An Historical Sketch in Figurative Language. The author here assumes the rô le of the chief actor in the events he is describing, and speaks in the first person. Unlike Zechariah, but in accordance with the custom of the later apocalyptic school, he does not mention by name the personages to whom he refers. They must, however, have been easily recognisable by his readers. We have here a soliloquy spoken by one who plays the part of the chief shepherd, i.e. ruler of Israel. This ruler is not, however, supreme, for he mentions those who buy and sell the sheep, and also the sheep's own shepherds, who are evidently Jews like himself. Unfortunately the text is not only corrupt, but also mutilated; for the three shepherds are mentioned as though they had been previously described; while some reference to the sheep must originally have stood between Zechariah 11:8 a and Zechariah 11:8 b. Since the speaker is clearly neither the Lord nor the supreme ruler of Israel, viz. the Syro-Greek king, it is evident that the three shepherds referred to in Zechariah 11:8 cannot be High Priests, for there was no Jewish layman who got rid of three High Priests, but must be subordinate Jewish nobles such as Simon the Benjamite and his satellites (cf. 2Ma_3:4; 2Ma_4:3). But if the three shepherds are not High Priests, there is no difficulty in supposing that a High Priest is the speaker; and in that case the chief actor in this apocalyptic, dramatic monologue may be identified with the Onias who was High Priest in the reign of Seleucus IV (2 Maccabees 3 f.). If Josephus confused Onias the High Priest with Onias the founder of the Temple at Leontopolis (Isaiah 19:18 *), which is in itself probable, the three shepherds may well be the sons of Tobias, who according to Josephus (Wars, 11) were expelled from Jerusalem by Onias. Notwithstanding the doubts which have been cast on the trustworthiness of the accounts of Onias in 2 Mac, it is certain that the language of Zechariah 11 is entirely applicable to him on the assumption that the course of events was as follows: By his expulsion from Jerusalem of the unscrupulous sons of Tobias, Onias incurred the hostility of the great Jewish families; whereupon, being slandered to Seleucus by Simon, he was compelled to leave Jerusalem in order to defend himself before the king, Seleucus IV, at Antioch. Upon the accession of Antiochus Epiphanes immediately afterwards, Onias was deprived of the High Priesthood, which was conferred first upon Jason, then upon Menelaus, who contrived to have Onias murdered at Antioch, a crime which in the opinion of many required expiation before national restoration could come. If, therefore, the author of this section speaks in the rô le of Onias, we can explain the details. Onias had received a commission as High Priest to shepherd the helpless Jewish people, whose position was like that of a flock sold to butchers for slaughter. The buyers are the Jewish nobles who farmed the taxes for the Syro-Greek government, and whose extortion was unpunished (render are not held guilty); the seller (read the sing.) of the sheep is the Syro-Greek king, who has no respect for the law of Israel and says, Cursed be the Lord, and (not - for-') let me be rich (blessed is a euphemism for cursed, cf. 1 Kings 21:10; 1 Kings 21:13; Job 1:5; Job 1:11; Job 2:5; Job 2:9), The sheep's own shepherds are the Jewish nobles and apparently are not distinguished from their buyers. In Zechariah 11:6 the apocalyptist describes from a past standpoint the horrors decreed by the Lord upon the land, which, when he wrote, had actually come to pass. It must be kept in mind that during the persecution of Antiochus and the years preceding it, the poorer Jews were persecuted by their fellow Jews. For verily the poor of the flock we must read with a different pointing for the Canaanites (i.e. merchants, cf. Isaiah 23:8, here and Zechariah 14:21 used contemptuously = hucksters) of the flock. The chief shepherd, i.e. the High Priest, represents his aims for his people by giving names to his two shepherd's staves (cf. Psalms 23:4), much as a modern cartoonist represents Cabinet Ministers as carrying parcels inscribed with the names of the measures which they are promoting. The one staff is called Beauty, or more correctly Pleasantness, and denotes the bearer's aim to promote the welfare of his people by cultivating happy relations with the surrounding peoples, Philistines, Edomites, etc., on whose friendliness the peace of the Jews largely depended. The second staff, denominated Bands, represents the High Priest's aim to promote unity among his own people. But in spite of all his efforts to promote peace and to protect his people from the extortionate nobles who were Jews only in name, he failed to secure support. He despaired of the sheep he had tried to shepherd, and they for their part wished to get rid of him. At last he felt that his position was untenable, and that he must give up his attempt to maintain peaceful relations with the neighbouring peoples. (N. B. In Zechariah 11:9 the Heb. is not necessarily as peevish as EV implies.) Although his action could be misrepresented, it was understood to have been dictated by conscientious motives: the sheep merchants that watched me knew that it was the word of the Lord.
A man beset by powerful enemies, however, knew that his case was hopeless, if he had no other claim to acquittal than innocence, and was unable to offer a substantial bribe. The shepherd's appeal to the sheep to give him his wages is a curious instance of the Hebrew disregard of consistency in metaphor when the meaning is plain. Probably Onias, before leaving Jerusalem for Antioch, appealed to his sympathisers to provide him with funds. The result was utterly inadequate, since the wealthier Jews were mostly inclined to Hellenism. The sum was so miserably small, that it is symbolically represented as thirty pieces of silver, i.e. according to Exodus 21:32 the piece to be paid as compensation for injury to a slave. It was insufficient to aid Onias, and he accordingly cast it not to the potter, who would be the last person likely to be working in the house of the Lord but into the treasury (see mg.). Despairing of maintaining any longer the unity of his nation, the High Priest breaks in pieces the staff which symbolises his aim in this respect. Probably Jerusalem should be read for Israel in Zechariah 11:14, since the breach was between the Hellenisera of Jerusalem and the Hasidæ ans who were mostly to be found in the country districts.