________________

ing of Yahweh has already begun. On the ambiguity of swb, see Petersen: 156. However the
chronology of Yahweh’s return is understood, all three passages go on to demonstrate the
effects of this return.

	52. For a description of the meaning of the various elements in the description, see
Ackroyd: 212).

	53. This combination of hinneh and the verb ys' is frequently used in connection with
Yahweh's coming repatriation of the exiles (Isa 25:9; 35:4; 62:11; Jer 30:10; 46:27; Zeph
3:19).

	54. Hiphil of ys'-, however, a simple imperfect is used here, different from the parti-
cipial construction in 8:7 noted above.

	55. Pace Lipinski 1970:44-46, who views the referent of 'mym rbym and gwym
'swmym in 8:22 as being diaspora Jews. The argument is unconvincing in the light of the
frequent use of such terms for Gentiles (cf. Isa 2:1-4; Mic 4:1-4).

	56. It is difficult to determine exactly what brings these yehudim to Jerusalem.
Petersen (315-18) sees the notion of pilgrimage as implicit in 8:20-22 but notes that in
8:23 the language is more vague. If one reads 8:23 in the light of 8:8, then a definitive
return to dwell permanently is in view. However the verb ysb is absent from 8:23, and
the language here is far closer to that of pilgrimage (Amsler, Lacoque, and Vuilleumier:
125). If this is indeed a reference to diaspora members returning to Jerusalem only for
pilgrimage, 8:23 stands in significant tension with the dominant vision of Zech 1-8, which
foresees a total return. If such were the case, Lipinski's suggestion (1970:42-46) of a later
addition would be the most likely explanation.



[ Page ] 155

3.2. The Visionary-Oracular Complex: 1:7-6:15

A very similar perspective is found in the VOC. In the first vision and oracle
(1:7-17) the angel of Yahweh expresses discontent with the status quo. The
fact that the earth is at rest is viewed as a reflection of Yahwehs lack of com-
passion (rhm) toward Judah and Jerusalem (1:12). The resolution to this
dilemma is the return of Yahweh to Jerusalem in compassion (rhm, 1:16,17b)
and election (bhr, 1:17). The result of this return will be twofold: (1) Yahwehs
house will be rebuilt; and (2) a measuring line (qw), frequently used in con-
nection with judgment (2 Kgs 21:13; Isa 34:11; Lam 2:8) but also salvation
(Ezek47:3), shall be stretched forth over Jerusalem. Zechariah 1:17 advances
this description by asserting that Yahwehs cities (ry) will overflow (a rare use
ofpws; cf. Prov. 5:16) with prosperity (twb). This corresponds to their former
prosperity (cf. 7:7 slwh) and populous state mentioned in 7:7. The theme of
repopulation is similarly taken up in the second vision (2:1-4 [1:18-21]),
albeit implicitly. There judgment is pronounced on the horns (i.e., nations)
that scattered “Judah, Israel and Jerusalem” (2:2 [1:19]). The implication of
the terrifying (i.e., destruction; see Boda 2005) of these nations in explained
in the third vision (2:5-9 [1-5]) and accompanying oracles (2:6-13 [10-17]).
In 2:5-6 ([1-2]) a figure appears with a measuring line (hbl mdh, which here
symbolizes hope, as in Jer 31:39; Ezek 40)57 and goes forth to measure (mdd)
Jerusalem. The significance of this is explained in 2:8-9 (4-5). Jerusalem will
be so full with a multitude (rb) of people (‘dm) and cattle (bhmh)58 that59 it
will be like an unwalled village (przh; cf. Ezek 38:1; Esth 9:19), its popula-
tion having far surpassed the boundaries of the city walls.60 However, the
lack of fortifications naturally raises problems of defense. Thus the security
of the city will be guaranteed by Yahweh himself 2:9 (5), who will protect
it like a wall of fire.61 The origins of this multitude are not specified in the
vision, but the following oracle implies that, at least in part, it will be made

________________________

	57. Cf. the same image but using the term qw in 1:16.

	58. Cf. the similar description of a multitude of people and cattle in Nineveh in Jonah
4:11, using identical terms.

	59. The min in mrb is causal, indicating that Jerusalem's unwalled state stands in direct
causal relationship to the multitudes present within her (the Hebrew is specific: btwkh).

	60. Clearly in Darius’s reign Jerusalem’s walls were in ruins. Meyers and Meyers
(1987:154-55) see the description here as rooted in the realities of the early Persian period.
Perhaps the implication here is that, from the perspective of Zech 1-8, the reconstruction
of the walls is unnecessary (cf. Ackroyd 1968:179).

	61. See Amsler, Lacoque, and Vuilleumier: 71-72, who note that the imagery here
recalls the pillar of fire of Exod 13:21-23. Note also the contrast with the walls and gates
that are destroyed by fire in Jer 49:27; Amos 1:7, 10, 14; Neh 1:3; 2:13, 17.



[ Page ] 156	

up of exiles who heed the call to flee Babylon in 2:10-13 (6-9).62 This call
is presented in the most urgent of terms. The exiles are called to flee (nws;
2:10 [6]) and to escape (m/t; 2:11 [7]). These terms, individually and more
especially taken together, suggest an urgent flight and seeking of refuge in the
context of an impending disaster (see Gen 19:20; Isa 20:6; Jer 46:6; 48:6, 19;
51:6; Amos 9:11). The disaster in context here is Yahwehs impending judg-
ment on Babylon for its mistreatment of his people (2:12-13 [8-9]). A further
indication of the source of Jerusalems population is given in the subsequent
oracle (2:14-17 [10-13]). Many nations (a frequent prophetic designation of
the Gentile world, especially in the sixth century [Jer 25:14; 27:1; Ezek 26:3;
31:6; 38:23] and in eschatological descriptions [Mic 4:2-3]) will join them-
selves to Yahweh (hvh; cf. Isa 14:1; 53:3, 6; 50:5; Esth 9:27; Dan 11:34) and
become his people (I'm). Such language is frequently used in the sixth century
for the renewal of the relationship between Yahweh and his people (Jer 24:7;
31:1, 33; Ezek 11:20; 36:28; 37:23; esp. Zech 8:8) but is also used for the inclu-
sion of foreigners (Ruth 1:16; Isa 14:1; 19:27; 53:3, 6; Jer 50:5; Esth 9:27). The
exact form that this “becoming the people of Yahweh” would take is not spec-
ified.63 Judgment on Babylon (here called rs spwn, 6:6, 8) is likely in view in
the vision in 6:1-8 (e.g., Amsler: 104-5).64 The quieting (hnyhw) of Yahweh’s
Spirit in the north country is seen by a long exegetical tradition as permit-

______________________

	62. On the issue of the origin of this oracle and its function in its present literary
context, see Petitjean:127, who sees it as support for the movement to return. Amsler (76)
views it both as an appeal to the diaspora members to return, which could have been trans-
mitted by word of mouth to those in Babylon, and as an encouragement to those who had
already made the move back to the homeland. Meyers and Meyers (1987:172-73) make a
similar point. Rejecting the notion that Zechariahs prophetic activity had begun in exile
(see Ackroyd 1968:148-49), they maintain that we hear “in the imperatives of this oracle
pulling its distant audience to Zion the voice of one who has already made the return and
who is involved in the temple restoration project.” It is destined to “be heard by fellow
returned Yehudites needing assurance that they have chosen wisely or by exiles still pon-
dering the choice.” The suggestion that the oracle is destined to reassure the returnees is
certainly correct. That the oracle should have been transmitted to the Babylonian commu-
nities remains speculative, as it presupposes significant movement between the homeland
and Babylonian diaspora in our period—by no means a certainty. As noted above, per-
sonal mobility is a complex issue that is of critical importance for our period.

	63. For a discussion of this, see Rudolph 1976:91, who notes that what is being
described here goes far beyond the simple notion of a pilgrimage to Jerusalem on the
part of the nations; see also Amsler:76. Meyers and Meyers (1987:175) maintain that this
expression indicates that the nations will “share in the special arrangement which had
heretofore characterized Israel as a people.”’

	64. But cf. the alternative approaches of the vision in Meyers and Meyers 1987;
Floyd 2002.



[ Page ] 157


ting the return of the exiles.65 The report of the prophetic symbolic action in
6:10-15 concludes with the promise that “those that are far off” (rhwqmym)
will come and build the temple. As noted above, these are diaspora members
who return to Jerusalem.

	In sum, then, we have seen that for both the SF and the VOC the present
situation is viewed as temporary and somewhat anomalous. The narrative
continuum of the text looks forward to a time when the exiles will ulti-
mately return to dwell in Yehud, and Gentiles will come and join with them.
Jerusalem will be filled to overflowing and the population and prosperity of
Judah restored.

	4.0. Zechariah 1-8 and Persian-Period Reflection

Zechariah 1-8, then, presents a comprehensive and self-consistent image of
the community of Yahweh. The broadest designation for this community is
the simple epithet “my people” (2:11 [7]; 8:7-8). This community includes
past generations (1:1-6; 7:11-14) as well as those alive in the present (6:15).
Furthermore, the text envisages the ongoing life of the community in the
future (8:1-8). While consisting in its foundational sense of the “house of
Israel and the house of Judah” (8:13), this community is open to the inclu-
sion of Gentiles (2:15 [11]; 8:20-23). Moreover, Zech 1-8 displays a strong
geographic focus. It uses the metonymic expression “Judah, Israel, and Jeru-
salem” (2:2 [19]; see also 1:12, 14, 16, 17, 2:4, 16; 3:2; 8:13) for the people of
Yahweh, thus profoundly connecting them to their places of origin. Through
the activities of the nations (2:2 [ 1:19]) as well as Yahweh (2:11 [6]) they have
been scattered into a variety of locations (2:10 [6]; 8:7), especially Babylon
(2:10-12 [6-8]). Such a situation, although persisting until the time of the
books production, was merely provisional and would ultimately give way to
a new reality. The dispersed communities in every location would be regath-
ered by Yahweh and restored to the land (2:8 [4]; 6:15; 8:1-8), which would
overflow with abundance and prosperity (1:17). Most important, Yahweh
himself would dwell in Jerusalem amidst his people (1:16; 2:9 [5], 14 [10];

_______________________

	65. Amsler (104-5) disputes the inference that the return of the exiles is in view but
cites Sellin, Elliger, Rudolph, Delcor, and Rothstein as supporting it. Chary (108) affirms,
“The poverty and demographic insignificance of the tiny community will be overcome
when the diaspora returns, having been touched by the movement of the Spirit. [They
will come] not only from Babylon, the largest community, but from many locations....
Such was the assurance and comfort that the then-present moment required.” Similarly,
Petersen (272) comments that the vision “is designed to elicit another exit, that of the
return of those in the north country to their homeland.”



[ Page ] 158	

8:3, 8). Such an understanding of the Israelite/Judean community is highly
significant when set in the context of two burning issues in the Achaemenid
period: (1) requirements for membership in the people of Yahweh; and (2)
the future of Yehud and especially of Jerusalem.

4.1. Exile and Identity

Zechariah 1-8 paints a general image of exile and return that is quite similar
to that of Ezra, Nehemiah, the Deuteronomistic History, Jeremiah, Ezekiel,
and Chronicles. However, it is immediately apparent that Zech 1-8 does not
use the experience of exile in Babylon as a means by which membership in
the community of Yahweh is defined and demarcated. This stands in tension
with several near-contemporary texts. Jeremiah 24:8 clearly distinguishes the
deportees from both the remainees and the Egyptian diaspora and asserts that
Yahwehs favor lies with the former group, to the exclusion of the latter two
(on the complexities of this passage, see Carroll 1986:480-88). The Egyptian
diaspora is singled out for special disapprobation in Jer 42:15-43:13. Similarly,
Ezek 11:15 identifies the golah as the exclusive embodiment of the true Israel
(Allen 1994:163-64). Ezra-Nehemiah furthers this concept by making mem-
bership in the assembly contingent on three requirements: genealogical roots
in the former southern kingdom; exile to the east; and obedience to the “law
of Moses” (Kessler 2006; Gunneweg 1983). In Ezra-Nehemiah the experience
of Babylonian exile is specifically used as an exclusionary strategy vis-a-vis
the Samarian population (Ben Zvi 1995) and the Yehudite remainees.66 The
stability of such a definition of communal boundaries was reinforced through
the prohibition of intermarriage with members of the nonapproved groups,
on pain of excommunication for noncompliance (Ezra 7:26; 10:8, Neh 13).

	Zechariah 1-8, however moves in a very different direction. As noted
above, it would appear that all the descendants of the inhabitants of both the
northern and southern kingdoms are eligible for inclusion in the commu-
nity. While a certain interest is expressed toward the Babylonian community
in 2:6-7 (10-11) and 6:10,67 this interest is never expressed in exclusionary
terms. The relevance of this may be seen with reference to three groups. The
first of these is the Egyptian diaspora. Zechariah 8:7 speaks of Yahweh bring-

______________________

	66. Note, however that various strategies may have been deployed to facilitate the
inclusion of the Remainees (Kessler 2006; Japhet 1983:114; 2003; Dyck, 2000; Bed-
ford:150).

	67. Petersen (280) opines that “it is difficult to avoid the inference that Zechariah has
particular sympathies with those who have been in exile." It is commonly assumed that
Zechariah himself was a returnee.



[ Page ] 159


ing back those in the east and west, which leaves the door wide open for
the inclusion of the Egyptian community. The absence of any exclusionary
designation here is especially relevant in light of the commonly recognized
similarities between Zech 7:1-8:23 and the prose tradition of Jeremiah (Boda
2003:59), a tradition that was certainly aware of the rejection of the Egyp-
tians in Jer 37-4368 and 24:8. Judith R. Phillips has argued that Zechariahs
visions are intended to reinforce the rejection of the diaspora and a focus
on Jerusalemite expressions of Yahwism. The clear openness to all diasporic
communities in both sections of Zech 1-8, however, speaks against the rigid
lines she draws. The second of these groups is the nondeported population,
whether resident in Yehud or in other neighboring provinces.69 Indeed, the
perspective of Zech 1-8 seems somewhat unconcerned by existing Ach-
aemenid provincial divisions70 in that two of the four regions mentioned
in 7:7 (Shephelah, Negev) lay outside the boundaries of Yehud (Lemaire
1994). The implication may be that for the compiler of Zech 1-8 the “real”
Yehud (whatever the Persian administrative system may have provisionally
ordained) included all the territory of the former Judah.71 Care needs to be
exercised here so as not to extract too much from Zech 1-8. Thus despite
Amsler, who affirms our text to be inclusive of both the returnees and the
remainees (Amsler, Lacoque, and Vuilleumier: 115), it is perhaps better to
affirm that Zech 1-8 makes no explicit reference to the exclusion of such a
population. The use of ‘am h’rs in 7:5 cannot be used as an explicit reference
to the inclusion of the remainees, since the term's referent is most likely the
general population, not the community from which the returnees distinguish
themselves, as in Ezra-Nehemiah. As noted above, both the mention of Israel
in 2:2 (1:19) and the parallelism between the “house of Israel and the house
of Judah” in 8:13 (Japhet 1983:111) would indicate that Zechariah favors the
inclusion of this group.72 Third, Zech 1-8 is open to Gentile inclusion. Gen-
tiles join themselves to Yahweh and become part of his people in 2:15 (11)

__________________________

	68. Note the treatment of this section in Lohfink.

	69. On the tension between Zech 1-8 and Ezra-Nehemiah on this issue, see Petersen:
182. On the mixed marriages, see Eskenazi.

	70. Issues of borders and their significance have received attention in the recent liter-
ature. Fantalkin and Tai (2006), discuss the actual situation of the Shephelah in our period
and argue for a fluidity of borders in transitional periods. On the issue of the relevance
of the concept of borders in the study of the ancient world, see Wright. On the broader
question of the construction of identity, see Berquist 2006. On the relationship between
borders and the movement of persons, see Limet: 167-68.

	71. Such a perspective may be reflected in the town lists in Ezra 2 and Neh 7; 11.

	72. Japhet (1983:111) appropriately comments, “As for the people of the north ...
although the ‘house of Israel’ is not the immediate audience of the prophet, ... they are



[ Page ] 160	

and join returning exiles on their journey to Jerusalem in 8:23.73 It needs
hardly to be mentioned that such openness to Gentiles stands in tension to
the separation from them in Ezra-Nehemiah, which appears to preclude even
the possibility of conversion as a response to the question of mixed marriages
(see Cohen: 306).

	Concurrent with this nonexclusivist interpretation of the exile is a some-
what more general and less polemical presentation of the fate of the land
subsequent to the Babylonian devastations. Whereas various other tradi-
tions enter into far greater detail regarding the extent of the depopulation of
the land and its significance, the presentation in Zech 1-8 is quite reserved.
No ideological or theological reason for the deportations is provided other
than the anger of Yahweh (1:4-6; 7:13-14).74 What is more, in Zech 1-8 the
descriptions of the state of the land after the Babylonian devastations are
quite restrained when compared with other sources, and no insistence is
made upon absolute emptiness.75 Zechariah 7:14 is the only passage in the
corpus where a description of the state of the land following the Babylonian
invasions is given, and only two highly general terms are used. First, 7:14a
describes the land as having been desolated (smm) and laid desolate (smh).
The verbal form occurs frequently in Lev 26 (26:22, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 43),
Isa 40-55 (48:8; 49:19; 54:3; it occurs once in Isa 56-66 at 61:4), Jeremiah
(10:5; 12:11; 18:16; 19:8; 33:10), Ezekiel (6:4; 35:15; 36:4, 34, 36), Lamenta-
tions (1:4; 3:11; 5:18), and once each in the Deuteronomistic History and
Chronicles (1 Kgs 9:8; 2 Chr 36:21) but nowhere in this sense in Ezra-Nehe-
miah.76 The adjectival form occurs in Isa 1-39 (5:9; 13:9; 24:12), once in the
Deuteronomistic History, twice in Chronicles (2 Kgs 22:19; 2 Chr 29:8; 30:7),
and very frequently in Jeremiah (2:15; 4:7; 18:16; 19:8; 25:9, 18; 42:18; 44:22)
but not in Ezra-Nehemiah. The themes of destruction, exile, and abandon-
ment figure prominently in the use of this root. The two terms are found

___________________

nevertheless within the scope of his prophecies and of his conception of the people of
Israel. On the similar perspectives in Chronicles, see Braun.

	73. It is noteworthy that the motif of the servitude of the nations, present in texts such
as Isa 60 (see Morgenstern), is absent from Zech 1-8.

	74. See Gangloff, who surveys the various sources and underlines their distinctive
usages of the “empty land” motif. His article, however, paints an unduly negative view of
the golah (cf. Smith-Christopher 1989; 2002) that underlines only the strategies of exclu-
sion utilized by the golah and does not take into account some of the strategies of inclusion
present in our sources; see above.

	75. See, e.g., the extensive use of the roots hrb, smd, yst, ysm, ‘bd, klh, krt in other
sources and their absence in this sense in Zech 1-8.

	76. It appears in Ezra 9:3-4 but in the pole! participial form and refers to the devas-
tated emotional state of Ezra himself.



[ Page ] 161

together only in Jer 18:16; 19:8; 49:17 and Zech 7:14. The use of such terms
is closely paralleled in the Deuteronomistic-Jeremianic tradition (Petitjean:
358-59). Zechariah 7:14b adds a further general description: “with no one
passing through or returning” (cf. Petitjean, who notes the parallels in Isa
33:8; Jer 9:11; 51:43; Ezek 14:15; 29:11; 33:28; 35:7).77 Both terms constitute
general descriptions of a devastated land where cities are in ruins and normal
socioeconomic life has been shattered. However, no explicit implications are
drawn from the devastation of the land or the experience of exile relative to
membership in the community.

	Furthermore, while the language in Zech 1-8 stresses the radical disrup-
tion of the Assyrian and Babylonian conquests, it does not view that situation
as having come to an end as yet. The complaint of the angel of Yahweh in 1:12,
set in the second year of Darius (1:7), still laments the depopulated state of
Jerusalem and the cities of Judah. Thus from the perspective of Zech 1-8 the
depopulated state caused by the disobedience of the ancestors persists despite
the arrival of such figures as Joshua, Zerubbabel, and Zechariah himself in
Jerusalem.78 Thus the perspective of Zech 1-8 is that of a sparsely populated
land looking forward to a better future. In sum, then, Zech 1-8 does not make
exile to Babylon a sine qua non of inclusion and holds a view of the commu-
nity of Yahweh that is open to all those who have genealogical links with the
northern and southern kingdoms as well as, through acknowledgement of
Yahweh, Gentiles who join themselves to him.

4.2 The Return of the Exiles and the End of the Diaspora

Zechariah 1-8 views the existence of the diaspora as provisional and some-
what anomalous. Several commentators have noticed this theme. Amsler
(74) suggests that the oracle in 2:10-11 “reminds the exiles of the abnormal
situation in which they find themselves, living in a foreign land.” Petitjean

________________________

	77. The allusion need not be one of total emptying but may reflect the absence or
impossibility of normal human travel and economic activities (Meyers and Meyers
1987:405).

	78. Petitjean (442) captures the perspective of Zech 1-8 as viewing the present
moment as a decisive juncture. He states, “From this perspective the present moment
marks a decisive change form the preceding decades. The recent past has been dominated
by the anger of Yahweh against the ancestors ... and the consequences of that judgment
still darken the existence of the community called to restoration.” He views the temple
refoundation ceremony as the definitive harbinger of better days ahead and the comple-
tion of the temple as ushering it in (443). Coggins (30) comments that “neither [Haggai
nor Zechariah] seems to be in any way aware that a turning point in the community’s
life—the ending of the exile—has been reached” (cf. Galling 1952)



[ Page ] 162	

(109) similarly suggests that via the language of 2:11 “the prophet places the
tragic condition of Israel in exile in stark relief.” Two elements in Zech 1-8
may account for such a malaise with the status quo. The first would appear to
stem from religious tradition. Like Haggai, Zech 1-8 draws significantly upon
broader Deuteronomistic theology. In that theological stream, particularly as
reflected in Deuteronomy, the Deuteronomistic History, and Jeremiah, there
is a close association between people and land. Disobedience to the covenant
results in loss of land (Deut 4:25-28; 28:64; 1 Kgs 14:15; 2 Kgs 17:18; 24:1-
4; Jer 7:34; 9:16), and renewal of covenant brings blessing in the land (Deut
28:1-14) or return to the land (Deut 30:3; Jer 29:14; 32:36-44). The hope of
regathering the exiles is found widely in a variety of prophetic traditions (Isa
11:12; 43:5; 54:7; 56:8; Ezek 11:17; 20:34; 37:21; Mic 2:12; Zeph 3:20; Zech
10:8, 10). The situation created by the events of the sixth-fifth centuries has
sometimes been described as a transition from a territorial to a nonterrito-
rial Yahwism or, alternatively, to a multicentric Yahwism (Petersen: 119-20).
While Zech 1-8 clearly accepts the reality of such a situation, it clearly views
it as an interim measure. In line with the broader Deuteronomistic and pro-
phetic outlook, Zech 1-8 sees Yahweh’s ultimate purposes as being fulfilled
only with the return of his people to the land.

	In addition to the weight of tradition, a second source of frustration was
the actual situation in Yehud, mentioned several times in the text. Zecha-
riah 1-8 is painfully aware of the existential reality of a depopulated Yehud
(1:12; 7:7, 14) and an extensive diaspora (2:2 [1:19]; 2:10-13 [6-9]; 7:14;
8:7). With the announcement of Yahweh’s return to Jerusalem (1:16; 2:9 [5];
15-16 [11-12]; 8:3), such an ongoing state of affairs would be incongruous
in the extreme.

	It will be immediately noticed that such a perspective stands in significant
tension with other contemporary and near-contemporary sources. Haggai
makes no explicit reference to the exile or return of the exiled population.79
While Ezra-Nehemiah recognizes the reality of the diaspora and the poten-
tial for return (Neh 1:8-9) it also recognizes the possibility of remaining in
exile and supporting the returnees (Ezra 1:3-5; see Williamson 1985:14-15).
Esther makes no mention of Jerusalem and affirms the presence and pro-
tection of Yahweh for those in exile.80 While it is sometimes assumed that
Zech 1-8 acknowledges the ongoing existence and legitimacy of the diaspora,

________________________

	79. See Galling 1952:76. On the hermeneutics of the book of Haggai and the possible
reason for such an omission, see Kessler 2002:271-75.

	80. Esther is usually assigned to the late-Persian or Hellenistic period; however, see
Friedberg 2000 for an argument in favor of an earlier dating. As a sideline it is interesting
to note that, from the perspective of Zech 1-8, the question of alternative cult sites would


[ Page ] 163

whose members periodically come in pilgrimage to Jerusalem, no unambigu-
ous allusion to such a community can be found.81

	Finally, it should be noted that, from a Zecharian perspective, the return
of the diaspora members is in some sense contingent upon the faithfulness
of the remnant community already in Yehud. The notion of the commu-
nity’s return to Yahweh is one that underpins 1:1-6 and 7:1-8:23. At times
such an ethical and religious renewal is described by the general terms swb
(1:4) or smr (6:15), while at other times more detail is given (5:3-5; 7:9-10).
What is most noteworthy is that in 6:15b the return of the exiles to rebuild
the temple is made conditional upon the diligent obedience (note the infini-
tive absolute of smr) of the community in Yehud. Some commentators would
attach this condition to either 15a (the recognition that the prophet has been
sent by Yahweh) or the entirety of 6:10-15.82 However, both suggestions are
unlikely. It is most probable that it is the return of the exiles to participate in
the rebuilding of the temple that is conditioned upon the obedience of the
community. In this sense the perspective here is like the “tent peg” imagery of
Ezra 9:8, where the refounded community at Jerusalem is viewed as a “foot-
hold” that has been gained through Yahwehs grace but that may ultimately be
lost if the community is unfaithful. The prophetic call to obedience is far from
optional: the community’s own future, in some sense, hinges on it. The for-
mulation in 6:15 is stock Deuteronomistic phraseology (Meyers and Meyers
1987:366). The return of the exiles and the resumption of normal existence in
the land, a situation for which the tiny community longed, are thereby made
conditional upon their own fidelity. Thus, in good Deuteronomistic form,
Zech 6:15 asserts that, just as the unfaithfulness of the fathers resulted in the
loss of the land, so the obedience of the present small remnant in the land will
play a role in the fulfillment of Yahweh’s ultimate purposes. Petitjean (444)
concludes, “In conformity to the ideology of the covenant, [Israel’s] privileges
demand in return a complete faithfulness to the demands connected with
divine favour. This explains the importance and the extent of the exhortations
which Zechariah sets forth ... to call community to a valid response to the
grace of the covenant.”

_____________________

be a temporary one at best. Given the ultimate return of Yahwehs people to Zion (not to
mention his presence there), what need would there be of such installations?

	81. As noted above, 8:23 could depict a diasporic pilgrimage to Zion, but even this is
not explicitly stated. If, however, such were the case, it would likely stand in tension with
the rest of Zech 1-8 and reflect ongoing theological reflection on the reality of life outside
the land.

	82. Meyers and Meyers (1987:366) make the establishment of a new temple in Yehud,
under the aegis of a Davidic dynasty, conditional on the peoples obedience.



[ Page ] 164	

4.3. The Vision of Zechariah 1-8 and the Israelite/Judean Communi-
ties of the Early Persian period

We turn, in conclusion, to the question with which we began: According to
Zech 1-8, how did the community in Yehud understand itself and its rela-
tionship to the other Israelite/Judean communities beyond it? I would suggest
that Zech 1-8 allows us to draw the following conclusions. (1) the people of
Yahweh, consisting primarily of the inhabitants of the northern and south-
ern kingdoms, constitute an expansive, multigenerational, and geographically
widespread body. (2) The center of this expansive entity is Jerusalem, wherein
Yahweh dwells. It thus forms the fixed point of reference for the people of
God. (3) The tiny community in Jerusalem (and, by extension, Yehud) con-
stitutes the firstfruits of a new epoch in the history of Yahweh and his people.
This small remnant is called to manifest worship and ethical integrity as a
means of demonstrating their solidarity with Yahweh in the ushering in of
the age to come. (4) In light of Yahweh’s return to Jerusalem and his coming
intervention in world history (see below), his people in exile are called to an
immediate and hasty return to Jerusalem/Yehud. If Zech 1-8 has a political
agenda with reference to other communities, it is surely at this point: the time
of dispersion is over; it is time to return home. (5) Whatever divisions may
have existed between the north and south or between various sectors of the
population, these fissures belonged to the past. Yahweh’s renewed presence
in Jerusalem served to vouchsafe the return and reunification of all who had
been scattered and the removal of the divisions between them. One diaspora
community was no “better” than another. (6) Although the new era of Yah-
weh’s dwelling with his people had dawned, the present situation constituted
the initial phase of a dramatic intervention of Yahweh, soon to be realized.
This element, stated boldly via the shaking of the cosmos and nations in Hag
2:6-9, 20-23, although less explicit in Zech 1-8, is still clearly present. Zecha-
riah 1-8 looks forward to a future decisive act of Yahweh. The “smiths” will
appear to put the “horns” to rout (2:4 [1:21]). Yahweh will surround Jeru-
salem as a wall of fire (2:9 [5]). Babylon would soon be judged as Yahweh
“shook his hand” (2:13 [9]) over it.83 The destruction of Babylon would be
fully accomplished (6:1-8). In the light of such an intervention, the exiles
were called to flee (2:10-11 [6-7]). But such flight was to be no mere human
effort, since Yahweh himself promised to save them and bring them safely to
Jerusalem and cause them to dwell there. In that great day (3:10, bywm hhw',

_______________________

	83. On the various terms involved in the imagery of shaking, and their origin and
significance, see Kessler 2002:175-79.



[ Page ] 165

a clearly eschatological term; see Hag 2:23) the community would dwell in
perfect peace.

	We have seen, then, that Zech 1-8 presents a vision of a regathered com-
munity around the reconstructed temple in Jerusalem. What kind of a vision
is this? How does it relate to the actual life situation of the community in
Yehud in the earlier years of Persian rule? What can it tell us about their
hopes, dreams, fears, and aspirations in the context the realities of life in an
economically struggling, sparsely populated, territorially reduced province of
the Persian Empire? First, this view of life is markedly concerned with ritual
and ethical concerns (evidenced in the construction, ordering, and cleansing
of the temple and its personnel [3:1-10; 4:1-14; 6:9-15] and the call to ethical
behavior [1:1-6; 5:1-11; 7:1-8:19]) but profoundly unconcerned with the more
mundane matters such as authorization and funding for travel and its atten-
dant dangers (2:10-13 [6-9]; cf. Ezra 1:1-6; 7:21-24; 8:15-36; Isa 43:1-21;
49:19-26), economic viability and land-tenure struggles in the land (1:17; 7:7,
14; 8:4-5; cf. Hag 1:3-11; Neh 5:1-5), political boundaries (see 7:7; cf. Ezra
6:6-12), and the like. Such concerns are evident in other sources. In Zech
1-8, however, the exiles are called to return and viewed as coming to reside
in Jerusalem and Yehud without any apparent attention to such practicali-
ties as imperial authorization for travel, the dangers of the journey, financial
considerations, land allocation and economic opportunities in Yehud, or even
the presence of provincial borders. All this suggests a highly idealized and
schematic image, formulated by a tiny community dreaming of its future and
reflecting on its past. The harsh realities of life in the land, together with the
undesirability of Yehud as a place of immigration (Blenkinsopp 2000:133-34),
would engender ongoing reflection on the timing, nature, and even feasibility
of such a return. Both the emergence of the pilgrimage as an interim measure
and the eschatologizing of the motif of the return would appear to be the fruit
of such reflection. Second, Zech 1-8 presents a highly inclusivistic, nonpo-
lemical, nonexclusionary perspective. There is no evidence of priestly disputes
or competition, no conflict between political and religious authorities, and
no heterodox and ethnically suspect worshipers of Yahweh from whom to
keep separate (cf. Ezra 2:62-63; 3; 10; Neh 9). Rather, the twin criteria of the
correct worship of Yahweh and commensurate ethical behavior form the
defining features of the community. Even Gentiles may be included among
the people of Yahweh (2:15 [11]). If the text unwittingly reveals any fears or
threats felt by the community, it would perhaps be that of the overpowering
smallness and insignificance of their undertaking and the risk that it might
all come to naught. As in Hag 2:1-4, the danger of “despising the day of small
things” (4:10) may have been (alongside ethical failure; cf. 5:1-4; 8:16-17)
the community’s greatest peril. Third, the vision reflected here is nostalgic



[ Page ] 166	

and restorationist, without being tied to the precise forms of the past. Floyd
(1997:142-43) has pointed out this aspect of the text with reference to the
text’s reconfiguration of earlier monarchic hopes. This is very much akin to
the adaptation of earlier traditions and institutions to changes circumstances
evident in Haggai (Kessler 2002:273-74). Zechariah 1-8 expresses the fer-
vent hope that Judah, Israel, and Jerusalem will once more be found in their
former abodes and that the ongoing life of Yahweh and his people, disrupted
by the disobedience of the ancestors, will resume. Fourth and finally, the
vision here reveals the profound anticipation of a coming, decisive interven-
tion of Yahweh. Babylon would be judged, the exiles would return, and even
non-Israelites would join in the worship of Yahweh and become his people.
All of this would come in short order. A new day was about to dawn.

	These four characteristics would seem to me to reflect the vision of a
community whose future stood before it and who painted upon that tabula
rasa enthusiastically with broad and bold strokes, anticipating the future acts
of God that would turn the impossible into reality. Such a perspective appears
to fit better in the late sixth/early fifth century than a later period.

	In conclusion, then, Zech 1-8 envisages the people of Yahweh as a col-
lective entity comprised of all the historic people of Yahweh, the “house of
Israel and the house of Judah” as well as those from among the nations. These
are gathered around Yahweh, who reigns from Jerusalem, in lives of ethical
integrity and in worship. Only a moment’s reflection is required to reveal the
highly enduring impact that this image has had.


***** This is the end of the e-text. This e-text was
brought to you by Tyndale University, 
J. William Horsey Library - Tyndale Digital Collections *****