Zechariah 1:5-8

1:5 “As for your ancestors, where are they? And did the prophets live forever? 1:6 But have my words and statutes, which I commanded my servants the prophets, not outlived your fathers? ¹  Then they paid attention ²  and confessed, ‘The Lord who rules over all has indeed done what he said he would do to us, because of our sinful ways.’”

The Introduction to the Visions

1:7 On the twenty-fourth day of the eleventh month, the month Shebat, in Darius’ second year, ³  the word of the Lord came to the prophet Zechariah son of Berechiah son of Iddo, as follows:

The Content of the First Vision

1:8 I was attentive that night and saw a man seated ⁴  on a red horse that stood among some myrtle trees ⁵  in the ravine. Behind him were red, sorrel, ⁶  and white horses.

[1:6]  ¹ tc BHS suggests אֶתְכֶם (’etkhem, “you”) for the MT אֲבֹתֵיכֶם (’avotekhem, “your fathers”) to harmonize with v. 4. In v. 4 the ancestors would not turn but in v. 6 they appear to have done so. The subject in v. 6, however, is to be construed as Zechariah’s own listeners.

[1:6]  ² tn Heb “they turned” (so ASV). Many English versions have “they repented” here; cf. CEV “they turned back to me.”

[1:7]  ³ sn The twenty-fourth day of the eleventh month…in Darius’ second year was February 15, 519 b.c.

[1:8]  ⁴ tn Heb “riding,” but since this verb in English is usually associated with horses in motion rather than standing still, the translation uses “seated.” Cf. NAB “the driver of a red horse.”

[1:8]  ⁵ tc The LXX presupposes הֶהָרִים (heharim, “mountains”) rather than the MT הַהֲדַסִּים (hahadassim, “myrtles”), probably because of reference to the ravine. The MT reading is preferred and is followed by most English versions.

[1:8]  ⁶ sn The Hebrew שְׂרֻקִּים (sÿruqqim) means “red” (cf. NIV, NCV, NLT “brown”). English translations such as “speckled” (KJV) or “dappled” (TEV) are based on the reading of the LXX (ψαροί) that attempts to bring the color of this horse into conformity with those described in Zech 6:2-3. However, since these are two different and unrelated visions, this is a methodological fallacy.