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.
350 Mark J. Boda
Finally, Weis treats the word ma¢¢Ë’ as a genre tag very early on in
his work, but he fails to substantiate it as an established genre. Such
emic tags are very rare in the Hebrew Bible and when they do appear
are usually more general than the precise tags that are used today in
form criticism (see for instance Hab 3,1). No one would consider “the
word of the Lord†in Jer 46,1 and Ezek 1,3 as genre tags, no more than
one would consider the “vision concerning Judah and Jerusalem†in
Isaiah 1,1 as such (31). It may be that Oswalt is on the right track when
he notes how ma¢¢Ë’ and dËbËr both are placed in the same syntactical
spot prior to the phrase ≈/ma;AˆB, Why:[]v'y“ hz:j; rv,a} in both Isaiah 2,1 and
13,1, suggesting that they are synonyms (32).
In summary, then, a focused evaluation of Weis reveals that this
recent argument cannot be sustained. Ma¢¢Ë’ is no more a genre tag
than are phrases like “word of the Lord†or “vision of X prophetâ€. As
Goldingay, in his work on Isaiah, wisely notes: “To judge from the
contents, massa’ does not necessarily suggest an oracle in the narrow
sense of an actual word from Yahweh. It can be (among other things)
an imaginative picture, a lament, or a poem—in other words, any kind
of prophetic composition†(33). It appears to be a general tag denoting
prophetic revelation and, thus, unhelpful for form critical research,
except for identifying in a general way the presence of prophetic
literature. This also brings into question the tradition-historical
argument that prophecy had shifted from oral to written and was no
longer a dynamic movement. Nevertheless, this still leaves us with the
quandary as to the significance of this editorial marker in the books of
Zechariah and Malachi, and this significance is highlighted through a
closer look at the traditio-historical relationship between the book of
Jeremiah and Zechariah 9–14.
III. Ma¢¢Ë’ as tradition-historical marker
1. hw:hy“Arb'd“ aC;m' in Zechariah 9–14 and Malachi
In order to see this traditio-historical relationship let us introduce
one aspect of Floyd’s later work on ma¢¢Ë’ (34). Floyd notes in his work
(31) Cf. also M. SÆBØ, “Die deuterosacharjanische Frage: eine forschungs-
geschichtliche Studieâ€, ST 23 (1969) 140.
(32) J. OSWALT, The Book of Isaiah. Chapters 1–39 (NICOT; Grand Rapids
1986) 296, n. 1.
(33) J. GOLDINGAY, Isaiah (NIBC; Peabody 2001) 91.
¯
(34) FLOYD, “MA››A’â€, 401-422.
FOLLOW US