Mark J. Boda, «Freeing the Burden of Prophecy:Mas%s%a4) and the Legitimacy of Prophecy in Zech 9–14», Vol. 87 (2006) 338-357
Prior to the 1980’s the definition of the Hebrew term mas%s%a4) as a reference to
prophetic speech or literature, was largely dominated by etymological
argumentation. However, Richard Weis, in his 1986 Claremont dissertation
leveraged form-critical categories and evidence to argue that this term was a
formal tag defining a particular type of literature, an argument that has been
applied and developed by the subsequent work of Marvin Sweeney (Isaiah,
FOTL; Book of the Twelve, Berit Olam) and Michael Floyd (JBL 12.1 [2002] 401-
422). This paper offers a critical review of this history of research with a view to
its impact on the interpretation of Zechariah 9–14. A new proposal is put forward
for the use of this term in Zechariah 9–14, one that reveals the influence of
Jeremianic tradition and highlights concern over certain prophetic streams in the
community that produced these texts.
346 Mark J. Boda
intention and events in the human situation has not been played out in
the expected way (e.g., Hab 1,2–2,20; Zech 9–11). It never seems to
arise from some problem or question arising out of the human situation
per se (23).
In short the definition of the genre ma¢¢Ë’ in terms of its use in oral
contexts (its constitution) is “prophetic exposition of YHWH’s
revealed will or activity†(24), while the definition of the genre ma¢¢Ë’
in terms of its use in literary contexts is “prophetic interpretationâ€.
Bridging these two definitions is the following expression: “prophetic
exposition (of YHWH revelation)â€.
e) Tradition history
Weis also offers some reflection on the tradition history of the
genre in order to take into account the temporal, societal and
geographical ranges of the works. He discovers that the genre endured
among the prophetic tradition of Judah from the 9th-8th until the 5th-4th
Century BCE (in this he discounts 2 Kgs 9,25 which has a northern
setting, because it has come through Dtr hands). Throughout this
history, Weis discerns a few changes. First, in terms of the use of
ma¢¢Ë’ in titles for prophetic literature, the post-exilic examples
(Zechariah, Malachi) distinguish carefully between ma¢¢Ë’ and debar ˘
YHWH, while the pre-exilic examples in Isaiah make no distinction.
Secondly, in terms of the citations of YHWH revelation, the 8th-7th
Century examples all contained within themselves a quotation or
report of the revelation, while the 6th-5th Century examples (including
also the function of the ma¢¢Ë’ texts in their final literary context) all
expound previously communicated YHWH revelation that lies outside
the ma¢¢Ë’ text itself.
f) Semantics
At the end Weis returns to the etymological discussion and
suggests three possible ways to understand the origins of the word
ma¢¢Ë’: from nˢ˒ (utter, recite=prophetic expression of divine
revelation), from nˢ˒ (bring carry=the thing brought back to the
inquirer from the prophet’s encounter with the deity), from the same
root as ma¢’ˇt (fire/smoke-signal=the signal of YHWH’s intention
received by the prophetic lookout). Weis prefers the final option, but
adds: “a mild preference at bestâ€.
(23) Ibid., 274-275. Underlining original to cited author.
(24) Ibid., 275-276.