ZACCARIA, PROFETA. — The penultimate of the minor prophets. His name (Zéhharjâh, “Jahweh remembers”) aptly corresponds to the content of his prophecy. Son of Barachiah and grandson of Addo, he was of priestly descent (Zach. 1:1; Esd. 5:1; 6:14; Neh. 12:16). He was a contemporary of Aggeo; he pronounced the first prophecy preserved in his book in the eighth month of the second year of Darius I, that is, in October–November 520 B.C., two months after Aggeo’s first discourse (Zach. 1:1, 7); ch. 7:1 dates from the fourth year of Darius (518 B.C.). He is not to be confused with the Z. of Mt. 23:35 (cf. II Par. 24:20 ff.).
Aggeo and Z. infused new ardor into the hearts of the returned exiles, who had become discouraged by the difficulties encountered in rebuilding the Temple. The first caravan of the returnees, in 537, Zorobabel (v.) and the high priest Giosuè; they numbered approximately 40,000 from the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, for the most part priests and Levites, and settled in Jerusalem and its environs. Seven months after their return they erected the altar and began rebuilding the Temple (Estd. 1–3). But the fierce hostility of the neighboring peoples, led by the Samaritans, induced the suspicious Persian court to have the work suspended.
When they began the long journey through the desert on their return to their homeland, the exiles considered themselves “the true people of Jahweh,” “the remnant” or “holy seed” that Jahweh had reserved for himself (Estd. 2:2 b; 9:8; Agg. 1:12). They thought that the promises of prosperity filling the second part of Is. and Ez. 34:25–31; 35; 36; 47 would be fulfilled in them; these are the chapters to which Zach. 9–14 especially refers. Instead, as appears from Esd. 3–4 and from Neemia, they found none of the happiness they had dreamed of, but rather the usual life, burdened with greater labor and threatened by dangers of every kind. From the dream of their loftiest hopes they had fallen into the harshest experience of reality; cf. Ps 126 (125) and 85 (84).
The prophecies described the part that Jahweh would play in the reborn theocracy and joined to it the messianic kingdom, which was its consummation and perfection; but it was necessary not to confuse the two stages of the rebirth: the preparatory and the definitive. Only the latter, that is, the kingdom of the Messiah, referred to many of the most beautiful prophetic promises. Aggeo and Z. intervened to reanimate the faithful; they caused the rebuilding of the Temple to be resumed and completed, with the consequent restoration of worship: the first step in the national rebirth. The work, resumed in the second year of Darius, was completed in the sixth year, 515 B.C. (Estd. 5–6).
The book of Z., already called by St. Jerome “most obscure” and “the longest among the twelve minor prophets” (PL 25, 1417), consists of two clearly distinct parts (linked by chs. 7–8): the eight “night” visions (chs. 1–6) and the prophecies (chs. 9–14). In the visions as in the discourses, the subject developed is one and the same: the sure realization of the rebirth promised by Jahweh and of the punishment of the neighboring peoples announced by Ez. 35–36; its permanence, with triumph over the violent attacks of the nations (Ez. 38–39 = Zach. 9:14; cf. Dam. 7–12); for the new theocracy is in operation, as the immediate preparation for the kingdom of the Messiah, by which it will be raised up and “absorbed.” The returnees, therefore, are the object of the “jealousy of Jahweh”; they are called “the daughter of Sion” (1:14), “the people of Jahweh” (8:8, 12); they are the “remnant” of Israel (8:6, 11), the object of divine blessings; Jahweh dwells among them and once again establishes his dwelling place in Jerusalem (2:9, 14; Volg. 2:5, 10).
In the first vision (horsemen, or instruments of divine justice: 1:7–17), formal assurance is given of the nation’s rebirth and of the punishment of the Nations. Where was the fulfillment of the prophecies concerning the prosperous rebirth of the new Israel on the hills of Palestine and the punishment of Edom and the other peoples who, rejoicing in the ruin of Judah, had despised Jahweh? (cf. Ez. 35; 36:1–5, 33–36; etc.). Jahweh replies: “I am exceedingly jealous for Jerusalem and for Sion; and I am exceedingly angry with these Nations now at ease, who, when I was somewhat angry with my people, helped to increase its misfortune.” The hour, the Lord assures them, of my benevolence toward Judah has come: the new Israel is now arising. “Jahweh will once again regard Sion, and once again make Jerusalem his beloved city”; while the punishment of the Nations is certain (2:1–4: Volg. 1:18–21). Israel will have in Jahweh its defender and will embrace an immeasurable multitude (cf. Ez. 36:10 ff.; 37). Therefore Z. invites the exiles still in Babylon to return to their homeland, in order to share in the extraordinary glory of the new community, which will “embrace many nations” and have the Lord at its center (2:5–17: Volg. 2:1–13). The emphasis on the immeasurable multitude and on the conversion of the nations (cf. Iz. 2:3 ff.; Mc. 4:2) recalls the kingdom of the Messiah, the ultimate and definitive goal of restored Israel, guided by the priesthood and by the Davidic prince. The Jewish priesthood (ch. 3), now purified, will attend to everything concerning worship (v. 7); Giosuè and his priests are the sign and pledge of the rebuilding of the Temple and the restoration of worship (v. 8), an essential part of restored Israel. Zorobabel is associated with Giosuè (v. 8 b); together they will complete the work begun, to which the Lord reserves the final touch (v. 9). Zorobabel (ch. 4) is entrusted with the material construction of the Temple, Giosuè with worship: the former in particular must rely solely on the action of God. Jahweh will overcome all the difficulties that appear humanly insurmountable. An essential element of reborn, purified Israel is holiness (ch. 5). As the ephah is carried to Babylon, so iniquity is about to be banished forever from the young Jewish community. As with the material rebuilding, so with spiritual perfection: Jahweh proceeds gradually, working through the prophets and his other representatives toward Israel’s progressive sanctification. Chapter 6 follows with the exaltation of Giosuè (vv. 9–11) and that of Zorobabel (vv. 12–15). The latter realizes the messianic hope insofar as he is the root from which the Messiah will be born. The bond emerges once again between the new Israel, which is arising, and the kingdom of the Messiah, which will succeed it; the former is temporary and preparatory. Furthermore, the purpose of the Sinai covenant is brought into focus, now restricted to the single tribe of Judah: a covenant embodied in the promise made by Jahweh to David. This rebirth of the covenant, this wondrous work (the new theocracy), is the exclusive fruit of God’s love (8:2) and his omnipotence (8:6 ff.); through it the essence of the covenant is realized: “Behold, I save my people; I bring them back from the lands of the East … so that they may dwell in Jerusalem; they shall be my people and I shall be their God in faithfulness and justice” (8:8). Therefore let the returnees take courage; they are the object of Jahweh’s choicest blessings (8:14 ff.): “As I had resolved to do you harm when your fathers provoked me to anger … and I had no compassion, so, on the contrary, in these days I have resolved to do good to Jerusalem and to the house of Judah; do not fear!” In return, Jahweh requires, besides worship (3:1–8), the practice of justice (8:16 ff.).
In chs. 7–8, in response to the question of the pious faithful of Bethel as to whether the fast days in the fourth, fifth, seventh, and tenth months, freely undertaken by the exiles to commemorate the fall and sack of Jerusalem and the Temple (58 B.C.), should be observed, Z. replies that it is much more important to observe the precept given to the fathers: “Be just in judgment, practice love and mercy, each toward his brother” (7:9); thus the days of fasting will be changed into days of joy, and the peoples will come to Jerusalem to worship the Lord (ch. 8).
The second part presents the same themes as chs. 1–6, with the messianic prophecies predominating and being developed. Puni-
zione delle genti finitime (9, 1-7 = 2, 1-4), e protezione del risorto Israele (9, 8) con la realizzazione del Regno del Messia, re pacifico, su tutte le genti (cf. Ps. 72, 8); invito agli altri esuli di rientrare a far parte della rinata teocrazia (9, 9-12 = 2, 5-17). La protezione di Jahweh si manifesta quando le genti (qui specificate: gli ellenisti 9, 13) aggrediranno Israele (9, 13-17 = Ez. 38-39). Nel c. 10 Z. riprende l'idea svolta da Ezechiele specialmente nei cc. 34 e 38-39. Il disastro nazionale fu castigo dell'infedeltà di Giuda e non difetto della potenza di Jahweh; questa, insieme alla sua misericordia, si è dimostrata nel ritorno degli esuli, preceduto dalla loro conversione; e si mostrerà nel trionfo futuro contro lo schiacciante attacco delle genti. Questo tema è continuato nei cc. 12-13, per essere concluso nel c. 14 con l'immagine di Gerusalemme fonte di salvezza per tutti (Zach. 14, 8-11 = Ez. 47, 1-11).
Non c'è alcun dubbio sulla autenticità della 1ª parte; mentre la critica acatolica è quasi concorde nel denegare a Z. la 2ª parte, anche se poi non sa più come risolvere positivamente l'origine e l'esegesi di questi capitoli, Basti considerare le principali soluzioni proposte. 1) H. L. Strack, E. Koenig, Orelli pongono i cc. 9-11 prima del 722 a. C., i cc. 12-14 prima del 587 (sarebbero stati composti dopo la morte di Iosia nella battaglia di Megiddo); 2) B. Stade, B. Duhm, K. Marti, E. Sellin rimettono 9-14 a dopo l'esilio (sec. III o II a. C.); 3) alcuni recenti attribuiscono: cc. 9-11 ad un contemporaneo di Osea o di Isaia, cc. 12-13 a un contemporaneo di Geremia, c. 14 ad un ignoto dopo l'esilio (E. Sellin). Tra gli argomenti letterari è noto quello desunto da 9, 13 dove son nominati «i figli di Iavan», cioè i Greci, per quanti sostengono l'origine più recente di questa 2ª parte. L'espressione è considerata una glossa da van Hoonacker, Nowack e Mitchell; e tale soluzione non è da trascurare; sebbene non sia necessaria, per chi riconosce la soprannaturalità dell'ispirazione profetica (cf. Is. 45, 1). L'argomento principale, come ben sintetizza A. Clamer, starebbe nella differenza delle «concezioni escatologiche» tra la prima e la seconda parte; in quest'ultima si ha l'attacco di tutte le nazioni contro Gerusalemme (14, 2), la fonte che esce dalla capitale (13, 1), il carattere «apocalittico» della descrizione di Zach. 14, elementi che esulano dalla prima parte. Prima però di parlare di opposizione è più saggio studiare oggettivamente se è impossibile un rapporto: se non ci sia piuttosto un armonico sviluppo tra le due parti (H. Junker, cit. in bibl., p. 113). Questa armonia c'è; basti rifarsi alle profezie di Ezechiele (cc. 34-39, 47). È inutile parlare di genere o carattere «apocalittico», quando si riscontra il complesso profetico adoperato da Ezechiele. Recentemente, con i soli criteri interni, viene affermata l'unità della seconda parte (cf. Delcor), già sostenuta d'altronde da van Hoonacker, Junker ed altri.
Il testo ebraico, nel complesso, è ben conservato. L. G. Rignell conclude dopo un'accurata analisi, per i primi 6 cc., che il testo masoretico non deve essere indebitamente corretto; le lezioni delle altre versioni hanno un valore inferiore al testo ebraico; e così molti passi, ordinariamente ritenuti glosse, vanno invece conservati (ad es., 1, 9 b; 2, 4, 10, 12, 13 ecc.); versetti considerati corrotti o fuori posto offrono invece un testo intelligibile e coerente (ad es., 1, 8; 3, 4, 9; 4, 2, 6 ecc.): cf. Revue biblique, 58 (1951), p. 467 sg.
Sacra, 99-103 (1942-46); A. Jepsen, Kleine Beiträge zum Zwölfprophetenbuch. III, 4 Sacharia, in Zeitschrift für alttestam. Wissenschaft, 61 (1945-48), pp. 95-114; C. Brouwer, Wachter en Herder (Zach. 11 e 13,7 seg.), Wageningen 1949; K. Elliger, Ein Zeugnis aus der jüdischen Gemeinde im Alexanderjahr 33: V. c., in Zeits. f. a. W., 62 (1949 seg.), pp. 63-115; A. Clamer, s. V. in DThC, XV (1950), coll. 3648-70; E. E. Le Bas, Zachariah's contribution to the dormer stone (3,8 seg.), in Palestine exploration quarterly, 82 (1950), pp. 102-22; 83 (1951), pp. 139-55; M. Delcee, Les allusions à Alexandre le Grand dans Zach. 9, 18, in Vetus Testamentum, 1 (1951), pp. 110-24; id., Un problème de critique textuelle et d'exégèse: Zach. 12, 10, in Revue biblique, 58 (1951), pp. 189-99; id., Les sources du Deutéro-Zacharie et ses procédés d'emprunt, ibid., 59 (1952), pp. 385-411; H. J. Fugman, The messianic teachings of Zech. 9-14, Southern 1950; L. Rost, Bemerkungen zu Sacharia 4, in Zeits. f. a. W., 63 (1951), pp. 216-21; *K. Galling, Die Exilierende in der Sicht des Propheten Sacharia, in Vetus Testamentum, 2 (1952), pp. 18-36; F. Spadafora, Collettivismo e individualismo nel Vecchio Testamento, Rovigo 1953, pp. 266-75. Francesco Spadafora