Ahhhh..another opportunity to reach for my Robert Alter translation/commentary.
And I will pour out upon the House of David and upon Jerusalem’s dwellers a spirit of grace and graciousness, and they shall look upon those who were stabbed and mourn for them like the mourning of an only child.
Alter’s Note:
-mourn for them like the mourning of an only child-
It is puzzling that a prophecy promising the destruction of Judah’s enemies and the pouring out of the spirit of grace upon the people should conclude in this wave of desperate mourning. The least complicated explanation is Rashi’s: in the battle to defend the city, many have fallen by the sword, and so the triumph is darkened by a deep sadness over these terrible losses.
Stephen’s note: Rashi was a medieval French rabbi and author of commentaries on the Talmud and the Hebrew Bible.
Interesting. Alter’s response and his willingness to defer to Rashi indicate well enough the ambiguity of the passage. I went back and looked at some of the different translations of these verses and the variations are striking. Of course many of the translations can’t resist the temptation to follow the traditional interpretation as some kind of reference to Jesus’ crucifixion. Even the NRSV does this.
And I will pour out a spirit of compassion and supplication on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that, when they look on the one [a] whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn.
- ** you do not have permission to see this link ** Heb on me
Robert said
I hate to say it, but Rashi’s and Alter’s interpretation doesn’t track very closely to the standard Hebrew text. Alter is probably following a critical emendation of the text to make it easier to understand. I think the passage speaks of the people’s repentance of what they have done (figuratively) against God (perhaps through one of his prophets?). See, for example, how this passage continues into Chapter 13. I could be wrong, of course; I’ve never studied this passage in depth. That’s just my initial reading of the Hebrew in context. Maybe Jason will come along to better explain it.
The verse in question really is problematic. It wouldn’t be such a big deal if it were simply as it is, but the Christian texts have made a big deal of the text, which means that its being ambiguous (lots of sections of the Hebrew text is ambiguous in the Bible as we have it) rather bothersome. When it comes to Christians and Jews dealing together with texts that are said to have messianic / christological import, Jews prefer that the texts have a clear meaning in the Hebrew that can provide a defense of the traditional Jewish position against the missionary claims aimed at convincing Jews to convert to Christianity. I think that the text needs to be emended, and I assume that it’s been damaged in this verse.
Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS) suggests this:
b–b var lect; l אֶל־ vel אֱלֵי־
This means varia lectio (“a different reading” [from the text as it appears]), suggesting l {lecte} “read” either אֶל־ vel “or” אֱלֵי־ instead of the whole phrase אֵלַי אֵת (surrounded by b–b in the body of the text). I agree with this emendation and would read the text as:
וְשָׁפַכְתִּי עַל־בֵּית דָּוִיד וְעַל יֹושֵׁב יְרוּשָׁלִַ֫ם רוּחַ חֵן וְתַחֲנוּנִים וְהִבִּ֫יטוּ אֵלֵי־אֲשֶׁר־דָּקָ֫רוּ וְסָפְדוּ עָלָיו וכו׳
“And I will pour out upon the house of David and upon the inhabitant of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and compassion, and they will look at the one they pierced and will mourn over him etc.”
This is the reading you get with that emendation. It should be noted that the LXX reads with the MT (καὶ ἐπιβλέψονται πρός με ἀνθʼ ὧν κατωρχήσαντο καὶ κόψονται ἐπʼ αὐτὸν κτλ.) as does the Vulgate (et aspicient ad me quem confixerunt et plangent eum &c.). It will be noted that the LXX reads the “whom they pierced” as plural (ὧν, rather than singular οὗ), but the Vulgate still reads quem in the singular, dropping the ante preposition that would correspond to the Greek ἀνθ᾿ (ἀντί).
No matter how we look at it, it’s not a clear text. It isn’t clear who did the piercing. Perhaps it was their enemies. Perhaps it was they themselves. It isn’t clear why the first-person pronoun would be thrown in there at all and then switched to the third-person. I think it’s a very early textual mistake.
Absalom is being pierced.
I am no scholar, but just reading it plainly, it seems like the author of Zechariah 9-14 (a different author than Zechariah 1-8), consistently refers to the story of Absalom’s rebellion here. Notice how there seems to be a distinction between Jerusalem itself and the clans of Judah? All of Israel including Judah joined Absalom. David and those loyal to him fled Jerusalem, and it seems that much of
David’s fighting forces would then be considered the people of Jerusalem.
Certainly David is told his words are “as god” in Samuel.
Shimei was a Benjamite who cast stones at David as he fled, and was later forgiven as David crossed the Jordan in his return.
The Mount of Olives is mentioned only in the Rebellion story and here (and in the gospels, which seem to use both Zechariah and Samuel extensively).
Most important to the verse you asked about, David mourns for Absalom so deeply that he is rebuked by his general Joab for mourning a rebel instead of celebrating a great victory. Concepts such as loving one more than 10000 are thrown around. This is what the verse is referring to.
Its hard to say how the reference is being used, though. Zechariah 1-8 is at earliest 70 years after the destruction of Jerusalem. Zechariah 9-14 seems to be much later and has more in common with books like Malachi than with Zechariah 1-8. I can’t help wondering if it is a really late work, composed to deal with the sacking of Jerusalem by Ptolemy 1 Soter, who is said to have taken 100,000 captives.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)