za-a-na’-im.

See ZAANANNIM.

za’-a-nan (tsa‘anan; Sennaar): A place named by Micah in the Shephelah of Judah (1:11). In this sentence the prophet makes verbal play with the name, as if it were derived from yatsa’," to go forth": "The inhabitant (margin "inhabitress") of tsa’anan is not come forth" (yatse’ah). The place is not identical. It is probably the same as ZENAN.

za-a-nan’-im, elon betsa‘anayim; or betsa‘anannim Codex Vaticanus Besamiein; Codex Alexandrinus Besananim (Jos 19:33); in Jud 4:11 Codex Vaticanus translates it as pleonektounton, and Codex Alexandrinus has anapauomenon): In Jos 19:33 the King James Version reads "Allon to Zaanannim," the Revised Version (British and American) "the oak in Zaanannim," the Revised Version margin "oak (or terebinth) of Bezaanannim." In Jud 4:11 the King James Version reads "plain of Zaanaim," the Revised Version (British and American) "oak in Zaanannim." It is probable that the same place is intended in the two passages. It was a place on the southern border of the territory of Naphtali (Joshua), and near it the tent of Heber the Kenite was pitched (Judges). The absence of the article before ‘elon shows that the "be" is not the preposition before "z", but the first letter of the name, which accordingly should be read "Bezaanannim." We should naturally look for it near Adami and Nekeb. This agrees also with the indications in Judges, if the direction of Sisera’s flight suggested in MEROZ (which see) is correct. The Kadesh, then, of Jud 4:11 may be represented by the ruin Qadish on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee; and in the name Khirbet Bessum, about 3 miles Northeast of Tabor, there is perhaps an echo of Bezaanannim.

W. Ewing

za’-a-van (za‘-awan, meaning unknown): A Horite descendant of Seir (Ge 36:27; 1Ch 1:42). In 1 Chronicles, Lucian has Zauan = Samaritan z-w-‘-n i.e. Zaw‘an, from a root meaning "to tremble," "fear" (see ..., BDB). King James Version has "Zavan" in 1 Chronicles.

za’-bad (zabhadh, perhaps a contraction for (1) zebhadhyah, "Yahweh has given," i.e. Zebadiah; or (2) zabhdi’el, "El (God) is my gift" (HPN, 222 f); Zabed(t), with many variants):

(1) A Jerahmeelite (1Ch 2:36,37), son of Nathan (see NATHAN, IV).

(2) An Ephraimite, son of Tahath (1Ch 7:21).

(3) Son of Ahlai (1Ch 11:41) and one of David’s mighty men (the name is wanting in 2Sa 23:24-29).

(4) Son of Shimeath the Ammonitess (2Ch 26); he was one of the murderers of King Joash of Judah; called "Jozacar" in 2Ki 12:21 (Hebrew verse 22). Perhaps the name in Chronicles should be Zacar (zakhar),

(5) Name of three men who had married foreign wives:

(a) son of Zattu (Ezr 10:27)=" Sabathus" of 1 Esdras 9:28;

(b) son of Hashum (Ezr 10:33) =" Sabanneus" of 1 Esdras 9:33;

(c) son of Nebo (Ezr 10:43) =" Zabadeas" of 1 Esdras 9:35.

David Francis Roberts

zab-a-de’-anz (Zabadaioi; the King James Version Zabadeans; Oesterley, in Charles, Apocrypha, I, 112, prefers, on what seems insufficient evidence, to read "Gabadeans"; Josephus (Ant., XIII, v, 10) by an obvious error has "Nabateans"): According to 1 Macc 12:31, an Arabian tribe, defeated and spoiled by Jonathan after his victory in Hamath and before he came to Damascus. There is an ez-Zebedani about 25 miles Northwest of Damascus (now a station on the railway to Beirut), on the eastern slope of the Anti-Lebanon range. This town may very well have preserved the name of the Zabadaeans, and its situation accords nicely with Jonathan’s movements in 1 Macc 12.

Burton Scott Easton

zab-a-da’-yas. The King James Version = the Revised Version (British and American) ZABADEAS (which see)

zab-a-de’-as (Zabadaias; the King James Version Zabadaias): One of the sons of Nooma who put away their foreign wives (1 Esdras 9:35) =" Zabad" of Ezr 10:43.

zab’-a-i, zab’-i ( zabbay, meaning unknown; Zabou):

(1) One of those who had married foreign wives (Ezr 10:28) =" Jozabdus" of 1 Esdras 9:29.

(2) Father of Baruch (Ne 3:20). The Qere has zakkay =" Zaccai"of Ezr 2:9; Ne 7:14.

zab’-ud (zabbudh, meaning uncertain; Ezr 8:14, where Kere is zakkur and Kethibh is zabhudh =" Zabud"; 1 Esdras 8:40 has "Istalcarus"): A companion of Ezra on his journey from Babylon to Jerusalem.

zab-de’-us (Zabdaios): In 1 Esdras 9:21 =" Zebadiah" of Ezr 10:20.

zab’-di (zabhdi>, perhaps "(a) gift of Yahweh" or "my gift" = New Testament "Zebedee"):

(1) An ancestor of Achan (Jos 7:1,17,18). Some Septuagint manuscripts and 1Ch 2:6 have "Zimri" (zimri); "the confusion of the Hebrew letter beth (b) and the Hebrew letter mem (m) is phonetic; the confusion of the Hebrew letter daleth (d) and the Hebrew letter resh (r) is graphic" (Curtis, Chronicles, 86).

See ZIMRI, (3).

(2) A Benjamite, son of Shimei (1Ch 8:19), and possibly a descendant of Ehud (Curtis).

(3) "The Shiphmite," one of David’s officers who had charge of the wine-cellars (1Ch 27:27). The Septuagint’s Codex Vaticanus has Zachrei (probably Zichri).

(4) An ancestor of Mattaniah (Ne 11:17). Luc. and 1Ch 9:15 have "Zichri."

See ZICHRI, I, 2.

David Francis Roberts

zab’-di-el (zabhdi’el, "my gift is El (God)"; Zabdiel):

(1) Father of Jashobeam (1Ch 27:2), or rather Ishbaal (Curtis, Chronicles, 290 f).

(2) An overseer of the priests (Ne 11:14).

(3) An Arabian who beheaded Alexander Balas and sent his head to Ptolemy (1 Macc 11:17).

za’-bud (zabhudh, "bestowed"):

(1) A son of Nathan (the prophet, probably) said in Kings to be chief minister to Solomon and also the king’s friend (1Ki 4:5; 1Ch 2:36). The American Revised Version margin has "priest" for "chief minister." Benzinger (Kurz. Hand-Commentary, 18) holds that "this expression is a marginal gloss here," while Kittel (Handkomm., 31) holds it to be genuine, though it is wanting in the Septuagint. Some suggest cokhen (see SHEBNA) for kohen. The expression "king’s friend" (compare 2Sa 15:37; 16:16) is, says Kittel, an old Canaanite title, found also in the Tell el-Amarna Letters.

(2) See ZACCUR, (4); PRIESTS AND LEVITES.

David Francis Roberts

zab’-u-lon (Zaboulon): Greek form of "Zebulun" of Mt 4:13,16; Re 7:8 the King James Version.

zak’-a-i, zak’-i.

See ZABBAI, (2).

za-ke’-us (Zakchaios, from zakkay, "pure"):

(1) A publican with whom Jesus lodged during His stay in Jericho (Lu 19:1-10). He is not mentioned in the other Gospels. Being a chief publican, or overseer, among the tax-gatherers, Zaccheus had additional opportunity, by farming the taxes, of increasing that wealth for which his class was famous. Yet his mind was not entirely engrossed by material considerations, for he joined the throng which gathered to see Jesus on His entrance into the city. Of little stature, he was unable either to see over or to make his way through the press, and therefore scaled a sycomore tree. There he was singled out by Jesus, who said to him, "Zacchaeus, make haste, and come down; for to-day I must abide at thy house" (Lu 19:5). The offer thus frankly made by Jesus was accepted eagerly and gladly by Zaccheus; and the murmurings of the crowd marred the happiness of neither. How completely the new birth was accomplished in Zaccheus is testified by his vow to give half of his goods to the poor, and to make fourfold restitution where he had wrongfully exacted. The incident reveals the Christian truth that just as the publican Zaccheus was regarded by the rest of the Jews as a sinner and renegade who was unworthy to be numbered among the sons of Abraham, and was yet chosen by our Lord to be His host, so the social outcast of modern life is still a son of God, within whose heart the spirit of Christ is longing to make its abode. "For the Son of man came to seek and to save that which was lost" (Lu 19:10).

(2) An officer of Judas Maccabeus (2 Macc 10:19). (3) A Zaccheus is mentioned in the Clementine Homilies (iii.63) as having been a companion of Peter and appointed bishop of Caesarea.

(4) According to the Gospel of the Childhood, by Thomas, Zaccheus was also the name of the teacher of the boy Jesus.

C. M. Kerr

zak’-ur.

See ZACCUR.

zak’-ur (zakkur, perhaps "ventriloquist" (Gray, Nu, 137)):

(1) Father of Shammua the Reubenite spy (Nu 13:4).

(2) A Simeonite (1Ch 4:26); the King James Version "Zacchur."

(3) Levites: (a) a Merarite (1Ch 24:27); (b) a "son" of Asaph (1Ch 25:2,10; Ne 12:35); (c) Ne 10:12 (Hebrew verse 13), and probably the same as in Neb 13:13, father of Hanan.

(4) A marginal reading in Ezr 8:14 for Zabbud where Kethibh is really "Zabud".

See ZABBUD.

(5) Son of Imri and one of the builders of Jerusalem (Ne 3:2).

David Francis Roberts

zak-a-ri’-a (Zacharias; the King James Version, Zacharias):

(1) The son of Barachiah, who, Jesus says, was slain between the temple and the altar (Mt 23:35; Lu 11:51). The allusion seems to be to the murder of Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada (2Ch 24:20 ). In this case "Barachiah" would seem to be a gloss which has crept into the text through confusion with the name of the father of the prophet Zechariah, BERECHIAH (which see).

(2) See ZECHARIAH.

zak-a-ri’-as (Zacharias):

(1) One of the "rulers of the temple" at the time of Josiah’s Passover (1 Esdras 1:8) =" Zechariah" of 2Ch 35:8.

(2) One of the "holy singers" at Josiah’s Passover (1 Esdras 1:15); the name stands in place of "Heman" in 2Ch 35:15.

(3) In 1 Esdras 6:1; 7:3 = the prophet Zechariah.

(4) One of the sons of Pharos who returned with Ezra at the head of his family (1 Esdras 8:30) =" Zechariah" of Ezr 8:3, and perhaps identical with (5).

(5) One of the "men of understanding" with whom Ezra consulted when he discovered the absence of priests and Levites (1 Esdras 8:44) =" Zechariah" of Ezr 8:16, and perhaps identical with (6).

(6) Zacharias (omitted in the King James Version), who stood on Ezra’s left hand as he expounded the Law (1 Esdras 9:44) =" Zechariah" of Ne 8:4.

(7) One of the sons of Babi who went up at the head of his family with Ezra (1 Esdras 8:37) =" Zechariah" of Ezr 8:11.

(8) One of the sons of Elam who had taken foreign wives (1 Esdras 9:27) =" Zechariah" of Ezr 10:26.

(9) The father of Joseph, one of the "leaders of the people" under Judas (1 Macc 5:18,56).

(10) The King James Version = the Revised Version (British and American) "Zarains" (1 Esdras 5:8).

(11) The King James Version = the Revised Version (British and American) "Zachariah" of Mt 23:35.

S. Angus

Elisabeth, his wife, was of the daughters of Aaron (Lu 1:5) and kinswoman of the Virgin (Lu 1:36; the relationship is altogether obscure). According to Lu 1:42-45, she was one of those who shared in the secret of the Annunciation. A few manuscripts in Lu 1:46 ascribe the Magnificat to her, but this seems certainly erroneous. See especially Zahn, Evangelium des Lucas, 98-101 and 745-751 (1913).

Burton Scott Easton

zak’-a-ri (Latin Zacharias): the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) in 2 Esdras 1:40 = the prophet Zechariah.

za’-ker.

See ZACHER.

za’-dok (tsadowq, once tsadhoq (1Ki 1:26), similar to tsaddiq, and tsadduq, post-Biblical, meaning justus, "righteous"; Septuagint Sadok): Cheyne in Encyclopedia Biblica suggests that Zadok was a modification of a Gentilic name, that of the Zidkites the Negeb, who probably derived their appellation from the root ts-d-q, a secondary title of the god they worshipped. At the same time Cheyne admits that cultivated Israelites may have interpreted Zadok as meaning "just," "righteous"—a much more credible supposition.

(1) Zadok the son of Ahitub (2Sa 8:17)—not of Ahitub the ancestor of Ahimelech (1Sa 14:3) and of Abiathar, his son (1Sa 22:20).

(2) Zadok father of Jerusha, mother of Jotham, and wife of Uzziah king of Judah (2Ki 15:33; 2Ch 27:1).

(3) Zadok the son of Ahitub and father of Shallum (1Ch 6:12) or Meshullam (Ne 11:11), and the ancestor of Ezra (7:1,2).

(4) Zadok the son of Baana, a wall-builder in the time of Nehemiah (Ne 3:4), and probably one of the signatories to the covenant made by the princes, priests and Levites of Israel (Ne 10:21)—in both places his name occurring immediately after that of Meshezabel.

(5) Zodak the son of Immer, and, like the preceding, a repairer of the wall (Ne 3:29).

(6) Zodak a scribe in the time of Nehemiah (13:13). Whether this was the same as either of the two preceding cannot be determined.

The first of these filled a larger place in Old Testament history than either of the others; and to him accordingly the following paragraphs refer. They set forth the accounts given of him first in Samuel and Kings and next in Chronicles; after which they state and criticize the critical theory concerning him.

1. In Samuel and Kings:

(1) In these older sources Zodak first appears in David’s reign, after Israel and Judah were united under him, as joint occupant with Ahimelech of the high priest’s office and his name taking precedence of that of his colleague Ahimelech, the son of Abiathar (2Sa 8:17).

(2) On David’s flight from Jerusalem, occasioned by Absalom’s rebellion, Zadok and Abiathar (now the joint high priest), accompanied by the whole body of the Levites, followed the king across the Kidron, bearing the Ark of the Covenant, which, however, they were directed to carry back to the city, taking with them their two sons, Ahimaaz the son of Zadok, and Jonathan the son of Abiathar, to act as spies upon the conduct of the rebels and send information to the king (2Sa 15:24-36; 17:15,17-21).

(3) On the death of Absalom, Zodak and Abiathar were employed by David as intermediaries between himself and the elders of Judah to consult about his return to the city, which through their assistance was successfully brought about (2Sa 19:11).

(4) When, toward the end of David’s life, Adonijah the son of Haggith, and therefore the crown prince, put forward his claim to the throne of all Israel, taking counsel with Joab and Abiathar, Zodak along with Benaiah, the son of Jehoiada, and Nathan the prophet, espoused the cause of Solomon, Bathsheba’s son, and acting on David’s instructions anointed him as king in Gihon (1Ki 1:8,26,32-45).

(5) Accordingly, when Solomon found himself established on the throne, he put Zodak in the room of Abiathar, i.e. made him sole high priest, while retaining Abiathar in the priestly office, though deposed from a position of coordinate authority with Zodak (1Ki 2:26,27,35; 4:4).

2. In Chronicles:

(1) As in the earlier sources so in these, Zodak’s father was Ahitub and his son Ahimaaz—the information being added that they were all descendants from Aaron through Eleazar (1Ch 6:50-53).

(2) Among the warriors who came to Hebron to turn the kingdom of Saul to David was "Zodak, a young man mighty of valor," who was followed by 22 captains of his father house (1Ch 12:26-28).

(3) Along with Abiathar and the Levites, Zodak was directed by David to bring up the Ark from the house of Obed-edom to the tent pitched for it on Mt. Zion, when Zodak was appointed to officiate at Gibeon, while Abiathar, it is presumed, ministered in Jerusalem (1Ch 15:11; 16:39).

(4) Toward the end of David’s reign Zodak and Abimelech the son of Abiathar acted as priests, Zodak as before having precedence (1Ch 18:16).

(5) To them was committed by the aged king the task of arranging the priests and Levites according to their several duties, it being intimated by the narrator that Zodak was of the sons of Eleazar, and Ahimelech (in 1Ch 18:16, named Abiathar; see above) of the sons of Ithamar (1Ch 24:3). In 1Ch 24:6 Ahimelech is called the son of Abiathar, while in 18:16, Abiathar’s son is Abimelech—which suggests that the letters "b" and "h" were interchangeable in the name of Abiathar’s sons.

(6) When Solomon was anointed king, Zodak was anointed (sole) priest (1Ch 29:22).

Obviously a large measure of agreement exists between the two narratives. Yet some points demand explanation.

3. Harmony of the Accounts:

(1) The seeming discrepancy between the statements in the earlier sources, that Zodak’s colleague in the high priest’s office is first named Ahimelech (2Sa 8:17) and afterward Abiathar (2Sa 15:24), should occasion little perplexity. Either Ahimelech and Abiathar were one and the same person—not an unlikely supposition (see above); or, what is more probable, Abiathar was Ahimelech’s son and had succeeded to his father’s office.

(2) Zodak’s appearance as a young soldier among the captains who brought David to Jerusalem (assuming that Zodak the soldier was Zodak the priest, which is not absolutely certain) need create no difficulty, if Zodak was not then of age to succeed his father in the priestly office. The earlier sources do not make Zodak an acting priest till after David’s accession to the throne of all Israel.

(3) Neither should it prove an insoluble problem to explain how, soon after David’s accession to the throne of Judah and Israel, Zodak should be found engaged along with Abiathar in bringing up the Ark to Mt. Zion, as by this time Zodak had obviously entered on the high-priestly office, either in succession to or as colleague of his father.

(4) That Zodak was left to officiate at Gibeon where the tabernacle was, while Abiathar was selected to exercise office in the capital, in no way conflicts with the earlier account and seems reasonable as a distribution of official duties. Why Zodak was sent to Gibeon, where the tabernacle was, and not kept at Jerusalem whither the Ark had been brought, he being always named before Abiathar and probably looked upon as the principal high priest, may have had its reason either in the fact that the king regarded Gibeon as the central sanctuary for national worship, the tabernacle being there (Solomon obviously did; see 2Ch 1:3), and therefore as the proper place for the principal high priest; or in the fact that Zodak was younger than Abiathar and therefore less fitted than his older colleague to be at court, as an adviser to the king.

(5) That toward the end of David’s reign, not Abiathar, but his son Ahimelech (or Abimelech), should be introduced as joint high priest with Zodak will not be surprising, if Abiathar was by this time an old man, as his father was at the beginning of David’s reign. That grandfather and grandson should have the same name is as likely to have been common then as it is today.

(6) That Zodak should have been appointed sole high priest on Solomon’s accession (1Ch 29:22) is not inconsistent with the statement (1Ki 4:4) that under Solomon Zodak and Abiathar were priests. Abiathar might still be recognized as a priest or even as a high priest, though no longer acting as such. The act of deposition may have affected his son Ahimelech as well, and if both father and son were degraded, perhaps this was only to the extent of excluding them from the chief dignity of high priest.

4. The Higher Critical Theory:

The higher criticism holds:

(1) that the Zadok of David’s reign was not really an Aaronite descended from Eleazar through Ahitub, who was not Zadok’s father but Ahimelech’s (Gray in EB, article "Ahitub"), but an adventurer, a soldier of fortune who had climbed up into the priest’s office, though by what means is not known (Wellhausen, GJ, 145);

(2) that up till Zadok’s appearance the priesthood had been in Ithamar’s line, though, according to the insertion by a later writer in the text of 1Sa 2 (see 2:27 ff), in Eli’s day it was predicted that it should pass from Eli’s house and be given to another;

(3) that when Abiathar or Ahimelech or both were deposed and Zadok instituted sole high priest by Solomon, this fictitious prophecy was fulfilled—though in reality there was neither prophecy nor fulfillment;

(4) that during the exile Ezekiel in his sketch of the vision-temple represented the Zadokites as the only legitimate priests, while the others of the line of A were degraded to be Levites;

(5) that in order to establish the legitimacy of Zadok the writer of the Priestly Code (P) invented his Aaronic descent through Eleazar and inserted the fictitious prophecy in 1 Samuel.

5. Criticism of This Theory:

(1) This theory proceeds upon the assumption, not that the Chronicler was a post-exilic writer (which is admitted), but that he deliberately and purposely idealized and to that extent falsified the past history of his people by ascribing to them a faithful adherence to the Levitical institutions of the Priestly Code, which, according to this theory, were not then in existence—in other words by representing the religious institutions and observances of his own age as having existed in the nation from the beginning. Were this theory established by well-accredited facts, it would doubtless require to be accepted; but the chief, if not the only, support it has is derived from a previous reconstruction of the sacred text in accordance with theory it is called on to uphold.

(2) That the father of Zadok was not Ahitub, a priest of the line of Eleazar, is arrived at by declaring the text in 2Sa 8:17 to have been intentionally corrupted, presumably by a late redactor, the original form of the verse having been, according to criticism (Wellhausen, TBS, 176 f): "Abiathar the son of Ahimelech, the son of Ahitub, and Zadok were priests." But if this was the original form of the words it is not easy to explain why they should have been so completely turned round as to say the opposite, namely, that Ahimelech was the son of Abiathar, and that Ahitub was the father of Zadok., when in reality he was the father of Ahimelech. If, as Cornill admits (Einl, 116), the Chronicler worked "with good, old historical material," it is not credible that he made it say the opposite of what it meant.

(3) If Zadok was not originally a priest, but only a military adventurer, why should David have made him a priest at all? Wellhausen says (GI, 20) that when David came to the throne he "attached importance to having as priests the heirs of the old family who had served the Ark at Shiloh." But if so, he had Abiathar of the line of Ithamar at hand, and did not need to go to the army for a priest. If, however, it be urged that in making Zadok a priest he gave him an inferior rank to Abiathar, and sent him to Gibeon where the tabernacle was, why should both sources so persistently place Zadok before Abiathar?

(4) If Zadok was originally a soldier not connected with the priesthood, and only became a priest after David came to Jerusalem, why should the earlier source have omitted to record this, when no reason existed, so far as one can discover, why it should have been left out? And why should the priestly disposed Chronicler have incorporated this in his narrative when all his inclinations should have moved him to omit it, more especially when he was intending to invent (according to the critical theory) for the young warrior an Aaronite descent?

(5) That the prediction of the fall of Eli’s house (1Sa 2:27-36) was inserted by a late writer to justify its supersession by the line of Zadok has no foundation except the presupposition that prediction is impossible, which fair-minded criticism cannot admit. The occurrence of the word "anointed" it is contended, presupposes the monarchy. This, however, it only predicts; and at the most, as Driver sees (Introduction, 164), cannot prove the fictitious character of the prophecy, but merely that it has been "recast by the narrator and colored by the associations with which he himself is familiar"; and even this is entirely hypothetical.

(6) Ezekiel’s reference to Zadok’s descendants as the only legitimate priests in the vision-temple does not prove that Zadok himself was a soldier who climbed up into the priesthood. Even if the critical interpretation of the vision-temple were correct, it in no way affects the personality of Zadok, and certainly does not disprove his original connection with the priesthood or his descent from Eleazar.

T. Whitelaw

za’-ham (zaham, meaning uncertain; Septuagint Codex Alexandrinus Zalam, Codex Vaticanus Rhoollam): A son of King Rehoboam (2Ch 11:19).

za’-in.

See ZAYIN.

za’-ir (tsa‘ir; Zeior): When he invaded Edom, we are told that Joram passed over to Zair and all his chariots with him (2Ki 8:21). In the parallel passage (2Ch 21:9), "with his captains" (‘im sarayw) takes the place of "to Zair" (tsa‘irah), probably a copyist’s corruption. The place has not been identified. Some have thought that Mt. Seir is intended; others that it means the town of Zoar. Conder suggested ez-Zuweirah, Southeast of the Dead Sea. If Zoar lay in this direction, it is the way by which an invading army might enter Edom.

zar’-e-tan (tsarethan): the King James Version Jos 3:16 for ZARETHAN (which see).

za’-laf (tsalaph, "caper-plant"): Father of Hanun, one of the repairers of the wall (Ne 3:30).

zal’-mon (tsalmon; Selmon, oros Ermon; the King James Version Salmon (Ps 68:14)):

(1) From the slopes of Mt. Zalmon, Abimelech and his followers gathered the wood with which they burned down "the stronghold of the house of El-berith," which may have been the citadel of Shechem (Jud 9:46). The mountain therefore was not far from the city; but no name resembling this has yet been recovered in Mt. Ephraim. It is just possible that in the modern Arabic name of Mt. Ebal, es-Sulemiyeh, there may be an echo of Zalmon. It is precisely to this mountain, especially to the western slopes, that one would expect Abimelech and his people to go for the purpose in view. The name occurs again in Ps 68:14, a passage of admitted difficulty. Snow in Palestine is mainly associated with Mt. Hermon, where it may be seen nearly all the year round; hence, doubtless the Greek reading "Mt. Hermon" in Judges. But snow is well known among the uplands in winter; and the Psalmist may simply have meant that the kings were scattered like snowflakes in the wind on Mt. Zalmon. We need not therefore look to Bashan or elsewhere for the mountain. The locality is fixed by the narrative in Jgs.

(2) One of David’s heroes (2Sa 23:28).

See ILAI.

W. Ewing

zal-mo’na (tsalmonah, "gloomy"): A desert camp of the Israelites, the first after Mt. Hor (Nu 33:41,42). The name "suggests some gloomy valley leading up to the Edomite plateau."

See WANDERINGS OF ISRAEL.

zal-mun’-a.

See ZEBAH AND ZALMUNNA.

zam’-bis: the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and American) ZAMBRI (which see).

zam’-bri (Codex Vaticanus Zambrei, Codex Alexandrinus Zambris; the King James Version Zambis, from Aldine Zambis) :

(1) One of the sons of Ezora who put away their foreign wives (1 Esdras 9:34) =" Amariah" of Ezr 10:42.

(2) The King James Version = the Revised Version (British and American) "Zimri" of 1 Macc 2:26.

za’-moth, za’-moth (Zamoth): The head of a family, some members of which married. foreign wives (1 Esdras 9:28) =" Zattu" of Ezr 10:27; called "Zathui" in 1 Esdras 5:12 and "Zathoes" (the King James Version "Zathoe") in 1 Esdras 8:32.

zam-zum’-im (zam-zummim): A race of giants who inhabited the region East of the Jordan afterward occupied by the Ammonites who displaced them. They are identified with the Rephaim (De 2:20). They may be the same as the Zuzim mentioned in connection with the Rephaim in Ge 14:5.

See REPHAIM.

za-no’-a (zanoach; Codex Vaticanus Tano; Codex Alexandrinus Zano):

(1) A town in the Judean Shephelah, grouped with Eshtaol, Zorah and Ashnah (Jos 15:34). The Jews reoccupied the place after the exile (Ne 11:30). Here it is named between Jarmuth and Adullam. The inhabitants assisted in rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem, repairing the valley gate (Ne 3:13). Eusebius (in Onomasticon) places it at Zanna, in the district of Eleutheropolis on the Jerusalem road. It is represented by the modern Zanu‘a, about 10 miles North of Belt Jibrin (Eleutheropolis).

(2) (Codex Vaticanus Zakanaeim; Codex Alexandrinus Zano): A place in the mountains (Jos 15:56) of which Jekuthiel was the "father" or founder (1Ch 4:18). It may be identified with Zenuta, a ruined site on a hill about 12 miles South of Hebron.

W. Ewing

zaf-e’-nath-pa-ne’-a, zaf’-nath-pa-a-ne’a (tsaphenath pa‘aneach; Egyptian Zoph-ent-pa-ankh; Septuagint D, Psonthomphantch, "the one who furnishes the nourishment of life," i.e. the chief steward of the realm): The name given Joseph by the Egyptian king by whom he was promoted, probably the Hyksos king Aphophis (Ge 41:45).

See JOSEPH.

za’-fon (tsaphon; Codex Vaticanus Saphan; Codex Alexandrinus Saphon): A city on the East of the Jordan in the territory of Gad (Jos 13:27). It is named again in Jud 12:1 as the place where the elders of Gilead gathered to meet with Jephthah (tsaphonah should be translated "to Zaphon," not "northward"). It must have lain well to the North of Gad. According to the Talmud Amathus represented Zaphon (Neubauer, Geog. du Talmud, 249). Here sat one of the Synedria created by Gabinius (Ant., XIV, v, 4). It was a position of great strength (B J, I, iv, 2). Eusebius, Onomasticon places it 21 Roman miles S. of Pella. This is the modern Tell ‘Amateh, on the south bank of Wady er-Rujeib, 15 miles South of Pella, and nearly 5 miles North of the Jabbok. Buhl (GAP, 259) objects to the identification that Tell ‘Amateh corresponds to the Asophon of Josephus (Ant., XIII, xii, 5). But this objection does not seem well founded.

W. Ewing

za’-ra (Zara): the King James Version (Mt 1:3) = Greek form of ZERAH (which see).

zar’-a-sez: the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and American) ZARAKES (which see).

za’-ra.

See ZERAH (1).

za-ra’-yas, za-ri’-as (Zaraias):

(1) One of the leaders in the Return along with Zerubbabel (1 Esdras 5:8) =" Seraiah" of Ezr 2:2 and "Azariah" of Ne 7:7 = the King James Version ZACHARIAS (which see).

(2) An ancestor of Ezra in 1 Esdras 8:2 (omitted in Codex Vaticanus and Swete) =" Zerahiah" of Ezr 7:4 and apparently=" Arna" of 2 Esdras 1:2.

(3) The father of Eliaonias, the leader of the sons of Phaath Moab under Ezra (1 Esdras 8:31)=" Zerahiah" of Ezr 8:4.

(4) One of "the sons of Saphatias" who went up with Ezra (1 Esdras 8:34) =" Zebadiah" of Ezr 8:8.

zar’-a-kez (Codex Alexandrinus and Fritzsche, Zarakes; Codex Vaticanus and Swete, Zarios; Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) Zaracelem; the King James Version Zaraces): Occurs in the difficult passage, 1 Esdras 1:38, as the equivalent of Jehoahaz (2Ki 23:34) and Joahaz (2Ch 36:4), the brother of Eliakim (Jehoiakim or JOAKIM (which see)). According to 1 Esdras 1:38, Joakim apparently apprehended his brother, Zarakes, and brought him up out of Egypt, whither he must have been previously taken by Necoh, whereas 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles only state that Necoh took Joahaz (Zarakes) to Egypt.

zar-de’-us (Codex Alexandrinus Zardaias; Codex Vaticanus Swete and Fritzsche, Zeralias; the King James Version Sardeus): One of the sons of Zamoth who had married "strange wives" (1 Esdras 9:28) =" Aziza" of Ezr 10:27.

za’-re-a, za-re’-a (tsor‘ah): the King James Version in Ne 11:29 for ZORAH (which see).

za-re’a-thits.

See ZORATHITES.

za’-red (zaredh (in pause)).

See ZERED.

zar’-e-fath (tsarephath; Sarepta): The Sidonian town in which Elijah was entertained by a widow after he left the brook Cherith (1Ki 17:9 ). Obadiah refers to it as a Canaanite (probably meaning Phoenicia) town (Ob 1:20). It appears in the Greek form Sarepta in Lu 4:26 (the King James Version), and is said to be in the land of Sidon. Josephus (Ant., VIII, xiii, 2) says it was not "far from Sidon and Tyre, for it lay between them." Eusebius, Onomasticon (s.v. "Sarefta"), places it on the public road, i.e. the road along the seashore. It can be no other than the modern Sarafend, about 13 miles North of Tyre, on the spur of the mountain which divides the plain of Tyre from that of Sidon.

The site of the ancient town is marked by the ruins on the shore to the South of the modern village, about 8 miles to the South of Sidon, which extend along the shore for a mile or more. They are in two distinct groups, one on a headland to the West of a fountain called Ain el-Qantara, which is not far from the shore. Here was the ancient harbor which still affords shelter for small craft. The other group of ruins is to the South, and consists of columns, sarcophagi and marble slabs, indicating a city of considerable importance. The modern village of Sarafend was built some time after the 12th century, since at the time of the Crusades the town was still on the shore.

It is conjectured that the Syrophoenician woman mentioned in Lu 4:26 was an inhabitant of Zarephath., and it is possible that our Lord visited the place in His journey to the region as narrated in Mr 7:24-31, for it is said that he "came through Sidon unto the sea of Galilee."

The place has been identified by some with Misrephoth-maim of Jos 11:8 and 13:6, but the latter passage would indicate that Misrephoth-maim was at the limit of the territory of the Sidonians, which Zarephath was not in the days of Joshua.

See MISREPHOTH-MAIM; SIDON.

Originally Sidonian, the town passed to the Tyrians after the invasian of Shalmaneser IV, 722 BC. It fell to Sennacherib 701 BC. The Wely, or shrine bearing the name of el-Khudr, the saint in whom George is blended with Elijah, stands near the shore. Probably here the Crusaders erected a chapel on what they believed to be the site of the widow’s house.

W. Ewing

zar’-e-than (tsarethan) :A city, according to Jos 3:16 (omitted, however, by the Septuagint) near Adam, which is probably to be identified with Tell Damieh at the mouth of the Jabbok. In 1Ki 4:12 it is mentioned in connefection with Bethshean and said to be "beneath Jezreel." In 1Ki 7:46, this is said to be at "the ford of Adamah," according to the reading of some, but according to the Massoretic text, "in the clay around between Succoth and Zarethan," where the bronze castings for the temple were made by Solomon’s artificers. In 2Ch 4:17, the name appears as Zeredah, which in 1Ki 11:26 is said to have been the birthplace of Jeroboam, son of Nebat. In Jud 7:22, Gibeon is said to have pursued the Midianites "as far as Bethshittah toward Zererah," which is probably a misreading for Zeredah, arising from the similarity of the Hebrew letters daleth and resh. The place has not been positively identical. From the suggestion that the name means "the great (or lofty) rock," it has without sufficient reason been supposed that it designates the conspicuous peak of Kurn Surtabheh] which projects from the mountains of Ephraim into the valley of the Jordan opposite the mouth of the Jabbok.

George Frederick Wright

za’-reth-sha’-har (tsereth ha-shachar).

See ZERETH-SHAHAR.

zar’-hits.

See ZERAH, (1), (4).

zar-ta’-na, zar’-ta-na (tsarethanah): the King James Version in 1Ki 4:12 for "Zarethan." The form is Zarethan with Hebrew locale.

zar’-than (tsarethan): the King James Version in 1Ki 7:46 for ZARETHAN (which see).

zath’-o-ez, za-tho’-ez (Zathoes; the King James Version, Zathoe): Name of a family, part of which returned with Ezra (1 Esdras 8:32), not found in the Hebrew of Ezr 8:5; probably identical with "Zattu" of Ezr 2:8; Ne 7:13, many of which family went up with Zerubbabel, and so called also "Zathui" (1 Esdras 5:12).

See ZATTU.

za-thu’-i (Zaththoui, Septuagint Codex Vaticanus Zaton): In 1 Esdras 5:12 =" Zattu" in Ezr 2:8; Ne 10:14. In 1 Esdras 9:28 the same name is "Zamoth."

zat’-thu: In Ne 10:14; the Revised Version (British and American) ZATTU (which see).

zat’-u (zattu’, meaning unknown): Head of a large family that returned with Zerubbabel to Jerusalem from Babylon (Ezr 2:8; 10:27; Ne 7:13; 10:14 (15)). According to Ezr 10:27, some of his sons had married foreign wives, and Zattu is named in Ne 10:14 as one of the chiefs who signed Nehemiah’s covenant. Septuagint A also adds the name before that of Shecaniah in Ezr 8:5, and so we should read, "And of the sons of Zattu, Shecaniah .... "; so 1 Esdras 8:32 has Zathoes. the King James Version has "Zatthu" in Neb 10:14.

za’-van.

See ZAAVAN.

za’-yin "z": The 7th letter of the Hebrew alphabet; transliterated in this Encyclopedia as "z". It came also to be used for the number 7. For name, etc., see ALPHABET.

za’-za (zaza’, meaning unknown; the Septuagint’s Codex Vaticanus Ozam; Codex Alexandrinus Ozaza): A Jerahmeelite (1Ch 2:33).

zel’-ut, zel’-uts: Simon, one of the apostles, was called "the Zealot" Zelotes from zeloo "to rival," "emulate," "be jealous," "admire," "desire greatly," Lu 6:15; Ac 1:13, the King James Version "Zelotes"). In Mt 10:4 and Mr 3:18 he is called "the Cananean" (so the Revised Version (British and American) correctly; not "the Canaanite," as the King James Version says, following inferior manuscripts), ho Kananaios. From the time of the Maccabees there existed among the Jews a party who professed great zeal for the observance of the "law." According to Josephus (BJ, IV, iii, 9; v, 1; VII, viii, 1) they resorted to violence and assassination in their hatred of the foreigner, being at many points similar to the Chinese Boxers. It is not improbable that the "Assassins" (see ASSASSINS) of Ac 21:38 were identical, or at least closely associated, with this body of "Zealots," to which we must conclude that Simon had belonged before he became one of the Twelve.

See, further, SIMON THE ZEALOT.

William Arthur Heidel

zeb-a-di’-a

(1) zebhadhyaha,

(2) zebhadhyah, "Yah has bestowed";

the form (1) is the Hebrew name in (1), (a), (b), (2), below; the form (2) in the rest. Some manuscripts have Zechariah in (1), (a), (b), (3)).

Compare ZABDI; ZABDIEL:

(1) Levites:

(a) a Korahite doorkeeper of David’s reign (1Ch 26:2);

(b) one of the Levites sent by King Jehoshaphat to teach the Torah in Judah (2Ch 17:8).

(2) Son of Ishmael (2Ch 19:11); "ruler of the house of Judah in all the king’s (Jehoshaphat’s) matters," i.e. judge in civil cases, the "controversies" of 2Ch 19:8.

(3) Benjamites, perhaps descended from Ehud (see Curtis, Chron., 158 ff):

(a) In 1Ch 8:15;

(b) in 8:17, where the name may be a dittography from 8:15.

(4) A Benjamite recruit of David at Ziklag (1Ch 12:7 (Hebrew verse 8)).

(5) One of David’s army officers, son and successor of Asahel (1Ch 27:7).

(6) One of those who returned from Babylon to Jerusalem with Ezra (Ezr 8:8) =" Zaraias" of 1 Esdras 8:34.

(7) One of those who had married foreign wives (Ezr 10:20) =" Zabdeus" of 1 Esdras 9:21.

David Francis Roberts

ze’-ba (zebhach, "victim"), zal-mun’-a (tsalmunna‘, "protection refused"): Two Midianite kings or chiefs whom Gideon slew (Jud 8:4-21; Ps 83:11 (Hebrew text, verse 12)). The name zebhach (Zebee) is very much like that of ze’ebh (Zeb, "Zeeb" in the Septuagint). Moore (Judgess, 220) says that tsalmunna‘ is probably "a genuine Midianite name"; Noldeke conjectured that it contains that of a deity (ts(a)lm), and a compound form tslmshzbh, is found in an inscription from Teima, a place East of the Midianite capital (Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum, II, cxiii f).

The narrative of Jud 8:4-21 is not to be connected with that of 8:1-3. Budde (Kurzer Hand-Comm. z. Altes Testament, XXII) would join 8:4 to 6:34; Moore (ICC) following Budde’s earlier work (1890) would connect it with a part of 7:22b, describing the direction of the flight, while Nowack (Hand-Komm.) regards the battle of 8:11 as the same as that of 7:11 if; he then takes the latter part of 8:11 to refer to the place of the camp at night. There are many difficulties in forming a natural connection for the verses. It may be noted that in 8:18 f Gideon is not "the least in my father’s house," as he represents himself to be in 6:15.

The whole section tells of a daring raid made by Gideon upon the Midianites. Some of his own kin had been slain by Midianite hordes at Ophrah (Jud 8:18 f), and, stirred by this, Gideon went in hot pursuit with 300 men (Jud 8:4). He requested provisions for his men from the people of Succoth and Penuel, but was refused this. He then went on and caught the Midianites unawares at Karkor (Jud 8:10) and captured their two chiefs. He then had his revenge on the two towns, and returned probably to his home with the two notable prisoners. These he determined to slay to avenge the death of his own kinsmen, and called upon his eldest son to perform this solemn public duty that he owed to the dead. His son, apparently only a boy, hesitated, and he did the deed himself. W. R. Smith (Lectures on the Religion of the Semites, 2nd edition, 417, note) compares with this call to Gideon’s son the choice of young men or lads as sacrificers in Ex 24:5, and says that the Saracens also charged lads with the execution of their captives.

The narrative reminds one of David’s romantic life in 1Sa 25; 27; 30. It is throughout a characteristic picture of the life of the early Hebrews in Palestine, for whom it was a sacred duty to avenge the dead. It affords a splendid illustration of what is meant by the spirit of Yahweh coming upon, or rather "clothing itself with" (Revised Version margin) Gideon (Jud 6:34); compare also Saul’s call to action (1Sa 11:1-11), and also Jud 19 f.

David Francis Roberts

ze-be’-im.

See POCHERETH-HAZZEBAIM.

See JAMES; SALOME.

ze-bi’-da, zeb’-i-da (zebhudhah, Qere, whence the King James Version "Zebudah," whereas the Kethibh is zebhidhah; the Qere means "bestowed" and is the feminine of Zabud): Daughter of Pedaiah of Rumah, and mother of King Jehoiakim of Judah (2Ki 23:36). The Septuagint’s Codex Vaticanus has, however, Iella thugater Edeil ek Krouma, Codex Alexandrinus Eieldaph th. Eieddila ek Rhuma. In 2Ch 36:5 Massoretic Text lacks these names, but the Septuagint Codex Vaticanus has Zechora th. Nereiou ek Rhama; here the name of the king’s mother = Hebrew zekhurah, due to a confusion of the Hebrew letter kaph (k) with the Hebrew letter beth (b), and the Hebrew letter resh (r) with the Hebrew letter daleth (d), and thus we find support for the Qere, zebhudhah ("Zebudah," in 2Ki 23:36 the King James Version). Lucian has confused the names here with those of 2Ki 24:18, and has as there, "Amital, the daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah."

David Francis Roberts

ze-bi’-na (zebhina’," bought"): One of those who had married foreign wives (Ezr 10:43); the name is not in 1 Esdras 9:35, and is omitted by the Septuagint’s Codex Alexandrinus in Ezra.

ze-boi’-im (tsebhoyim; the Septuagint uniformly Sebo(e)im; the King James Version, Zeboim): One of the cities in the Vale of Siddim, destroyed with Sodom and Gomorrah. It is always mentioned next to Admah (Ge 10:19; 14:2,8; De 29:23; Ho 11:8). It is not to be confounded with Zeboim mentioned in 1Sa 13:18 and Ne 11:34. The site has not been positively identified, but must be determined by the general questions connected with the Vale of Siddim.

See SIDDIM, VALE OF.

ze-bo’-im ((1) tsebho‘im; Seboeim (Ne 11:34); (2) ge ha-tsebho‘im; Gai ten Samein (1Sa 13:18)):

(1) A Benjamite town mentioned as between HADID (which see) and NEBALLAT (which see), and therefore in the maritime plain near Lydda; the site is lost (Ne 11:34).

(2) The Valley of Zeboim, "the valley of hyenas," one of three companies of the Philistines left their camp at Michmash and "turned the way of the border that looketh down upon the valley of Zeboim toward the wilderness" (1Sa 13:18). There are several valleys with names derived from the hyena, so common in these parts. There is a small branch valley called Shakked dab‘a, "ravine of the hyenas," North of the Wady kelt (Grove), a, Wady abu dab‘a, "valley of the father of hyenas, which joins the Wady kelt from the South (Marti), and a large and well-known Wady dab‘a, "valley of hyenas," which runs parallel with the Wady kelt, some 3 miles farther South, and ends at the Dead Sea. The first of these, which apparently leads to Mukhmas itself, seems the most probable. See Conder’s Handbook, 241.

E. W. G. Masterman

ze-bu’-da.

See ZEBIDAH.

ze’-bul (zebhul, perhaps "exalted"; Zeboul): In Jud 9:26 ff. He is called in 9:30 sar ha-‘ir, "the ruler of the city," a phrase translated "the governor of the city" in 1Ki 22:26 = 2Ch 18:25; 2Ki 23:8; 2Ch 34:8; he was "commandant of the town" of Shechem. In Jud 9:28 he is referred to as the paqidh, "officer," or, more correctly, "deputy" of Abimelech. This verse is a little difficult, but if we read "served" for "serve ye," it becomes fairly clear in meaning. With Moore (Judges, 255 ff) we may translate it thus: "Who is Abimelech? and who is Shechem, that we should serve him (i.e. Abimelech)? Did not the son of Jerubbaal and Zebul his deputy (formerly) serve the people of Qamor (the father of Shechem)? Why then should we serve him (Abimelech)?" This is also the way Budde (Kurzer Hand-Comm. z. Altes Testament, 75) takes the verse. And further in Jud 9:29 for "and he said" many read with the Septuagint "then would I say."

The position of Zebul is here that of a deputy to Abimelech, who lived in Arumah (Jud 9:41). When Gaal came to Shechem, a newcomer with a band of men, he seized the opportunity at a vintage feast to attack Abimelech and express a desire to lead a revolt against him (Jud 9:26-29). Zebul heard these words and reported the matter to his master, vising him to make s sudden rush upon the city (Jud 9:30-33). This Abimelech does, and Gaal, on noticing the troops, tells Zebul, who turns upon him and bids him make good his bragging words. Gaal is thus forced to go out and fight Abimelech, and is defeated (Jud 9:34-40).

If this be the correct interpretation of the narrative so far, it is fairly simple and clear. Some, however, maintain that the words of Gaal about Zebul in Jud 9:28 are meant as an insult to the governor of the city; this is the view of Wellbausch (Compos., 353 f, note) and Nowack (Handkomm.; compare also his Archdologie, I, 304, 308, for the meaning of sar). Zebul is, according to them, head of the Shechemite community, and Wellhausen and Kittel (History of Hebrew, II, 85) believe him to have had something to do with the revolt of 9:23-25. For the latter view there is no proof; possibly Zebul was the head of the community of Shechem, but as he was a subject of Abimelech, who was the king or prince of Shechem, there could not be much sting in calling him the" deputy" of his master.

The questions that arise from Jud 9:41 ff need only be referred to here. Many critics have seen in 9:22-45 more than one source. Moore groups the verses thus:

(1) 9:22-23,25,42 ff as due to the Elohist (E), with 9:24 from RJE;

(2) 9:26-41 due to J. It is doubtful if the division is as clear as this.

There seem however to be parallels:

(1) The plans of Abimelech in 9:34-40 are very similar to those in 9:42 ff.

(2) Jud 9:41 b seems to give in short what we find related in 9:34-40.

(3) Septuagint in 9:31 has suggested to many that we should read there, "and he sent messengers unto Abimelech in Arumah," instead of reading "craftily." We would thus have a parallel to 9:41a.

It may be suggested therefore that if the account be double (and it is strange that Abimelech should again attack the city by almost the same methods as before, when the revolters had been already got rid of), the narratives would be in this order:

Introductory, Jud 9:23-25; then 9:26-29,30 common to both, and so possibly part of 9:31 and 32 f. Then we have two accounts of the event: (a) 9:31 (part), 34-40; (b) 9:41-45, followed by 9:46 ff.

David Francis Roberts

zeb‘-u-lon-it.

See ZEBULUNITES.

zeb’-u-lun (zebhulun, also written zebuwlun and zebuluwn; the first form occurs only in Jud 1:30; the other two are frequent, and are used interchangeably; Zaboulon): In Ge 30:20 Leah exclaims, "God hath endowed me with a good dowry," which suggests a derivation of Zebulun from zabhadh, "to bestow," the (d) being replaced by (l). Again she says, "Now will my husband dwell with me (or "honor me"): and she called his name Zebulun"; the derivation being from zabhal, "to exalt" or "honor" (OHL, under the word).

Zebulun was the 10th son of Jacob, the 6th borne to him by Leah in Paddan-aram. Nothing is known of this patriarch’s life, save in so far as it coincides with that of his brethren. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan says that he first of the five brethren was presented to Pharaoh by Joseph, when Israel and his house arrived in Egypt (Ge 47:2). Three sons, Sered, Elon and Jahleel, were born to him in Canaan, and these became the ancestors of the three main divisions of the tribe (Ge 46:14).

The position of the tribe of Zebulun in the wilderness was with the standard of the camp of Judah on the east side of the tabernacle (Nu 2:7). This camp moved foremost on the march (Nu 2:9). At the first census Zebulun numbered 57,400 men of war (Nu 1:30), the prince of the tribe being Eliab, son of Helon (Nu 1:9). At the second census the men of war numbered 60,500 (Nu 26:27); see, however, NUMBERS. Among the spies Zebulun was represented by Gaddiel son of Sodi (Nu 13:10). To assist in the division of the land Elizaphan son of Parnach was chosen (Nu 34:25). At Shechem Zebulun, the descendants of Leah’s youngest son, stood along with Reuben, whose disgrace carried with it that of his tribe, and the descendants of the sons of the handmaids, over against the other six, who traced their descent to Rachel and Leah (De 27:13). At the second division of territory the lot of Zebulun came up third, and assigned to him a beautifully diversified stretch of country in the North. The area of his possession is in general clear enough, but it is impossible to define the boundaries exactly (Jos 19:10-16). It "marched" with Naphtali on the East and Southeast, and with Asher on the West and Northwest. The line ran northward from Mt. Tabor, keeping on the heights West of the Sea of Galilee, on to Kerr ‘Anan (Hannathon). It turned westward along the base of the mountain, and reached the border of Asher, probably by the vale of ‘Abilin. It then proceeded southward to the Kishon opposite Tell Kaimun (Jokneam). As the plain belonged to Issachar, the south border would skirt its northern edge, terminating again at Tabor, probably near Deburiyeh (Daberath), which belonged to Issachar (Jos 21:28).

The details given are confusing. It is to be observed that this does not bring Zebulun into touch with the sea, and so is in apparent contradiction with Ge 49:13, and also with Josephus (Ant., V, i, 22; BJ, III, iii, 1), who says the lot of Zebulun included the land which "lay as far as the Lake of Gennesareth, and that which belonged to Carmel and the sea." Perhaps, however, the limits changed from time to time. So far as the words in Ge 49:13 are concerned, Delitzsch thinks they do not necessarily imply actual contact with the sea; but only that his position should enable him to profit by maritime trade. This it certainly did; the great caravan route, via maris, passing through his territory. Thus he could "suck the treasures of the sea." See also TABOR, MOUNT. Within the boundaries thus roughly indicated were all varieties of mountain and plain, rough upland country. shady wood and fruitful valley. What is said of the territory of Naphtali applies generally to this. Olive groves and vineyards are plentiful. Good harvests are gathered on the sunny slopes, and on the rich levels of the Plain of Asochis (el-BaTTauf).

Elon the Zebulunite was the only leader given by the tribe to Israel of whom we have any record (Jud 12:11 f); but the people were brave and skillful in war, furnishing, according to the So of Deborah, "(them) that handle the marshal’s staff" (Jud 5:14). The tribe sent 50,000 single-hearted warriors, capable and well equipped, to David at Hebron (1Ch 12:33). From their rich land they brought stores of provisions (1Ch 12:40). Over Zebulun in David’s time was Ishmaiah, son of Obadiah (1Ch 27:19). Although they had fallen away, Hezekiah proved that many of them were capable of warm response to the appeal of religious duty and privilege (2Ch 30:10 f, 18 ). They are not named, but it is probable that Zebulun suffered along with Naphtali in the invasion of Tiglath-pileser (2Ki 15:29). In later days the men from these breezy uplands lent strength and enterprise to the Jewish armies. Jotapata (Tell Jifat), the scene of Josephus’ heroic defense, was in Zebulun. So was Sepphoris (Seffuriyeh), which was for a time the capital of Galilee (Ant., XVIII, ii, 1; BJ, VII; III, ii, 4). Nazareth, the home of our Saviour’s boyhood, is sheltered among its lower hills.

W. Ewing

zeb’-u-lun-its (hazebhuloni; Zaboulon): Members of the tribe of Zebulun (Nu 26:27; Jud 12:11 f).

zek-a-ri’-a (zekharyahu, or zekharyah; the Septuagint Zacharia(s)): A very common name in the Old Testament. The form, especially the longer form, of the name would suggest for its meaning, "Yah remembers" or "Yah is renowned," and the name was doubtless understood in this sense in later times. But the analogies with ZACCUR, ZECHER, ZICHRI (which see), etc., make some original ethnic derivation probable.

(1) King of Israel, son of Jeroboam II (the King James Version "Zachariah"). See the next article.

(2) The grandfather of King Hezekiah, through Hezekiah’s mother Abi (2Ki 18:2, the King James Version "Zachariah" parallel 2Ch 29:1).

(3) A contemporary of Isaiah, taken by Isaiah as a trustworthy witness in the matter of the sign Maher-shalal-hash-baz (Isa 8:1). As his father’s name was Jeberechiah, some support seems to be offered to theories of those who would make him the author of certain portions of Zechariah.

See ZECHARIAH, BOOK OF.

(4) A Reubenite of the time of Israel’s captivity (1Ch 5:7).

(5) A Benjamite, living in Gideon (1Ch 9:37; called "Zecher" in 8:31). He was the brother of Kish and hence, the uncle of Saul.

(6) A Manassite of Gilead, at the time of David (1Ch 27:21).

(7) The third son of Jehoshaphat (2Ch 21:2). He was slain by Jehoram (2Ch 21:4).

(8) A "prince" who Jehoshaphat sent to "teach" in the cities of Judah (2Ch 17:7). As this "teaching" was in connection with the establishing of the Law, Zechariah was primarily a judge.

(9) A prophet who was influential in the early days of Uzziah (2Ch 26:5). He is characterized as ha-mebh in bire’oth (beyir’ath(?)) ha-elohim, which phrase is usually understood to mean that he had instructed (Revised Version margin) the king in the fear of God. As long as he lived the king profited by his instruction and advice.

The following eight are all Levites:

(10) A doorkeeper at the time of David, who was made a singer "of the second degree" (1Ch 15:18; the text is confused). He was a player on a "psaltery" (1Ch 15:20) and took part in the thanksgiving when the Ark was brought to Jerusalem (1Ch 16:5).

(11) A son of Isshiah (1Ch 24:25).

(12) A son of Meshelemiah, a "porter of the door of the tent of meeting" at the time of David (1Ch 9:21; 26:2,14). In 1Ch 26:14 called "a discreet counselor."

(13) A son of Hosah, a Merarite, also at David’s time (1Ch 26:11).

(14) The father of the prophet, JAHAZIEL (which see) (2Ch 20:14).

(15) A son of Asaph, who assisted in the purification of the Temple at the time of Hezekiah (2Ch 29:13).

(16) A Kohathite, who assisted in the repair of the Temple at the time of Josiah (2Ch 34:12).

(17) A son of Jonathan, an Asaphite, one of the musicians at the dedication of the wall at the time of Nehemiah (Ne 12:35).

The following are all priests:

(18) A trumpeter at the time of David (1Ch 15:24).

(19) A son of Jehoiada, at the time of Joash. He rebuked the people publicly for their apostasy, and was stoned by them, Joash consenting to their act (2Ch 24:20-22). As 2 Chronicles is the last book in the Hebrew Old Testament, Zechariah was regarded as the last of the Old Testament martyrs, and hence, is coupled with Abel (the first martyr) in Mt 23:35 parallel Lu 11:51. The words "son of Barachiah" in Matthew are due to confusing this Zechariah with the prophet.

See ZACHARIAH.

(20) One of the "rulers of the house of God" at the time of Josiah (2Ch 35:8).

(21) A son of Pashhur, 242 of whose descendants as "chiefs of fathers’ houses" dwelt in Jerusalem at the time of Nehemiah (Ne 11:13).

(22) A trumpeter at the dedication of the wall at the time of Nehemiah (Ne 12:41).

(23) The prophet (Ezr 5:1; 6:14; Ne 12:16; Zec 1:1,7; 7:1,8; 1 Esdras 6:1; 7:3).

See ZECHARIAH, BOOK OF.

The following are all returned exiles or are mentioned only as ancestors of such:

(24) A son of Parosh (Ezr 8:3; 1 Esdras 8:30 has "Zacharias" here and elsewhere).

(25) A son of Bebai (Ezr 8:11; 1 Esdras 8:37)

(26) One of the "chief men" dispatched by Ezra to bring priests from Casiphia (Ezr 8:16; 1 Esdras 8:44). Doubtless the same as (24) or (25), above.

(27) One of the persons who stood by Ezra at the reading of the Law (Ne 8:4; 1 Esdras 9:44); almost certainly identical with (26).

(28) A son of Elam, who had taken a foreign wife (Ezr 10:26; 1 Esdras 9:27).

(29) A son of Amariah, a Judahite, the ancestor of certain persons dwelling in Jerusalem (Ne 11:4).

(30) A son of "the Shilonite," the ancestor of certain persons dwelling in Jerusalem (Ne 11:5).

Burton Scott Easton

(zekharyah, zekharydhu, "Yah has remembered" (2Ki 14:29; 15:8-12); Zacharias, the King James Version Zachariah): Son of Jeroboam II, and 14th king of Israel. He was the 4th of the line of Jehu, and reigned six months. Zechariah succeeded to a splendid inheritance, as he was king, not only of the ten tribes of Israel, but of the Syrian state of Damascus, which his father had subdued. In the unusual wealth and dignity of this position lay his peril. Also there were two dark shadows falling across his path, though both probably unseen by him. One was the promise to Jehu, as the reward of his destroying the worship of Baal in Israel, that his sons should sit on the throne of Israel to the 4th generation (2Ki 10:30; 15:12). Zechariah was Jehu’s great-great-grandson. The other was the word of Amos to the priest of Bethel: "Then said the Lord. ... I will rise against the house of Jeroboam with the sword" (Am 7:8,9).

The only brief notice of Zechariah personal to himself is that he gave his support to the worship of the calves, since Jeroboam I established the religion of the state. He hardly had time, however, to identify himself with this or any institution before he was publicly assassinated by Shallum, the son of Jabesh (he "smote him before the people"). The prophet Hosea was then alive, and there is probably allusion to this crime when, addressing Ephraim, he says: "Where is thy king, that he may save thee in all thy cities?. ... I have given thee a king in mine anger, and have taken him away in my wrath" (Ho 13:10,11; compare 1:4).

There has long been difficulty with the chronology of this period. Archbishop Ussher assumed an interregnum of 11 years between the death of Jeroboam II and Zechariah’s accession. This is accepted as probable by a recent writer, who sees "at least 10 years of incessant conflict between rival claimants to the throne on Jeroboam’s death" (see article "Zechariah" in HDB, IV). It seems more likely that there is error in certain of the synchronisms. The year of Zechariah’s accession was probably 759 BC (some put it later), and the 6 months of his reign, with that given to Shallum, may be included in the 10 years of Menahem, who followed them (2Ki 15:17).

See CHRONOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

W. Shaw Caldecott

1. The Prophet

2. His Times and Mission

3. Contents and Analysis

4. The Critical Question Involved

5. The Unity of the Book

6. Conclusion

LITERATURE

Few books of the Old Testament are as difficult of interpretation as the Book of Zechariah; no other book is as Messianic. Jewish expositors like Abarbanel and Jarchi, and Christian expositors such as Jerome, are forced to concede that they have failed "to find their hands" in the exposition of it, and that in their investigations they passed from one labyrinth to another, and from one cloud into another, until they lost themselves in trying to discover the prophet’s meaning. The scope of Zechariah’s vision and the profundity of his thought are almost without a parallel. In the present writer’s judgment, his book is the most Messianic, the most truly apocalyptic and eschatological, of all the writings of the Old Testament.

1. The Prophet:

Zechariah was the son of Berechiah, and the grandson of Iddo (Zec 1:1,7). The same Iddo seems to be mentioned among the priests who returned from exile under Zerubbabel and Joshua in the year 536 BC (Ne 12:4; Ezr 2:2). If so, Zechariah was a priest as well as a prophet, and presumably a young man when he began to preach. Tradition, on the contrary, declares that he was well advanced in years. He apparently survived Haggai, his contemporary (Ezr 5:1; 6:14). He was a poet as well as a prophet. Nothing is known of his end. The Targum says he died a martyr.

2. His Times and Mission:

The earliest date in his book is the 2nd year (520 BC) of the reign of Darius Hystaspis, and the latest, the 4th year of the same king’s reign (Zec 1:1,7; 7:1). Though these are the only dates given in his writings, it is possible of course that he may have continued active for several additional years. Otherwise, he preached barely two years. The conditions under which he labored were similar to those in Haggai’s times. Indeed, Haggai had begun to preach just two months before Zechariah was called. At that time there were upheavals and commotions in different parts of the Persian empire, especially in the Northeast Jeremiah’s prophecies regarding the domination of Babylon for 70 years had been fulfilled (Jer 15:11; 29:10). The returned captives were becoming disheartened and depressed because Yahweh had not made it possible to restore Zion and rebuild the temple. The foundations of the latter had been already laid, but as yet there was no superstructure (Ezr 3:8-10; Zec 1:16). The altar of burnt offering was set up upon its old site, but as yet there were no priests worthy to officiate in the ritual of sacrifice (Ezr 3:2,3; Zec 3:3). The people had fallen into apathy, and needed to be aroused to their opportunity. Haggai had given them real initiative, for within 24 days after he began to preach the people began to work (Hag 1:1,15). It was left for Zechariah to bring the task of temple-building to completion. This Zechariah did successfully; this, indeed, was his primary mission and work.

3. Contents and Analysis:

The prophecies of Zechariah naturally fall into two parts, chapters 1-8 and 9-14, both of which begin with the present and look forward into the distant future. (1) Zechariah 1-8, consisting of three distinct messages delivered on three different occasions:

(a) Zec 1:1-6, an introduction, delivered in the 8th month of the 2nd year of Darius Hystaspis (520 BC). These words, having been spoken three months before the prophecies which follow, are obviously a general introduction. They are decidely spiritual and strike the keynote of the entire collection. In them the prophet issues one of the strongest and most intensely spiritual calls to repentance to be found in the Old Testament.

(b) Zec 1:7-6:15, a series of eight night visions, followed by a coronation scene, all delivered on the 24th day of the 11th month of the same 2nd year of Darius (520 BC), or exactly two months after the corner stone of the temple had been laid (Hag 2:18; Zec 1:7). These visions were intended to encourage the people to rebuild God’s house. They are eight in number, and teach severally the following lessons:

(i) The vision of the horses (Zec 1:7-17), teaching God’s special care for and interest in his people: "My house shall be built" (Zec 1:16).

(ii) The four horns and four smiths (Zec 1:18-21), teaching that Israel’s foes have finally been destroyed; in fact that they have destroyed themselves. There is no longer, therefore, any opposition to building God’s house.

(iii) The man with a measuring line (Zechariah 2), teaching that God will re-people, protect and dwell in Jerusalem as soon as the sacred edifice has been built. The city itself will expand till it becomes a great metropolis without walls; Yahweh will be a wall of fire round about it.

(iv) Joshua, the high priest, clad in filthy garments, and bearing the sins both of himself and the people (Zechariah 3); but cleansed, continued and made typical of the Messiah-Branch to come.

(v) The candelabrum and the two olive trees (Zechariah 4), teaching that the visible must give place to the spiritual, and that, through "the two sons of oil," Zerubbabel the layman, and Joshua the priest (Zec 4:14), the light of God’s church will continue to burn with ever-flaming brightness. For it is "not by might" but by Yahweh’s Spirit, i.e. by divine life and animation, by divine vigor and vivacity, by divine disposition and courage, by divine executive ability and technical skill, that God’s house shall be built and supplied with spiritual life (Zec 4:6).

(vi) The flying roll (Zec 5:1-4), teaching that when the temple is built and God’s law is taught the land shall be purified from outward wickedness.

(vii) The Ephah (Zec 5:5-11); wickedness personified is borne away back to the land of Shinar, teaching that when the temple is rebuilt wickedness shall be actually removed from the land.

(viii) The four chariots (Zec 6:1-8), teaching that God’s protecting providence will be over His sanctuary, and that His people, purified from sin, shall rest secure in Him.

These eight visions are followed by a coronation scene, in which Joshua the high priest is crowned and made typical of the Messiah-Priest-King, whose name is Branch (Zec 6:9-15). (c) Zechariah 7; 8, Zechariah’s answer to the Bethel deputation concerning fasting; delivered on the 4th day of the 9th month of the 4th year of Darius (518 BC). The Jews had been accustomed to fast on the anniversaries of the following four great outstanding events in the history of their capital:

(i) when Nebuchadnezzar took Jerusalem, in the 4th month (Jer 52:6);

(ii) when the Temple was burned in the 5th month (Jer 52:12);

(iii) when Gedaliah was murdered in the 7th month (Jer 41:2); and

(iv) when the siege of Jerusalem was begun in the 10th month (2Ki 25:1).

There are four sections to the prophet’s answer divided by the slightly varying formula, "The word of Yahweh came unto me" (Zec 7:4,8; 8:1,18) and teaching:

(a) Fasting affects only yourselves; God requires obedience (Zec 7:4-7).

(b) Look at the lesson from your fathers; they forsook justice and compassion and God punished them (Zec 7:8-14).

(c) Yahweh is now waiting to return to Jerusalem to save His people in truth and holiness. In the future, instead of a curse God will send blessing, instead of evil, good (Zec 8:1-17).

(d) In fact, your fasts shall be changed into festivals, and many nations shall in that day seek Yahweh of hosts in Jerusalem (Zec 8:18-23).

(2) Zechariah 9-14, consisting of two oracles, without dates;

(a) Zechariah 9-11, an oracle of promise to the new theocracy. This section contains promises of a land in which to dwell, a return from exile, victory over a hostile world-power, temporal blessings and national strength, closing, with a parable of judgment brought on by Israel’s rejection of Yahweh as their shepherd; thus Judah and Ephraim restored, united and made victorious over their enemies, are promised a land and a king (Zec 9); Israel shall be saved and strengthened (Zec 10); Israel shall be punished for rejecting the shepherding care of Yahweh (Zec 11);

(b) Zechariah 12-14, an oracle describing the victories of the new theocracy, and the coming day of Yahweh. This section is strongly eschatological, presenting three distinct apocalyptic pictures: thus how Jerusalem shall be besieged by her enemies, but saved by Yahweh (Zec 12); how a remnant of Israel purified and refined shall be saved (Zec 13); closing with a grand apocalyptic vision of judgment and redemption—the nations streaming up to Jerusalem to keep the joyous Feast of Tabernacles, and everything in that day becoming holy to Yahweh.

4. The Critical Question Involved:

There are two opposing schools of criticism in regard to the origin of Zechariah 9-14; one holds what is known as the pre-exilic hypothesis, according to which chapters 9-14 were written before the downfall of Jerusalem; more specifically, that Zechariah 9-11 and 13:7-9 spring from the 8th century BC, having been composed perhaps by Zechariah, the son of Jeberechiah mentioned in Isa 8:2; whereas Zechariah 12-14, except 13:7-9, were composed by some unknown contemporary of Jeremiah in the 7th century BC. On the other hand, there are also those who advocate a late post-Zecharian origin for chapters 9-14, somewhere about the 3rd century BC. The latter hypothesis is today the more popular. Over against these the traditional view, of course, is that Zechariah, near the close of the 6th century, wrote the entire book ascribed to him. Only chapters 9-14 are in dispute. No one doubts the genuineness of Zechariah 1-8.

The following are the main arguments of those who advocate a pre-exilic origin for these oracles:

(1) Zec 11:8, "And I cut off the three shepherds in one month." These "three shepherds" are identified with certain kings who reigned but a short time each in the Northern Kingdom; for example, Zechariah, Shallum and Menahem (2Ki 15:8-14). But the difficulty with this argument is that they were not cut off "in one month"; Menahem, on the contrary, reigned 10 years in Samaria (2Ki 15:17).

(2) Zec 12:11-14, which speaks of "a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon," is claimed to fix the date of Zechariah 12-14. Josiah fell in the valley of Megiddo (2Ki 23:29; 2Ch 35:22). But surely the mourning of Judah for Josiah might have been remembered for a century, from 609 BC till 518 BC.

(3) Zec 14:5, referring to the "earthquake" in the days of Uzziah, is another passage fastened upon to prove the preexilic origin of these prophecies. But the earthquake which is here alluded to took place at least a century and a half before the date assigned for the composition of Zechariah 14. And surely if an earthquake can be alluded to by an author 150 years after it occurs, Zechariah, who lived less than a century later, might have alluded to it also.

(4) A much stronger argument in favor of a pre-exilic origin of these prophecies is the names given to theocracy, e.g. "Ephraim" and "Jerusalem" (Zec 9:10), "Judah" and "Ephraim" (Zec 9:13), "house of Judah" and "house of Joseph" (Zec 10:6), "Judah and Israel" (Zec 11:14), implying that the kingdoms of Israel and Judah are still standing. But subsequent to the captivity the Jews ever regarded themselves as representatives of the 12 tribes, as is obvious from their offering 12 sacrifices (Ezr 6:17; 8:35). Moreover, old names such as "Israel" and "Judah" long survived (compare Jer 31:27-31; Zec 8:13).

(5) Zec 14:10, which defines the area occupied by Judah as extending "from Geba to Rimmon," which corresponds, it is alleged, with the conditions which prevailed just prior to the captivity. But it satisfies equally well the conditions after the exile in Zechariah’s own time.

(6) Again, it is argued that the national sins, the prevailing sins, idolatry, teraphim and false prophecy (Zec 10:2; 13:2-6), are those of pre-exilic times. But the same sins persisted in the post-exilic congregation (Ne 6:7-14; Mal 2:11; 3:5), and there is no special emphasis laid upon them here.

(7) Finally, it is argued that the enemies of Israel mentioned in Zechariah 9-14 are those of pre-exilic times, Assyria and Egypt (10:10,11), Syria, Phoenicia and Philistia (9:1-7). But forms of expression are slow in changing: the name "Assyrians" occurs in La 5:6, and "Assyria" is employed instead of "Persia" in Ezr 6:22. Jeremiah prophesied against Damascus and Hamath long after their loss of independence (49:23-27). After the exile, the Philistines resisted Israel’s return (Ne 4:7,8). In short all these nations were Israel’s hereditary foes, and, therefore, judgments pronounced against them were always in place. Furthermore, it may be said in general that there are reasons for thinking that, in both halves of the Book of Zechariah, the exile is represented as an event of the past, and that the restoration from exile both of Ephraim and Judah, though incomplete, has already begun. This is unquestionably true of Zechariah 1-8 (1:12; 2:6-12; 6:10; 7:5; 8:7,8). The exile is treated as a fact. It is almost equally true of Zechariah 9-14 (compare 9:8,11; 10:6,8-10). Moreover, it may with justice be claimed that the alleged authors of chapters 9-14 dissociate themselves from any definitely named person or any specific event known to be pre-exilic. God alone is described as Ruler of His people. The only king mentioned is the Messiah-King (9:9,10; 14:9). The "house of David" mentioned in 12:7-12; 13:1, is never described as in possession of the throne. It is David’s "house," and not any earthly ruler in it, of which the prophet speaks. Further, there are passages, indeed, in chapters 9-14 which, if pre-exilic in origin, would have been obscure and even misleading to a people confronted by the catastrophes of 722 and 586 BC. No specific enemy is alluded to. No definite army is named as approaching. Instead of Assyria, Javan is painted as the opposing enemy of theocracy (9:13), and even she is not yet raised up or even threatening. On the other hand, in Zechariah 12-14, it is not the Chaldeans under Nebuchadnezzar, but "all nations," who are described as coming up against Jerusalem (12:2,3; 14:2). Moreover, victory and not defeat is promised (9:8,14,16; 12:4,7,8). The preexilic prophets Amos, Hosea and Jeremiah held out no such hopes. These oracles, however, promise even temporal prosperity and abundance (9:17; 10:1,8,12; 12:8; 14:2,14); and they exhort the people to rejoice rather than to fear (9:9; 10:7); while in 14:16-19 all nations are represented as going up to Jerusalem to keep the Feast of Tabernacles, which was the most joyous feast of the Hebrew calendar. All this is quite the opposite of what the pre-exilic prophets (who are known to have been pre-exilic) actually prophesied. In Zec 9-14, there is sounded forth not one clear note of alarm or warning; judgment rather gives place to hope, warning to encouragement, threatening to joy and gladness, all of which is most inconsistent with the idea that these chapters are of preexilic origin. On the other hand, their are perfectly consistent with the conditions and promises of post-exilic times.

The other hypothesis remaining to be discussed is that known as the post-Zecharian. This may be said to represent the prevailing critical view at the present time. But it, like the pre-exilic hypothesis, is based upon a too literalistic and mechanical view of prophecy. Those, like Stade, Wellhausen, Kuenen, Marti, Kautzsch, Cornill, Cheyne, Driver, Kuiper, Echardt and Mitchell, who advocate this view, employ the same critical methods as those whose views we have just discussed, but arrive at diametrically opposite conclusions. Indeed, no two critics agree as to the historical circumstances which produced these oracles. Most are of the opinion, however, that these chapters were composed during the Greek period, i.e. after 333 BC. In examining the arguments urged by the representatives of this school special caution is needed in distinguishing between the grounds advanced in support of a post-exilic and those which argue a post-Zecharian date. The former we may for the most part accept, as Zechariah was himself a post-exilic prophet; the latter we must first examine. In favor of a very late or Grecian origin for Zechariah 9-14, the chief and all-important passage, and the one upon which more emphasis is placed than upon all others together, is 9:13, "For I have bent Judah for me, I have filled the bow with Ephraim; and I will stir up thy sons, O Zion, against thy sons, O Greece, and will make thee as the sword of a mighty man." Kuiper in summing up throws the whole weight of his argument in favor of a Greek date on this verse. Wellhausen makes it decide the date of these prophecies; while Stade declares that the announcement of the "sons of Javan" is alone sufficient to prove that these prophecies are after 333 BC. Two things are especially emphasized by critics in connection with this important passage:

(1) that the sons of Javan are the world-power of the author’s day, namely, the Greek-Maccabean world-power; and

(2) that they are the enemies of Zion.

But in opposition to these claims it should be observed

(1) that the sons of Javan are but one of several world-powers within the range of the prophet’s horizon (Zec 9:1-7, Syria, Phoenicia, Philistia; 12:2 f; 14:2 f, all nations; and 10:10,11, Assyria and Egypt); and

(2) that the Greeks under Alexander were not the enemies of Zion, and did not fight against the Jews, but against the Persians.

Assuming the genuineness of the passage (Zec 9:13), the following considerations point to the Persian period as its probable historical background:

(a) The prophecy would be vague and meaningless if uttered after the invasion of Alexander.

(b) The passage does not describe a victory for the sons of Javan, but rather a defeat.

(c) It is introduced by an appeal to those still in exile to return, which would have been quite meaningless after Alexander’s conquest.

(d) In short, Zec 9:13-17, as a whole, is not a picture of actual war, but rather an apocalyptic vision of the struggle of Israel with the world-power of the West, hence, its indefiniteness and figurative language.

Furthermore, it must not be forgotten that in Zechariah’s own day the Greeks were rapidly becoming a menacing world-power. In the first 3 years (521-519 BC) of Darius’ reign, 12 different revolts took place, principally in the North and East But, in 518, Darius was compelled to move westward at the head of his royal armies; Darius’ visit to Egypt in 517 BC was cut short by the disturbances of the Greeks (compare Wiedemann, Gesch., 236). In the year 516 BC the Greeks of the Hellespont and Bosporus, with the island of Samos, were made to submit to Pets rule. The next year (515 BC), Darius led an expedition against the Scythians across the Danube, the failure of which encouraged the Ionians subsequently to revolt. In 500 BC the great Ionian revolt actually took place. In 499 BC Sardis, the most important stronghold for Persia in Asia Minor, was burned by the Athenians. In 490 BC Marathon was fought and Persia was conquered. In 480 BC Xerxes was defeated at Salamis. But it is unnecessary to sketch the rise of Jayan further. Enough has been related to show that already in the reign of Darius Hystaspis—in whose reign Zechariah is known to have lived and prophesied—the sons of Greece were a rising world-power, and a threatening world-power. This is all really that is required by the passage. The sons of Jayan were but one of Israel’s enemies in Zechariah’s day; but they were of such importance that victory over them carried with it momentous Messianic interests. The language of chapter 9 is vague, and, in our judgment, too vague and too indefinite to have been uttered after Marathon (490 BC), or even after the burning of Sardis (500 BC); for, in that case, the author would have been influenced more by Greece and less by the movements and commotions of the nations.

Other arguments advanced by the post-Zecharian school are:

(1) Zec 14:9, "And Yahweh shall be King over all the earth: in that day shall Yahweh be one, and his name one." To Stade this passage contains a polemic against the conditions in Greek times when all gods were conceived of as only different representations of one and the same god. But, on the contrary, the post-exilic congregation was as truly a theocracy in the days of Darius Hystaspis as in the period subsequent to Alexander’s conquest. The Jewish colony of the Restoration was a religious sect, not a political organization. Zechariah often pictures the close relation of Yahweh to His people (2:10-13; 8:3,13), and the author of chapters 9-14 describes similar conditions. The "yearning for a fuller theocracy," which Cheyne (Bampton Lectures, 120) discovers in Zec 9-14, is thoroughly consistent with the yearning of a struggling congregation in a land of forsaken idols shortly after the return from exile.

(2) Zec 12:2 b, interpreted to mean that "Judah also, forced by the enemy, shall be in the siege against Jerusalem," is a proof, it is alleged, that the children of the Diaspora had served as soldiers. The verse, accordingly, is said to be a description of the hostile relations which actually existed between Jerusalem and Judah in the beginning of the Maccabean struggle. The validity of these claims, however, is vitiated by a correct exegesis of the passage in hand. The text is apparently corrupt. In order to obtain a subject for "shall be," the preposition before Judah had better be stricken out, as in the Targum. The passage then translated reads, "And Judah also shall be in the siege against Jerusalem." But this is ambiguous. It may mean that Judah shall fight against Jerusalem, or it may mean that Judah, too, shall be besieged. The latter is obviously the true meaning of the passage, as Zec 12:7 indicates. For, as one nation might besiege Jerusalem (a city), so all nations, coming up are practically going to besiege Judah. The Septuagint favors this interpretation; likewise the Coptic version; and Zec 14:14. Wellhausen frankly concedes that "no characteristic of the prophecy under discussion in reality agrees with the conditions of the Maccabean time. The Maccabees were not the Jews of the lowland, and they did not join themselves with the heathen out of hatred to the city of Jerusalem, in order finally to fall treacherously upon their companions in war. There is not the slightest hint in our passage of religious persecution; that alone decides, and hence, the most important sign of Maccabean times is wanting."

(3) Zec 10:10,11, which mentions "Egypt" and "Assyria" (and which, strange to say, is also one of the strongest proofs in support of the preexilic hypothesis), is singularly enough interpreted to refer respectively to the Ptolemies of Egypt and the Seleucids of Syria. But this is quite impossible, and especially so in view of the prominence which is given to Egypt in 14:19, which points to Persian rather than Greek conditions; for then Egypt, in consequence of her perpetual efforts to throw off the Persian yoke, was naturally brought under the observation of the Jews in Palestine, who repeatedly beheld the Persian armies passing on their way to the valley of the Nile.

(4) Still another argument advanced in favor of a late post-Zecharian date for these oracles is that from language and style: Aramaisms, scriptio plena, the preponderance of the shorter form of the personal pronoun "I," the Hebrew ending on, the frequent use of the nota accusativi, especially with suffixes, the omission of the article, the use of the infinitive absolute, and the clumsy diction and weary repetition of these prophecies are pointed to as evidence of their origin in Grecian times. But in opposition to these claims, it may be remarked in general that their force is greatly weakened by two considerations: (a) the fact that the author of Zechariah 9-14 depends so largely on older prophecies for his thoughts, and consequently more or less for his language; and (b) the fact that these prophecies are so very brief. There is no mode of reasoning so treacherous as that from language and style. (For the technical discussion of this point, see the present writer’s The Prophecies of Zechariah, 54-59.)

5. The Unity of the Book:

Among the further objections made to the genuineness of Zechariah 9-14, and consequently to the unity of the book, the following are the chief:

(1) There are no "visions" in these oracles as in Zechariah 1-6. But there are none either in Zechariah 7; 8, and yet these latter are not denied to Zechariah. As a matter of fact, however, visions do actually occur in chapters 9-14, only of a historico-parabolic (11:4-17) and eschatological character (9:13-17; chapters 12; 14).

(2) There are "no dates," as in Zec 1:1,7; 7:1. But dates are seldom attached to "oracles" (Isa 13:1; 15:1; Na 1:1; Hab 1:1; Mal 1:1). There is but one instance in the entire Old Testament (Isa 14:28 margin); whereas "visions" are frequently dated.

(3) There is "no Satan." But Satan is never mentioned elsewhere in any prophetic book of the Old Testament.

(4) There is "no interpreting angel" in Zechariah 9-14. But "oracles" need no interpreting angel. On the other hand, "the Angel of Yahweh" is mentioned in both parts (3:1 ff; 12:8), a fact which is far more noteworthy.

(5) Proper names are wanting in Zechariah 9-14, e.g. Zerubbabel and Joshua. But neither do these names occur in chapters 7; 8.

(6) The sins alluded to are different, e.g. theft and false swearing in Zec 5:3,1; while in 10:2 seeking teraphim and in 13:2 ff false prophecy are named. But these sins may have existed side by side. What is far more noteworthy, in both parts the prophet declares that all these evils shall be taken away and removed out of the land (3:9; 5:9-11; 13:1,2).

(7) The Messianic pictures are different, e.g. in Zechariah 1-8 the Messiah is spoken of as Branch-Priest (3:8,9; 6:12,13); whereas in chapters 9-14, as King, (9:9,10). But in 6:13 it is expressly stated that the Branch-Priest "shall sit and rule upon his throne." Of far greater moment is the picture of the nations coming to Zion to worship Yahweh. This remarkable picture recurs in all the different sections of the book (6:12,13,15; 8:20-23; 12:6; 14:16-19).

On the other hand, the following are some of the arguments which favor the genuineness of these disputed chapters:

(1) The fundamental ideas of both parts are the same. By this we mean that the deeper we go the nearer we approach unity. As Dr. G.A. Smith argues against Graetz, who divides Hosea 1-3 from Hosea 4-14, "in both parts there are the same religious principles and the same urgent and jealous temper"; the same is equally true of Zec 1-8 and Zec 9-14. Certain similarities are especially noteworthy, e.g.

(a) an unusually deep, spiritual tone pervades the entire book. The call to a true repentance, first sounded forth in the introduction (1:1-7), is developed more and more throughout the entire 14 chapters; thus, in the sanctifying of Joshua (Zec 3:4), in the message to Zerubbabel, "not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit" (Zec 4:6), in the conditions of future blessing (Zec 6:15), in the answer to the Bethel deputation (Zec 7:5-9; 8:16 ); and in Zechariah 9-14, in the consecration of the remnant of the Philistines (9:7), in the blessings to Ephraim (10:12), in the baptism of grace upon Jerusalem (12:10), in the fountain for sin (13:1), in the worship of Yahweh (13:9), in the living waters going forth from Jerusalem (14:8), and in the dedication of everything as holy unto the Lord (14:20,21). The tone which tempers these prophecies is an extraordinarily deep and spiritual one throughout. And this argument cannot be set aside by rejecting wholesale certain passages as later interpolations, as is done by Mitchell (ICC, 242-44).

(b) There is a similar attitude of hope and expectation in both parts. This is especially important. For example,

(i) the return of the whole nation is a prevailing idea of happiness in both parts (Zec 2:6,10; 8:7,8; 9:12; 10:6,7).

(ii) The expectation that Jerusalem shall be inhabited (Zec 1:16,17; 2:4; 8:3,8; 12:6; 14:10,11),

(iii) and that the temple shall be built and become the center of the nation’s religious life (Zec 1:16,17; 3:7; 6:15; 7:2,3; 9:8; 14:20,21).

(iv) Messianic hope is peculiarly strong in both (Zec 3:8,9; 6:12,13; 9:9,10; 11:12,13; 12:10; 13:1,7-9).

(v) Peace and prosperity are expected (Zec 1:17; 3:10; 6:13; 8:12,19; 9:10,12-17; 10:1,7,8,10,12; 12:8; 14:11,16-19).

(vi) The idea of God’s providence as extending to the whole earth (Zec 1:14-17; 2:9,12; 4:10; 6:5; 9:1,8,14; 10:3,1,9,12; 12:2-4,8; 13:7; 14:3,9). Again,

(c) the prophet’s attitude toward Judah is the same in both parts. It is an attitude of supreme regard for Judah’s interests, making them second only to the capital (Zec 2:2,4,16; 8:19; 1:12; 8:13,15; 12:2; 14:14; 10:3; 12:4,6,7; 14:21; 9:9,13; 10:6; 11:14; 14:5). The prophet’s attitude toward the nations, the enemies of theocracy, is the same in both parts. The whole assembled world are the enemies of Israel. But though they have scattered Judah, Israel and Jerusalem (1:11), and are still coming up to besiege Jerusalem (12:2; 14:2), yet they shall be joined to the Lord in that day (2:11) and worship Yahweh like the Jews (8:20-23; 14:16-19). These are all striking instances of similarity in the fundamental ideas of the two parts of the book.

(2) There are peculiarities of thought common to both parts: e.g.

(a) the habit of dwelling on the same thought (Zec 2:1,4,5,11; 6:12,13; 8:4,5; 8:21,22; 11:8; parallel 13:3; 14:5,16,18,19);

(b) the habit of expanding one fundamental thought into a series of clauses (Zec 6:13; 9:5,7; 1:17; 3:8,9; 12:4);

(c) the habit of referring to a thought already introduced: e.g. to the "Branch" (Zec 3:8; 6:12); "eyes" (Zec 3:9; 4:10); measuring "line" (Zec 1:16; 2:5,6); choosing Jerusalem (Zec 1:17; 2:12; 3:2); removing iniquity (Zec 3:9; 5:3 ff; 13:2); measurements (Zec 5:2; 14:10); colors of horses (Zec 1:8; 6:2,6); the idea of Israel as a "flock" (Zec 9:16; 10:2; 11:4 f; 13:7); idols (Zec 10:2; 13:2); shepherds (Zec 11:3 ff; 13:7); and of "all nations" (Zec 11:10; 12:3 ff; 14:2 ); Mitchell in attempting to answer this argument has failed utterly to grasp the point (ICC, 243);

(d) the use made of the cardinal number "two"; thus, two olive trees (Zec 4:3); two women (Zec 5:9); two mountains (Zec 6:1); two staves (Zec 11:7); two parts (Zec 14:2,4); with which compare Zec 6:13; 9:12; 14:8;

(e) the resort in each part of the book to symbolic actions as a mode of instruction; e.g. the coronation scene in 6:9-15, and the breaking of the two staves in 11:4-14.

(3) Certain peculiarities of diction and style favor unity of authorship; e.g. the phrase "no man passed through nor returned" (Zec 7:14; 9:8) never occurs elsewhere in the Old Testament. The author’s preference for and frequent use of vocatives (Zec 2:7,10; 3:2,8; 4:7; 9:9,13; 11:1,2; 13:7); and especially the frequent alternation of the scriptio plena and the scriprio defectiva orthography in the Hebrew (compare Zec 1:2,5 with 1:4,6 and 8:14; 2:11 with 5:7; 1:11 with 7:7; 9:5 with 10:5,11; and 10:4 with 9:9).

Accordingly, we conclude,

(1) that Zechariah 9-14 are of post-exilic origin;

(2) that they are not, however, late post-exilic;

(3) that they had their origin in the period just before the completion of the temple, 516 BC, and

(4) that they were probably composed by Zechariah himself.

6. Conclusion:

This conclusion is based upon the text taken as a whole, without an arbitrary dissection of the prophecies in the interests of a false theory. Mitchell (ICC, 258-59), after eliminating numerous individual passages, arrives at the conclusion that Zechariah 9-14 were written by four different writers;

(1) Zec 9:1-10, soon after 333 BC;

(2) Zec 9:11-11:3, about 247-222 BC;

(3) Zec 11:4-17 and 13:7-9, between 217 and 204 BC; and

(4) Zec 12:1-13:6 and chapter 14, about the same time.

Tradition points to a saner and securer conclusion, that these oracles were written by Zechariah himself; which in turn is corroborated by internal evidence, as has been shown above. One wonders why these oracles, written so late in Israel’s history, should have been appended by the collectors of the Canon to the genuine prophecies of Zechariah, if, as is alleged, that prophet had nothing whatever to do with them!

LITERATURE.

(1) Those Who Defend the Unity of the Book:

C. H. H. Wright, Zechariah and His Prophecies (Bampton Lectures), London, 1879; G. L. Robinson, The Prophecies of Zechariah, with Special Reference to the Origin and Date of Chapters 9-14, Leipzig Dissertation, reprinted from American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, XII, 1896; W.H. Lowe, Hebrew Student’s Commentary on Zechariah, Hebrew and the Septuagint, London, 1882; O.J. Bredenkamp, Der Prophet Sach., Erklart, 1879; Marcus Dods, The Post-Exilian Prophets: Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi ("Handbook for Biblical Classes"), Edinburgh, 1879; E.B. Pusey, Minor Prophets, 1877; W. Drake, "Commentary on Zechariah" (Speaker’s Commentary), 1876; T. W. Chambers, "The Book of Zechariah" (Lange’s Bible Work), 1874; A. Van Hoonacker, in Revue Biblique, 1902, 161 ff; idem, Les douze petits prophetes, 1908; Wm. Moeller, article "Zechariah" in The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, edited by W.C. Piercy, 1908.

(2) Those Who Advocate a Preexilic Origin for Zechariah 9-14:

Hitzig-Steiner, Die zwolf kleinen Propheten, 1881; Samuel Davidson, An Introduction to the Old Testament, 1862-63; W. Pressel, Commentar zu den Schriften der Propheten Haggai, Sacharja und Maleachi, 1870; C. A. Bruston, Histoire critique de la litterature prophetique des Hebreux, 1881; Samuel Sharpe, History of the Hebrew Nation, Literature and Chronology, 1882; G. von Orelll, Das Buch Ezechiel u. die zwolf kleinen Propheten, 1888; Ferd. Montet, Etude critique sur la date assignable aux six derniers chapitres de Zac, 1882; H. L. Strack, Einleitung in das Altes Testament, 1895; F. W. Farrar, Minor Prophets, in "Men of the Bible" series.

(3) Those Who Advocate a Post-Zecharian Origin for Zecharaih 9-14:

B. Stade, "Deuterozacharja, eine krit. Studie," in ZATW, 1881-82; T. K. Cheyne, "The Date of Zec 9-14," in JQR, I, 1889; C. H. Cornill, Einleitung in das Altes Testament, 1891; S. R. Driver, Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, 1910; J. Wellhausen, Die kleinen Propheten ubersetzt, 1893; N. I. Rubinkam, The Second Part of the Book of Zechariah, 1892; Karl Marti, Der Prophet Sacharja, 1892; A. F. Kirkpatrick, Doctrine of the Prophets, 1892; R. Eckardt, "Der Sprachgebrauch von Zach 9-14," ZATW, 1893, 76-109; A. K. Kuiper, Zacharja 9-14; eine exegetischcritische Studie, 1894; J. W. Rothstein, Die Nachtgesichte des Sacharja, 1910; G.A. Smith in Expositor’s Bible, 1896-97; S. R. Driver In the New Century Bible; H. G. Mitchell, ICC, 1912.

George L. Robinson

ze’-ker (zakher, pausal form for zekher, "memorial"; the King James Version Zacher): In 1Ch 8:31 =" Zechariah" of 1Ch 9:37.

See ZECHARIAH, (5).

zek-ri’-as (Codex Vaticanus (Zechrias, A and Fritzsche, Ezerias; the King James Version Ezerias): An ancestor of Ezra (1 Esdras 8:1) =" Azariah" of Ezr 7:1.

ze’-dad (tsedhadhah, only found with He locale; Samaritan tseradhah; Septuagint Saradak, Sadadak, Saddak): A town or district named in Nu 34:8; Eze 47:15 as on the ideal northern boundary of Israel. The uncertainty of the reading has led to two different identifications being proposed. The form "Zerad" was accepted by yon Kasteren, and his identification was Khirbet Serada in the Merj ‘Ayun, West of the Hasbany branch of the Jordan and North of ‘Abil. This identification, however, would compel us to draw the ideal boundary along the Qasmiyeh valley and thence eastward to Hermon, and that is much too far South If with Dillmann, Wetzstein, Muehlau and others we read "Zedad," then it is clearly identical with Sadad, a village on the road between Ribleh and Qaryetain. It has been objected that Sadad is too far to the East; but here, as in the tribal boundaries also, the references are rather to the district or lands possessed than to their central town or village.

W. M. Christie

zed-e-ki’-as: 1 Esdras 1:46 the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and American) "Sedekias."

zed-e-ki’-a (tsidhqiyahu, tsidhqiyah, "Yah my righteousness"; Sedekia, Sedekias):

(1) The son of Chenaanah (1Ki 22:11,24; 2Ch 18:10,23). Zedekiah was apparently the leader and spokesman of the 400 prophets attached to the court in Samaria whom Ahab summoned in response to Jehoshaphat’s request that a prophet of Yahweh should be consulted concerning the projected campaign against Ramoth-gilead. In order the better to impress his audience Zedekiah produced iron horns, and said to Ahab, "With these shalt thou push the Syrians, until they be consumed." He also endeavored to weaken the influence of Micaiah ben Imlah upon the kings by asking ironically, "Which way went the Spirit of Yahweh from me to speak unto thee?"

In Josephus (Ant., VIII, xv, 4) there is an interesting rearrangement and embellishment of the Biblical narrative. There Zedekiah is represented as arguing that since Micaiah contradicts Elijah’s prediction as to the place of Ahab’s death, he must be regarded as a false prophet. Then, smiting his opponent, he prayed that if he were in the wrong his right hand might forthwith be withered. Ahab, seeing that no harm befell the hand that had smitten Micaiah, was convinced; whereupon Zedekiah completed his triumph by the incident of the horns mentioned above.

(2) The son of Maaseiah (Jer 29:21-23). A false prophet who, in association with another, Ahab by name, prophesied among the exiles in Babylon, and foretold an early return from captivity. Jeremiah sternly denounced them, not only for their false and reckless predictions, but also for their foul and adulterous lives, and declared that their fate at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar should become proverbial in Israel.

(3) The son of Hananiah (Jer 36:12). One of the princes of Judah before whom Jeremiah’s roll was read in the 5th year of Jehoiakim.

(4) One of the officials who sealed the renewed covenant (Ne 10:1, the King James Version "Zid-kijah"). The fact that his name is coupled with Nehemiah’s suggests that he was a person of importance. But nothing further is known of him.

(5) The last king of Judah (see following article).

John A. Lees

(tsidhqiyahu, "Yah my righteousness"; name changed from Mattaniah (mattanyah, "gift of Yah"; Sedekias):

I. SOURCES FOR HIS REGION AND TIME

1. Annalistic

2. Prophetic

II. THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE LAST KING OF JUDAH

1. The Situation

2. The Parvenu Temper

3. Inconsistencies

4. Character of the King

5. His Fate

6. Doom of the Nation

The last king of Judah, uncle and successor of Jehoiachin; reigned 11 years, from 597 to 586, and was carried captive to Babylon.

I. Sources for His Reign and Time.

1. Annalistic:

Neither of the accounts in 2Ki 24:18-25:7 and 2Ch 36:11-21 refers, as is the usual custom, to state annals; these ran out with the reign of Jehoiakim. The history in 2 Kings is purely scribal and historianic in tone; 2 Chronicles, especially as it goes on to the captivity, is more fervid and homiletic. Both have a common prophetic origin; and indeed Jeremiah 52, which is put as an appendix to the book of his prophecy, tells the story of the reign and subsequent events, much as does 2 Kings, but in somewhat fuller detail.

2. Prophetic:

Two prophets are watching with keen eyes the progress of this reign, both with the poignant sense that the end of the Judean state is imminent: Jeremiah in Jerusalem and Ezekiel, one of the captives in the deportation with Jehoiachin, in Babylon. Dates are supplied with the prophecies of both: Jeremiah’s numbered from the beginning of the reign and not consecutive; Ezekiel’s numbered from the beginning of the first captivity, and so coinciding with Jeremiah’s. From these dated prophecies the principal ideas are to be formed of the real inwardness of the time and the character of the administration. The prophetic passages identifiable with this reign, counted by its years, are: Jeremiah 24, after the deportation of Jehoiachin (Jeconiah)—the inferior classes left with Zedekiah (compare Eze 11:15; 17:12-14); Jer 27-29, beginning of reign—false hopes of return of captives and futile diplomacies with neighboring nations; Jer 51:59, 4 th year—Zedekiah’s visit to Babylon; Eze 4-7, 5 th year—symbolic prophecies of the coming end of Judah; Eze 8-12, 6 th year—quasi-clairvoyant view of the idolatrous corruptions in Jerusalem; Eze 17:11-21, same year—Zedekiah’s treacherous intrigues with Egypt; Eze 21:18-23, 7 th year—Nebuchadnezzar casting a divination to determine his invasion of Judah; Jer 21, undated but soon after—deputation from the king to the prophet inquiring Yahweh’s purpose; Jer 34:1-7, undated—the prophet’s word to the king while Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion is still among the cities of the land; Eze 24:1,2, 9 th year—telepathic awareness of the beginning of the siege, synchronistic with Jer 39:1-10; 2Ki 25:1-7; Jer 37; 38, undated, but soon after—prophecies connected with the temporary raising of the siege and the false faith of the ruling classes; Jer 32, 10 th year—Jeremiah’s redemption of his Anathoth property in the midst of siege, and the good presage of the act; Jer 39, 11 th year—annalistic account of the breaching of the city wall and the flight and eventual fate of the king. A year and a half later Ezekiel (33:21,22) hears the news from a fugitive.

II. The Administration of the Last King of Judah.

1. The Situation:

When Nebuchadnezzar took away Jehoiachin, and with him all the men of weight and character (see under JEHOIACHIN), his object was plain: to leave a people so broken in resources and spirit that they would not be moved to rebellion (see Eze 17:14). But this measure of his effected a segmentation of the nation which the prophets immediately recognized as virtually separating out their spiritual "remnant" to go to Babylon, while the worldly and inferior grades remained in Jerusalem. These are sharply distinguished from each other by Jeremiah in his parable of the Figs (chapter 24), published soon after the first deportation. The people that were left were probably of the same sort that Zephaniah described a few years before, those who had "settled on their lees" (1:12), a godless and inert element in religion and state. Their religious disposition is portrayed by Ezekiel in Zedekiah’s 6th year, in his clairvoyant vision of the uncouth temple rites, as it were a cesspool of idolatry, maintained under the pretext that Yahweh had forsaken the land (see Eze 8). Clearly these were not of the prophetic stamp. It was over such an inferior grade of people that Zedekiah was appointed to a thankless and tragic reign.

2. The Parvenu Temper:

For a people so raw and inexperienced in administration the prophets recognized one clear duty: to keep the oath which they had given to Nebuchadnezzar (see Eze 17:14-16). But they acted like men intoxicated with new power; their accession to property and unwonted position turned their heads. Soon after the beginning of the reign we find Jeremiah giving emphatic warning both to his nation and the ambassadors of neighboring nations against a rebellious coalition (Jeremiah 27 mistakenly dated in the 4th year of Jehoiakim; compare 27:3,12); he has also an encounter with prophets who, in contradiction of his consistent message, predict the speedy restoration of Jehoiachin and the temple vessels. The king’s visit to Babylon (Jer 51:59) was probably made to clear himself of complicity in treasonable plots. Their evil genius, Egypt, however, is busy with the too headstrong upstart rulers; and about the middle of the reign Zedekiah breaks his covenant with his over-lord and, relying on Egypt, embarks on rebellion. The prophetic view of this movement is, that it is a moral outrage; it is breaking a sworn word (Eze 17:15-19), and thus falsifying the truth of Yahweh.

3. Inconsistencies:

This act of rebellion against the king of Babylon was not the only despite done to "Yahweh’s oath." Its immediate effect, of course, was to precipitate the invasion of the Chaldean forces, apparently from Riblah on the Orontes, where for several years Nebuchadnezzar had his headquarters. Ezekiel has a striking description of his approach, halting to determine by arrow divination whether to proceed against Judah or Ammon (21:18-23). Before laying siege to Jerusalem, however, he seems to have spent some time reducing outlying fortresses (compare Jer 34:1-7); and during the suspense of this time the king sent a deputation to Jeremiah to inquire whether Yahweh would not do "according to all his wondrous works," evidently hoping for some such miraculous deliverance as had taken place in the time of Sennacherib (Jer 21:1 ). The prophet gives his uniform answer, that the city must fall; advising the house of David also to "execute justice and righteousness." Setting about this counsel as if they would bribe Yahweh’s favor, the king then entered into an agreement with his people to free all their Hebrew bond-slaves (Jer 34:8-10), and sent back a deputation to the prophet entreating his intercession (Jer 37:3), as if, having bribed Yahweh, they might work some kind of a charm on the divine will. Nebuchadnezzar had meanwhile invested the city; but just then the Egyptian army approached to aid Judah, and the Babylonian king raised the siege long enough to drive the Egyptians back to their own land; at which, judging that Yahweh had interfered as of old, the people caused their slaves to return to their bondage (Jer 34:11). This treachery called forth a trenchant prophecy from Jeremiah, predicting not only the speedy return of the Chaldean army (Jer 37:6-10), but the captivity of the king and the destruction of the city (Jer 34:17-22). It was during this temporary cessation of the siege that Jeremiah, attempting to go to Anathoth to redeem his family property, was seized on the pretext of deserting to the enemy, and put in prison (Jer 37:11-15).

4. Character of the King:

During the siege, which was soon resumed, Zedekiah’s character, on its good and bad sides, was revealed through his frequent contact with the prophet Jeremiah. The latter was a prisoner most of the time; and the indignities which he suffered, and which the king heedlessly allowed, show how the prophet’s word and office had fallen in respect (compare the treatment he received, Jer 26:16-19 with 37:15; 38:6). The king, however, was not arrogant and heartless like his brother Jehoiakim; he was weak and without consistent principles; besides, he was rather helpless and timid in the hands of his headstrong officials (compare Jer 38:5,24-26). His regard for the word of prophecy was rather superstitious than religious: while the prophet’s message and counsel were uniformly consistent, he could not bring himself to follow the will of Yahweh, and seemed to think that Yahweh could somehow be persuaded to change his plans (see Jer 37:17; 38:14-16). His position was an exceedingly difficult one; but even so, he had not the firmness, the wisdom, the consistency for it.

In his siege of the city Nebuchadnezzar depended mainly on starving it into surrender; and we cannot withhold a measure of admiration for a body of defenders who, in spite of the steadily decreasing food supply and the ravages of pestilence, held the city for a year and a half.

5. His Fate:

During this time Jeremiah’s counsel was well known: the counsel of surrender, and the promise that so they could save their lives (Jer 21:9; 38:2). It was for this, indeed, that he was imprisoned, on the plea that he "weakened the hands" of the defenders; and it was due to the mercy of a foreign slave that he did not suffer death (Jer 38:7-9). At length in the 11th year of Zedekiah’s reign, just as the supply of food in the city was exhausted, the Chaldean army effected a breach in the wall, and the king of Babylon with his high officials came in and sat in the middle gate. Zedekiah and his men of war, seeing this, fled by night, taking the ill-advised route by the road to Jericho; were pursued and captured in the plains of the Jordan; and Zedekiah was brought before the king of Babylon at Riblah. After putting to death Zedekiah’s sons and the nobles of Judah before his eyes, the king of Babylon then put out the eyes of Zedekiah and carried him captive to Babylon, where, it is uncertain how long after, he died. Jeremiah had prophesied that he would die in peace and have a state mourning (Jer 34:4,5); Ezekiel’s prophecy of his doom is enigmatic: "I will bring him to Babylon to the land of the Chaldeans; yet shall he not see it, though he shall die there" (Eze 12:13).

6. Doom of the Nation:

The cruelly devised humiliation of the king was only an episode in the tragic doom of the city and nation. Nebuchadnezzar was not minded to leave so stubborn and treacherous a fortress on his path of conquest toward Egypt. A month after the event at Riblah his deputy, Nebuzaradan, entered upon the reduction of the city: burning the temple and all the principal houses, breaking down the walls, carrying away the temple treasures still unpillaged, including the bronze work which was broken into scrap metal, and deporting the people who were left after the desperate resistance and those who had voluntarily surrendered. The religious and state officials were taken to Riblah and put to death. "So," the historian concludes, "Judah was carried away captive out of his land" (Jer 52:27). This was in 586 BC. This, however, was only the political date of the Babylonian exile, the retributive limit for those leavings of Israel who for 11 years had played an insincere game of administration and failed. The prophetic date, from which Ezekiel reckons the years of exile, and from which the prophetic eye is kept on the fortunes and character of the people who are to be redeemed, was 597 BC, when Jehoiachin’s long imprisonment began and when the flower of Israel, transplanted to a foreign home, began its term of submission to the word and will of Yahweh. It was this saving element in Israel who still had a recognized king and a promised future. By both Jeremiah and Ezekiel, Zedekiah was regarded not as Yahweh’s anointed but as the one whom Nebuchadnezzar "had made king" (Jer 37:1; Eze 17:16), "the king that sitteth upon the throne of David" (Jer 29:16). The real last king of Judah was Jehoiachin; Ezekiel’s title for Zedekiah is "prince" (Eze 12:10).

John Franklin Genung

ze’-eb, zeb.

See OREB.

ze’-la (tsela‘ (2Sa 21:14)): A city in the territory of Benjamin (Jos 18:28; the Septuagint here omits). Here was the burying-place of the family of Saul, whither the bones of the king and of Jonathan were brought for burial (2Sa 21:14; the Septuagint here reads en te pleura, translating tsela‘, "side"). The place is not identified. It may be the Zilu of the Tell el-Amarna Letters.

ze’-lek (tseleq, meaning unknown): An Ammonite, one of David’s mighty men (2Sa 23:37; 1Ch 11:39).

ze-lo’-fe-had (tslophchadh, meaning unknown): Head of a Manassite family who died without male issue (Nu 26:33; 27:1,7; 36:2,6,10,11; Jos 17:3; 1Ch 7:15). His daughters came to Moses and Eleazar and successfully pleaded for a possession for themselves (Nu 27:1 ). This became the occasion for a law providing that in the case of a man dying without sons, the inheritance was to pass to his daughters if he had any. A further request is made (Nu 36:2 ) by the heads of the Gileadite houses that the women who were given this right of inheritance should be compelled to marry members of their own tribe, so that the tribe may not lose them and their property. This is granted and becomes law among the Hebrews.

Gray says (ICC on Nu 26:33) that the "daughters" of Zelophehad are towns or clans.

David Francis Roberts

ze-lo’-tez (Zelotes).

See SIMON THE ZEALOT; ZEALOT.

zel’-za (tseltsach; hallomenous megala): A place where Samuel told Saul he would meet two men with news that the asses were found. Its position is defined as "by Rachel’s sepulchre, in the border of Benjamin" (1Sa 10:2). It has been thought that the place of meeting was sufficiently indicated without the word betseltsach, which is translated "at Zelzah," and that this cannot therefore be a place-name. The Septuagint has "leaping mightily" or "in great haste" (Ewald) points to a different text. Whether the Greek can be so translated is also a question, as megala does not elsewhere occur as an adverb. Some corruption of the text is probable. The border of Benjamin may be roughly determined, but the tomb of Rachel is now unknown. No name like Zelzah has been recovered in the district. Smith ("Samuel," ICC, at the place) suggests that we should read "Zela" for "Zelzah" (tsela‘, for tseltsach).

W. Ewing

zem-a-ra’-im (cemdrayim; Codex Vaticanus Sara; Codex Alexandrinus Semrim): A city in the territory of Benjamin. It is named between Betharabah and Bethel (Jos 18:22), and is probably to be sought East of the latter city. It is usual to identify it with es-Samra, a ruin about 4 miles North of Jericho. Mt. Zemaraim probably derived its name from the city, and must be sought in the neighborhood. On this height, which is said to be in Mt. Ephraim, Abijah, king of Judah, stood when making his appeal to the men of Israel under Jeroboam (2Ch 13:4). If the identification with es-Samra is correct, this hill must be in the uplands to the West, es-Samra being on the floor of the valley. Dillmann (Joshua, at the place) thinks Zemaraim cannot be so far East of Bethel, but may be found somewhere to the South of that town.

W. Ewing

zem’-a-rit (ha-tsemari; ho Samaraios): A Canaanite people named in Ge 10:18; 1Ch 1:16. The occurrence of the name between Arvadite and Hamathite gives a hint as to locality. A place called Cumur is mentioned in the Tell el-Amarna Letters along with Arvad. The name probably survives in that of Sumra, a village on the seacoast between Tripolis and Ruwad, about 1 1/2 miles North of Nahr el-Kebir. We may with some certainty identify this modern village with the site of the town from which the inhabitants were named "Zemarites."

ze-mi’-ra (zemirah, meaning uncertain; Septuagint Codex Vaticanus Amarias; Codex Alexandrinus Zamarias; the King James Version Zemira): A descendant of Benjamin (1Ch 7:8), but more probably of Zebulun (Curtis, Chronicles, 145 ff).

ze’-nan.

See ZAANAN.

ze’-nas (Zenas (Tit 3:13); the name in full would probably be Zenodorus, literally, meaning "the gift of Zeus"):

1. A Jewish Lawyer:

Paul calls Zenas "the lawyer." The meaning of this is, that, previous to his becoming a Christian, he had been a Jewish lawyer. The lawyers were that class of Jewish teachers who were specially learned in the Mosaic Law, and who interpreted that Law, and taught it to the people.

They are met with again and again in the Gospels, where they frequently came into contact with Christ, usually in a manner hostile to Him. For example, "A certain lawyer stood up and made trial of him, saying, Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" (Lu 10:25). our Lord replied to him on his own ground, asking, "What is written in the law? how readest thou?" Regarding this class of teachers as a whole, it is recorded that "the Pharisees and lawyers rejected for themselves the counsel of God" (Lu 7:30). The term nomikos, "lawyer," applied to Zenas, is in the Gospels varied by nomodidakalos, "a teacher of the law," and by grammateus, "a scribe": all three terms describe the same persons. Before his conversion to Christ, Zenas had been a lawyer, one of the recognized expounders of the Law of Moses.

A different view of Zenas’ occupation is taken by Zahn (Introduction to the New Testament, II, 54), who says that in itself nomikos could denote a rabbi, quoting Ambrosiaster, "Because Zenas had been of this profession in the synagogue, Paul calls him by this name." But Zahn gives his own opinion that "since the Jewish scribe who became a Christian, by that very act separated himself from the rabbinic body, and since the retention of rabbinic methods and ways of thinking was anything but a recommendation in Paul’s eyes (1Ti 1:7), Zenas is here characterized, not as legis (Mosaicae), doctor, but as juris peritus. The word denotes not an office, but usually the practical lawyer, through whose assistance e.g. a will is made, or a lawsuit carried on. Plutarch applies this name to the renowned jurist Mucius Scaevola."

The ordinary meaning seems preferable, which sees in Zenas one who previous to his conversion had been a Jewish rabbi.

2. Paul’s Wishes regarding Zenas:

It is not certain where Paul was when he wrote the Epistle to Titus. But he directs Titus to come to him to Nicopolis, where he had resolved to spend the ensuing winter. And he adds the injunction that he desires him to "bring Zenas the lawyer and Apollos"—Paul’s old friend from Alexandria—with him "on their journey diligently, that nothing be wanting unto them" (the King James Version). This may mean that Paul wished to have Zenas and Apollos with him at Nicopolis; but, on the other hand, it may not have this meaning. For the King James Version in translating "bring" is in error. The word signifies, as given in the Revised Version (British and American), "set forward" on their journey, that is, furnish them with all that they need for the journey. But even supposing Paul is not instructing Titus to bring Zenas and Apollos to Nicopolis—though this is perhaps what he means—yet it is most interesting to find these two friends of the apostle mentioned in this particular way, and especially at a time so near to the close of his life. Paul was unselfish as ever, solicitous that Zenas and Apollos be comfortably provided for on their intended journey. He is full of affectionate regard for them, interested in their welfare at every step; while he himself is far distant in another country, he remembers them with tender and sympathetic friendship. Doubtless the two friends reciprocated his affection.

Nothing more is known of Zenas than is contained in this passage.

John Rutherfurd

zend-a-ves’-ta.

See PERSIAN RELIGION; ZOROASTRIANISM.

zef-a-ni’-a (tsephanyah, tsephanyahu, "Yah hath treasured"):

(1) The prophet.

See ZEPHANIAH, BOOK OF.

(2) A Levite or priest (1Ch 6:36 (Hebrew 6:21)), called in some genealogies "Uriel" (1Ch 6:24; 15:5,11).

(3) Judean father or fathers of various contemporaries of Zechariah, the prophet (Zec 6:10,14).

(4) A priest, the second in rank in the days of Jeremiah. He was a leader of the "patriotic" party which opposed Jeremiah. Nevertheless, he was sent to the prophet as a messenger of King Zedekiah when Nebuchadnezzar was about to attack the city (Jer 21:1) and at other crises (Jer 37:3; compare 29:25,29; 2Ki 25:18). That he continued to adhere to the policy of resistance against Babylonian authority is indicated by the fact that he was among the leaders of Israel taken by Nebuzaradan before the king of Babylon, and killed at Riblah (2Ki 25:18 parallel Jer 52:24).

Nathan Isaacs

A (probably) Jewish apocryphal work of this name is mentioned in the Stichometry of Nicephorus and another list practically identical with this; a quotation fr