Journal of Biblical and Pneumatological Research. Paul Elbert

key Hebrew root.48 Taking their lead, Everett Fox attempted the same technique in an English translation at the turn of the 21st century.49

Zech 2:5 is marked by the vocabulary of the Mosaic tradition of Exod 3:12–15 in which the Hebrew name Yahweh was associated with the similar sounding verb ehyeh, or I am. The etymology of names in the Hebrew Bible, although often inexact from the lexicographer’s standpoint, does reliably strike the character in a single word. Without establishing its etymological history, it is still clear that the Mosaic call narrative defined Yahweh for the Hebrew Bible in association with hayah--be, become, happen, befall.50 The name and verb share many of the same consonants, hence are assonant, and so the Biblical meaning of the name is held in the root that defines it. The Torah contains a number of speeches by Yahweh that are studded with ordinary forms of hayah, indicating that the wordplay of the Mosaic etymology was a substantial tradition. Speeches by Yahweh that enjoyed assonance between the name and hayah include reassurances of protection, scenes of creation, and covenantal promises. Isaac, Aaron, Moses, Joshua, Gideon and David were all reassured by Yahweh, saying “I am with you.”51 A similar reassuring promise from Yahweh is found in Jeremiah and Ezekiel: “I am your God and you are my people.” More forbidding is the threat in Hos 1:9, “I am not with you.” The homophony of subject and action, name and verb, constituted a poetic theology which has a role in how the Hebrew Bible characterized its central character. All of these examples of a theological characterization of Yahweh relative to hayah depend on pronouncing the name as it is written. The tradition was audible before substitutes began to be read out loud in the place of its letters.

Zech 2:5 (MT 2:9) reiterated the oral tradition by using the Mosaic association of Yahweh with Ehyeh (I am); but Zechariah’s version is well beyond ordinary in this class of texts, for though hayah by its very nature resists imagery, (thus upholding Mosaic laws prohibiting the making of idols,) Zechariah embellished it fabulously. The Exodus deliverance stories and the fiery chariots and horsemen of Elijah and Elisha (2 Kings 2:11; 6:17) are invoked with his imagery of glory within the city and walls of fire round about her.52 Zechariah’s actual subject is the rebuilding of the wall around Jerusalem, but as is the rule with classic prophecy, the wall is not going to save Jerusalem. The signature “I, I am with you” that reassured Israel’s ancient heroes with an invisible presence was the salvific dimension to trust in. Zechariah therefore conceived of the unseen presence of the LORD with the luminous image of a wall of fire, impenetrably removing her fate from an earthly to a spiritual fortress. Going one step further, not armed forces, provisions, wealth and great art or architecture were the glory of Jerusalem, but the numinous LORD alone, “I am the glory within her.” Steeped in the prophetic tradition in which God alone can save the people, the presence of the LORD in Jerusalem was her strength and shield. Zechariah’s apocalyptic imagery has added to the ancient patriarchal promise a messianic fervor.53

      The following translation is, in the tradition of Buber, Rosenzweig and Fox, an effort to show how Zechariah used the play of Hebrew words from Exod 3:12–15 to recreate the Exodus deliverance while developing the pneumatological possibilities inherent in a folk etymology based on a word like “being.” In Hebrew, the proper divine name also must make sense as a form of being, so it has an exegetical equivalent in English that echoes the verb. Hence, my translation:

And I, I Am54 unto her, says Being-who-creates-being,55 as a wall of fire round about her, and I am56 glorious57 within her (Zech 2:5).

Although early post-exilic Jerusalem was a frontier, literary activity had certainly been intense during the Exile when these promises were most needed. Zechariah pointedly evoked the heroes to whom the old promises came, but his new message smelted the simple, ancient language of reassurance, shaped it anew and encrusted it with images of wonder, carrying Botschaft into a spiritual dimension. He deliberately recalled the marvels of the Exodus deliverance with twofold purpose; to encourage people who were in danger, and to plant them firmly in the land by insisting that God alone is sufficient for Israel. Exalting the Mosaic tradition with one image that can be visualized easily and another that makes untouchable the city’s greatness, he was able to formulate a theological attitude by choice of special linguistic means.58

      Conclusion

      This study included four extremely effective examples of ancient Israelite rhetoric which certainly were delivered orally. All but Zechariah drew metaphors of which most people had first-hand experience to create sayings that would be easily understood by non-literate listeners on the first proclamation. Zech 2:5 (MT 2:9) has an inner-textual echo of a necessarily oral tradition, but must have depended on the post-exilic corpus of Hebrew sacred writings. All four examples have distinctive complexities.

What may be said of this particular set of oracles is that highly sophisticated performance is characteristic of all four, and that literary composition is more the servant than the primary vehicle of oracular utterances. Their vocabulary, diction, and syntax can all be analyzed as drama, both for literary value and for oral effect. They are all economical with words as is poetry; they work with memorable reiterations of similar sounding words; and, they employ simple imagery through which any listener can interpret public, moral and spiritual life. Moreover, they still speak to the conscience of those who will hear. Transcending the situations that evoked prophetic comment, the collision of history with imaginative representation of its moral and spiritual dimensions produced iconic illuminations of the character of human behavior and the Spirit of God.59

1. Abraham J. Heschel, The Prophets: Two Volumes in One (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2009; repr., New York: Harper & Row, 1962).

2. Joachim Schaper, “Exilic and Post-exilic Prophecy and the Orality/Literacy Problem” VT 55 (2005): 324–42. For discussion of type and quality of metaphor, cf. Kirsten Nielsen There is Hope for a Tree: The Tree as Metaphor in Isaiah (JSOTSup 65; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2009).

3. Max Black, “Metaphor,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 55 (1954–55): 273–94.

4. Norman Perrin, “The Parables of Jesus as Parables, as Metaphors, and as Aesthetic Objects: a Review Article,” JR 47 (1967): 340–46.

5. That is, Isa 29:15; 44:9; Ps 94:7, 8.

6. For a summary of this discussion, see Gale A. Yee, Composition and Tradition in the Book of Hosea: A Redaction Critical Investigation (SBLDS 102; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1987).

7. Ibid., 2, 8, 22.

8. Ibid., 7–10.

9. William McKane, “Prophecy and the Prophetic Literature,”