Introduction

Information about the life and work of the prophet Zechariah. The name of the prophet Zechariah has been given various meanings; according to the majority of modern scholars, the name Zekharjah means: “(he whom) the Lord remembers” (Keif, F. B. Meyer, Bredeukamp, Smith Farrar, and others). — Zechariah twice names his ancestors by name: the word of the Lord came to Zechariah, son of Berechiah, son of Iddo (Zech 1:1). In accordance with other genealogical indications found in the books of Sacred Scripture, one can suppose that the father of the prophet was named Berechiah and his grandfather Iddo. But in view of the fact that the Hebrew ben is used to denote not only a son but also a descendant in general, one cannot decisively assert that the prophet Zechariah cites the names of his immediate ancestors. Therefore, we do not find among the Holy Fathers who interpreted the book of Zechariah an agreement in understanding the indicated information on the prophet’s ancestry. According to the interpretation of St. Cyril of Alexandria, Zechariah was born “from his father Berechiah in the flesh,” but he was at the same time also the son of Iddo — a prophet in spirit and “was brought up, as one must think, in the manner of the latter and became an imitator of such deeds of virtue” (Works of St. Cyril of Alexandria, Part XI. Sergiyev Posad, 1893. P. 2). Bishop Palladius, after mentioning this opinion of the Holy Father, noted that “it is not reliably known whether Iddo raised Zechariah” (Palladius, bp. Sarapulsky, Commentary on the books of the holy prophets Zechariah and Malachi. Vyatka, 1876. P. 1, note 2). The explanation of one of the later scholars comes close to the opinion of St. Cyril, who points to the possibility of levirate marriage, by which the mother of the prophet, after the death of her husband Berechiah, from his brother Iddo (Iddo) bore Zechariah: only with such an understanding would Iddo be the father of Zechariah in the flesh, and Berechiah according to law (Dr. L Bertholdt, Historischkritische Einleitung... Schriften des alten und neuen Testamente. 4 — ter Theil, Erlangen, 1814. S. 1698). Jerome identifies Iddo of the book of Zechariah with the one mentioned in 2 Chr 12:15 and 2 Chr 13:22; and he considers the latter to be that man of God about whom he writes in 1 Sam 13:1-6 (Works of the blessed Jerome of Stridon, Part XV. Kiev, 1900. P. 4 — Migne, patrologia latina, vol. XXV, col. 1419); consequently, according to Jerome’s opinion, Iddo could not have been the grandfather of our prophet, but a more distant ancestor. According to the opinion of the blessed Theodoret, “the prophet announces the name of the father who gave him birth and the name of the one by whom his father was born” (Works of the blessed Theodoret, bishop of Cyrrhus, part V. Sergiyev Posad, 1907, p. 68). However, the parallel indications of other sacred books (Ezra and Nehemiah) not only do not confirm this most probable opinion, but on the contrary raise doubts about its soundness. In Ezra 5:1 and Ezra 6:14 Zechariah is called simply the son of Iddo, without mention of Berechiah. But in any case, this does not give the right to see an irreconcilable contradiction between the statements of the book of Ezra and the book of the prophet Zechariah and does not serve as sufficient grounds to consider benberekhja in the latter an interpolation (such an opinion was expressed by Knobel and Ortenberg), because, first, ben and the later bar, in biblical usage, can mean not only a son but also a descendant in general; second, the Bible has many examples of people being called by the name of their more famous grandfather with the omission of the father’s name. Therefore, the omission of the name Berechiah in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah (Nehem 12:16) the majority of interpreters explain by the fact that Berechiah was not only unremarkable in any way but also died at a young age. In fact, at the time of the return of the captives under Zerubbabel and Joshua, Iddo (Iddo) was the head of his priestly family (Nehem 12:1), and in the time of the successor of the high priest Joshua, his son Joiakim (Nehem 12:10), the head of the family was not Berechiah but Zechariah (Nehem 12:12); there is nothing unlikely in the assumption that the prophet is more often named after his grandfather, who may have outlived his son and passed on his position as representative of the family to his grandson.

As for the time and place of Zechariah’s birth, in the absence of precise indications in the books of Sacred Scripture, one has to be satisfied with only more or less probable assumptions. The most widely accepted opinion among scholars is this: if at the time of the high priesthood of Joshua the grandfather of the prophet Iddo was still the representative of his priestly family, then consequently Zechariah, at the return of the captives to Jerusalem in the reign of Cyrus, was a relatively young man; and from the fact that he, eighteen years later, in the second year of Darius Hystaspes (519 BC), calls himself naar — a young man (Zech 2:4; verse 8 of the Masoretic text), this assumption becomes even more probable. From this follows such a conclusion: the prophet was born in Babylon shortly before the edict of Cyrus was issued and arrived in Jerusalem as a child (A. Kohler, Der Weissagungen Sacharjas erste Hallte, Cap. 1–8. Saugen 186f. Ss. 9–10).

Like Jeremiah (Jer 1:1) and Ezekiel (Ezek 1:3), the prophet Zechariah belonged to a priestly family. St. Cyril of Alexandria directly calls Zechariah “descended from priestly blood, that is, from the tribe of Levi” (p. 2). The majority of modern interpreters (Keil, Cornill, Pusey, Marti) believe that in Nehem 12:4 by Iddo and Zechariah the same persons are meant as Ezra 5:1 and Ezra 6:14. From this follows the conclusion: the prophet Zechariah belonged to a priestly family, — consequently, he himself was a priest. Moreover, Zechariah was the head of his priestly family, which title he inherited from his grandfather Iddo at the time of the high priest Joiakim, son of Joshua (Nehem 12:10).

Zechariah began his prophetic ministry not long after Haggai (in the second year of the reign of Darius Hystaspes, only two months later), when Joshua was high priest; at the time of Joshua, Iddo, the grandfather of the prophet, was still the head of his family (Nehem 12:4), consequently, Zechariah began his prophetic ministry before his priestly ministry (that is, as head of the family). There is some ground to suppose that prophetic ability was in the family of Zechariah in a sense hereditary. St. Basil the Great, in his commentary on Isa 1:1, remarks; “why did the prophet add the name of his father? To show that prophetic ability in him is a paternal inheritance” (Works of our holy Father Basil the Great, Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, Part II. Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra, 1900. P. 16). And St. Cyril of Alexandria, reading in Zech 1:1 instead of τὸν προφήτην — τὸν προφήτου, directly calls Iddo a prophet, who was, according to the commonly accepted opinion, the grandfather of Zechariah. According to the opinion of Baumgartess and Keil following him, the prophetic activity of Zechariah belongs primarily to the first period of his life, and the priestly — to the later (cit. S. 9); although by this is not denied, of course, the possibility of combining the duties of both kinds, which we see in the example of Jeremiah.

The first recorded prophecy of Zechariah dates to the second year of Darius Hystaspes. But on the basis of Ezra 5:1-2 it can be supposed that he appeared in prophetic ministry before this time; for the settlers from Babylon were led, namely through the prophetic exhortations of Haggai and Zechariah, to take up the restoration of the temple construction. But this testimony of the book of Ezra is factually confirmed only with respect to Haggai — the first chapter of his book; the prophetic exhortations of Zechariah of corresponding content thus remained unrecorded. The last of Zechariah’s prophecies having a definite time indication dates to the ninth month of the fourth year of Darius (Zech 7:1). The prophecies of chapters IX-XIV are thus to be referred to a later time; for the exact determination of the entire period of Zechariah’s prophetic ministry there is no possibility, due to the lack of reliable data. One can only affirm that this ministry of Zechariah coincides with the time of the initial establishment of the Jewish community after the return from Babylon and the time of the temple’s reconstruction, or, as Western scholars express it (de-Wette, Sellin, Klostermann and others), — the time of restoration. Compared with the prophetic activity of Haggai, the ministry of the prophet Zechariah was more prolonged, if one judges by the indications of the books of both prophets.

Besides the books of Ezra and Nehemiah and the book bearing the name of our prophet, there are several psalms in whose superscriptions the name of Zechariah appears, alongside the name of Haggai or separately. According to the Slavonic translation, the names of the mentioned prophets appear in the superscriptions of the following psalms: 137, 145, 147, and 148 (Haggai and Zechariah); Ps 138:1 is inscribed as: To the end, a psalm of David, Zechariah in the scattering. That the psalms having in their superscriptions the names of the prophets Haggai and Zechariah were not composed by them can be concluded from the fact that in some superscriptions David also appears as the author. And the very use in the superscription of the names of two prophets raises doubt about their authorship. Keil recognizes as most probable the following assumption: Haggai and Zechariah gave to the psalms bearing their names in the superscriptions that form in which they were sung by the community and have come down to us (Die Weissagungen Haggai. S. Erlaugen. 1860. S. 33). In the first book of Ezra we read: when the builders laid the foundation of the temple of the Lord, the priests were stationed in their vestments with trumpets, and the Levites, the sons of Asaph, with cymbals, to praise the Lord according to the ordinance of David, king of Israel. And they began to sing in alternation: “Praise” and: “Glorify the Lord,” “for he is good, for his mercy to Israel is forever” (Ezra 3:10-11). Here one can see an indication of the use at the described celebration of the laying of the temple’s foundation of psalms 145–148 and 105–106, whose opening words indicating their content are cited in the book of Ezra. From this, perhaps the corresponding psalms received in their superscriptions the addition of the names of the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, who were the initiators of the restoration of the temple and probably the organizers of the liturgical ritual upon the return of the Babylonian captives to their homeland, — so to speak imparting to these psalms even greater authority.

In the books of Sacred Scripture we find no precise and detailed information about the circumstances of the life and work of the prophet Zechariah. From his namesake book, as well as from the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, we can with sufficient clarity determine only the person of the prophet and the time of his life and work. We can affirm that Zechariah was a contemporary of the prophet Haggai, Zerubbabel, and the high priest Joshua; surviving the latter, he was at the time of his son Joiakim the head of his priestly family. The beginning of Zechariah’s prophetic activity according to the data of Scripture is determined with sufficient precision; but as for the end of it, as well as the time of the prophet’s death and the place of his burial, we have in Scripture absolutely no indication whatsoever.

The general content and division of the book of the prophet Zechariah. The book of the prophet Zechariah is divided by all interpreters and scholars, both ancient and modern, whether upholders of tradition or deniers, with almost complete unanimity into two parts: the first contains eight initial chapters, the second — the last six.

The first part, which contains the revelations given to the prophet in the second and fourth years of the reign of Darius Hystaspes (Zech 1:17; Zech 7:1), in turn can be divided into three sections. The first section (Zech 1:6) contains an introductory exhortation to turn from evil ways to God, with an indication of the calamities to which the ancestors of the prophet’s contemporaries were subjected for their impenitence, and of the immutability of God’s determinations. The second section (Zech 1–Zech 6:15) consists of a description of eight prophetic visions and the concluding symbolic action. In the third section, which contains two chapters (VII and VIII), the prophet offers in the name of God the resolution of the question concerning the observance of fasts established in memory of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, with an addition of exhortations and promises offered to the people by God’s command.

The second part of the book of the prophet Zechariah contains a depiction of the future destinies of the world in general and the Kingdom of God in particular; this second half of the book can be divided into two prophecies beginning in the same way with the words: massa debhar lehova; there is no indication of time when the revelations were received or the name of the prophet in the second part. The first prophecy, uttered concerning the land of Hadrach, depicts the struggle between the pagan world and Israel and the destruction of pagan power; and the second prophecy (concerning Israel) presents pictures of the future glorious state of the chosen people, when, cleansed by calamities, having bitterly lamented their transgressions and freed from unworthy members, it will attain a high degree of holiness and glory. Each of the two prophecies can, in turn, be divided into two halves, and the division of the entire second part will be thus: the first section of the first prophecy — ch. Zech 9 and Zech 10, the second section — Zech 11 ch.; the first section of the second prophecy — ch. Zech 12:1–Zech 13:6, the second section — from Zech 13:7 to the end.

The purpose of writing the book. In turning to the question of the purpose of writing the book of the prophet Zechariah, it is necessary above all to note the author’s intention to encourage the temple builders and all the people during the difficult period of restoring the community after the captivity; at the same time, the prophet seeks to dispel the false belief about the righteousness and acceptability to God of those freed from captivity, sons of a sinful people, and about the immediate proximity of Messianic times. To achieve these ends, the prophet depicts the future Kingdom of the Messiah and the glorious destiny of God’s people in general, as destined to be realized after a prolonged struggle with paganism, after repeated falls of the chosen people itself; the acts of Providence leading the chosen people to their appointed goal will be expressed in miraculous assistance to the sons of Israel in their struggle with paganism on one side and in severe punishments for their own sins on the other; moreover, pagans serve as an instrument in God’s hands for punishing the sons of God’s people, as in times past.

Particular occasions for the writing can be indicated only for two sections: Zech 6:9-15 and VII-VIII. The external occasion for the writing of Zech 6:9-15 was the arrival in Jerusalem of Heldai with his companions from Babylon, with gifts for the temple. Chapters VII and VIII were written on the occasion of the question raised by a certain part of the Jews about the appropriateness of observing the fasts established in memory of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, given the changed circumstances.

The question of the authenticity of the second part of the book of the prophet Zechariah. The book of the prophet Zechariah has been included in the canon of Old Testament sacred books in its fourteen chapters; the New Testament cites the second part as divinely inspired; the Fathers and teachers of the Church have not expressed doubt about the belonging of all fourteen chapters to the prophet Zechariah, the contemporary of the building of the second temple. Orthodox exegetes have always held (with the exception, it seems, of only Protopriest Pavsky), and continue to hold to this day the view that the said book in its full extent belongs to the prophet Zechariah. Western scholars held the same opinion until the middle of the seventeenth century; and then increasingly sharper voices began to be heard against the authenticity of the last six chapters of the book of Zechariah; so that in our time for the majority of Western scholars this is a universally recognized truth (K. Marti. Dodekapropheton. Tubiugen 1904. S. 391), and the book of Zechariah is divided by them into two: the first contains the prophecies of Zechariah the contemporary of Zerubbabel; and the second belongs to an unknown author, whom it is customary to call Deutero-Zechariah. (However, some scholars attributed the composition of Zech 9-14 and determined specific individuals).

The grounds for dividing the book of Zechariah for scholars of the negative direction were the difference in content of the two parts, in language, methods of exposition, and so forth; and the external occasion for separating the last six chapters was the circumstance that in the evangelist Matthew in Matt 27:9-10 the citation from Zech 11:12-13 is given not under the name of Zechariah but Jeremiah, although Jer 32:9 (and some verses from chapters XVIII, XIX, and XXXII) present only a remote similarity to the gospel text, while the passage from Zechariah corresponds to it quite precisely.

Having embarked on the path of denial, the scholars of the indicated direction attempt to comprehensively elucidate points of difference between the first and second part and to prove the impossibility of their origin from one author. First of all, the conclusion is reached about the difference in authors by comparing the content of the two parts. In the first part, consisting mainly of visions, the thought of the prophet is concentrated on the building of the temple and the main actors of that time, Zerubbabel and the high priest Joshua. In the last six chapters visions are absent, Joshuah and Zerubbabel are not mentioned at all, and nothing is said of the temple construction. Here the discourse is about the overthrow of the world power hostile to the chosen people, about the good and wicked shepherd, about a great transgression of the people and its repentance, about the abolition of Levitical service and universal sanctification. In the second part, there are no acting Angels and evil spirits, which we encounter in the visions of the first part. It is said there is no such close similarity in religious views set forth in the two parts as to allow one to suppose the unity of origin of both parts.

As for the language and methods of exposition of the second part, in this respect the difference from the first appears, it would seem, even with greater prominence. The first part is written in prose, the second — in poetic language; in the first part each more or less independent passage begins with a brief introductory formula, such formulas in chapters IX-XIV are completely absent. In the second part the name of the prophet is not mentioned, nor is the time when the revelations were communicated to the prophet indicated even once. Comparing the language of the two parts, they find allegedly irrefutable proofs of the difference in their authors: in the book of Zechariah there are certain words and expressions peculiar to only one or another part; in chapters IX-XIV there are a relatively greater number of Aramaisms indicating the later origin of these chapters; and especially, deciding significance here is the circumstance that both parts use the same words in more or less different senses or, conversely, give different names to the same thing.

Rejecting the authenticity of chapters IX-XIV of the book of the prophet Zechariah, scholars of the negative direction in further development of this position diverge in various directions, presenting extraordinary diversity of views on the time of origin of the disputed chapters and on the personality of their author. Some scholars refer the composition of the second part of Zechariah or some chapters to the time before the fall of the kingdom of Israel. Others — to the Maccabean epoch; that is, the disputed chapters, according to some, belong to the eighth century, according to others — to the middle of the second century BC; and within these limits — over a span of, consequently, six centuries — the most varied dates are indicated. While recognizing, in the majority of cases, the anonymity of Deutero-Zechariah, representatives of the negative view attribute the utterance and composition of the prophecies contained here to specific individuals: to the prophet Jeremiah, Zechariah, mentioned in 2 Chr 26:5 and in Isa 8:2, and Uriah, mentioned in Jer 26:20-23. This alone can testify to a certain extent to the instability of those grounds on which the opponents of the traditional view on the belonging to Zechariah, the contemporary of Zerubbabel, of all fourteen chapters of the book bearing his name, attempt to base their negative judgments.

And upon closer examination, the arguments of the opponents of the authenticity of the second part of the book of Zechariah generally appear to be suffering from bias, exaggeration, and false generalizations and, as such, far from possessing the degree of convincingness which they attribute to them. Against the fact that the two parts of the book of Zechariah present too sharp a difference in content, one can object that this difference, however, is not so great as to allow one to exclude on this basis all possibility of the origin of both parts from one author. The second part does not contain visions; but in the first part, too, there is a fairly significant section, apart from the introduction to the whole book, that is, chapters VII-VIII, which presents narrative and ordinary prophetic speech; to the symbolic action described in the first part in chapters IX-XIV correspond symbolic actions in Zech 11:4-17. Good and evil spirits do not appear as actors and are not mentioned in the second part, but they are not spoken of in chapters VI-VIII either; on the other hand, the Angel of the Lord is mentioned in Zech 12:8 and under the “saints” in Zech 14:5, in the opinion of the majority of interpreters, only Angels can be understood.

The discordance of the content of the second part of Zechariah with historical circumstances also cannot be proved with complete soundness. For instance, the mention of the house of Judah and the house of Israel does not at all speak to the fact that chapters IX-XI were written before 722 BC: in that case, one would have to reject the belonging to Zechariah of chapter VIII also, in which (Zech 8:13) these designations are used; however, critics do not do this. The mention in Zech 9:5 of the king of Gaza in no way testifies to the pre-captivity origin of this chapter, for Babylonian and Persian rulers had the custom of leaving to conquered peoples their kings: only so that they would recognize their dependence on them and give them the opportunity to be titled king of kings.

The methods of exposition stand in connection with the content and therefore it is entirely natural that in describing visions the prophet employs the language of prose, while the exalted prophecies concerning the future destiny of the chosen people and the whole world he expounds in rhythmic speech.

In contrast to the scholars of the negative direction, those defending the traditional view, with sufficient consistency and clarity, demonstrate the correspondence of the content of the two parts of the book of Zechariah. While not denying external differences, Pusey, for instance, sees a remarkable unity of purpose throughout the book. The starting point in all sections of the book is the time following the captivity, but all lead to the distant future: the first two have as their subject the time before the coming of the Savior, the third from the campaigns of Alexander and the victorious Maccabean wars brings us to the fact of the rejection of the Good Shepherd; the last, connected with the third by the same heading, beginning with a depiction of the future repentance of the people on account of the death of Christ, reaches the final conversion of Jews and pagans. The same scholar draws attention to the fact that in both parts of the book there is no mention of a king or of any earthly ruler: the coming Lord is the Messiah. By content of the book in general, the division between the two Hebrew kingdoms has passed; the house of Israel and the house of Judah are presented in the depiction of the prophet as united by a community of interests — not as an independent whole, but as constituting one society of the remnant of the people chosen by God (op. cit. pp. 503–504). Keil finds between the prophetic visions of the first part and the predictions of the second a very close correspondence, so that chapters IX-XIV, in his opinion, contain a prophetic depiction of that which the prophet beheld in night visions, that is — the future destiny of the Kingdom of God in its struggle with the pagan world. Chapters VII-VIII represent, according to Keil, a connecting link between the first and second parts. In both parts of the book Zechariah places his prophecies in connection with the writings of former prophets. Parallels in thought and expression can be seen in comparing Zech 2:9 with Zech 9:8; Zech 3:2 with Zech 12:8; Zech 8:20 and following with Zech 14:16 and following; Zech 8:23 with Zech 9:7 and others. One can point to the juxtaposition of Judah and Jerusalem in Zech 1:12; Zech 2:2; Zech 8:15; Zech 12:2 and following; Zech 14:14; to the use of symbolic numbers in both parts (Zech 3:9; Zech 11:8) to the use of rare expressions not occurring in other books of scripture but present in both parts of the book of Zechariah.

In subjecting to careful analysis the arguments of opponents of the authenticity of the second part of the book of Zechariah, we have the right to make the following conclusion: negative criticism does not point to any ground which would give the right to the conclusion that the disputed chapters cannot belong to the prophet Zechariah; all negative arguments are only presumptive and in the conclusion the deniers give more than in the adduced grounds. One must have in mind also another very important circumstance, giving significant weight to the positive data in favor of the unity of the book of the prophet Zechariah. The Twelve Prophets shortly after Malachi formed a separate collection; the book of Zechariah occupies in this collection not the last place: it is unlikely that the insertion into the middle of the collection of a spurious or anonymous work, having, in comparison with separate books of the minor prophets, a fairly considerable volume. In any case, such an insertion could only have been made before the writing of the book of Malachi, which is improbable, for Malachi is separated from Zechariah by a period of time of no more than half a century: the younger contemporaries of Zechariah could have lived to the writing of the book of Malachi and to the conclusion of the collection of “the twelve” and at the same time of the entire section of the prophetic books of the Old Testament. In conclusion, one can further add that the original occasion for denying the authenticity of the disputed chapters has now lost all significance for negative criticism; for Zech 9–Zech 14 were attributed to the prophet Jeremiah (in accordance with the citation in the evangelist Matthew, which was noted above) only in the first period after the arising of this question, and subsequently the vast majority of scholars refer the second part of Zechariah to the post-captivity period.

Literature. From commentaries of the Holy Fathers on the prophet Zechariah which have come down to our time are: commentaries of St. Ephrem the Syrian (on Zech 3-14), St. Cyril of Alexandria, the blessed Theodoret, and the blessed Jerome, — all exist in Russian translation. From the patristic period we also have a commentary by Theodore of Mopsuestia.

The commentaries of Western scholars on the book of the prophet Zechariah that appeared before the beginning of the eighteenth century are indicated in Carpzov (Carpzovius) in Introductia ad libros propheticos Bibliorum Veteris Testamenti, Lipsiae, MDCCXXXI. Pp. 451–452, — under three headings: Lutheran, Catholic, and Reformed. Later isagogic and exegetical aids until the end of the nineteenth century are enumerated in Reinke (Ss. 32–34), de Wette (W. M. L de Wette, Lehrbuch der historisch – kritischen Einleitung in die kanonischen und apokryphischen Bucher des Alten Testaments... Berlin, 1869. S. 475), Bachman (Dr. Joh. Bachmann’s Preparationen und Commentate zu den gelesensten Buchem des alten Testaments. Kleine Propheten. Heft 11: Sacharja. Berlin 1896. Ss. 79–80) and Nowack (Die Kleinen Propheten ubersetzt und erklert Von D. W. Nowack. Gettingen 1897. S. 316). In the present century in the West there have already appeared many interpretive works on the prophet Zechariah. Such are: A. von Hoonacker, Les chapitres IX-XIV du livre de Zacharie (Revue biblique internationale. 1902. Pp. 161–183 et 347–378) F. C. Eiselen, Commentary on The Old Testament. Vol. IX – the Minor Prophets. New York, 1907. Pp. 571–686; Perowne, The Books of Haggai and Zechariah. Cambridge, 1908 (First Edition 1886); K. A. Leimbach. Die Weissagungen der Propheten Joel, Abdias, Ionas, Nahum, Habakuk, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias und Malachias. Fulda, 1908. Ss. 125–179; E. F. Stroter, Die Nachtgesichte des Propheten Sacharja. Bremen, 1908; A. Maclaren, The Books of Ezekiel, Daniel and the minor Prophets. London. MCMVIII. Pp. 264–322.

In Russian should be noted: Commentary on the book of Zechariah by Irenaeus (Klementievsky), archbishop of Pskov; Palladius, bp. Sarapulsky (Commentary on the books of the holy prophets Zechariah and Malachi); I. Samborsky (Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Learning. 1872, XL-XII, pp. 205–283: “On the book of the prophet Zechariah”). The question of the authenticity of the second part (chapters IX-XIV is devoted to a small study by D. Bogorodsky (Vilna, 1886). — Besides, in Russian there is the “Brief explanation of the twelve last prophetic books of the Old Testament” by Friedrich Rochemont, translated from the French (St. Petersburg, 1880).