Zechariah 9 is a beautiful piece of poetry with compelling imagery, and it is also interesting to read in light of one of the major arguments advanced in the New Testament, which is that Jesus came to save everyone, including Gentiles.  For very early Christians, this was a matter of some contention, (for example the Acts of the Apostles describes this as a matter of some debate), and the various gospels sometimes vigorously advance the evangelical mission to Gentiles (Luke), sometimes show unfortunate antipathy to the Jews (John), and sometimes seem to be advocating for a Jewish Christian perspective that views evangelizing to Gentiles more cautiously (Matthew). 

Let’s dive into the text!  This is going to be a line-by-line comparison of NRSV and LXX text, with the LXX in italics.

Text

[1] An Oracle.

An argument of the reasoning of the Lord

The word of the LORD is against the land of Hadrach and will rest upon Damascus.

In the land of Sedrach and Damascus is his sacrifice,

For to the LORD belongs to the capital of Aram, as do all the tribes of Israel;

Because the Lord watches over humans and all the tribes of Israel.

[2] Hamath also, which borders on it, Tyre and Sidon though they are very wise. 

Also Hemath on its boundaries, Tyre and Sidon, because they are exceedingly wise. 

[3] Tyre has built itself a rampart,

And Tyre has constructed a stronghold for itself,  

and heaped up silver like dust, 

and stored up silver like dust, 

and gold like dirt in the streets.

and gathered up gold like the mud of streets. 

[4] But now the LORD will strip it of its possessions

Because of this the Lord will inherit it

And hurl its wealth into the sea,

And strike its power into the sea,

And it shall be devoured by fire.

And it shall be consumed in fire.

Notes on Text

This passage sets up a fairly typical conflict for the Hebrew Bible, between powerful Gentiles and the might of God on behalf of his people.  Obviously “Tyre and Sidon” becomes a standard pairing to refer to worldly decadence. These were early Phoenician port cities that were enriched by Mediterranean sea trade, and in the ancient world would have been doggedly cosmopolitan and non-Hebrew. Here we sea that mercantile wealth described with some lovely imagery before the Lord’s promised retribution.  

In verse 4, there is an interesting contrast between the NRSV text form, with the Hebrew form reading“…the LORD will strip it of its possessions and hurl its wealth into the sea,” whereas the LXX version read “…the Lord will inherit it and strike its power into the sea,” with this latter phrasing suggesting that God will take and keep this wealth for God’s own Kingdom, rather than destroying it as useless to God’s purpose.  

Another interesting divergence occurs in verse 1, which in the Hebrew reads “For to the LORD belong the capital of Aram” and in the LXX reads “Because the Lord watches over humans.” My copy of the NRSV has some annotations which suggests a possible alternate reading of “For to the Lord belongs the eye of Adam.” In Hebrew Adam also means “humankind,” so the NRSV/LXX comparison could actually be:

For to the LORD belongs the eye of humankind, as do all the tribes of Israel;

Because the Lord watches over humans and all the tribes of Israel.

Here we see a good example of the possible corruption of the text by scribal error, mistranslation by the authors of LXX, or both, which changes the meaning of the text. This is also a good example of the influence of translators on the English text, since the NRSV’s annotations indicate that the text literally reads “For to the LORD belongs the eye of Adam.”¹

Here, “eye” being translated as “capital” is probably an accommodation to Hebrew idiom², but the annotation for “Adam” notes that “Aram” is a correction made by the translation/editorial committee to a Hebrew text that actually reads “Adam/humankind.”  

The argument in favor of this correction is that obviously we are talking about a single letter difference, which is an easy scribal error to make if you are writing out manuscripts by hand, and that by changing Adam to Aram, verses 1-2 are essentially making the claim that God is the master of the maximal borders of Ancient Israel (or so the critical notes in my copy of the NRSV tell me).  With this revision, verse 1-4 essentially describe God laying claim to the land of Israel and overthrowing the Gentile usurpers for his literal worldly Kingdom.  

Notably, the LXX is making a slightly different claim, where in verse 1, rather than God’s word opposing Hadrach and Damascus, God’s sacrifice is in those same locations. This sets the stage so that verses 1-2 seem to imply God’s spiritual hegemony over the region, and then in verse 4 God inherits the wealth of Tyre and Sidon but overthrows their worldly power.  Overall the LXX version of the text seems to be more accommodating of the idea of the inclusion of neighboring peoples into God’s kingdom and less hostile to them. This difference is perhaps what we should expect from a work of translation intended for Diaspora Hebrews who are interspersed among Gentiles.  Notably the Hebrew text tradition comes from surviving medieval Hebrew manuscripts, which is to say a text tradition maintained by Jews who had doggedly maintained a distinct religious and cultural identity despite great hardship for more than a millennium of exile, and so it makes sense that it would view Gentiles as more sharply separate.

Footnotes

[1] As a helpful contrast, the NIV translate this a “for the eyes of men and all the tribes of Israel are on the LORD” <back to top>

[2]  I don’t actually know Hebrew so I can’t speak to this particularly intelligently, beyond the fact that translating “eye” as “capital” is a fairly weird change and when comparable changes occur in Greek, which I do know, it typically is the result of an idiom that would not make any daggone sense in English. <back to top>