part of the visions, and when the visions disappear, they disappear also. It might as reasonably be argued that the Prophet was bound in the latter portion of his prophecies to refer continually to Horses, Chariots, Candlesticks, Horns &c., because, forsooth, he had seen such in his visions!

(8) That (a) Exact dates are given in the former chapters, but none in the latter. So, too, are dates prefixed to Is. vi. 1, Ezek. i. 1—3, viii. 1, xl. 1, &c.-That (b) in chaps. i.-viii. introductory formulas constantly occur, which are wanting in the latter chapters. Similarly Hosea uses introductory formulas in the first five chapters, but none in the last nine. And yet (as we have said) no doubt is entertained of the integrity of that book.

Finally the argument from style must always be a doubtful one. Pusey has given an instance of the precarious nature of such arguments in the following. The Laws of Plato an acute German critic imagined to have proved from their style to be not the work of Plato. And yet Jowett (Transl. Plato Dialog. iv. p. 1) has shown their genuineness by 20 citations in Aristotle (who must have been intimate with Plato for some 17 years), by allusions of Isocrates (writing a year after Plato's death), by references of the comic poet Alexis (a younger contemporary), besides the unanimous voice of later antiquity. Further, critics of similar tendencies do not agree on points of style: e.g. Rosenmüller speaks of the first eight chapters as being "prosaic, feeble, poor," and of the remaining six as "poetic, weighty, concise, glowing," (comp. Maurer and Hitzig). Böttcher on the other hand says. "In comparison with the lifeless language of these chapters (ix.-xiv.), as to which we cannot at all understand how any can have removed them into so early pre-exile times, the Psalms attributed to the time of the Maccabees are amazingly fresh." When critics so disagree as to the respective merits of the styles of the two sections, it seems hardly worth while to consider the argument. We will merely remark, that neither sweeping statement is correct. In the first chapters when Zechariah is describing his visions, he uses the natural language of narrative, viz. prose. When (ii. 10-17, vi. 12, 13) he looks forward to the distant future, he speaks in glowing language such as will bear comparison with anything contained in the latter chapters.

(2) A difference with regard to the Historical Standpoint has been urged (a) in particular passages, (B) in the two sections generally.

(a) We have shown in the Commentary that the arguments of those who see in certain passages of chap. ix.-xiv. positive indications of the pre-exilian origin of these chapters are inconclusive. See especially "Remarks" on ix. 1—8, pp. 82–84; ix. 9—17, p. 90; x. 2, p. 91; x. 3-12, pp. 95, 96; xi. 1—3, p. 97, 8, p. 101; xi. 14, p. 104; xii. 1-9, p. 110, 111; xii. 11, p. 16; xiv. 5, p. 124; xiv. 1-21, p. 131, 132.

(B) With regard to the historical standpoint generally, it has been alleged that in chap. i-viii. the prophet is continually mentioning the rebuilding of the Temple, and the re-inhabiting of Jerusalem; while in chap. ix.—xiv. he is occupied with quite different matters. In the former he mentions his contemporaries, such as Zerubbabel and Joshua, but not so in the latter portion. As regards the Temple and the prophet's contemporaries this is perfectly true, but it is no argument for the pre-exilian authorship of chap. ix. -xiv., nor against their contents having been delivered by Zechariah. For, if our theory as to the date of these chapters be correct, they were written at a time when the rebuilding of the Temple had been long completed, and when those abuses of the Templeservice, which occupy so much of the attention of the Prophet Malachi, had not as yet crept in. The Prophet is occupied in the latter chapters with matters quite different from those with which he is concerned in the former chapters, hence the frequent recurrence in the latter section of the expression "in that day" (ix. 16, xii., xiii., xiv. passim). But, that in the latter section there is no mention of the re-inhabiting of Jerusalem is certainly untrue, see (ix. 16, 17), x. 6, 7, xii. 6, xiv. 10.

The arguments, however, against the pre-exilian origin of these chapters are not merely of a negative kind.

II. We now proceed to adduce from (a) parallel passages, (B) notes of time, &c., what we consider to be

Internal Evidence in favour of the hypothesis of the Post-exilian
Origin of Chap. ix.-xiv.

(a) The writer of chap. ix.-xiv. shows such a familiarity with the writings of the later prophets as seems to some reconcileable only with

the supposition that he wrote at a date posterior to them: thus with the so-called Deutero-Isaiah'. Compare

Zephaniah. Compare Zech. ix. 5, 6 with Zeph. ii. 4, 5.

Similarly chap. i.—viii., which are of undeniable post-exilian authorship, show a thorough acquaintance with the later prophets. Compare, for example :

chap. ii. 6 (E.V.) with Isa. xlviii. 20, or with Isa. lii. 11 and Jer. li. 6, 9; chap. ii. 9, 11 (E.V.), and chap. iv. 9, with Ezek. vi. 7, 10, xxxix, 10, &c.; chaps. iii. 8, vi. 12, with Jer. xxiii. 5, xxxiii. 15 (Isa. iv. 2) ;

chap. vi. 15 with Jer. xvii. 24;

1 The date of Is. xl.-lxvi. need not come under consideration here, since most critics who regard Zech. ix.—xiv.

as pre-exilian, consider Is. xl.-lxvi. as contemporary with the later prophets.

chap. vii. 5-10 with Isa. lviii. 3—7 ;

chap. vii. 9 with Ezek. xviii. 8, and Jer. vii. 5—7, xxii. 3 ;

chap. vii. 12 with Ezek. xi. 19;

chap. vii. 13 with Jer. xi. 11;

chap. vii. 14 with Jer. xvi. 13, &c. ;
chap. viii. 3 with Jer. xxxi. 23;

chap. viii. 4 with Isa. lxv. 20;

chap. viii. 6 with Jer. xxxii. 17, 27;

chap. viii. 7 with Isa. xliii. 6;
chap. vii. 8 with Isa. xlviii. 1.

This argument seemed so convincing to de Wette that, after having in the first three editions of his Einleitung declared for two authors, he felt compelled to change his mind, and in his fourth edition admitted the post-exilian origin of Chap. ix.—xiv., and even the possibility of their having been written by Zechariah. We are not, however, prepared to regard this argument as conclusive. We own the difficulty that there is in computing the exact weight due to the argument derived from the consideration of parallel passages, and concur with Cheyne's pertinent remarks on the subject (The Prophecies of Isaiah, II. p. 210):

"The argument from parallel passages is sometimes much overrated. How prone we are to fancy an imitation where there is none, has been strikingly shown by Munro's parallel between the plays of Shakspeare and Seneca (Journal of Philology, Vol. VI. Camb. 1876, pp. 70-72), and even when an imitation on one side or the other must be supposed, how difficult it is to choose between the alternatives !...A recent revolution of opinion among patristic students may be a warning to us not to be too premature in deciding such questions. It has been the custom to argue from the occurrence of almost identical sentences in the Octavius of Minucius Felix and the Apologeticum of Tertullian, that Minucius must have written later than the beginning of the third century, on the ground that a brilliant genius like Tertullian's cannot have been such a servile imitator as the hypothesis of the priority of Minucius would imply. But Adolf Ebert (Tertullians Verhältniss zu Minucius Felix) seems to have definitely proved that Tertullian not only made use of Minucius, but did not even understand his author rightly."

(B) There are certain notes of time, &c. in chaps. ix.—xiv. which seem to compel us to admit their post-exilian origin.

1. No mention is made of any king of Israel or Judah, except the Messiah (ix. 9). For chap. xi. 6 evidently refers to the different nations of the world (i. e. ha'adám means "mankind," and ha'áreç "the world"). The expression "from their hand" indicates that several kings are referred to: and so, if "his king" meant an Israelite king, the expression "(and each) into the hand of his king" would imply that each Israelite had a separate king. But the meaning is

"I will deliver mankind into the hand of one another and (each people) into the hand of its king."

2. The manner in which Greece is named (ix. 13) as the chief enemy of Zion (quite different from that of Joel iv. 6, Is. lxvi. 19), besides other historical references, which we have pointed out in our "Remarks," leave us no choice but to understand chap. ix.—xì. as descriptive of the Macedonian and Maccabean periods. While the prophecies of chap. xii.—xiv., which manifestly form one section, would be simply untrue if uttered in reference to any pre-exilian epoch.

3. Except in Mal. i. 1 the expression Massá d'bhár YHVH occurs only in chap. ix. 1 and xii. 1.

4. In xii. 11 a place in the tribe of Issachar is called by an Assyrian name.

The reader will perceive that the arguments adduced in II. (a) and (B) answer from the positive side of the argument those objections which in I. (a) and (B) we treated merely from the negative side.

We conclude, therefore, that chap. ix.-xiv. are, equally with chap. i.—viii., of post-exilian origin.

III. The Integrity of Chap. ix.-xiv.

The theory, which Bunsen has called one of the triumphs of modern criticism, that chap. ix.-xi. and chap. xii.—xiv. are the work of two different prophets: viz. chap. ix.-xi. that of a contemporary of Isaiah, perhaps Zechariah son of Jeberechiah (Is. viii. 2), and chap. xii.-xiv. possibly that of Urijah son of Shemaiah (Jer. xxvi. 20-23), falls to the ground with the establishment of the post-exilian origin of the whole section. Archbishop Newcombe, who originated this theory, concluded that chap. ix.—xi. were written much earlier than the time of Jeremiah, and before the captivity of the tribes; but was not so positive as his followers with regard to the pre-exilian authorship of chap. xii.-xiv., though he thinks the mention of idols (xiii. 2) to be in favour of that supposition. We must, therefore, discuss a little more fully what have been termed the grounds for separating chap. xii.-xiv. from chap. ix.-xi.

(1) Chap. xi. has a distinct introductory formula. But since this formula is the same as that of chap. ix. 1, and that a formula which recurs only in Mal. i. 1, this