Malachi E-Book

Aaron Schart

• Herausgeber: Kohlhammer Verlag
• Kategorie: Religion und Spiritualität
• Sprache: Englisch
• Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2021

Seitenzahl: 408

Beschreibung

This commentary proceeds by first offering a synchronic view of the canonical final text of Malachi, especially the argumentation in the disputation speeches. Then the history of the text's origins is reconstructed, revealing an originally independent collection of disputation speeches. The additions provide some precision, introduce motifs from other writings, or accommodate the text to changing historical frameworks. In a third move the reader's view is directed beyond the Malachi document itself: as the last writing in the Book of the Twelve Prophets, Malachi refers back to other prophetic writings. The New Testament in turn adopts sayings from Malachi and develops them further. Finally, Schart investigates the theological relevance of the book.

Leseprobe

International Exegetical Commentary on the Old Testament (IECOT)

Edited by:

Walter Dietrich, David M. Carr, Adele Berlin, Erhard Blum, ­Irmtraud Fischer, Shimon Gesundheit, Walter Groß, Gary Knoppers (†), Bernard M. Levinson, Ed Noort, Helmut Utzschneider and Beate Ego (Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical books)

Cover:

Top: Panel from a four-part relief on the “Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III” (859–824 BCE) depicting the Israelite king Jehu (845–817 BCE; 2 Kings 9f) paying obeisance to the Assyrian “King of Kings.” The vassal has thrown himself to the ground in front of his overlord. Royal servants are standing behind the Assyrian king whereas Assyrian officers are standing behind Jehu. The remaining picture panels portray thirteen Israelite tribute bearers carrying heavy and precious gifts. Photo © Z.Radovan/BibleLandPictures.comBottom left: One of ten reliefs on the bronze doors that constitute the eastern portal (the so-called “Gates of Paradise”) of the Baptistery of St. John of Florence, created 1424–1452 by Lorenzo Ghiberti (c. 1378–1455). Detail from the picture “Adam and Eve”; in the center is the creation of Eve: “And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.” (Gen 2:22)Photograph by George ReaderBottom right: Detail of the Menorah in front of the Knesset in Jerusalem, created by Benno Elkan (1877–1960): Ezra reads the Law of Moses to the assembled nation (Neh 8). The bronze Menorah was created in London in 1956 and in the same year was given by the British as a gift to the State of Israel. A total of 29 reliefs portray scenes from the Hebrew bible and the history of the Jewish people.

Aaron Schart

Malachi

Verlag W. Kohlhammer

Translation: Linda M. Maloney

Editorial collaboration: Jonathan M. Robker

1. Edition 2022

All rights reserved

© W. Kohlhammer GmbH, Stuttgart

Production: W. Kohlhammer GmbH, Stuttgart

Print:

ISBN 978-3-17-028852-2

E-Book-Formate:

pdf: ISBN 978-3-17-028853-9

epub: ISBN 978-3-17-028854-6

All rights reserved. This book or parts thereof may not be reproduced in any form, stored in any retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by any means—electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, microfilm/microfiche or otherwise—without prior written permission of W. Kohlhammer GmbH, Stuttgart, Germany.

Any links in this book do not constitute an endorsement or an approval of any of the services or opinions of the corporation or organization or individual. W. Kohlhammer GmbH bears no responsibility for the accuracy, legality or content of the external site or for that of subsequent links.

This commentary proceeds by first offering a synchronic view of the canonical final text of Malachi, especially the argumentation in the disputation speeches. Then the history of the text's origins is reconstructed, revealing an originally independent collection of disputation speeches. The additions provide some precision, introduce motifs from other writings, or accommodate the text to changing historical frameworks. In a third move the reader's view is directed beyond the Malachi document itself: as the last writing in the Book of the Twelve Prophets, Malachi refers back to other prophetic writings. The New Testament in turn adopts sayings from Malachi and develops them further. Finally, Schart investigates the theological relevance of the book.

Professor Aaron Schart teaches Old and New Testament at the University of Duisburg-Essen.

Inhalt

Editors’ Foreword

Author’s Foreword

Introduction

Malachi in the Canon

The Text of the Malachi Document

The Greek Translation

Poetic Analysis of the Malachi Document

Disputation Speech (Contentious Refutation)

Structure of the Writing

The Document’s Origins

The Malachi Document as the Final Section of the Book of the Twelve Prophets

The Historical Situation of the Malachi Document

Ideas about God in the Malachi Document

Malachi 1:1 Superscription

Translation

Synchronic Analysis

Diachronic Analysis

Summary Interpretation (Synthesis)

Malachi 1:2–5 Love for Jacob, Hatred for Esau

Translation

Synchronic Analysis

Diachronic Analysis

Summary Interpretation (Synthesis)

Malachi 1:6–2:9 Worship without Reverence for God

Translation

Synchronic Interpretation

Diachronic Interpretation

Summary Interpretation (Synthesis)

Malachi 2:10–16 Faithless Actions

Translation

Synchronic Analysis

Diachronic Analysis

Summary Interpretation (Synthesis)

Malachi 2:17–3:5 Violation of the Law

Translation

Synchronic Analysis

Diachronic Analysis

Summary Interpretation (Synthesis)

Malachi 3:6–12 Keeping Nothing Back from God

Translation

Synchronic Interpretation

Diachronic Analysis

Summary Interpretation (Synthesis)

Malachi 3:13–21 [3:13–4:3 ET]Justice for Those Who Revere

Translation

Synchronic Analysis

Diachronic Analysis

Summary Interpretation (Synthesis)

Malachi 3:22–24 [4:4–6] The Sending of Elijah

Translation

Synchronic Analysis

Diachronic Analysis

Summary Interpretation (Synthesis)

Bibliography

Indexes

Index of Hebrew Words

Index of Key Words

Index of Biblical Citations

Genesis

Exodus

Deuteronomy

Ezra

Nehemiah

Psalms

Proverbs

Isaiah

Jeremiah

Ezekiel

Hosea

Joel

Amos

Micah

Nahum

Zephaniah

Haggai

Zechariah

Malachi

Matthew

Mark

John

Romans

1 Corinthians

Plan of volumes

Editors’ Foreword

The International Exegetical Commentary on the Old Testament (IECOT) offers a multi-perspectival interpretation of the books of the Old Testament to a broad, international audience of scholars, laypeople and pastors. Biblical commentaries too often reflect the fragmented character of contemporary biblical scholarship, where different geographical or methodological sub-groups of scholars pursue specific methodologies and/or theories with little engagement of alternative approaches. This series, published in English and German editions, brings together editors and authors from North America, Europe, and Israel with multiple exegetical perspectives.

From the outset the goal has been to publish a series that was “international, ecumenical and contemporary.” The international character is reflected in the composition of an editorial board with members from six countries and commentators representing a yet broader diversity of scholarly contexts.

The ecumenical dimension is reflected in at least two ways. First, both the editorial board and the list of authors includes scholars with a variety of religious perspectives, both Christian and Jewish. Second, the commentary series not only includes volumes on books in the Jewish Tanach/Protestant Old Testament, but also other books recognized as canonical parts of the Old Testament by diverse Christian confessions (thus including the Deuterocanonical Old Testament books).

When it comes to “contemporary,” one central distinguishing feature of this series is its attempt to bring together two broad families of perspectives in analysis of biblical books, perspectives often described as “synchronic” and “diachronic” and all too often understood as incompatible with each other. Historically, diachronic studies arose in Europe, while some of the better known early synchronic studies originated in North America and Israel. Nevertheless, historical studies have continued to be pursued around the world, and focused synchronic work has been done in an ever greater variety of settings. Building on these developments, we aim in this series to bring synchronic and diachronic methods into closer alignment, allowing these approaches to work in a complementary and mutually-informative rather than antagonistic manner.

Since these terms are used in varying ways within biblical studies, it makes sense to specify how they are understood in this series. Within IECOT we understand “synchronic” to embrace a variety of types of study of a biblical text in one given stage of its development, particularly its final stage(s) of development in existing manuscripts. “Synchronic” studies embrace non-historical narratological, reader-response and other approaches along with historically-informed exegesis of a particular stage of a biblical text. In contrast, we understand “diachronic” to embrace the full variety of modes of study of a biblical text over time.

This diachronic analysis may include use of manuscript evidence (where available) to identify documented pre-stages of a biblical text, judicious use of clues within the biblical text to reconstruct its formation over time, and also an examination of the ways in which a biblical text may be in dialogue with earlier biblical (and non-biblical) motifs, traditions, themes, etc. In other words, diachronic study focuses on what might be termed a “depth dimension” of a given text – how a text (and its parts) has journeyed over time up to its present form, making the text part of a broader history of traditions, motifs and/or prior compositions. Synchronic analysis focuses on a particular moment (or moments) of that journey, with a particular focus on the final, canonized form (or forms) of the text. Together they represent, in our view, complementary ways of building a textual interpretation.

Of course, each biblical book is different, and each author or team of authors has different ideas of how to incorporate these perspectives into the commentary. The authors will present their ideas in the introduction to each volume. In addition, each author or team of authors will highlight specific contemporary methodological and hermeneutical perspectives – e.g. gender-critical, liberation-theological, reception-historical, social-historical – appropriate to their own strengths and to the biblical book being interpreted. The result, we hope and expect, will be a series of volumes that display a range of ways that various methodologies and discourses can be integrated into the interpretation of the diverse books of the Old Testament.

Fall 2012

The Editors

Author’s Foreword

The writing called Malachi has attracted a wealth of commentary. Recent years in particular have seen a number of detailed and superior commentaries: as examples let me mention only those by Arndt Meinhold (2006) and Rainer Kessler (2011). Hence the present commentary is free to present a concentrated portrait without many footnotes. In accordance with the overall concept of this commentary series it first reads the texts “synchronically,” i.e., as a canonically given unit. Next, it devotes itself to a reconstruction of the text’s redaction history (the diachronic step). Finally, it combines these two approaches so as to perceive a final text that is clearly the end-product of a sequence of processes of redaction and so offers the meaning of the text thus developed to present readers as a basis for theological judgments. Since the redactional history of Malachi includes its linkage with the Christian Bible, the commentary will also treat the New Testament reception and interpretation of the text.

I am grateful to my editors, Helmut Utzschneider and Walter Dietrich; the former in particular offered me many concrete and helpful suggestions for shortening the text so that what originally was a significantly longer manuscript could be adapted to the length appropriate to this commentary series. I am grateful also to the publisher, in particular Florian Specker, for support and considerable patience.

Gratitude belongs also to my assistants, Sonja Bader, Nadine Kalweit, and Rene Mayer. I have had many stimulating conversations about Malachi with my father, Dieter Schart. Finally, I thank my wife, who has supported me through the many years in which the commentary has been a major influence on my aspirations and all too often my mood as well.

The book is dedicated to Mr. Professor Dr. Dr. h.c. Jörg Jeremias, for his eightieth birthday.

Mülheim, June 2019

Aaron Schart

Introduction

Malachi in the Canon

The Writing of Malachi in the Christian Canon Christian tradition conceives Malachi as part of the “Old Testament,” that is, the fundamental part of the Bible to which the “New Testament” was added. As a result the “Old Testament” has been perceived within a particular salvation-historical framing: both testaments acknowledge the same God, while the words, destiny, and confession of Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ of Israel and all creation reveal the nature of God in a privileged way. The present commentary will therefore dedicate a separate section to the New Testament reception of the relevant portion of Malachi in each chapter.

Within the Old Testament the Malachi document belongs to the prophetic writings, and in particular it is one of the Twelve.1 It is placed last in this collection, both in the Masoretic text and in the Greek version.2 This commentary will also consider the location of the writing within the Book of the Twelve.

The Text of the Malachi Document

The Original Text While the surviving manuscripts differ among themselves, the various versions were nevertheless regarded as authoritative in different communities at different times. This poses the question: which version of the text should be taken as the basis for the commentary? As far as the Malachi document is concerned, the classic concept of the “original text” may suffice: it means that all surviving textual variants can be traced to a single text type. This original text is the one regarded as canonical in the Protestant tradition, even though the New Testament authors, beginning with Paul (Rom 9:13), preferred to use the Greek translation.

The original text has not survived, but with the exception of only a few passages it can be reconstructed. The starting point for the text-critical task is the so-called Masoretic text type, as attested by the earliest complete surviving manuscript of the Tanakh, Codex Leningradensis from the year 1008 CE. That codex is likewise the basis for the Biblia Hebraica Quinta (ed. Anthony Gelston, 2010). The consonantal text of this type was probably regarded as standard among leading circles of Palestinian Judaism ca. 100 CE. Among the scrolls containing the Twelve Prophets from Cave 4 at Qumran only Scroll 4QXIIa preserves some text from the Malachi document, namely, some very fragmentary passages from Mal 2:10–3:24 [2:10–4:6 ET].3 Those contain only a very few deviations from Codex Leningradensis.

The Septuagint’s VorlageWe can also see from the Septuagint translation of the Book of the Twelve Prophets that its Hebrew Vorlage was largely identical with the Masoretic text type.4

It is true that Codex Leningradensis contains a few passages in which the original text can no longer be reconstructed; for example, Mal 2:3b and 2:15 are altogether incomprehensible. The Septuagint already presupposed the faulty text, which means that it must have been created inadvertently quite soon after the completion of the Book of the Twelve. The faulty text cannot be corrected because meaningful conjectures have to deviate sharply from the consonantal text as it stands; such a situation makes it difficult to monitor or evaluate the conjectures.

The Greek Translation

From a Christian point of view the translation of the Malachi document into Greek is very significant since the New Testament authors used Malachi in Greek translation. In fact, the first Christian Bible contained the whole Old Testament in a Greek version. Regrettably, the fragmentary Dodekapropheton scroll from Naḥal Ḥever (8ḤevXII) contains no text from the Malachi document; as a result we have only the so-called Septuagint version at our disposal. It was very probably created by a single translator in the context of a translation of the whole Book of the Twelve.5

To maintain consistent clarity in distinguishing the Greek translation from the Hebrew version I use the phrase “Book of the Twelve” solely for the Hebrew version, referring to the Greek translation as the “Dodekapropheton” and its translator as the“Dodekapropheton translator”.6

Septuagintal Translation Style The Greek translation is very literal: with few exceptions every morpheme in the Hebrew Vorlage is represented by its precise Greek equivalent. Even the sequence of words and syntax are strictly retained, to the point of occasional imitations of the Hebrew nominal clause.7

One measure of the great fidelity of the LXX to its Hebrew original is provided by passages that are incomprehensible in Hebrew: in such cases the Dodekapropheton translator renders the text mechanically, word for word, and leaves it to the reader to make sense of it. At MT-Mal 2:3b, for example, the phrase “and he shall lift you up to him” makes no sense in Hebrew. The Septuagint accommodates the predicate to the preceding subject, “Yhwh,” but otherwise translates word for word without producing any sense: “and I will bring you to the same.” It is notoriously difficult to decide whether a deviation from the MT represents a different Hebrew Vorlage, a different understanding of the Hebrew (especially of the meaning of rare lexemes), an inadvertent mistake, or a deliberate alteration.

There are probably only three passages in which the Dodekapropheton translator had a consonantal text in his Vorlage that differed from that of Codex Leningradensis: The Vorlage for LXX-Mal 1:13 had צבאות [= “of hosts”]. In Mal 3:15 zedîm was incorrectly written as zarîm. In Mal 2:16 the verse began with כי אם שׂנאת, kî ’im śāne’tā, attested also in 4QXIIa.

Passages in which the Dodekapropheton translator inserted additional words not attested in the Hebrew Vorlage occur six times (Mal 1:1; 1:7; 2:2; 3:3; 3:6a; 3:19 [4:1 ET]). In most cases the translator took the additional words from the immediate context in order to smooth the text.

“Malachi” as Title: “Messenger of the Lord” It is important that the Dodekapropheton translator understood the Hebrew expression מלאכי in Mal 1:1 not as a proper name but as a title, “messenger of the Lord”. He identified this “messenger of the Lord” with Haggai, as we can infer from the borrowing of the injunction “do place it upon your hearts” from LXX-Hag 2:15.

Anthropomorphism The Dodekapropheton translator avoided (evidently on purpose) some anthropomorphic divine statements (e.g., in Mal 1:7b; 1:13a; 2:3a), including the idea that a human can “tempt” or “test” (בחן) God (Mal 3:10, 15).

Writing the nomina sacraIt should be pointed out, from a Christian perspective, that the Dodekaprophe­ton was adopted into the Christian canon of the Bible as part of the Greek version of Israel’s scriptures, which Christians refer to as the “Old Testament.” In the course of that editing project it appears that a single change was made to the documents of the Dodekapropheton, namely, a new way of writing the nomina sacra; that is, particular words that are connected directly with God (such as Kyrios, God, Christ, and Jesus) were written using only the first and last letters of the word, with a single horizontal line extended above them. This was meant to express the belief that both the Old Testament and the New Testament speak of the same God, self-revealed in Jesus Christ. The Dodekapropheton version of the Malachi document is preserved only in its Christian form. The perhaps oldest surviving, but unfortunately only fragmentary manuscript of the Christian version is represented by Codex Washingtonensis (third c. CE).8 The oldest complete versions are in Codex Vaticanus (fourth c. CE) and Codex Sinaiticus (fourth c. CE).9

Poetic Analysis of the Malachi Document

Poetic Analysis There is dispute over the question whether the text of the Malachi document represents poetry or “exalted prose.” Since poetic lines are more identifiable when they represent bicola, it seems best to focus on those within the framework of our analysis. A bicolon is certainly present when two cola of equal length in one line are semantically parallel to one another in synonymous, antithetical, or synthetic manner (parallelismus membrorum). Grammatical and phonetic parallelism regularly accompany this feature.

Judged according to these criteria the Malachi document contains some poetic lines, e.g., in Mal 1:2bβ//3a ; 1:3b; 1:4aγ; 4b; 1:6; 2:10a; 2:17b; 3:1a; 3:2a; 3:2b; 3:5a; 3:6; 3:7aβ; 3:8aα; 3:9; 3:11aβ//bα; 3:12a//bα; 3:14a//bα; 3:18aβ//b; 3:24a [4:6a ET]. Malachi 1:14b can serve as an example because it also reveals how the poetic structure was misread by a later redactor:

Truly, a great king am I [—Yhwh of hosts has said—] //and my name is reverenced among the nations.

These lines express a self-predication by Yhwh. If we ignore the formula “Yhwh of hosts has said”, the bicolon contains two nominal clauses that are semantic synonyms. The first ends with “I” and the second begins with the synonymous phrase “my name.” The number of consonants is nearly identical in the two cola (12 + 13); the first contains one additional word, “truly,” כי at the beginning of the line, introducing the statement. The statement itself consists of three words, each with its own accent (3 + 3). Within the caesura between the two cola stands the formula “Yhwh of hosts has said”. That formula usually concludes preceding divine speech, yet here the words of God continue uninterruptedly in the second colon. Thus, the formula breaks the flow of thought and the poetic coherence of the line. For that reason it is probable that the quotation formula was secondarily inserted. The example shows that the basic stratum was poetic in form, but a redactor ignored the poetic shaping. We find this kind of reworking again and again, which suggests that the whole of the basic stratum was poetic in form. It is true that, despite intensive literary-critical efforts at reconstruction, some lines are left over; these are not as beautiful and balanced in form as is Mal 1:14b*, but they also have been and can be regarded as poetry.10

Disputation Speech (Contentious Refutation)

From the point of view of form criticism, the Malachi document, apart from the superscription and the appendix in Mal 3:22–24 [4:4–6 ET], is a collection of so-called “disputation sequences” made up of “disputation speeches.” This form, moreover, exists here in a variant found only in the book of Malachi. In essence a disputation speech is an argumentative rejection of contrary opinions.11 In order to simplify the presentation we will speak of the “prophet” as the one who utters the disputation speech; this person summarizes in his own words and from his own point of view the results of a disputation conducted in the name of Yhwh with some other group.

The basic form of the disputation speech The basic form of the disputation speech was defined by Egon Pfeiffer (1959).12 According to him a disputation speech always contains three formal elements: first, a thesis containing a predicate about the nature of Yhwh; second, a countering question from the opponents that is quoted word for word; third, the prophet’s rebuttal.

The logic of the disputation speech It is not the purpose of the disputation sequence or speech to record the real course of a disputation or to quote the opponents’ exact words. Instead, it is about sketching the content of a disputation in such a way as to depict it from the prophet’s point of view. That is, in the prophet’s eyes, the disputation has already been decided by Yhwh: the opponents’ positions contradict Yhwh’s will. Thus the disputation speech looks back at the real disputation in which the prophet’s divine claims were still in dispute. This also explains why the prophet knows the opponents’ counterquestions and introduces them in qatal, as something that has already happened in the past (“You have said …”), because they were addressed to him in personal confrontation. The fact that such disputations on the oral level were problematic and, among other things, extended over longer periods of time may have formed the background for the talk of “wearying Yhwh with words” (Mal 2:17).

Although the prophet lays claim to Yhwh’s authority for his presentation of the results of the disputation, we may suppose that, even so, not all of the prophet’s opponents would have accepted the prophet’s opinion. The very fact that it appeared necessary to describe the disputation and thus to supply readers with divinely-legitimated strategies for argumentation against particular counterquestions favors the supposition that, despite their refutation by the prophet, those opposing questions had not been silenced but had even become more virulent. Since the prophet occasionally argues in terms of the future (e.g., Mal 3:5; 3:19 [4:1 ET]), it seems that the content of such arguments is still a matter for debate, something to be settled in the future. Hence the description of the disputation also serves the purpose of assigning to God’s future action the answer to the question of which party to the disputation is right. The unfulfilled nature of future hopes has been further emphasized by the redaction’s insertion of clear references to the “day of Yhwh” (e.g., Mal 3:23 [4:5 ET]). The community that transmitted the Malachi document lived in this condition, between present controversy and a longing for affirmation.

The pattern of the disputation sequence Within the Malachi document the disputation sequences follow a pattern that is not found elsewhere and therefore should be regarded as the creative achievement of the author.13

Thesis The disputation sequence begins with a thesis, thus formulating the starting point. Formally, this is either a divine self-proclamation (1:2; 1:6; 3:6; 3:13) or a prophetic speech (2:10; 2:17).

Quotation of the counter-position In a second step the prophet describes the opponents’ position. This takes the form of a counterquestion; the prophet introduces it with “but you have said …” in the form of a quotation.14 The counterquestions are directed to Yhwh when the thesis was formulated as divine speech. If, on the other hand, it took the form of prophetic speech the opponents’ answer is directed to the prophet.15 It is repeatedly made clear that the prophet is not quoting the opponents in their original words but instead lets his own evaluation enter into his formulation of the opponents’ words, for example by polemically distorting their position.

Refutation of the opponents’ position A third step produces a refutation of the counterquestion by means of a stacking of “arguments.” In this, the “disputation speech” proper, the prophet exhibits everything that could bring the opponents to insight: reproaches, references to the Torah and other traditional norms, examples and references to Yhwh’s future intervention. Once the prophet has presented his “arguments” the matter has been clarified in the name of Yhwh.

The Speaker The Malachi document produces the impression that all six disputation speeches are uttered by the same speaker, though on different occasions. The speaker’s words are, obviously, spoken in the name of Yhwh, a fact that is certified by the generic designation of the superscription, “word of Yhwh” (Mal 1:1, the use of the prophetic messenger formula, “thus says Yhwh” (Mal 1:4, and the formulae “says Yhwh of hosts” (20x) and “says Yhwh” (Mal 1:2bα; 3:13a).

Although in general the prophet relates to his conversation partners as one who speaks for Yhwh, there are three passages in which the prophet associates himself with the addressees as “we”: Mal 1:9a; 2:10; 2:17.16

The Addressees The superscription of the Malachi document suggests the idea that the prophet addresses all six disputation speeches “to Israel,” but in the text the hearers are, in part, more closely defined. In Mal 1:2, they are associated with Jacob and separated from Edom; in Mal 1:6b and 2:1 the hearers are addressed as “priests”; and in Mal 3:6 as “children” [lit. ‘sons’] of Jacob.” We may conclude from this that at least two different groups are addressed: on the one hand laypeople who identify with Jacob, and priests on the other hand. It is possible, though, that the words addressed to the laity are also intended for various groups. In particular, Mal 2:17 and 3:5 seem to address the victims of various forms of oppression, and Mal 3:13–21 [3:13–4:3 ET] is addressed to those who revere (or fear) Yhwh.

Authority of Scripture In his basic premise, the prophet offers a logical argumentation. But he mixes it with polemically biased “quotations” from the opponents, accuses them of having inferior motivations, and claims to have knowledge of the future consequences of an incriminated attitude. He frequently makes use of quotations and allusions to other writings that, to him, represent authority. These may also serve the purpose of achieving mutual understanding with the opponents: if the prophet can derive his position from authoritative texts his opponents may be more inclined to agree with him.

The search for texts the prophet presupposes has intensified in recent decades.17 In the process it has become clearer and clearer that, for the prophet, the Torah—that is, the collections of laws, including later parts of the Holiness Code—was normative. However, narrative materials such as the story of Jacob and Esau were also used. Besides these, the prophet adopts ideas from his prophetic predecessors. In Mal 3:23 [4:5 ET] the “prophet Elijah” is even referred to by name.

Structure of the Writing

There is no argument about the structure of the Malachi document. It contains six disputation sequences plus a superscription and a concluding admonition attached to a prediction about the future. The superscription is in 1:1; the disputation sequences are in 1:2–5; 1:6–2:9; 2:10–16; 2:17–3:5; 3:6–12; 3:13–21 [3:13–4:3 ET]; the conclusion is in 3:22–24 [4:4–6 ET].

The disputation sequences are self-contained arguments. They neither build on any preceding saying nor demand continuation through what follows. At the same time there are linkages, and it is probable that the six sayings were, from the very beginning, embedded in a meaningful structure. There are overlaps in content between various sayings, keyword links, and analogous structures.

The very first saying (Mal 1:2–5) establishes the theme of the fundamental relationship to God that shapes everything to follow, and does so through Yhwh’s declaration of love for the “you-group” identified with the patriarch Jacob. The second saying (Mal 1:6–2:9) is evidently concerned with the cult centered on the representative forms for Yhwh’s כבוד: “honor, glory” and שׁם. The third saying (Mal 2:10–16) focuses on interpersonal relationships within the family. The fourth saying (Mal 2:17–3:5) refers to interpersonal misbehavior outside the family (Mal 3:5). In the fifth saying (Mal 3:6–12), the subject is the agricultural yield, while the sixth (Mal 3:13–21 [3:13–4:3 ET]) is about just punishment for the wicked and reward for those who revere Yhwh. The order roughly follows that of the structure underlying the Decalogue: God—cult—family—community—possessions; in the Decalogue the idea of the God who punishes and rewards (sixth saying) is treated within the second commandment (Exod 20:5–6).

The Document’s Origins

The disputation speeches contain some twenty-six “arguments.” These differ sharply in formal and semantic aspects and are often brought together in ways that create strong tensions. It is improbable, therefore, that they all stem from the same author.18 The later additions acknowledged by most commentators include Mal 1:1, 1:11–14, 3:1b–4, and 3:22–24 [4:4–6 ET], but in fact we should reckon with substantially more editing.19 Here I will briefly summarize the hypothesis of the work’s redaction history worked out in this commentary. Before the Malachi document was incorporated into the Book of the Twelve Prophets, it existed as an independent document. Over the course of its reworking to make it part of the Book of the Twelve, some additions were inserted into the Malachi document to interlock it within the whole. Good examples are the appeal to repentance in Mal 3:7, probably stemming from the same hand as the almost identical call to repentance in Zech 1:3 and the quotation from Joel 3:4b in Mal 3:23b.

Primary stratum

Primary stratum The transmission of the Malachi document began with the collection and publication of six disputation speeches stemming from a single author. This primary stratum would probably have consisted of the text as follows: Mal 1:2–3; 1:6, 7b, 9b, 10b, 13aα–14a; 2:9a; 2:10, 11a*, 11b, 12a, 14–15, 16a*, 16b; 2:17–3:1a, 5; 3:6, 8–12; 3:13–15, 18, 19* [4:1* ET], 20a* [4:2a* ET], 20b [4:2b ET].20

Oral stratum The question whether the earliest literary stratum is based on orally transmitted arguments is occasionally answered in the negative,21 but two arguments commend affirming oral disputations. First, there must have been a reason why the author developed a variant of the genre “disputation sequence” at all. What is the point of creating a literary simulation of a vivid disputation if the readers were utterly unfamiliar with anything of the sort? Second, the quotations of the opponents (quite extensive for a prophetic context), no matter how much they have been reformulated and polemically skewed by the prophet, do express real contrary positions. It makes no sense to suppose that an author would have taken the trouble, after the fact, to shape his convictions in a form that makes room for the opponents’ independent utterances, then leaving it to the readers to judge whether those opponents have been convincingly refuted.

The oral disputations, to the extent they touched on cultic matters, may have taken place within the milieu of the temple and the priesthood. Moral and socio-ethical questions could have been debated in the public assembly in Jerusalem (cf., e.g., Ezra 10:8–9; Neh 5:13; 8:1–2; 8:13; 9:1; 13:1, 11).

Reworkings of the independent Malachi document The Malachi document was redactionally revised while it was still an independent work. In particular the second disputation speech was edited in such a way that a critique originally directed at the laity was now applied to the priests and Levites. That editing is also connected with the addition in Mal 2:12b–13, which refers to an unacceptable weeping and groaning during service at the altar, and with the insertion of Mal 3:3–4, which expects a purification of the Levitical priesthood.

The “word of God” formula The Malachi document uses the formula אמר יהוה צבאות, ’āmar Yhwh ṣǝbā’ôt, “says Yhwh of hosts” twenty times.22 The high number of occurrences are in themselves striking: the repetition is completely unmotivated and seems to provide exaggerated emphasis. This formula in particular is used to show that the disputation speeches are the direct word of God. The formula is inserted in very different ways: In Mal 1:8, for example, it provides a very solemn and emphatic assertion of guilt. It is also appropriate as reinforcement for an accusation or the announcement of punishment inasmuch as it points out that it is up to Yhwh—and not to human beings—to carry out the declarations of punishment. But in most cases the formula is superfluous because the context clearly identifies Yhwh as the speaker. The formula is out of place in passages that simply attest to a factual situation (Mal 1:9b; 1:11b, 12a; 1:13aα). Likewise, the formula is altogether disruptive when it is placed in the middle of the caesura of a bicolon (Mal 1:10b; 1:11b, 12a; 1:14b). One passage in which the ’āmar Yhwh ṣǝbā’ôt formula is completely out of place is Mal 1:13, a discourse explicitly marked as a quotation of the opponents, so that the speech is additionally and falsely marked as the word of Yhwh.

“What a weariness this is,” you say, and you sniff at me, says the Lord of hosts.

The simplest explanation is that in these cases the formulae were secondarily inserted. Only in Mal 1:6bα3 is the formula such a necessary syntactical component of the sentence that it can scarcely be excluded from the oldest stratum.

The multiple insertions of the formula probably occurred because the genre of the disputation speech provides an unusually large space for the words of the opponents. When the counter-questions of the opponents are inserted as quotations the readers themselves can judge whether the prophet’s arguments are persuasive. In order to debase any doubts about the prophet’s arguments the redactors frequently refer to their divine origin.

Incorporation into the Book of the Twelve Prophets

The collection of disputation speeches was then included in the Book of the Twelve Prophets. Some of the redactional additions reveal that they are related to comparable redactional insertions in other writings among the Twelve. From this, we may conclude that those additions were included in the course of the integration of the Malachi document into the Book of the Twelve, or that they presuppose that incorporation and are intended to strengthen it. Additions that belong to the context of the Book of the Twelve Prophets are:

– The transfer of the genre designation משׂא from Zech 9:1 and 12:1 to Mal 1:1.

– The genre designation דבר יהוה, which links to the superscriptions of the preexilic writings (Hos 1:1; Joel 1:1; Mic 1:1; Zeph 1:1) and is probably associated with the ’āmar Yhwh formulae. This indicates the effort to depict the disputation speeches as direct words of God.

– Mal 1:4–5 follows the terminology of the Obadiah document.

– Mal 1:11 links to Zech 14:9 inasmuch as the verse describes Yhwh’s royal rule over the nations.

– The references to the day of Yhwh (Mal 3:2; 3:23b [4:5b ET]) take up the words of Joel (Joel 3:4b).

– The insertion of מלאך יהוה, “messenger of Yhwh” (in Mal 2:7; cf. also “messenger of the covenant” in 3:1bβ) may well be associated with the similar additions in Zech 1:11aα, 12aα1; 3:1aβ, 5bβ, 6; Hag 1:13.

– The call to repentance in Mal 3:7 belongs with the same expression in Zech 1:3.

– The judgment of purification in Mal 3:2–3 extends Zech 13:9.

– The fearers of Yhwh in Mal 3:16, 20a [4:2a ET] are connected with the Jonah document (Jon 1:16).

The Malachi Document as the Final Section of the Book of the Twelve Prophets

It is true that the Malachi document did not originate as the conclusion to the Book of the Twelve,23 but it was placed secondarily at the close of that book, and that action was deliberate. Some of the redactors who worked on the Malachi document followed that prompting and fashioned purposeful links to the preceding documents in the Book of the Twelve Prophets. The result was that readers were tasked with interpreting the Malachi document as the last link in the prophetic chain.

Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi First we should note that the last three prophets in the Book of the Twelve were regarded by the redactors as representatives of a new epoch. The dating contained in the Haggai and Zechariah documents assigned them to a time in which Israel, after the Babylonian exile, was being ruled by Persian kings and experiencing a restoration.24 In Zech 1:4 the break is clearly marked: the phase of the “earlier prophets” (hannǝbi’îm hāri’šonîm)—who had not been heard by the ancestors—is in the past; now something new can begin. The political change corresponds to an inner transformation of the people. That is to say, the people is experiencing a return to Yhwh (Hag 1:12; Zech 1:3, 6).

Addition to Zech 14 If we see the Malachi document as the conclusion to the Book of the Twelve another question arises: what is the function of this writing in light of Zech 14?25 After all, Zech 14 fulfills every expectation one might have of a brilliant closing chapter for the Book of the Twelve. It projects a grandiose scenario of the day of Yhwh, drawing together all the threads found thus far in the Book of the Twelve. In particular it resolves the problem of how the hope for a spontaneous adherence of the nations to the belief in Yhwh and hope for an end to oppression by the great powers may become reality. To that purpose Zech 14 proposes a dramatic sequence: on the day of Yhwh the nations attacking Jerusalem will be struck down and destroyed; thereafter the remainder of the nations will celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkoth) together with the remnant of Israel.

In the wake of that utopian prospect of eschatological peace, Malachi turns back to the sorrowful present: abuses in the temple, among the priesthood and the laity, the crumbling of marriages and families, exploitation of the personae miserae, and the irritating success of the impious. This sober view of current problems makes it clear that the eschatological vision is not given in order to turn attention away from daily economic and cultic decisions in the present. Rather, its purpose is the resolution of real problems.

Individual requital The sixth disputation speech augments the vision of Zech 14 with the important aspect of “individual” requital. While Zech 14 takes whole nations and Yhwh’s dealing with them as its subject, in Mal 3:13–21 [3:13–4:3 ET] the focus is on groups to which individuals may want to belong or from which they should distance themselves.

Original connection to Zechariah 1–8? It is often proposed that the Malachi document (or one of its literary presucursors) originally connected to Zechariah 1–8, and that chapters 9–14 of Zechariah were added later. The main reason for the thesis is that, while the Malachi document displays many references to Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, there are very few to Zechariah 9–14.26 On the other hand, there is much to be said in favor of the position that the superscription in Mal 1:1 imitates the superscriptions in Zech 9:1; 12:1, with the addition of a personal name. Moreover, the generic designation משׁא is more appropriate to Zech 9–14 than to a collection of disputation speeches. If we follow those arguments, we must conclude that the Malachi document was intended from the outset to direct readers back from the eschatological depictions in Zech 14 to the problems connected to Torah observance in the present.

The frame: Hosea–Malachi It is often proposed that Hosea and Malachi constitute a frame around the Book of the Twelve.27 “In fact, what frames the collection of the Twelve Prophets is the theme of Yhwh’s indestructible love for his people.”28 Like Hosea, the Malachi document criticizes the cult. There is an especially strong link between their criticisms of the priesthood, whereby both Hos 4 and Mal 2:1–9 emphasize that the priests are not carrying out their real duty, that is, teaching the people the “Torah,” There are insufficient indications that the author of the basic Malachi document planned his own writing as a literary counterpart to Hosea, but it is quite conceivable that the Malachi document was placed where it stands because it contains formulations and ideas that can be linked to Hosea.

Completion of Thematic Lines

Criticism of the cult Being in the final position in the Book of the Twelve, the Malachi document provides concluding treatments to certain themes already dealt with in the writings that precede it and takes the opportunity to stress some especially important points once again. Thus, for example, Mal 1:6–2:9 presents the most extended cult-critical passage in the Book of the Twelve. There is reference to the criticism of the cult in Hosea, Joel, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah (though without direct quotations), but here we find a more pointed emphasis: what is crucial is not so much the moral quality of those who sacrifice; far more important is the acknowledgment of Yhwh’s honor and the significance of Yhwh’s name among the nations. The lack thereof is attributed primarily to the deficient quality of the gifts.

Nations The Malachi document also links to the ambivalent view of the nations in the Book of the Twelve Prophets. Unique here is the positive statement that, among the nations, pure gifts are brought to Yhwh, and that Yhwh’s greatness is reverenced there (Mal 1:11, 14b). However, the negative side appears in the saying about Edom (Mal 1:2–5): the nations’ aggression against Israel. The critique of Edom can be presented so briefly here because it is preceded by the prophecies against Edom in the Book of the Twelve (Joel 4:19; Amos 1:11–12; 9:12; Obad 1–21). The punishment of Edom was announced in the preexilic period; the Malachi document presumes and even intensifies it.

Grace formula The so-called grace formula (German: Gnadenformel, Exod 34:6–7) is quoted repeatedly in the Book of the Twelve Prophets to describe how God’s nature includes both abundant mercy and judgment: Joel 2:13; Jonah 4:2; Mic 7:18–20; Nah 1:2b–3a. In Mal 1:9a, a secondary addition, we read the phrase “soften Yhwh’s face,”29 following Zech 7:2; 8:21, 22. This may be an allusion to the grace formula.30 This network is extremely important for understanding the Book of the Twelve as a whole: the several ways in which God has acted toward Israel and the nations at different times are all embodied in the divine nature insofar as they express the intensely complex essence of God.

Repentance/return Repentance and return to Yhwh plays a major role throughout the Book of the Twelve. The book of Hosea ends with an appeal to return (Hos 14:2–5) that is taken up by Joel (Joel 2:12–14). But because neither Israel nor Judah and Jerusalem responds to the appeal, Yhwh punishes them. Yhwh then grants restoration under Persian rule because Israel, in response to the appeal in Zech 1:3, does repent (Zech 1:6; cf. Hag 1:12). Moreover, Yhwh is said to announce that he, in turn, is returning to Zion (Zech 8:3; cf. 8:11, 15). Still, this repentance seems fragile, for in Mal 3:7 the appeal of Zech 1:3 has to be renewed. The remaining verses of the Malachi document speak of neither Israel’s return nor that of Yhwh, so that the Book of the Twelve remains open-ended. This literary technique indirectly assigns to the readers the role of accepting the book’s invitation. According to the author Yhwh waits with real longing to be able to respond to Israel’s return and to pour forth blessing.

Malachi among the Nebiim in the Canon

The incorporation of Malachi in the Book of the Twelve Prophets was not the end of the redactional construction of major units in the canon. The Book of the Twelve became part of the corpus propheticum that included the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve. The attachment of the corpus propheticum to the deuteronomistic historical work created the second section of the canon, the “Nebiim,” which in turn was connected to the Torah. Thus the Malachi document formed the conclusion of the two-part canon of Torah and Nebiim that was accepted by most Jewish groups at the time of Jesus.31

If we read the Malachi document as the conclusion of the canon made up of Torah and Nebiim, independently of whether that was the intent of the authors of the foundational stratum, the closing passage, Mal 3:22–24 [4:4–6 ET] acquires a new dimension of meaning: the phrase “Torah of Moses” (Mal 3:22; NRSV “teaching of my servant Moses,” Mal 4:4) refers not merely to the laws of the Pentateuch, as the relative clause in 3:22b [4:4b ET] makes clear, but to the whole canonical section “Torah,” thus including the narrative material. The name Elijah (Mal 3:23a [4:5a ET]) in turn refers pars pro toto to the second canonical section, “Nebiim.” The expectation of the “day of Yhwh” may have been intended to express the crucial content of this section of the canon. Malachi 3:24 [4:6 ET] then emphasizes that in the history of this people what is essential is holding fast to the historical experience of the ancestors and combining that knowledge of tradition with new insights into God’s eschatological actions, if Israel wishes to endure in the presence of God.

Reception in the New Testament

Did Jesus make use of the Malachi document? It is hard to say whether the historical Jesus made active use of the Malachi document. Among the quotations and allusions to Malachi that are placed in the mouth of Jesus only a single passage can, in fact, lay claim to having a historical kernel: namely, the discussion about the scribal opinion that Elijah must be the precursor of the coming of the day of Yhwh (Mark 9:11–13; cf. Matt 17:10b–11; Luke 1:17). Jesus may have understood John the Baptist as Elijah redivivus (Mark 9:13) without having regarded himself as surpassing him.

John the Baptist Even if Jesus did not think so himself, his followers in any case found in the promise of a precursor a scriptural proof they could use to relate the appearance of Jesus and that of the Baptist. In this way, they honored John as an eschatological figure while at the same time subordinating him to Jesus.

The reception of the Jewish scriptures into the Christian Bible of the ancient church as the “Old Testament” accorded the Malachi document enduring canonical status as well. From the point of view of the Christian editors this was the last in the sequence of prophets that, as a whole, pointed forward to Christ as the Son of God.

The Historical Situation of the Malachi Document

Date Regrettably, the Malachi document contains very few indications that could permit a precise dating. We should keep in mind that the various levels of redaction must be ordered differently. If, to begin with, we look for indications that permit any kind of historical ordering, the following are usually cited:

– The references to double doors (Mal 1:10), to a היכל (hêkāl, “temple edifice,” Mal 3:1), to a storehouse probably within the temple precincts (Mal 3:10), to the “Lord’s table” (Mal 1:7), and to the מזבח (mizbeaḥ, “[sacrificial] altar,” Mal 1:7, 10) presuppose the rebuilding of the temple.

– Malachi 1:8 mentions a פחה, “governor,” though he remains unfortunately anonymous. In all probability this is the Persian provincial governor, though that Persian title of office was still in use in the Hellenistic period, as inscriptions on coins attest.

– Malachi 1:4 presumes that Edom has fallen. That national catastrophe must have been vividly present to everyone at the time of composition. It is usually associated with one of Nabonidus’s campaigns, ca. 552 BCE, in which he is also supposed to have conquered the Edomites. However, later dates should also be considered.

– There are some connections, both thematic and literary in nature, to Ezra and Nehemiah, but these are scarcely specific enough to permit certain dating. The Malachi document mentions neither the name Ezra nor Nehemiah; neither Ezra nor Nehemiah mention Malachi. In addition, it is uncertain whether the same problem of mixed marriages we encounter in Ezra 10 or Neh 13:23–27 stands behind Mal 2:10–16. The Malachi document, or at least its basic stratum, is usually dated before Ezra and Nehemiah because it is supposed that the conditions criticized in the document would no longer have existed after their reforms. But it is entirely possible that the global socio-cultural problems addressed by the Malachi document erupted repeatedly in the post-exilic period.32

– Sirach 49:10 (ca. 180 BCE) refers to the “twelve prophets,” most probably a reference to the Book of the Twelve Prophets as a scroll. At that time the Malachi document would have been as good as finished. Still, there would have been minor additions in the course of the copying process: for example, the differing placements of Mal 3:22 [4:4 ET] in the MT and in the Vorlage to the Septuagint show.

– Malachi 1:6–2:9 presupposes legal formulations