130. - Collection Point® | The Total Digital Asset Management System

3. The Structure of Individual Sections of Zechariah 209
the historical problems raised by this chapter: who the 'three
shepherds' were, or even the general era from which this unit came.
We know that ch. 11 is symbolic rather than a real account of a
prophetic action, as is proved beyond doubt by the expressions
'destroyed three shepherds' and 'covenant with all the peoples' (even
'people' would be enough).
We know that it refers to a historical situation in which the people
(sheep) were oppressed by their leaders (shepherds, buyers and
sellers, 'each.. .his king', and possibly D'lBD). 1 Yahweh decides to do
1. The vast majority of modern commentators accept the emendation 'for the
traffickers of the sheep' for good reasons:
a. MT is difficult if not impossible to understand; arguments 1 and 3 offered
below are invalid, for there are no analogies for these idioms.
b. It is easy to see how the mistake could have occurred: it only requires the
mistaken division of the consonantal text at a stage before final forms were
known.
c. LXX largely supports the emendation: eiq xfiv Xavaavmv in v. 7 and oi
Xavavcuov in v. 11.
Arguments to support the MT have been:
a. 'Verily' (= p 1 ?) is a possible translation in v. 7, and this fits well after
'sheep of slaughter', especially if we accept RVm: 'verily the most
miserable of sheep'.
b. The prophet did not shepherd the sheep 'for the traffickers. ..' and the
sense of MT is better.
c. p in v. 11, makes good sense if translated 'thus' or 'of a truth' (RV,
RVm, respectively).
d. It is more difficult to see how MT could have changed to LXX than vice
versa, especially when '3i«3 occurs in Zech. 14.21.
e. The versions read the same text as MT: Vulg. definitely, Syr. and Targ.
probably.
For further details see Rudolph, Haggai, p. 202: Saeb0, 'Die deuterosacharjanische
Frage', pp. 75-76.
Concerning the meaning of the passage, the points at issue are comparatively
minor, as Willi-Plein also notes (Prophetic am Ende, pp. 53-56). In v. 7 we have
an incidental reference of one sort or another: a further description of the flock as
'poor', or the statement that the shepherd worked for the 'traffickers'. In v. 11 it is a
matter of whether the sheep or the traffickers (a) recognized the word of Yahweh,
and (b) paid the prophet his wages. On balance I think the emendation is the better
choice.