Visions and Eschatology: A Socio-Historical Analysis of Zechariah 1–6 by Antonios Finitsis (review)

There is copious evidence linking the book of Zechariah in its final form to the apocalyptic texts that came to the fore later in the Second Temple Period. The recently published Hazon Gabriel (Matthias Henze, ed., Hazon Gabriel: New Readings of the Gabriel Revelation [SBLEJL 29; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011]) is only the most recent in a line of Jewish apocalypses from the second and first centuries b.c.e. that owe a particular debt to Zechariah. While Zechariah’s association with later apocalyptic literature has often driven the study of this biblical book, Antonios Finitsis argues for a different approach based upon the fifth-century social setting of Zechariah. He documents a complex of socio-historical developments associated with the early postexilic period, and he calls the sum of these developments “restoration eschatology” (p. 2). Restoration eschatology is the rubric under which Finitsis examines chapters 1–6 of Zechariah. This study is a version of Finitsis’ Ph. D. dissertation at the University of Chicago, directed by J. David Schloen. Schloen’s publications, which trace cultural developments such as patrimonialism in the Levant from the first millennium b.c.e. down to the Persian Period, reflect his acumen in this area, and his influence on the work of Finitsis is evident. This project benefited from the additional direction of John J. Collins and his expertise on the matter of apocalypticism.

Chapter 1 establishes the book’s two foci, the sociological context of the prophet Zechariah in the late sixth century and the visionary expression that he uniquely employed. Chapters 2 and 3 deal with the history of scholarship. In the crucial chapter 4, Finitsis reconstructs the social setting of the early postexilic period, an effort that is discussed in more detail below. Chapter 5 involves a reading of Zechariah 1–6 that incorporates key passages from the book of Haggai. Chapter 6 branches into critical theory; the work of Michael Riffaterre informs an exploration of the prophet Zechariah as visionary medium. In the final chapter, Finitsis recapitulates his thesis that the author of Zechariah 1–6, or proto-Zechariah, crafted a message that promoted social harmony in the face of potential strife by inspiring the people of Judah and Jerusalem to restore their community after the exile.

The crucial support for this thesis is chapter 4, the historical reconstruction of the world behind the text of Zechariah. In fact, this chapter is the crux of the monograph and deserves attention. Finitsis rightly states the question as follows: How did the Persian empire relate to its provinces such as Yehud, and vice-versa? His inquiry is structured along three lines: the Achaemenid dynasty’s propaganda directed at the provinces, the empires’s base of loyal elites who would enact Persian policy in provinces such as Yehud, and finally Persia’s dealings with local sanctuaries so as to generate revenue and support for the empire. All three discussions are substantive and focused, but they are not always cogent. The reconstruction that emerges is based largely on secondary sources, whereas primary sources better support these types of arguments. For example, there is a surfeit of documents on palace-temple relations in Babylonia, Egypt, and Asia Minor during the Achaemenid period, but this type of evidence is not introduced. Moreover, Finitsis relies on secondary sources that are slightly dated and so he is not always in step with contemporary scholarship. One example is his following Charles Carter’s conclusion that in the Persian I period of 539–450 b.c.e., the population of the province of Yehud was 13,350 people (pp. 99–100). More recent scholarship has adjusted this figure upward, with Oded Lipschits in 2005 placing the number at 30,125 (The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem [Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2005], p. 270). Finitsis includes Lipschits’s study in his bibliography but does not engage it...