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.
344 Mark J. Boda
him to highlight the “common thread†in all these texts: “the
explication of certain events in human affairs as manifesting the
revealed will and/or act of YHWH†(18). In seven texts the explicated
speech of YHWH is actually quoted (Isa 14,29; 15; 21; 22; 23 Nah 1;
Mal 1). In other texts, that which is explicated is a vision (Isa 21; in
Hab 1 a vision is clearly presupposed), YHWH’s plan (Isa 19; 23,
although not quoted is explicitly cited), or a symbolic action (Ezek 12).
Six other texts do not follow this pattern. Two of them lack an explicit
quotation (Isa 13; Zech 12), while the four remaining (2 Kgs 9; Isa 17;
21; 30) do not constitute a serious deviation from this pattern. Isa 21
presupposes an absence of such a speech. Both Isa 30 and 2 Kgs 9
explicate points where the existing YHWH speech is unclear or silent
either within itself (Isa 30) or in relation to the human situation as well
(2 Kgs 9).
For Weis, his investigation has suggested a common problem or
situation to which the texts respond: “indeterminacy in respect to a
piece of YHWH revelation whether within the revelation itself or
between the revelation and human affairs and events†(19). Evidence for
this is culled from Isa 14,29; 15; 21 which respond at least to some
indeterminacy in the YHWH revelation itself, Isa 17 which responds to
indeterminacy within the YHWH revelation and Isa 22; Nah 1; Hab 1;
Mal 1 all of which give clear evidence within themselves that they
respond to a disjuncture, an indeterminacy, in the relation between the
YHWH revelation and human affairs and events (20).
c) Ma¢¢Ë’ texts in their present literary contexts
Weis’ final stage is an evaluation of the ma¢¢Ë’ texts in their
present literary contexts. Here he finds similar evidence. The ma¢¢Ë’in
2 Kgs 9,26 connects a preexisting expression of divine intention with
concrete human events. The ma¢¢Ë’ texts in Isa 13-23 function within
the book of Isaiah to explicate the relation between the existing
expression of YHWH’s intention (found in Isa 2–4) and specific,
concrete historical entities and events (21). Isa 30,6-7 explicates the woe
oracle found in Isa 30,1-5, while Ezek 12,11-16 explicates the sign act
of Ezek 12,1-10. Hab 1,2–2,20 presents a problem in the community’s
(18) Ibid., 228.
(19) Ibid., 229.
(20) Ibid., 230.
(21) Ibid., 245.
FOLLOW US