Mark J. Boda, «Freeing the Burden of Prophecy:Mas%s%a4) and the Legitimacy of Prophecy in Zech 9–14», Vol. 87 (2006) 338-357
Prior to the 1980’s the definition of the Hebrew term mas%s%a4) as a reference to
prophetic speech or literature, was largely dominated by etymological
argumentation. However, Richard Weis, in his 1986 Claremont dissertation
leveraged form-critical categories and evidence to argue that this term was a
formal tag defining a particular type of literature, an argument that has been
applied and developed by the subsequent work of Marvin Sweeney (Isaiah,
FOTL; Book of the Twelve, Berit Olam) and Michael Floyd (JBL 12.1 [2002] 401-
422). This paper offers a critical review of this history of research with a view to
its impact on the interpretation of Zechariah 9–14. A new proposal is put forward
for the use of this term in Zechariah 9–14, one that reveals the influence of
Jeremianic tradition and highlights concern over certain prophetic streams in the
community that produced these texts.
Freeing the Burden of Prophecy 341
ma¢¢Ë’, one which explores the various contexts in which ma¢¢Ë’
appears. It is this exploration that has led a few to the conclusion that
ma¢¢Ë’ functions as more than just a signal of a new section of
prophecy, but also as a genre tag that designates the material as a
particular type of prophecy (11).
II. Ma¢¢Ë’ as Form-Critical Tag
This view that ma¢¢Ë’ is a form-critical tag has been incorporated
into recent commentary work on prophetic literature by Marvin
Sweeney and Michael Floyd (12), but their work assumes and relies
upon the earlier and more extensive work of Richard Weis (13). Weis
argued that ma¢¢Ë’ is a genre tag denoting a prophetic explication of
an earlier divine word. One key implication of Weis’ work was that he
concluded that the genre showed a shift in the history of prophetism,
from a dynamic oral phenomenon to a fixed literary phenomenon.
(11) W.L. HOLLADAY – P.D. HANSON, Jeremiah. A Commentary on the Book
of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 1–25 (Hermeneia; Philadelphia 1986) I, 650,
concludes from his study of ma¢¢Ë’ in Jer 23 that this speech form was associated
with the establishment in Jerusalem and their false prophets because it was never
used of Jeremiah outside this passage. This does not account for the widespread
use of the term in other prophetic books. STOLZ, “acnâ€, 769-774, identified ma¢¢Ë’
as a genre tag which as a rule indicated the oracles against the nations (Isa 13,1;
15,1; Nah 1,1; cf. Isa 14,28 etc.), but which could (probably secondarily) refer
quite generally to prophetic address (Zech 9,1; 12,1; Mal 1,1) and can refer to a
prophetic vision (Hab 1,1) and even a prophetic announcement of judgement to an
individual (2 Kgs 9,25).
(12) M.A. SWEENEY, Isaiah 1–39 with an introduction to prophetic literature
(FOTL 16; Grand Rapids 1996) 213, 222, 534; SWEENEY, Twelve; M.H. FLOYD,
Minor Prophets, Part 2 (FOTL 22; Grand Rapids 2000); M.H. FLOYD, “The aC;m'
¯
(MA››A’) as a Type of Prophetic Bookâ€, JBL 121 (2002) 401-422. Sweeney sees
the previous revelation in Zechariah 9–11 and 12–14 as that of Isaiah. Floyd uses
2 Kgs 9,25-26 as the basis for his construction of the genre and then limits himself
to instances in the Book of the Twelve. He avoids the pitfalls of dubious theories
of the final form of Haggai-Malachi which plague Weis, but does not have to
account for issues in Isaiah and Jeremiah. For him the previous revelation in
Malachi is some form of the Torah; that of Zech 9–11 is Zech 1–8 and that of
Zech 12–14 is Zech 1–11. See also the recent dissertation of M.D. WOODCOCK,
“Forms and Functions of Hope in Zechariah 9–14†(Ph.D. diss., Fuller
Theological Seminary 2004), which assumes the results of Weis and Floyd.
(13) R. WEIS, “Definitionâ€. Although this work was never published, Weis did
provide a précis of his work in R. WEIS, “Oracleâ€, ABD (ed. D.N. FREEDMAN)
(New York 1992) V, 28-29.
FOLLOW US