The Problem of Authorship. 

        That Zechariah falls clearly into two distinct parts (chs. 1-8; 9-14) is denied by none. Nor is it denied that the differences between the two parts are so great that had they stood separately in the Bible none would have thought of bringing them together. It has also been shown, though this is not universally recognized, that there is a line of division in the second part as well, viz. chs. 9-11; 12-14. With this must be connected the fact that 9:1; 12:1; Mal. 1:1 all con­tain a formula unique in the prophetic books, viz. “the burden (or oracle) of the word of Jehovah…”

        As early as 1653 Mede attributed chs. 9-14 to Jeremiah on the basis of Matt. 27:9, which attributes Zech 11:12f to that prophet. Modern widely diverging views may be roughly classified as follows:

        1) The whole book is by Zechariah (So ISBE, article Zechariah, Book of; Young, pp. 269-273; Baron: The Visions and Prophecies of Zechariah, ch. XIII.). This view is entirely tenable, but does not really explain the facts.

        2) The second part is a unity and is later than Zechariah, though there are wide variations in the date suggested (So Barnes: Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi (C.B.)).

        3) Zech. 9-11; Zech. 12-14; Mal. 1-4 are three anonymous prophecies — for the authorship of Malachi see ch. XVI — of which the first is pre-exilic, the second post-exilic, but not much later than Zechariah, the third not later than 450 B.C.

        4) This is much as the preceding, but it’ places the two sections of Zech. 9-14 not earlier than the time of Alexander the Great (330 B.C.), some putting portions as late as Maccabean times right down to 100 B.C (So HDB, article Zechariah, Book of; Driver, LOT, pp. 348-355; Kirk-patrick, pp. 442-456; for the extreme view Oesterley and Robinson: An Intro­duction to the Books of the Old Testament, pp. 419-425.).

        We personally tend to the third view. There is no valid reason why there should not be anonymous prophetic por­tions in the Old Testament, and if there are, the end of the Book of the Twelve would be the natural place for them. Once Malachi was looked on as a proper name, it was almost inevitable that the other two portions should be taken up into Zechariah, the more so as this made the total of Minor Prophets twelve, the number of the tribes of Israel.

        Contacts between the style of chs. 9-11 and Jeremiah are too slight to furnish any proofs on literary grounds for Mede’s attribution. At the same time there is very much in these chapters than cannot find any really satisfactory explanation on the supposition of a post-exilic date. The mention of Assyria in 10:11 is an outstanding example. If the section is pre-exilic, it will date between the captivity of the North and the fall of Nineveh. 9 : 13 no more demands a post-exilic date than does Joel 3:6.

        It is difficult to understand the reasoning that would attribute a really late date to Zech. 9-14. It ignores the universally recognized fact that the canon of the prophets was closed at the latest by 200 B.C. and that the LXX translation of the prophets will have been made between 200 and 150 B.C. That they were not officially included in the canon after its having been closed is certain; that they were smuggled into both the Hebrew and the LXX is a nightmare.