Title: Joshua the high priest and the interpretation of Zechariah 3.

Subject: BIBLE -- Hermeneutics

Source: Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Oct91, Vol. 53 Issue 4, p553, 18p

Author: Vanderkam, James C.

Abstract:	Addresses the exegetical issues encountered in Zechariah 3, particularly the background against which the oracle in 3:8-10 should be read. Visionary experience with Joshua, the angel of the Lord, satan, the Lord and possibly Zechariah; Theories on which verses in 6-10 are original.

AN: 9603275492 ISSN: 0008-7912

Note: This title is held locally

Magazine: The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, October 1991

JOSHUA THE HIGH PRIEST AND THE

INTERPRETATION OF ZECHARIAH 3

THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHARTAH are one of the most important sources for reconstructing the status of the high priest at the time of the return to Zion. Joshua, the first to hold the office after the exile, is mentioned in Ezra as a leader of the first group that returned to Jerusalem (2:2 = Neh 7:7; 1 Esdr 5:5, 8). Ezra 3:2 further identifies him as a son of Jozadak, who was in turn the son of the last reigning high priest of the first temple (2 Kgs 25: 18; 1 Chr 6:15; Jer 52:24). Joshua himself is never given the title high priest in Ezra--a fact which is in harmony with the tendency of the book to avoid titles.(n1) Among the activities of Joshua, the book notes that he participated in constructing the altar, that he offered sacrifices on it, joined in starting construction of the second temple, and played a role at least at the beginning of the successful drive to complete the structure (3:1-13; 5:1-2; 1 Esdr 5:47-58; 6:1-2). Strangely, he does not figure in the celebratory passage about the dedication of the temple (6:15-22; 1 Esdr 7:4-15). His only other appearance in Ezra is in 10:18 (1 Esdr 9:19), where it is reported that some of his descendants married foreign women whom they agreed to expel under heavy pressure from Ezra.

If one had access to Ezra and 1 Esdras alone, one would learn little about the status and normal day-to-day responsibilities of the high priest, and still less about what people expected from this official. The prophecies of Haggai do little to rectify the situation. Joshua is named five times in the l little prophetic work; in each case he is identified as the high priest and as the son of Jehozadak (1:1,12,14; 2:2,4). His name always follows that of Zerub babel, and he is not included with the Davidic heir in the oracle that concludes the book (2:20-23). Here one learns nothing about his activities beyond what Ezra records.

It is only from the visions and oracles of Zechariah that one gains a fuller impression about what at least one person thought the duties of Joshua should be. He is named in chaps. 3 and 6 (3:1,3,6,8,9; 6:11), and chap. 4, represents him as one of the two "sons of oil." Zechariah, like Haggai, uses the title "high priest" for him (3:1,8) and also mentions his father Jehozadak (6:11). The much-disputed oracle in 6:9-15 speaks of crowns for Joshua and for someone termed Branch; it offers the picture found consistently in the book: Joshua and a Davidic ruler are dual heads of the new community. But chap. 3 alone focuses on Joshua, as it deals with his investiture, his roles in the new temple, and the effect for the nation.

The chapter divides neatly into two parts. Vv 1-5 describe a visionary scene in the heavenly courtroom, a scene that is clearly marked off from the preceding section by the introductory verb * (These characters cannot be converted in ASCII text). V 6 then introduces an oracle from the Lord which is delivered by his angel; it extends from v 7 to the end of the chapter. Zech 4:1 begins a new unit, as one can infer from the fact that the angel who arouses Zechariah from his sleep is called "the angel who talked with me," a designation that is absent from chap. 3. The person who was responsible for the present shape of Zechariah 1-8 has made a successful attempt to call attention to the vision of chap. 3 both by the place where he has situated it and by the special features that he has given to it. With chap. 4, it occupies the middle place in the sequence of eight visions in 1:7-6:15, all of which are presented as if they came to the prophet on the night of the 24th day of the 11th month in Darius' second year. Among the unique traits of chap. 3, are the following: (1) It lacks the interpreting angel who normally speaks with Zechariah, with the result that the seer is unable to question him about what he sees. (2) The prophet sees a historical character who is identified by name. (3) The satan is mentioned. (4) Someone shows Zechariah the vision (elsewhere, he sees it).(n2)

In this paper I will address some of the exegetical issues encountered in Zechariah 3, especially the background against which the oracle in 3:8-10 should be read. Part I surveys the visionary section (vv 1-5); part II deals with the oracular material in vv6-10 and the dominant ways of interpreting vv8-10; and part III advances a new proposal for understanding vv8-10. The whole is meant to be a contribution toward reconstructing the position of the high priest in the early postexilic period.

I. The Vision (3:1-5) The visionary scene is a courtroom in which the principal characters in order of appearance are: Joshua, the angel of the Lord, the satan, the Lord, and possibly Zechariah (v 5). The reader is ushered into the drama in mid-act because the first words exchanged presuppose that an accusation has been made by the satan against Joshua. The Lord rebukes the accuser and characterizes himself as the one who has chosen Jerusalem (cf. 1:14-1.7; 2:1-5, 10,16 [Engl. 1:18-21; 2:6,12]). At the end of v 2 the Lord refers to someone or something as a "brand plucked from the fire."(n3) Although Jerusalem is the nearest possible referent to the pronoun * (These characters cannot be converted in ASCII text), the context proves that the graphic expression describes Joshua. Jerusalem, of course, is considered a feminine noun (see the suffixes in 2:6,8,9 [Engl. 2:2,4,5]). Moreover, the situation virtually requires that Joshua be the one intended. Twice it is said of him that he is clad in filthy garments (3:3,4). The word translated "filthy" (* (These characters cannot be converted in ASCII text)) is used here alone in the Bible, but its nominal cognates (* (These characters cannot be converted in ASCII text) express the filth of human excrement (Deut 23:14 [Engl. v 13]; 2 Kgs 18:27) and a drunkard's vomit (Isa 28:8).(n4) Thus, Joshua's clothing was not a little soiled; it was thoroughly filthy and beyond cleaning. It has been suggested that in this case the image is consistent with the designation of Joshua as a "brand plucked [literally: saved, rescued] from the fire"; his clothing became soiled as a result of being burned.(n5)

It is reasonable to suppose that the reference is to Joshua's experience in exile, specifically in Babylon.(n6) Perhaps the wording itself suggests as much. The term translated as "brand " is * (These characters cannot be converted in ASCII text), which occurs rarely in Biblical Hebrew but resembles the name of the southern Babylonian city Ur from which Abram had come (Gen 11:28,31; 15:7; Neh 9:2). In later versions of the Abram stories, this city-name, interpreted as the Hebrew word for "fire, flame," served as a convenient springboard for the idea that Abram burned the idol temple in Ur, the event which caused him to leave the area because of the danger in which it put him (see Jub. 12:12-15). In some later stories Joshua himself is said to have been rescued from a Babylonian furnace (cf. Isa 31:9, where * (These characters cannot be converted in ASCII text) and * (These characters cannot be converted in ASCII text) are parallel with one another).(n7) Perhaps Zechariah knew of such embellishments of the Abram stories and chose his words accordingly

In the verses that follow, Joshua's offensive clothing becomes the center of attention. The angel (apparently) orders those who stand in his presence to remove the filthy garments from him (v 4). Only then is one told the full meaning of the apparel: "And he said to him, `Behold, I have taken your iniquity * (These characters cannot be converted in ASCII text) away from you, and I will clothe you with rich apparel"' (v 4) The term rendered "rich apparel" (* (These characters cannot be converted in ASCII text)) is used only twice in Biblical Hebrew, here and in Isa 3:22, where it refers to the clothing worn by the wealthy ladies of Jerusalem. BDB(n8) relates it to the verb * (These characters cannot be converted in ASCII text), which in the qal means "draw of"f (e.g., a sandal, Deut 25:9), in the niphal"be delivered" (Prov 11:8), and in the piel "rescue" (e.g., Ps 6:5 [Engl. v 4]). From this rather unpromising information they infer that the noun means a "robe of state (taken of fin ordinary life)." It is more plausible to follow the lead of D. Winton Thomas, who associates it with the same root consonants of a word attested in Arabic and Akkadian and having to do with purifying (Arabic halasa = to be pure, unmixed; Akkadian halasu = to purify).(n9) Thus, * (These characters cannot be converted in ASCII text) "designates the purified garments, the `pure vestments" with which Joshua is clothed once his filthy or impure ones have been removed. Since the term does not appear in any of the detailed descriptions of priestly vestments in Exodus or Leviticus, the term clearly cannot refer to a specific type of garment but rather to the state of the apparel so denoted."(n10) Also, the fact that the word is plural is probably significant: it is a cover term, as it were, for a full outfit, not a single part of one.(n11) This point emerges also from the context in which * (These characters cannot be converted in ASCII text) and the general word * (These character cannot be converted in ASCII text) are parallel (vv 4-5): the line "I will clothe you with rich apparel" is balanced by "[they] clothed him with garments."

Removal of Joshua's objectionable clashing symbolizes removal of his guilt; dressing him with pure garments will also have its implications, as the sequel relates. But the final part of the visionary section highlights a single item of Joshua's garb which is otherwise spoken of only in general terms. V 5 reports that a pure or clean turban is placed on his head. The MT, through its use of the 1st pers. sg. form * (These characters cannot be converted in ASCII text), makes this the command of Zechariah himself who here intervenes for the only time in the chapter: "And I said, `Let them put a clean turban on his head.'"(n12) The LXX omits the first-person verb and makes this another of the angel's commands. Whatever may have been the original form of the text, the accent laid upon the turban is not affected. A turban is one of the four items of clothing that Exodus 28 marks out as unique to Aaron's dress (with the ephod, breastpiece, and special robe). It is the only one of these items that is named explicitly in Zechariah 3, and the envelope structure of vv 4-5 wraps the two references to it between the two more generic words for clothing.(n13) But the prophet has not used exactly the same term for the turban as in Exodus 28. He employs * (These characters cannot be converted in ASCII text) whereas the Torah has * (These characters cannot be converted in ASCII text) (Exod 28:4,37,39; 29:6; 39:28,31; Lev 8:9; 16:4). Zechariah's word occurs less frequently in the Bible. Isa 3:23 includes turbans among the rich apparel of Jerusalem's wealthy ladies; and Isa 62:3 uses the phrase * (These characters cannot be converted in ASCII text) (qere; ketib is * (These characters cannot be converted in ASCII text) refers to a piece of headgear worn by well-placed individuals, including royalty (see also Sir 11:5; 40:4; 47:6). As a result, it has been claimed that Zechariah has intentionally opted for it rather than the form in the Torah to imply that Joshua would now fill a quasi-royal position in society.(n14) Nevertheless, biblical usage shows that both forms may have royal overtones, with neither conveying a stronger nuance than the other. Ezek 21:31 (Engl. v 26) places * (These characters cannot be converted in ASCII text) and * (These characters cannot be converted in ASCII text) in parallel: "Remove the turban, and take off the crown."(n15) That is, Joshua's new and pure headgear communicates the same royal associations that Aaron's turban did.

In the vision, then, Joshua has progressed from an accused person who is dressed in filthy clothing and on trial in the heavenly courtroom to one who is exonerated and clothed in pure, rich apparel, including the royal turban of the high priest. The change of clothing symbolizes the movement from guilty defilement to purity.(n16)

II. The Oracular Section (Zech 3:6-10) A. Survey. As the extant text presents it, the oracular material follows directly from the vision. The visionary character who voices the words is the angel of the Lord before whom Joshua stood at the beginning and who was active throughout the vision. He does not use his own words, however, but quotes the Lord of hosts (v 7). The oracles in vv 7-10 do not explain obscure symbols in the vision or identify characters; rather, the vision supplies the setting or situation from which the divine word issues forth.(n17) That word builds upon what has been said and done in the vision and draws important consequences.

The first statement is introduced as a solemn charge or even as a warning to Joshua ([Multiple line equation(s) cannot be represented in ASCII text]). Zech 3:7 explains how Zechariah conceived of the high priest's office and responsibilities. It lists five duties or privileges that he will or may have. V 7 has aroused debate because it is phrased as a condition in which it is not fully clear where the ptotases end and the apodoses or apodosis begins. One option is to read two protases (only two clauses are introduced by [Multiple line equation(s) cannot be represented in ASCII text]) and three apodoses; this is the course adopted by versions such as the NAB and the RSV: "If you will walk in my ways and keep my charge, then you shall rule my house and have charge of my courts, and I will give you the right of access among those who are standing here."(n18) Another possibility is that the first four clauses are protases, with only the final one introducing the consequences.(n19) The fact that only clauses I and 2 are introduced by a conditional word and the change in sentence structure at clause 3 (verbs come last in clauses 1-2, but occur in their normal early positions in 3-5) imply that the first option is the more likely. However, under either interpretation of the syntax, the meaning is not greatly affected: all five clauses express desirable duties and privileges that are envisaged as possibilities for Joshua.

Commentators have observed that the verse moves from the more general to the more specific.(n20) The first two clauses--"if you will walk in my ways and keep my charge"--enunciate broad religious (cf. Exceed 18:20) and priestly requirements (Lev 22:9 [for priests]; Ezek 40:45-46; 44:8,14 [for levitical priests, the sons of Zadok]) respectively. The conditional "keep my charge" would include supervision of the cult and possibly care of the sanctuary as well.(n21) The second two clauses, which are probably parts of the apodosis and thus articulate elements of the promise to Joshua, use more specific language: "then you shall rule [[Multiple line equation(s) cannot be represented in ASCII text]] my house and have charge [[Multiple line equation(s) cannot be represented in ASCII text]] of my courts." The verb [Multiple line equation(s) cannot be represented in ASCII text] is not used elsewhere with a building as its object--a fact which suggests something unusual about its meaning here. Its primary sense is juridical, but it is possible, given the parallel [Multiple line equation(s) cannot be represented in ASCII text], that it "does not denote an exclusive judicial activity but more broadly the administration and management of the temple."(n22) It should not be forgotten however that some biblical passages do speak of the levitical priests as dispensing justice (Deut 17:9-11 ; 21:5; Ezek 44:24 [at the sanctuary]; 2 Chr 19:8,11), while others view this as a royal responsibility (2 Sam 15:1-4; 1 Kgs 3:16-28; Jer 21:11-12; 22:1-4). It may be, then, that the prophet does intend a legal nuance and that he is crediting the high priest with greater responsibilities in a domain that was formerly dominated by the king.(n23) The two parallel terms "my house" and "my courts" help to express--within this context--the notion that the high priest is to serve as the highest authority in the entire temple complex. He is to be the sole ruler there, with no civil power to rival him--a condition that was unprecedented in monarchic times.(n24)

The final clause, the only one that is certainly a reward for obedience to the conditions stipulated, should be central to the passage but it is difficult to interpret: "I will give you the right of access among those who are standing here." "Those who are standing here" are the members of the heavenly court (vv 4-5). In other words, Joshua is being promised that if he meets the conditions which the Lord has set, he will, like the prophets of old, be present in some sense among the courtiers of God. The word translated "right of access" may, however, not express a meaning that is quite so direct and forceful. [Multiple line equation(s) cannot be represented in ASCII text] is handled by many translators and commentators in line with the suggestion that it is the plural of [Multiple line equation(s) cannot be represented in ASCII text] which means "walk, journey." Zech 3:7 would, if this were the case, be the only place in which the plural occurs. For its sense here BDB advances the suggestion that it means "goings, i.e. free access."(n25) The ancient versions, however, have understood it as referring to individuals who go about in the divine courtroom (LXX has [Multiple line equation(s) cannot be represented in ASCII text]--As the Masoretes have pointed the word, it is not the expected plural of [Multiple line equation(s) cannot be represented in ASCII text], and it may be an Aramaic loanword in which the causative participial form has an intransitive meaning.(n26) It is quite well possible,then, that the promise to Joshua is more indirect: he will be given individuals who have direct access to the divine presence--that is, the same promise as expressed in the BDB approach but at one remove. In either case, whether Joshua himself is offered direct access or whether the promise of indirect access is held out to him, he is encouraged with the conditional privilege of the sort of communion with God and his court that was claimed by prophets like Micaiah (1 Kgs 22:19-23), Isaiah (6:1-13), Jeremiah (23:18), and now Zechariah himself. Here, it appears, the high priest is represented as one who should be able to exercise a prerogative that once belonged to the prophet and still does in the experience of Zechariah. In fact, the promise may refer to the ongoing presence of people such as Zechariah. In this way and through the temple duties anticipated for Joshua, v 7 suggests expansions of high-priestly power into areas formerly associated with kings and prophets.

Zechariah 3:8-10 is presented as continuing the divine word to Joshua who is now joined by his colleagues. It is very likely that they are fellow priests; possibly, they are an assembly of priests such as the one known from Elephantine (AP 30.1). Joshua and they are commanded to listen, and the colleagues, perhaps including Joshua,(n27) are dubbed "men of good omen." That is, they are signs or emblems of what is to come. Isaiah and his children or disciples were called "signs and portents in Israel from the Lord of hosts who dwells on Mount Zion" (8:18); so, now, Joshua and his fellows "are prophetic of good to the community they are serving."(n28) The good that they portend is a message from God, and its contents seem to be indicated in what follows.

Directly after this characterization, Zechariah introduces, through a [Multiple line equation(s) cannot be represented in ASCII text]-clause, the first reference in the entire book to someone named Branch or Shoot: "behold, I will bring my servant the Branch" [there is no definite article in the text]. It is not surprising, in light of other references in the Hebrew Bible and in Zechariah, that almost all expositors see in the words "my servant" and "Branch" references to Zerubbabel, with Branch being a play on the meaning of the first pan of his name. In Hag 2:23 the Lord calls Zerubbabel "my servant," and in Jer 23:5-6; 33:14-15, Branch is a title for a Davidic ruler of the future. Moreover, Zech 6: 12-13 designates the one who will build (each verb used is future tense) the temple as Branch, while 4:7-10 presents Zerubbabel as the temple-builder. Yet, if Branch in 3:8 is an epithet for Zerubbabel, the text contains a puzzling feature: the Lord says that he is bringing or will bring ([Multiple line equation(s) cannot be represented in ASCII text] a participle) Branch. Zerubbabel, however, had been in Jerusalem for years, according to Ezra 2-5. It does seem peculiar that in the prophet's first reference to Zerubbabel, where he fails to name him, he predicts that he will be brought to a place where he has been for eighteen or nineteen years. In light of these unsettling facts, it is understandable that some have opted to say no more than that Zechariah, in his use of the title Branch, has in mind some future ruler from David's line.(n29) It must be admitted, nevertheless, that Zerubbabel is probably intended, although the vagueness surrounding "my servant Branch" hints that the emphasis here does not lie on Zerubbabel. If the prophet wants to highlight him, he names him, as he does in 4:6b-10a.

Zechariah 3:9 offers a second [Multiple line equation(s) cannot be represented in ASCII text]-clause to introduce another phenomenon: a stone placed in front of Joshua. Apparently, this too is something for which Joshua and his colleagues are "men of good omen." "For behold, upon the stone which I have set before Joshua, upon a single stone with seven facets, I will engrave its inscription, says the Lord of hosts, and I will remove the guilt of this land in a single day." That stone has already been set before Joshua ([Multiple line equation(s) cannot be represented in ASCII text]), but the Lord has yet to engrave it ([Multiple line equation(s) cannot be represented in ASCII text]). The meaning of this verse will be discussed in detail later in the paper; it provides the key for understanding the oracle in 3 8-10. The structure of w 8-9 indicates that once Branch comes and the stone is engraved, the guilt of the land will be removed on that very day, and, according to v 10, ideal social conditions will prevail: "In that day, says the Lord of hosts, every one of you will invite his neighbor under his vine and under his fig tree."

B. The Stone of Zech 3:9. There are several theories about which verses in 6-10 are original to the chapter and which were added later. V 6 is not part of the problem because it merely introduces the oracular words. The writer has marked 3:7 off by having it addressed to Joshua alone, while 3:8-10 are spoken to his colleagues and to Joshua as well. Something of the variety of scholarly conclusions about the formation of vv 7-10 can be glimpsed by listing the views found in four recent studies: Petitjean and Meyers-Meyers think that 3:8-10 form a supplementary oracle; Beuken finds the original oracle m 3:8-10, while w 6-7 were added later; and Petersen contends that there are three oracular responses: w 6-7, 9 and v 8 are two responses which did not belong originally with the vision; and v 10 is a deuteroprophetic response which builds upon the earlier two.(n30) Such diversity, especially the fact that Petitjean and Meyers-Meyers on the one hand and Beuken on the other can come to the opposite conclusion about what is primary and what secondary, suggests that this sort of division is not based on very strong evidence. Other theories about the fitting place for w 8-10 are parts of larger hypotheses regarding the reading of these verses.

These hypotheses center around how one is to understand the enigmatic stone that is introduced abruptly in v 9. Older commentators found it symbolic of varied phenomena such as the kingdom of God;(n31) but in more recent times two views have come to dominate the field: that the stone is part of Joshua's high-priestly outfit; and that the stone is part of the new temple. Each of these views should be examined now because they determine how w 8-10 are to be understood and, to a certain extent, affect how one reads Zechariah's hopes for the high priest of the new temple.

1. The Vestments Approach: The expositors who consider the stone a part of Joshua's high-priestly clothing presuppose a direct connection between this stone and the vision of vv 1-5. As the vision highlighted Joshua's apparel and the removal of personal guilt that his investiture entailed, so the oracle alludes to his clothing and the implications it has for the nation. That is, the defenders of this approach attach greater import to the present context of v 9 than do those who advocate the temple-building view.

The background information for this interpretation comes from Exodus 28 primarily (also chaps. 29; 39; Leviticus 8; 16). As noted above, the turban which was placed on Joshua in vv 4-5 is one of the four special items of Aaron's clothing that Exodus 28 describes. More importantly for v 9, Exodus 28 also speaks of precious stones in Aaron's splendid clothing: two were to be in the ephod and twelve in the breastpiece. Each of these was to have something engraved on it (using the same words for engraving as in Zech 3:9): each of the two in the ephod was to have the names of six of the sons of Israel, while each of the twelve in the breastpiece was to have the name of one of his sons engraved into it. Moreover, the promise found in Zech 3:9 ("I will remove the guilt of this land in a single day") can be explained on the basis of Exodus 28:38. In reference to the engraved plate which is on Aaron's forehead, it says that he is to "take upon himself any guilt [[Multiple line equation(s) cannot be represented in ASCII text]] incurred in the holy offering...." As a consequence, this plate ([Multiple line equation(s) cannot be represented in ASCII text]) has been identified as the referent of Zechariah's stone.(n32) Exod 28:36-38 describes it thus:

And you shall make a plate of pure gold, and engrave on it, like the engraving of a signet, "Holy to the Lord." And you shall fasten it on the turban by a lace of blue; it shall be on the front of the turban. It shall be upon Aaron's forehead, and Aaron shall take upon himself any guilt incurred in the holy offering which the people of Israel hallow as their holy gifts; it shall always be upon his forehead, that they may be accepted before the Lord.

There is obviously much in this paragraph that is reminiscent of the wording in Zech 3:9; and the plate is literally tied to the turban which was so prominent in the vision. Petersen has suggested yet another point of contact: the seven eyes or facets of the stone are a symbolic reference to the seven letters (there are eight in the MT's orthography) in the inscription etched into the plate: [Multiple line equation(s) cannot be represented in ASCII text] ?. Though there are these many similarities, Petersen and others have stressed that an important difference separates them: in Exodus 28 the Israelites and Moses are told to make the garments and Aaron bears the people's guilt; in Zechariah 3 the Lord performs all of the action.(n33)

The advantages of the vestments approach are obvious and strong. It reads the references to the stone in context and relates it to a topic--Aaron's garb--that had been mentioned in the vision and with which it has detailed similarities. While it continues the emphasis of the context on Joshua, it also explains the removal of guilt which Exodus 28 names in connection with the plate on Aaron's turban. Nevertheless, this approach also encounters several difficulties which it does not adequately solve. First and most obviously, Zech 3:9 speaks of a stone (twice), but the-item with which defenders of this view identify it is not the stones of Exodus 28 but the plate of Exod 28:36-38. The term * (These characters cannot be converted in ASCII text): means "blossom, flower" or "shining thing"(n34) and it is said to be made of gold. A stone and a metallic plate are rather different phenomena. Second, the guilt removed in Zech 3:9 is the guilt of the land, while in Exodus 28 it is guilt incurred in presenting sacred offerings. Thus, though both passages mention guilt, it is a different kind in each case. And third, the suggestion that the seven eyes or facets of the stone in 3:9 are the seven letters in the inscription * (These characters cannot be converted in ASCII text) is possible but depends on identifying the stone with the Aaronic plate--a point that is itself problematic.

2. The Temple-Building Approach: Although this hypothesis was first formulated long ago,(n35) it hasreceived powerful support in recent decades through comparison of Zechariah's visions and oracleswith evidence drawn from Mesopotamian sources for the rites and theology which surrounded templeconstruction and restoration. In this area the most important work has been done by A. Petitjean who,in his article of 1966 and book of 1969, has presented a thorough analysis of Zechariah's oracles andthe parallels to them from Akkadian sources.(n36) His work has been accepted to a large extent byBeuken(n37) and supported, modified, and furthered by others.(n38) At the heart of thetemple-building approach is the assumption that Zech 3:9, with its single stone and seven eyes orfacets, is not to be read in its present context but with the material in 4:6b-10a, a passage that breaksthe flow of chap. 4 and is independent of its present-setting.(n39) There, Zerubbabel is mentioned fourtimes--the only occurrences of his name in the book--and he is associated directly with building thetemple. The titles "my servant" and "Branch" do not appear in these verses; they do, however, showpoints of contact with 3:810. First, both passages involve e stones: in 4:7 the "top stone" * (Thesecharacters cannot be converted in ASCII text) is named, and 4:10 speaks of the "plummet" * (Thesecharacters cannot be converted in ASCII text). A second point of similarity is that both passagesenvision a time of happiness or bliss which will accompany temple construction. As 4:7 phrases it, "he[Zerubbabel] shall bring forward the top stone amid shouts of 'Grace, grace to it!"' And 4:10a adds:"For whoever has despised the day of small things shall rejoice, and shall see the plummet in the handof Zerubbabel." Also, 4: 10b, which is, strictly speaking, not part of the oracle of 4:6b-10a, refers toseven eyes and explains them as: "These seven are the eyes of the Lord, which range through thewhole earth." When one considers these parallels and the fact that Zech 6:12-13 proclaims that Branchwill build the temple, it is self-evident that defenders of this view have fashioned a very strong case forreading Zech 3:8-10 as a temple-building passage.(n40)

Understood in this context, Zech 3:8-10 presents the following message: the stone is a foundationstone on which, in Assyro-Babylonian usage, inscriptions were engraved to perpetuate the memory ofthe monarch who was responsible for the construction. As in 4:10b, the seven eyes symbolize thedivine care and favor. In Mesopotamia different rites accompanied the setting of the foundation stone.These served to remove impurity and were focused on the first brick. The same happens in Zech 3:9,and the atmosphere of social harmony in 3:10 (where "in that day" refers to the day when thefoundation is laid) mirrors the conditions which were to go hand-in-hand with laying this stone inAkkadian rites. The priests of 3:8 are the ones to whom the Lord, in traditional biblical fashion, hascommunicated his favorable decision about the new edifice; for this, too, Mesopotamian parallels maybe found. The epithet * (These characters cannot be converted in ASCII text) places the accent on thesuccession of the dynasty and is not messianic; * (These characters cannot be converted in ASCIItext) expresses, in connection with the line of David, the notions of royal succession and permanence.So, in Petitjean's view, 3:8-10 proclaims Zerubbabel as the legitimate representative of David'sdynasty and as the most eminent person of the restoration. He places the first stone, and all the powerunleashed by that act purifies the land and creates social bliss.(n41)

The temple-building approach has produced valuable results for the interpretation of Zech 4:6b-10a.To the points listed above, one may add that the phrase * (These characters cannot be converted inASCII text) in 4:7 probably means "the first brick"--the libittu mahritu of Akkadian texts--the bricktaken from the rubble of the earlier sanctuary and placed in the foundation of the new one.(n42) The *(These characters cannot be converted in ASCII text) of the same verse seems to be the large moundof ruins from the first temple; it had to be removed or levelled to permit construction of the newbuilding.(n43) And it is possible that the * (These characters cannot be converted in ASCII text) of v10 is a tin (other valuable metals were also used) brick placed in the foundation and on whichinscriptions were incised.(n44)

One must grant the appeal of the temple-building approach, but it, too, must face substantial obstacles.The first has to do with the need to rip 3:8-10 from its context and to read it in another. There appearsto be no firm evidence to support the thesis that the oracular material in Zechariah belonged togetherat one time and that later it was sliced up and distributed among the visions.(n45) Also, theconnections between 3:8-10 and 4:6b-10a are not as close as some claim. Actually, the two shareonly the word "stone," and in both contexts where it occurs in chap. 4 it is further identified throughexpressions that can now be explained from Akkadian sources. The supposed parallel of the seveneyes does not exist because it figures in 4:10b, which all recognize as falling outside the oracularaddition in 4:6b-10a; it explains not the seven eyes of the stone in 3 9, but the seven lamps (or sevenlips on each) of 4:2. The shout of "grace, grace on it" (4:7) and the joy of 4: 10a are only remotelysimilar to the picture of social harmony in 3:10. And, as 4:6b-10a show, the writer is quite capable ofmentioning the temple and Zerubbabel by name if he wishes to refer to them. Neither is found explicitlyin 3:8-10. Only the imposition of the contents of 4:6b-10a on 3:8-10 permits defenders of this thesis toidentify temple-building as the theme of the latter.

III. A Proposal (Zech 3:8-10)

Both the vestments and temple-building theories have been found wanting, but the vestments approachdoes have the advantage of reading 3:8-10 in context. No new setting has to be invented for it. Itsweaknesses may be remedied by retaining the connection with Exodus 28 and by revising theinterpretation of the stone in Zech 3:9. The prominence of Joshua's clothing in chap. 3 makes theinformation about the high priest's garments the most likely context in which to read the oraclesattached to the vision, sayings in which only Joshua is named. It should be recalled that in the visionstripping Joshua of his soiled garments signified the removal of his guilt. What does his investiture with"rich apparel" connote? The answer seems to lie in Exodus 28.

The items of apparel unique to Aaron's costume in Exodus 28 are four: the ephod, breastpiece, robe,and turban. The ephod and the breastpiece, however, receive the bulk of attention (28:5-30), while therobe is under consideration only in vv 31-35 and seems to be regarded as part of the ephod, since it istermed "the robe of the ephod." The turban is mentioned more incidentally in vv37 and 39 (cf. v 4).The turban figured prominently in Zech 3:4-5; it is likely that the remaining parts of Joshua's outfit aresignified in the oracles. This emerges from a study of what Exodus 28 says about the ephod (with itsrobe) and the breastpiece.

The ephod and the breastpiece are highlighted by the author, who indicates that both are made of thesame materials: gold, blue, purple, scarlet stuff, and fine twined linen (Exod 28:6,15).(n46) Of theephod he writes: "And you shall take two onyx stones, and engrave * (These characters cannot beconverted in ASCII text) the names of the sons of Israel, six of their names on the one stone * (Thesecharacters cannot be converted in ASCII text), and the names of the remaining six on the other stone,in the order of their birth. As a jeweler engraves signets, so shall you engrave the two stones with thenames of the sons of Israel" (vv 9-11 a). These two stones were to be set "upon the shoulder-piecesof the ephod, as stones of remembrance for the sons of Israel; and Aaron shall bear their names beforethe Lord upon his two shoulders for remembrance" (v 12). These passages share with Zech 3:9 notonly the word "stone" (note * (These characters cannot be converted in ASCII text) in v 10), but alsothe verb * (These characters cannot be converted in ASCII text) and the cognate noun * (Thesecharacters cannot be converted in ASCII text).

Next the writer turns to the breastpiece. It is not only to be made of the same materials as the ephodbut also to be attached to it (vv 22-28). Like the ephod, the breastpiece also contained stones--fourrows, each with three precious stones of different kinds. The subject is introduced by the words: "youshall set in it four rows, of stones," which may be somewhat more interesting in Hebrew: * (Thesecharacters cannot be converted in ASCII text) * (These characters cannot be converted in ASCIItext)(v 17), where the singular word * (These characters cannot be converted in ASCII text) isnoteworthy, as is the verb (ml] which is used elsewhere (with * This character cannot be converted inASCII text) for ordaining priests. About the stones the writer states: "There shall be twelve stones withtheir names according to the names of the sons of Israel; they shall be like signets, each engraved withits name, for the twelve tribes" (v 21). As with the ephod, so with the breastpiece the stones are meantas reminders: "So Aaron shall bear the names of the sons of Israel in the breastpiece of judgment uponhis heart, when he goes into the holy place, to bring them to continual remembrance before the Lord.And in the breastpiece of judgment you shall put the Urim and the Thummim, and they shall be uponAaron's heart, when he goes in before the Lord; thus Aaron shall bear the judgment of the people ofIsrael upon his heart before the Lord continually" (vv 29-30).

These two mysterious, numinous, and abundantly suggestive pieces of clothing together hold fourteenstones of remembrance which remind the Lord of his complete people when the high priest wears themin his presence and bears their judgment. It seems that Zechariah alludes to these two unified piecesof clothing by the stone with seven eyes or facets. The text of Zech 3:9 does not talk of a single stonewith seven eyes or facets but of one stone with seven pairs of eyes (the noun is dual -- * (Thesecharacters cannot be converted in ASCII text) or a total of fourteen, as there were fourteen stones inAaron's garments. By using the singular noun "stone" Zechariah could remind his audience of theprecious stones in the high priest's vestments, and by the image of the seven pairs of eyes he couldsuggest the full number of them. It is not impossible that he names just one stone because for him onlythe house of Judah remained of the twelve tribes.(n47) The symbol of the seven pairs of eyes, then,adds the nuance of completeness, despite the presence of only one tribe in the restored community.That the eyes signify the fourteen stones is evident also from the fact that they are said to be inscribedon the stone, as the names of the Israelite tribes were engraved on Aaron's stones. Moreover, Aaronboth reminded the Lord of his people through these stones and bore their judgment when he did so.As a result, guilt was removed through his atoning work (cf. Leviticus 4-5; 9:7; 10:17). Also, it wasthrough the breastpiece, with its Urim and Thummim, that the divine will was communicated to the highpriest--a point that recalls the issue of success to God which was the subject of 3:7. The vision hadunderscored one item of the high priest's unique apparel; the oracle in 3:9 symbolizes the other three.

The message of the oracle, read in this way, is joined closely to the contents of the vision. Joshua isinvested with his splendid garments as a sign that a new age is dawning. That new age is characterizedby two facts: a Davidic heir is coming, but more importantly in this context the temple cult will oncemore serve its function of removing guilt and atoning for sin. Zechariah 3 reminds one of Exod40:12-13: "Then you shall bring Aaron and his sons to the door of the tent of meeting, and shall washthem with water, and put upon Aaron the holy garments, and you shall anoint him and consecrate him,that he may serve me as priest" (see Lev 8:6-12). This, of course, happens as the tabernacle is beingdedicated and just before the sacrificial cult is detailed in Leviticus 1-7. Joshua's clothes convey asimilar religious message: the garments that symbolized his cultic functions and God's remembering hispeople are the focus of the oracle. As removal of his filthy garments represented the erasure of hisguilt, so donning splendid high-priestly vestments meant that the cult, headed by the high priest, wouldonce more effect its ancient goal of restoring the damaged relations between God and his people. Itseems, too, that Joshua's new clothing marks the resumption of communication between God andpriest: once more his will would be conveyed through priestly * (These characters cannot be convertedin ASCII text)and through the Urim and Thummim in the breastpiece of the high priest. The resultwould be harmonious relations in society--a hope which the prophet expresses in the traditional imageof visiting beneath vine and fig tree.(n48) Harmony and security are not associated with the physicallaying of the temple foundation but with resumption of the cult. Investiture of the high priest means thedivine remembrance of his people and his regular communication with them.

To conclude, Zechariah 3, in both the visionary and the oracular sections, centers about Joshua andhighlights the splendid vestments of the high priest. In this chapter, his apparel is used to symbolize therestoration of a proper relationship between the Lord and his people after the defiling experience of theexile and loss of the temple. Here one finds the first postexilic reference to this costume which was tomake such a powerful effect on the ancients who saw it and wrote about it (e.g., Sir 50:5-13; Ep.Arist. 96-99; Ant. 11.8.5 o331-35). The crucial fact about the chapter is, however, that it accents thecentral and expanded roles of the high priest in postexilic Jewish society. In Zechariah 3 Joshua aloneis the protagonist and he does not share the stage with Zerubbabel.(n49)

(n1) S. Japhet, "Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel Against the Background of the Historical and ReligiousTendencies of Ezra-Nehemiah," ZAW 94 (1982) 73-76, 82-89.

(n2) See C. L. Meyers and E. M. Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1-8 (AB 25B; Garden City, NY:Doubleday, 1987) 179, 213-15; C. Jeremias, Die Nachtgesichte des Sacharja (FRLANT 117;Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977) 201-3.

(n3) All biblical citations are from the RSV.

(n4) BDB, 844.

(n5) D. L. Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1-8 (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984) 193.

(n6) B. Uffenheimer, The Visions of Zechariah: Prom Prophecy to Apocalyptic (Jerusalem: Kiryat

Sepher, 1961 [Hebrews 97; Jeremias, Die Nachtgesichte des Sacharja, 207-9; Petersen, Haggai andZecharrah 1-8, 195; Meyers-Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1-8, 185-88. Cf. H. Mitchell, A Criticaland Exegetical Commentary on Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, and Jonah (ICC; Edinburgh: Clark,1912) 150 (= Mitchell, Zechariah in future references); L. G. Rignell, Die Nachtgesichte desSacharja (Lund: Gleerup, 1950) 111.

(n7) For midrashic elaborations of the theme, based on a combination of Zech 3:2 and Jer 29:21-23,see the references in Y. Greenwald, The History of the High Priests in its relation to the generalpolitical and religious history of the Jewish People from the earliest times till the destruction of theSecond Temple (New York: published privately, 1933 [Hebrew]) 50.

(n8) BDB, 322-23.

(n9) D. Winton Thomas, "A Note on mhlswt in Zechariah 3:4," JTS 33 (1931-32) 279-80. For theArabic verb and cognates, see H. Wehr, A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic (3d cd.; ed. J. M.Cowan; Ithaca, NY: Spoken Language Services, 1976) 254-55; and for the Akkadian, CAD, 6. 40,50-51. For a discussion, see Meyers-Meyers, Haggai, Zeehariah 1-8, 190.

(n10) Meyers-Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1-8, 190.

(n11) So Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1-8, 196.

(n12) On the first-person form and how it relates the present passage to other prophetic scenes of theheavenly council, see N. L. A. Tidwell, "Wa'omar (Zech 3:5) and the Genre of Zechariah's FourthVision," JBL 9411975) 343-55; Jeremias, Die Nachtgesichte des Sacharja, 203-6.

(n13) Meyers-Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1-8, 190.

(n14) Ibid., 192.

(n15) Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1-8, 198; Jeremias, Die Nachtgesichte des Sacharja, 209-11.

(n16) W. A. M. Beuken (Haggai--Sacharja 1-8 [Studia Semitica Neerlandica 10; Assen: van

Gorcum, 1967] 284, 299), who thinks that in the vision Joshua represents the people, points to Gen35:2 and Lev 16:3-4 as other passages in which a change of dress functions as an atoning rite. Forhim, Zechariah 3 recounts the investiture of Joshua as high priest, the act which, in Exod 29:6; Lev8:9; 16:4, precedes the anointing of the priest. See also Jeremias, Die Nachtgesichte des Sacharja.207-11.

(n17) Beuken (Haggai--Sacharja 1-8, 282 [see also pp. 283, 258]) terms it a Situationsvision.

(n18) This view is accepted, among others, by Meyers-Meyers, Haggai Zechariah 1-8, 178, 194; P.Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968) 187.

(n19) So Uffenheimer, The Visions of Zechariah, 101; Beuken, Haggai--Sacharja 1-8, 29193;Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1-8, 206-8. Beuken sees in the conditional nature of the blessing in3:7 an indication that it did not belong with the vision originally, since elsewhere in Zechariah (with theexception of 1:3) the Lord performs the work which is not dependent on human conditions(Haggai--Sacharja 1-8, 290-91).

(n20) E.g., Beuken, Haggai--Sacharja 1-8, 292.

(n21) Meyers-Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1-8, 195; Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1-8, 204;Beuken, Haggai--Sacharja 1-8, 292 (noting that clauses 3 and 4 specify what this general expressionmeans).

(n22) V, Hamp-G. J. Botterweck, [Multiple line equation(s) cannot be represented in ASCII text],TDOT, 3. 190; cf. Jeremias, Die Nachtgesichte des Sacharja, 214-15.

(n23) Meyers-Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1-8, 195; Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1-8, 205-6;Jeremias, Die Nachtgesichte des Sacharp, 216.

(n24) Uffenheimer, The Visions of Zechariah, 102; Mitchell, Zechariah, 154-55.

(n25) BDB, 23.7.

(n26) Bcuken, Haggai-Sacharja 1-8, 293-96.

(n27) See A. Petitjean, Les oracles du Proto-Zacharie (EBib; Paris: Gabalda; Louvain: ImprimerieOrientaliste, 1969) 164-65.

(n28) Mitchell, Zechariah, 156. If this is the meaning, then this is another instance of the priestsassuming a prophetic role in communicating God's word to the people. See Meyers-Meyers, Haggai,Zechariah 1-8. 200.

(n29) Uffenheimer (The Visions of Zechariah, 1-7) argues from biblical usage of [Multiple lineequation(s) cannot be represented in ASCII text] that it never refers to an individual existing at theauthor's time; he is always a figure of the future. J. Liver ( The House of David From the Fall of theKingdom of Judah to the Fall of the Second Commonwealth and After [Jerusalem: Magnes, 1959(Hebrew)], 101-2) sees Zechariah's references to Branch in connection with his conviction that thepresent is a time of small things and that God will bring redemption in his own time. Zerubbabel will bethat Branch, but at present Zechariah does not yet give him the title. In light of the exceptionallyallusive way in which Zechariah would here be introducing Zerubbabel, it is difficult to acceptPetersen's thesis (Haggai and Zechariah 1-8, 210-11) that the oracle in this verse centers onZerubbabel and serves as a corrective to the high privileges accorded Joshua in the preceding verses.Note that Beuken Haggai--Sacharja 1-8, 290-303) considers 3:8-10 original, while vv 6-7 wereadded to exalt Joshua at Zerubbabel's expense. M. Barker ("The Two Figures in Zechariah," Hey J18 [1977] 41-42) shows that the title is not necessarily Davidic (referring especially to its use in Isa4:2, a passage whose context and Zechariah 3 share several terms, as seen above); her conclusionthat Joshua is Shoot appears unlikely, since the two seem to be separated in Zechariah.

(n30) Petitjean, Les oracles du Proso-Zacharie, 161; Meyers-Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1-8, 178;Beuken, Haggai--Sacharja 1-8, 290-300; and Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1-8, 202.

(n31) For a survey of older views, see A. Petitjean, "La mission de Zorobabel et la reconstruction duTemple Zach., III, 8-10," ETL 42 (1966) 44-46; A. E. Rothy, "Sieben Augen auf einem Stein," TZ 13(1957) 525-26. The identification of the stone as the kingdom of God is found in C. E Keil and F.Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament. Vol. 10: The Twelve Minor Prophets (repr.Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973) 2. 261.

(n32) Among those who make this identification are Mitchell, Zechariah, 157-59; Rignell, DieNachtgesiche des Sacharja, 130-34; Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration, 190-91; W. Harrelson, "Thetrial of the High Priest Joshua: Zechariah 3," El K (1982) 120; and Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah1-8, 211-12.

(n33) Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1-8, 212. See also K. Galling, "Serubbabel und derHohepriester beim Wiederaufbau des Tempels in Jerusalem," Studien zur Geschichte Israels impersischen Zeitalter (Tubingen: Mohr, 1964) 146-47.

(n34) BDB, 847.

(n35) For references to older literature, see Ruthy, "Sieben Augen auf einem Stein," 525;Keil-Delitzsch, The Minor Prophets, 2. 261 (who object that the foundation stone had been laid someyears before the time of Zechariah's visions).

(n36) Petitjean, "La mission de Zorobabel," 40-71; Les oracles du Proto-Zacharie.

(n37) See, for example, Beuken, Haggai--Sacharja 1-8, 284-90.

(n38) E.g., B. Halpern, "The Ritual Background of Zechariah's Temple Song," CBQ 40 ( 1978)

(n39) Petitjean, "La mission de Zorobabel,- 40-51; Les oracles du Proto-Zacharie, 173-85. He hasadopted the view of J. W. Rothstein (Die Nachtgesichte des Sacharja [BWANT 8; Leipzig: Hinrichs,1910]) that the oracular material in Zechariah 1-8 (1:1-6; 1:[14-]16-17; 2:10-t7; 3:8-10; 4:6b-10a;6:9-15; 7:4-14; 8:1-23) once belonged to a separate cycle of oracles, elements of which were lateradded to the vision reports (see "La mission de Zorobabel,"47-49, 50-51; Les oracles du Proto-Zacharie, viii) .

(n40) See Petitjean, "La mission de Zorobabel," 48-62; Les oracles du Proto-Zacharie, 173-206.

(n41) Petitjean, "La mission de Zorobabel," 61-70; Les oracles du Proto-Zacharie, 191-206.

(n42) Petitjean, Les oracles du Proto-Zacharie, 223-24, 241-51; D. L. Petersen, "Zerubbabel andJerusalem Temple Reconstruction," CBQ 36 (1974) 368-69.

(n43) Galling, "Serubbabel," 134-37; Petitjean, Les oracles du Proto-Zacharie, 258-63; Petersen("Zerubbabel," 367) who finds in the words * (These characters cannot be converted in ASCII text)"adeft play" on * (These characters cannot be converted in ASCII text)and thinks that this passage is awarning to Joshua to "leave matters of reconstruction to the royal house." If * (These characterscannot be converted in ASCII text) is a word-play, it is hardly deft; moreover, it seems highly unlikelythat the prophet is referring to a person by this expression.

(n44) Petitjean, Les oracles du Proto-Zacharie, 230-36; Petersen, "Zerubbabel," 370-71; cf. Halpern,"The Ritual Background," 172-73.

(n45) See the discussions of these matters in Harrelson, "The Trial of the High Priest," 119*; Petersen,Haggai and Zechariah 1-8, 120-22; Meyers-Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1-8, lix-lx. Petersen, asnoted above, accepts the vestments view about the stone in 3:9 and thus does not read this verse in thecontext of 4:6b-10a; Meyers-Meyers think that both the vestment and the temple-stone theories maybe intended by the author's ambiguous words (see pp. 204-13). Halpern ("The Ritual Background,-168-70) follows an older approach of setting 4:6b-10a between 3:8 and 3:9; the result is "a centralblock (2:10-3:10) from which the interpreter is absent." However, the angel is also absent from6:9-15, which would still be separate from this block; moreover, this relocation of 4:6b-10a does notproduce a very smooth text.

(n46) See M. Haran, Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel (repr. Winona Lake, IN:Eisenbrauns, 1985) 165-74. He shows that the materials of these garments relate them to thetabernacle itself.

(n47) He habitually names only Judah (with Jerusalem/Zion): 1:12,14,16,17,21 (Hebrew 2:4); 2:2(2:6),4 (2:8),7 (2:11),10 (2:14),12 (2:16); 3:2; 7:7;8:2,3,4,8,15,19,22. Zechariah mentions Israel(1:19 [Hebrew 2:2]; 8:13), but in both cases he is referring to its dispersion and hot giving it a place inthe restoration.

(n48) See 1 Kgs 5:5; Mic 4:4. In Micah, people stream to the temple because there they receivedivine teaching (* (These characters cannot be converted in ASCII text)[4:2]). ). In the Kingspassage, the image conveys the notion of security. See also 2 Kgs 18:21; Isa 36:16.

(n49) A version of this paper was delivered at the 1990 General Meeting of the CBA at Notre Dame,IN.

~~~~~~~~

By JAMES C. VANDERKAM University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, IN 46556 [Go To Citation]

Copyright of Catholic Biblical Quarterly is the property of Catholic Biblical Association of Americaand its content may not be copied without the copyright holder's express written permission except forthe print or download capabilities of the retrieval software used for access. This content is intendedsolely for the use of the individual user. Source: Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Oct91, Vol. 53 Issue 4, p553, 18p. Item Number: 9603275492

Result 33 of 33