Maarten J.J. Menken, «Striking the Shepherd. Early Christian Versions and Interpretations of Zechariah 13,7», Vol. 92 (2011) 39-59
This paper traces the development of the textual form and the interpretation of Zech 13,7 in the earliest known Christian texts in which this OT passage is quoted or alluded to (Mark 14,27; Matt 26,31; John 16,32; Barn. 5,12; Justin, Dial. 53,5-6). It starts with some observations on the Hebrew text and on some of the ancient versions, notably the LXX, which offers a peculiar rendering. Next, the early Christian versions and interpretations are discussed, and their relations are detected. Obscure apocalyptic texts often generate multiple meanings. Zech 13,7 proves to be no exception.
51
STRIKING SHEPHERD
THE
5. Barnabas 5,12
In Barnabas 5, the author of the epistle discusses the necessity
for Christ to appear and to suffer in the flesh. In this context, he
writes in 5,11-12a: “So the Son of God came in the flesh for this
purpose that he might bring to completion the full measure of the
sins for those who persecuted his prophets to death. So he endured
for this purpose.†He then continues his argument in 5,12b-d:
b legei gar o ueov thn plhghn thv sarkov aytoy oti ej
¥ ùΩ ù ù ù ˜ ù ß ˜™ ß
aytwn.
ߘ
c otan patajwsin ton poimena eaytwn,
™ ¥ ù ¥ Ω ˜
d tote apole˜tai ta probata thv poımnhv.
¥ ß ı ù ¥ ˜ ¥
I propose the following English translation:
b For God says that the blow inflicted on his flesh comes from
them ;
c when they strike their own shepherd,
d then the sheep of the flock will perish.
The combination of the words patassein, “to strikeâ€, poimhn,
¥ ¥
“ shepherd â€, probata, “sheepâ€, and a verb denoting an act that af-
Â¥
fects the sheep in a negative way (here apollynai, “to make per-
ß ¥
ish â€), unmistakably points to Zech 13,7 as the source of the clause.
The prophetic verse is applied to Jesus’ sufferings and death, just
as in Mark and Matthew.
My first question is: is this a marked or an unmarked quota-
tion ? To put it otherwise: is 5,12b a formula introducing a quota-
tion or not? In the wording in which I just presented it (legei gar
¥ ù
o ueov thn plhghn thv sarkov aytoy oti ej aytwn), it cannot
Ω ùù ù ˜ ù ß ˜™ ß ß˜
be an straight introductory formula, because the direct object of
legei, “he saysâ€, is not the paraphrase of Zech 13,7 in Barn.
Â¥
5,12cd but thn plhghn thv sarkov aytoy oti ej aytwn.
ù ù ˜ ù ß ˜™ ß ß˜
Without prolepsis , this object clause reads: oti h plhgh thv
™ Ω ù˜
36
sarkov aytoy ej aytwn (est¥n), “that the blow inflicted on his
ù ß ˜ß ߘ ß ı
flesh comes from themâ€.
mentary on the NT Use of the OT (eds. BEALE – CARSON) 415-512, esp. 496-
497 ; M. BLACK, “The Messianic Use of Zechariah 9–14 in Matthew, Mark, and
the Pre-Markan Traditionâ€, Scripture and Traditions. Essays on Early Judaism
and Christianity in Honor of Carl R. Holladay (eds. P. GRAY – G.R. O’DAY)
(NTS 129; Leiden 2008) 97-114, esp. 101 with n. 21.
See BLASS – DEBRUNNER, Grammatik, §476.
36