## Participant-Reference Shifts in Zech. 1:1-6. An Assessment of Diachronic and Synchronic Approaches

Christian Højgaard Jensen,

University of Copenhagen, Faculty of Theology, Købmagergade 44-46, 1150 København K, chj@dbi.edu

Abstract: Using Zech. 1:1-6 as a case-study, diachronic and synchronic methodologies are discussed in terms of their ability to explain participant-reference shifts in the Hebrew Bible. it is suggested that the analysis should begin with a linguistic investigation of the form and function of the participant-references in their literary context. Accordingly, building upon the participant tracking that Eep Talstra has done in Zech. 1:1-6, a linguistic framework is outlined in order to assess various interpretations and translations. Patterns of participant-reference shifts observed in other parts of the Hebrew Bible are included to suggest rhetorical functions of the participant shifts. It is concluded that it is necessary to combine the linguistic analysis with a discourse theory that treats the text as an act of communication. In particular, Role and Reference Grammar is suggested as a beneficial starting point for further research.

Keywords: Diachronic and synchronic methodologies, participant-reference shifts, Role and Reference Grammar, Zech. 1:1-6.

Participant-reference shifts occur throughout the Hebrew Bible. Generally, readers will not even notice it as communication often involves inferences made by the readers in order to derive meaning from even complicated texts. Intuitively, most readers connect 'The LORD of hosts' (3ms) with 'me' (1cs) in Jer. 11:17: 'The LORD of hosts, who planted you, has decreed disaster against you, because of the evil that the house of Israel and the house of Judah have done, provoking me to anger by making offerings to Baal.' 1 The reader infers that it is not Jeremiah who is provoked to anger but Yahweh. Other participant-reference shifts are much more difficult to interpret. 2 This paper offers a discussion of two participant-reference shifts in Zech. 1:1-6 that have caused translators and exegetes huge problems.

The first participant-reference shift occurs in vv. 2-3:

2  'Yahweh was very angry with your (plur.) ancestors! 3  And you (sing.) shall say to them : 'Thus says Yahweh of host: 'Return to me! Utterance of Yahweh of host And I will return to you!' Yahweh of host says. 3

Yahweh is recorded as proclaiming that he is/was angry with 'your' (plur.) ancestors. This 'your' has no antecedent and is in fact never explained in the rest of the paragraph. It becomes even more difficult when 'you' (sing.) is ordered to speak to 'them' in v. 3. Linguistically speaking, Zechariah is ordered to speak to the ancestors who are the only participant referred to in 3mp. But how can Zechariah speak to the ancestors who are later described as now being dead (v. 5)? In general, most translations understand 'them' and 'your' as referring to Zechariah's audience and explicate this addressee either in v. 1 (Bibelen på Hverdagsdansk (BPH)), v. 2 (GNT, CEV) or v. 3 (New Living Translation (NLT), The Voice (VOICE), The Danish authorized Translation, 1992 (DO92)) as 'the people'. A related issue is to determine the speaker in the discourse. Is it Yahweh speaking, an external narrator or Zechariah? to follow Love's (1999, 72) summary of the different interpretations. Some translations simplify the text by explicating v. 2 as Zechariah's speech, apparently understanding the 'you' (sing.) in v. 3 as a collective reference to the audience, e.g. Good News Translation (GNT):

1  Example taken from Glanz (2013, 263).

2 As early as the origin of the Septuagint (LXX) participant-reference shifts have evidently caused problems since the authors of LXX reduced the number of shifts, apparently to make reading easier and smoother (Regt 2001, 215).

3 The translations throughout this paper are based on Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. 5. ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1997, unless otherwise stated.

2 The Lord Almighty told Zechariah to say to the people, 'I, the Lord, was very angry with your ancestors, 3 but now I say to you, 'Return to me, and I will return to you (GNT).

The Contemporary English Version (CEV) changes the references entirely so that Zechariah is referred to as 'I' in v. 1 and is thus explicated as the speaker in the rest of the discourse. The needed antecedent for 'your' is provided by inserting 'Israel' in the beginning of v. 2:

2-3 Israel, I, the LORD All-Powerful, was very angry with your ancestors. But if you people will return to me, I will turn and help you (CEV).

The second participant-reference shift is in fact not a participant-reference shift but is treated as such in many commentaries. This apparent participant-reference shift occurs in v. 6 b which says 'they returned': 4

6 But my words and my instructions which I commanded my servants, the prophets, did they not reach your ancestors? And they returned and said:

'Just as Yahweh of host planned to act against us according to our ways and our deeds, thus He has done to us.'

Linguistically speaking, this reference refers to the ancestors which is the closest antecedent. But how can they repent when they have been described to be dead in v. 5? While several translations render these verses quite literally, leaving the reader with the ambiguity, the Blue, Red and Gold Letter Edition of the Holy Bible (BRG), understands Yahweh's speech to end in 6 a and explicitly renders 6 b as a narrator's recording of the audience's repentance:

6 But my words and my statutes, which I commanded my servants the prophets, did they not take hold of your fathers? and they returned and said, Like as the Lord of hosts thought to do unto us, according to our ways, and according to our doings, so hath he dealt with us (BRG).

As should be clear by now, the Hebrew text has led to a variety of interpretations and, accordingly, to a number of different translations. The aim of this paper is to investigate how one can propose a sound translation of these participant-reference shifts in accordance with modern translation theory and within the framework provided by the linguistic data of the Hebrew text. Before assessing diachronic and synchronic approaches to the understanding of the participant-reference shifts, the discussion will be set in a frame of translation theory.

4 Some commentators understand 'and they returned' to refer to the ancestors (Wolters 2014, 39; Hanhart 1998, 31; Smith 1984, 184; Wellhausen 1898, 177) while other understand it as referring to Zechariah's contemporaries (Conrad 1999, 55; Meyers and Meyers 1987, 96; Mason 1977, 33; Ackroyd 1968, 202).

## Translation

In his article 'We Really Do Need Another Bible Translation', Van Leeuwen (2001) criticizes the modern trend of dynamic equivalent Bible translations. According to him, these new translations compromise the meaning of the Bible because they alter the text and thereby miss the concept of the 'Otherness' of God: 'There is a danger that the Bible gets silenced because we have tamed and domesticated it' (Van Leeuwen 2001). Van Leeuwen's own proposal entails a literal translation that more directly mirrors the original text. This will pave the way for ambitious readers who want to engage with the Bible itself.

Van Leeuwen's position is not new. For years - even centuries - scholars and Bible translators have discussed the so-called formal-correspondence vs. the functional-equivalent method. Whereas the formal-correspondence theory seeks to translate the form of the text, e.g. the structure of the text, rhythms and rhymes, the functional-equivalent theory focuses on translating the meaning of the text which would often require change of words, stylistics and metaphors (Nida and Taber 1969, 1). Van Leeuwen's objection to modern Bible translations relates to the old question: what is an accurate translation? It seems that his own answer is that the best translation corresponds as far as possible to the linguistic forms of the original Hebrew and Greek of the Bible. Nida and Taber (1969, 28) argue that the accuracy of a translation should rather be judged in terms of whether the translation succeeds in evoking the same response from contemporary readers as from the original readers. Furthermore, Nida and Taber (1969, 12-13) list a number a translation principles:

-  Equivalence rather than identity : The goal of the translator is not to produce a text that is structurally and lexically conservative. Rather, the relationship between the translation and its source is of equivalence; that is, to render the meaning or the message of the source.
-  A natural equivalent : A good translation must be a linguistic translation and not a cultural translation which means that the historical and cultural distance is kept while the linguistics is rendered into an equivalent text. 5
-  The significance of style : Style is secondary to meaning but it does not mean that style is not important. Prose should be translated as prose, and narrative as narrative. Still, the translation should follow the hermeneutics of functional-equivalence so that it is the rhythm of the target language that is searched for, rather than that of the source.

These principles taken into account, it comes as no some surprise that Van Leeuwen's position has not passed unaddressed. Carson (2003, 68) points out that Van Leeuwen confuses the 'Otherness' of God with the foreignness of the text. The sense of the 'Otherness' of God is not enhanced by accentuating the foreignness of the text. On the contrary, the right question to ask is whether the original readers perceived the text as foreign and then seek to make the translation equivalent to this. This issue is related to what Weber (2005) calls weak and strong communication. Weber defines strong communication as the communication that 'takes place when the speaker tightly controls what inferences are computed, resulting in the hearer's getting a precise meaning,' whereas weak communication is what 'takes place when the speaker exercises little control over the inferences, resulting in the hearer's getting a diffuse meaning or one of various possible interpretations' (2005, 55-56). In general, the translator 'should strive 'to keep the strong as strong and the weak as weak'' (Iver Larsen, quoted in Weber 2005, 56).

5 The missiologist and anthropologist, Charles Kraft, serves as an extreme example of a cultural translation or 'transculturation' as he terms it (2005, 176-90). See a critique of his position in Carson (2003, 94 ff.).

It seems that Van Leeuwen treats formal-correspondence and functional-equivalence as mutually exclusive but this dichotomy cannot be sustained. Already Nida posed that they should rather be perceived as 'a polar distinction with many grades between them' (1964, 24; cf. Weber 2005, 66). And Ivir (1981) argues that both concepts are needed for Bible translating. The translator should begin his work by searching for formal corresponding expressions in the target language. If this is not possible he will then use expressions that imply structural or semantic modifications, attempting to gain semantic equivalence. Even then, formal correspondence is used to check the translation by means of back-translating from the target language into the source language (a kind of tertium comparationis ) for comparison of the corresponding linguistic entities (1981, 51).

## Participant-references

Now, given the fact that a functional-equivalent translation seeks to render the function and not necessarily the form of the source language, one cannot stick to a literal translation of participant-reference shifts per se . 6 The function of those curious participant-reference shifts must be investigated in order to determine a translation that evokes the intended reaction.

In what follows I will discuss diachronic and synchronic approaches to reconstruction and interpretation of participant shifts in order to sketch a framework against which interpretations and translations can be judged.

## Diachronic solutions

The book of Zechariah begins interestingly by implying an addressee by 'your' (v. 2) and 'them' (v. 3). Normally, the addressee in the beginning of a prophetic book is referred to by a proper name or a full nominal phrase (e.g. Hag 1:1; Mal 1:1). 7 This fact has led to a number of different attempts at reconstructing the original text. One of the commentators, Sellin, suggests that v. 2 was originally 'siehe, ich sende dich zu diesem Volke' or 'geh hin zu denen, die am Tempel bauen' which would provide the needed explicit addressee and explain the waw -consecutive introducing v. 3 (1922, 429). The current v. 2 was apparently a 'Randnote' for 7:12 which describes the anger of Yahweh due to the ancestors' apostasy. Beuken (1967, 85-86) observes that that vv. 1 and 3 share characteristics with call-narratives while v. 2 seems to be the theme of the following 'Bußpredigt'. He suggests that v. 2 is a later replacement of the original introductory formula. 8

V. 6 b , too, has caused problems in terms of participant tracking. In vv. 4-5 it is stated that the ancestors did not repent and then died. Yet, in v. 6 b it seems that the ancestors repent and admit that Yahweh is right in his judgment. Wellhausen famously solves the apparent contradiction by implying an act of judgement between the early prophets' warning in v. 4 and the repentance in v. 6 b : 'In Folge der Warnung bekehrten sie sich nicht, wol aber, als es zu spät war, infolge der Strafe' (1898, 177). Sellin (1922, 478) follows a somewhat different line of thought as he sees the night visions as a later expansion to the introductory message in 1:1-6. Furthermore, he argues that the message in 1:1-6

6 Cf. Wenger (2012) who argues that redundancy of participant-references points to specific literary functions.

7 The reference to the addressee by only a suffix in the introductory formula in Zech. is unique in the OT (Hanhart 1998, 12). Conrad (1999, 47) suggest from a synchronic point of view that the antecedent is to be found in the preceding book, Haggai, in which the prophet is explicitly addressing the people (Hag 1:1, 2:1).

8 Smith (1984, 183) suggests an emendation in the introductory formula in v. 1. According to him, the superscription was changed from 1cs ('the word of Yahweh came unto me') to 3ms ('the word of Yahweh came to Zechariah').

cannot be understood as a 'Bußpredigt' due to the fact that the oracle must be historically situated after Haggai's oracles which encourage the people to build the temple. It is hard to imagine that the situation should have dramatically changed in the preceding four months so that Zechariah should admonish the people. According to Sellin, 1:1-6 a was, consequently, originally followed by 8:14-15 which clearly states that Yahweh was angry with the ancestors but now encourages and comforts the people. A later editor awkwardly interrupted that discourse and added 6 b to explain that the contemporaries of Zechariah eventually did repent. Finally, the supposed original א ֵ ת ְ כֶם was changed to ֶ ֶ֑ם א ֲ ב ֹ ת ֵ יכ influenced by ֶ ֶ֑ם א ֲ ב ֹ ת ֵ יכ in v. 5. 9 In short, according to Sellin, the 3mp references in 6 b are an editor's narration of the repentance of Zechariah's contemporaries.

## A synchronic approach

With the emergence of a new literary criticism in the 1970s and 1980s the traditional diachronic approach was challenged. 10 Although covering a large scope of literary approaches, new literary criticism is generally characterized by an aversion to traditional diachronic attempts at reconstruction the original text. As Winther-Nielsen summarizes, '[m]odern literary criticism has moved away from earlier author-centered genetic explanation to a text-oriented holistic reading. It emphasizes the rhetorical, structural, pragmatic or ideological shape of the text as the primary object of study' (1995, 7). Researchers started in the 1970s to investigate the Hebrew Bible as a set of linguistic data which eventually led to the foundation of the WIVU database (Werkgroup Informatica Vrije Universiteit), today known as the ETCBC database (Eep Talstra Centre for Bible and Computing). 11 The research was at least partly driven by an ambition to release interpretation from traditional readings: 'The task for computer assisted research of the texts of the Hebrew Bible is to perform linguistic analysis independent from traditions of reading and interpretation' (Talstra 2007, 51; his italics).

Talstra is one of the leading scholars in relating synchronic and diachronic readings in an exegetical methodology. His approach has been analyzed by Wardlaw who concludes that Talstra (and Hardmeier whose hermeneutics is analysed as well) 're-order the exegetical process and reappraise the nature and the purpose of diachronic analysis' by letting the linguistic analysis precede the diachronic analysis which nevertheless is important in order to determine the meaning of the text and its original function (2010, 14).

In other words, diachronic considerations are not ruled out but they are postponed to a later stage of the exegesis. Diachronic solutions should be considered when, and not before, it is found impossible to account for the text synchronically: 'Lassen sich solche heterogenen Beobachtungen und Auffälligkeiten selbst aus der Zusammenschau aller Profile nicht synchron erklären, liegt der Verdacht auf objektbezogene Diachronie nahe…' (Hardmeier, quoted in Wardlaw 2010, 13).

Currently, Talstra is developing computer programs to track discourse participants, starting from the smallest grammatical and lexical morphemes such as pronominal suffixes, proper names and pronouns and combining all these grammatical features step by step into discourse actors. 12 In the context of Zech. 1:1-6 Yahweh, Zechariah, Zechariah's contemporaries, the ancestors and the former prophets are identified as discourse actors. But the discourse actors are not established merely on the basis of obvious references such as proper names and full nominal phrases. By tracking the smallest referential markers (e.g. anaphoric zeros and pronouns) it is possible to link the references with their respective referents and finally to create clusters of those participant-references that refer to the same discourse actor. Consider for instance the linking of participant-references in Zech. 1:3 a :

9 Mason offers the same solution, suggesting an emendation that would give 'have not these [Yahweh's words and instructions] overtaken you?' (1977, 33).

10 For a more detailed description of new literary criticism, see Mitchell (2008).

11  The ETCBC database has been comprehensively described elsewhere, cf. Doedens (1994), Roorda (2015), Roarda et al. (2014), Glanz (2013).

12 Recent research includes participant tracking in Zech. 3 (Talstra 2015), Zech. 1 (Talstra 2016a), and Ex. 19 (Talstra 2016b). A full description of the procedure is described in Talstra (2016b).

<!-- formula-not-decoded -->

Intuitively, readers know that the 3pm in אֲל  ה  ֶ֗ ם is connected with the 2pm in ש ָּ֣ וּבו . The linking of the two participant-references is inferred by the change into an embedded quotation domain. When Zechariah is commanded to speak to 'them', the reader expects this participant to be addressed in 2pm in the direct speech. In other words, Talstra's linguistic analysis of participant-references do not apply suspicious interpretations on the text. On the contrary, the linguistic analysis is based on formulating (intuitive) reading strategies into logical computer codes in order to enhance a reading independent from traditional interpretations. A linguistic tracking of participant-references is of course especially useful in complicated texts where readers will easily get lost in the complexity of participant-references.

In what follows, I will proceed with a linguistic analysis of the participant-reference shifts in Zech. 1:1-6 in order to construct a framework for interpretation provided by the text itself. The analysis is based on the linguistic participant tracking conducted by Eep Talstra (see Appendix A, pp. 40-46). The interpretive implications of this analysis are discussed afterwards in light of patterns of participant-reference shifts in the Hebrew Bible as well as their function in a communicative setting.

The linguistic data in Appendix A is an abstract way of presenting the relationship between the discourse actors and their references. Figure 1 is a suggestion for a visualization of the linguistic data in connection with the Hebrew text. 13

The discourse actors and their references are highlighted according to the following color codes:

1. Yahweh: JHWH 14

2. Zechariah: zᵊxaryāh

3. 'You/them': 2mp/3mp

4. Ancestors: ʔᵃv

5. Prophets: hannᵊvîʔîm hāriˀšōnîm

13 The visualization is rendered by a program that combines the abstract linguistic data of the participantreferences (as displayed in Appendix A) with the Hebrew text of the ETCBC database. The combination of a linguistic datasheet of participant-references with the Hebrew text makes it possible to highlight all linguistic references  to  a  particular  discourse  actor.  The  visualization  tool  and  its  program  code  is  available  at https://goo.gl/e4Q2NC.

14 So far the program does not combine all references to Yahweh as some references refer to related semantic domains such as 'JHWH Zebaoth' or 'the word of JHWH'. At a later stage, these semantic domains may eventually be combined.

L actorrep\_ Zechariah1.html X

+ > C

Speaker - addressee Domain

1:1 Writer - Reader

1:1 Writer - Reader

1:2DBR JHWH - ZKRJH

1:3 DBR JHWH - ZKRJH

1:3 ZKRJH - 2pm"YOUP1

1:3 JHWH YB> - 2pm"YOUP1 4:Q

1:3 JHWH YB: - 2pm"YOUP1 4:Q

1:3 JHWH YB» - 2pm"YOUPI 4:Q

1:3 ZKRJH - 2pm"YOUP1

1:4

1:4

1:4

1:4NBJ> R CWN-›B

2pm "YO

1:4 JHWH YB ->B 2pm"YO

1:4

1:4

1:4 JHWH YB> -2pm"YOUP1 5:Q

1:5 JHWH YB: - 2pm"YOUP1 5:Q

1:5 JHWH YB> - 2pm"YOUP1 5:Q

1:5 JHWH YB: -2pm"YOUP1 5:Q

1:5 JHWH YB:> - 2pm"YOUPI 5:Q

1:6 JHWH YB» -2pm"YOUP1 5:Q

1:6 JHWH YB:> - 2pm"YOUP1 5:Q

1:6 JHWH YB» - 2pm"YOUP1 5:0

1:6 JHWH YB» - 2pm"YOUP1 5:Q

1:6 JHWH YB> - 2pm" YOUP1

1:6:B 2pm"YOU - unknown

1:6×B 2pm"YOU - unknown

1:6>B 2pm"YOU - unknown

A

Figure 1. A visual representation of participant-references in Zech. 1:1-6. The first column to the left contains chapter and verse references. The second column contains the communication aspect; 'who is talking to whom' while the third column provides information about the textual domains, whether it is direct speech (Q) or narrative (N), and the domain levels. The fourth column contains the transliterated text with indentation according to the level of the discourse. The highlighting visualizes the distribution of references for each discourse actor in the discourse. The red background-color throughout most of the discourse indicates the domain type 'direct speech', whereas a narrative section would be visualized in blue.

<!-- image -->

More research is yet to be done to calculate even more precisely which participant-references refer to which discourse actors. Still, the visual representation provides an easy overview of the linking of participant-references and the communication situation on text level. This, as well as the color-coding of domain types, makes it a useful tool for estimating the quality of Bible translations and interpretations as is to be demonstrated now.

## A linguistic framework for translation and exegesis

As shown in the visual representation in Figure 1, a narrator situates the discourse as a prophetic word from Yahweh to Zechariah in v 1. From v. 2 and onwards only Yahweh is speaking. Remarkably,

-

Zechariah is referred to but a few times as highlighted by red in the visual representation. Consequently, in v. 2 Yahweh addresses the ambiguous 'you' (plur.) who might or might not include Zechariah. At least in v. 3 Zechariah is directly addressed as he is called to speak to the people. The speech itself is not a record of what Zechariah actually said but a record of what Yahweh told Zechariah to say. Not even the reaction of the addressees is recorded as v. 6 b is not a description of the addressees' repentance but Yahweh's description of the eventual repentance of their ancestors.

These considerations, combined with the fact that as many as seven 15 speech markers are attributed to Yahweh, strengthen the case that the author of Zech. 1:1-6 wants to emphasize - even to the extreme - that this is an oracle of Yahweh. 16

These linguistic observations provide the framework to judge the quality of interpretations and translations. First, when GNT explicates Zechariah as the speaker in vv. 2-6 it misses the clear intent of the text to emphasize Yahweh as speaking. NLT and CEV, on the other hand, underscore Yahweh as speaker in v. 2 by inserting an 'I', 17 which does have some merit. On the other hand, there might be some intended overlap between Yahweh and Zechariah as this would strengthen the authority of the prophet. Making the distinction between Zechariah and Yahweh too sharp might, then, undermine the intention of the discourse.

Second, most translations considered in this paper explicate the addressee as 'the people', either in v. 1 (BPH), v. 2 (GNT), or v. 3 (NLT, VOICE, CEV and DO92). To postpone the explication to v. 3 seems to be the best solution in my opinion as this maintains to some extent the rhetorical effect of not knowing who is being addressed. Explicating the addressee in v. 1 or 2 results in excluding Zechariah and even the reader as a possible addressee. When Zechariah is told to speak to 'them' it is clear that he, and the reader, is not (any longer) the addressee, and the most logical interpretation would be to understand 'them' as his contemporaries, the returned people of Israel. 18

Third, when BRG marks 6 a as the final utterance of Yahweh in this discourse and understands 6 b as the narrator's description of the addressees' response to the oracle, it misses the point of the linguistic analysis which gives no reason to understand 6 b as referring to the addressees who are only referred to in 3mp in 3 a . 19 Linguistically speaking, the references in 3mp in 6 b refer to the ancestors. While the structure of the text is clear enough, the meaning of the discourse is ambiguous. How can the ancestors in 4 b be described as not repenting and then, a few lines later, they repent anyway? As presented above, commentators suggest emendations which provide the possibility of understanding the recorded repentance as the audience's repentance. But, recalling my argument that emendations should only be suggested when the linguistic data of the present text cannot be accounted for synchronically, how can the present text be understood? An important rhetorical point to notice might be that the ancestors' failure to repent is recapitulated in Zech. 7:7-14 which is followed by Yahweh promising that his attitude towards the people has changed (Zech. 8:11). In other words, Zechariah's dealings with the people and their ancestors are not as simple as a call to repentance. Rather, through the initial call to repent, the encouraging night visions (1:7-6:15) and the final oracles (chap. 7-8), Yahweh encourages and motivates the people to build the temple and promises a far better future. 20 To drastically alter the text to make it fit into one's theology or assumptions about the historical situation at the time of rebuilding the temple misses possible rhetorical functions of the discourse at large (cf. Talstra 2016a, 7).

15 ( ל ֵ אמ ֹ ֹֽ ר v 1), ( א ָ מ ַר   ֙ 3 b ), ( נ ְא   ֻ֖ם 3 d ), ( א ָמ ַ ֻ֖ר 3 f ), ( א ָ מ ַר   ֙ 4 d ), ( נ ְא ם 4 h ), ִ י   ֙ ( צ ִ ו ִִּ֨ ית 6 b )

16  The same observations are made by Meier who concludes: "One can expect that when embedded speech in narrative becomes unusually convoluted, it results from a peculiar diction that stems from this concern to identify the voice of God" (Meier 1992, 322).

17 'I, the LORD, was very angry with your ancestors' (NLT) and 'Israel, I, the LORD All-Powerful, was very angry with your ancestors' (CEV).

18 Talstra argues that it would be even better to use 'your people' or 'your audience' as it is not the people in general Zechariah is addressing but his contemporaries (Talstra 2016a, 3).

19 Another translation completely missing the point of the last part of the discourse is VOICE which paraphrases v. 5 as Yahweh's speech to Zechariah, leading to the absurd inference that the ancestors are Zechariah's ancestors alone.

To sum up, tracking of participant-references provides a framework in which a variety of translations can be accepted and certain translations must be ruled out as linguistically unqualified. Until now, however, it has not been clarified why a sudden participant shift occurs from 2mp to 2ms and 3mp in vv. 2-3. One thing is to argue for a logical distribution of participant-references throughout the discourse; another thing is to explain their rhetorical function. The latter will now come into focus.

## Forms and functions of participant references

In his analysis of how Israel is addressed in Deuteronomy, Regt (1999, 85-88) observes a considerable variation. 69% of all references to Israel are singular while 31% are plural. Moreover, in the historical prolog (chap. 1-4), only 27% of the references to Israel are singular while in the blessings and curses (chap. 27-28), as many as 92% of the references are singular. According to Regt, this is not just a matter of mere variation but signals a rhetorical device. It turns out that the majority of the references in the singular occurs in passages which concern specific commandments regarding social, cultic and ritual life. To conclude, '[t]here is, then, a strong correlation between numeruswechsel and subject matter in the corpus of Deuteronomy even if the figures point to tendencies rather than absolute rules' (1999, 87). Furthermore, Regt (2001, 214-31) suggests that shifts of participant-references can indicate the beginning or the end of a paragraph as well as indicating focus and intensifying the topic.

Glanz (2013), following Regt's analysis of the function of participant-reference shifts, has done an impressive study of person, gender and number shifts in Jeremiah. He documents a total of 585 participant-reference shifts that occur in Jeremiah and then offers a suggestion for their rhetorical function of which I will list the most important for the current analysis (2013, 351):

-  Shift from 3p to 2p ( Subjectivization ): Intensifies the dialog as the participant comes closer. This shift often marks the change from explanation to confrontation.
-  2p to 3p ( Objectivization ): Implies a distance in contrast to the intimacy that characterizes Subjectivization. This transforms the message into more objective, phenomenological terms, e.g. enhancing the 'Otherness' of God.
-  Singular to plural ( Extension ): The participant identifies with a larger group, e.g. the prophet with his people.
-  Plural to singular ( Condensation ):  The individuality of a participant is stressed in contrast to the larger group.

It should be noted that the cases listed above are not absolute rules of how to interpret participantreference shifts. Glanz admits that some participant-reference shifts may be the result of a scribal error and, besides, many participant-reference shifts indicate the beginning of a new paragraph. Still, the data reveals certain patterns of rhetorical implications of the linguistic data. How these patterns should be translated is the next question to be addressed.

20 Cf. Meyers and Meyers who shows that Zech. 7-8 is to be considered as a discrete part of Zech. but at the same time as 'an integral part of Zechariah 1 through 8' (1987, lxi).

Many scholars object to modern attempts at harmonizing the translation by skipping many shifts of participant-references: 'At least in many receptor languages, the problem may be that reducing the number of person shifts in comparison with the Hebrew text might lead to a loss of impact, even though the translation would be easier to understand' (Regt 2001, 215; cf. Talstra 2016a; Glanz 2013, 347). The starting point is thus to determine the function of the participant-reference shift within the discourse and to decide whether the shift assists reading or intentionally complicates reading in order to engage the reader. In terms of participant-reference shifts in the Hebrew Bible it should be determined for each case whether the participant shift is intentionally weak, intended to engage the reader into making his own interpretation, or whether it is a strong communication that utilizes conventional linguistic patterns to signal, for instance, beginnings of new discourse paragraphs. 21 In either case, a certain participant-reference shift should not be retained per se as a particular target language might be able to evoke the same rhetorical impact by other means.

Accordingly, in what follows, the participant-reference shifts in Zech. 1:1-6 will be considered in order to come closer to the meaning and function in the discourse.

## Application on Zech. 1:1-6

As should be clear by now, a sudden participant-reference shift occurs in Zech. 1:2-3. In the direct speech in v. 2 Yahweh addresses an unanticipated 'your' (plur.). In the following verse Zechariah is then addressed as 'you' (sing.) as he is called to address 'them'. In terms of those linguistic patterns of participant-reference shifts that have been observed in the Hebrew bible (see above) it is worthwhile considering the application of those patterns to this discourse.

In fact, vv. 2-3 might contain two participant-reference shifts as shifts from 2mp to 2ms and from 2mp to 3mp occur simultaneously. Starting with the first, the shift from 2mp to 2ms corresponds to a pattern in Jeremiah which Glanz labels Condensation with the purpose of focusing on the individuality of the person under consideration. As a Yehudean prophet Zechariah is part of the people, and the ancestors of the people are his ancestors. In v. 2, accordingly, the focus is on the addressees of which Zechariah is a member. I v. 3 Zechariah is distinguished from the people by means of Condensation which means that the focus is not on Zechariah as a member of the people but as a prophet who is the medium for the oracle of Yahweh. 22

The second participant-reference shift is from 2mp to 3mp as Zechariah is called to address 'them'. This shift corresponds to a pattern in Jeremiah which Glanz labels Objectivization; that is, the topic is distanced and the message is described in more objective terms. In this context it would mean that the addressees are confronted immediately and surprisingly in v. 2 which is then followed by a more formal and objective message in v. 3. While tempting, the rest of v. 3 does not support this solution as the following message is Yahweh's direct call to repentance. In fact, this is the only place in this discourse where the addressees are referred to by 3mp. Another option, then, is to consider the participant-reference shift as an occurrence of delayed identification, a general pattern observed by Regt (1999, 73) who exemplifies this with Gen. 32 in which the man fighting Jacob is identified as God only in v. 31. Applied to Zech. 1:2-3, the vague 'you' in v. 2 is clarified in v. 3 as 'them' which is assumed to be Zechariah's audience based on the normal pattern of prophetic oracles. Looking at Zech. 1-8 as a whole, the full identification of the addressees might even be understood to be taking place in Zech. 7:5 23 or - perhaps more plausible - in Zech. 8:9 24 . A third option is to consider the participant-reference shift as an occurrence of redirection which is a typical phenomenon in embedded speech in the Hebrew bible (Regt 1999, 20). Redirection of speech is characterized by an interruption of the direct speech in order to re-address the audience or to change the subject of the speech. In  Zech. 1:2-3 this is in fact  the case as the topic changes from describing the anger of Yahweh towards the ancestors to a call for the people to repent. A participant-reference shift might enhance this redirection.

21 See the description of weak and strong communication, respectively, above. Weber (2005, 40) identifies ambiguous participant-references as weak communication that calls for inferences on behalf of the reader, and this weak communication should not be avoided in a translation as this is how communication works.

22 Similarly, Hanhart argues that the addressee is assumed to be the 'Glaubensgemeinschaft' of which Zechariah is a member (Hanhart 1998, 10; cf. Regt 1999, 56).

To conclude, then, the communication in these verses seems to be weak, probably even intentionally. The participant-reference shift from 'you' (plur.) to 'you' (sing.) is likely a way of presenting the prophet as part of the returned people while maintaining his unique role as the messenger of Yahweh. By explicating Zechariah merely as a messenger or as the main character addressing the people many translations seem to miss the urgency of the text to emphasize both Yahweh's role as the only speaker and Zechariah's role as a medium who is both a member of the addressees and is in a way being absorbed into the divine speech.

These  provisional  considerations  on  the  nature  of  the  participant-reference  shifts  in  Zech.  1:1-6 demonstrate that both diachronic solutions that handle the apparent contradictions as signs of editors or errors, and modern translations that tend to harmonize the discourse, escape the rhetorical complexity of the text. Taking the following night visions into consideration it should come as no surprise that it is emphasized that the oracle is indeed the word of Yahweh and that the prophet finds himself somewhat lost in these majestic revelations he is experiencing. Secondly, as the preceding analysis of participant-reference shifts shows, applying general patterns on a particular context is difficult and in its own way tends to harmonize the discourse to fit into a predefined scheme of rhetorical devices. One can legitimately ask whether or not the variety of functions attributed to participant-reference shifts encapsulates all rhetorical devices that the authors of the Hebrew bible had at hand. Therefore, what is needed is an approach that takes seriously the linguistic structures and patterns of the text as well as the fact that the text is a piece of communication in which deviance of established patterns in itself might serve rhetorical purposes. Thus, finally, I will consider the so-called Role and Reference Grammar which is a theory of text that combines analysis of linguistic structures with investigation of the text as an act of communication.

## Role and Reference Grammar

A text is more than a series of morphemes. As an act of written communication a text is situated in a complex interplay between author, historical context, intended reader(s) and (unintended) readers through history. The author uses written communication to impact his readers; perhaps to inform, persuade, enable and/or motivate. Accordingly, a text cannot be conceived of apart from its communicational setting. What the author wants his text to perform determines the choices he makes while constructing his text. Thus, in my opinion Glanz poses a false alternative when he argues that '[t]he absence of rhetoric does not necessarily hinder the communication, but the absence of grammar renders impossible any communication at all' (2013, 107-8). As a piece of communication, a text is necessarily a work of rhetoric even if part of the actual analysis focuses narrowly on the linguistic structures of the text.

23 'Say to all the people of the land and the priests…' (Zech. 7:5 a )

24 'Thus says the LORD of hosts: 'Let your hands be strong, you who in these days have been hearing these words from the mouth of the prophets who were present on the day that the foundation of the house of the LORD of hosts was laid, that the temple might be built.'' (Zech. 8:9)

This assumption forms the basis of what is called  Role and Reference Grammar (RRG) which was first developed by Foley and Van Valin (1984). It is described as a grammar that avoids a strictly structural-formalist position: 'What differentiates the RRG conception of grammar from the standard formalist one is the view that grammatical structure can only be understood and explained with reference to its semantic and communicative functions' (Van Valin 2009, 239). On the other hand, RRG at the same time escapes the sociolinguistic one-sided emphasis on the function of language in social settings. In other words, the RRG finds itself between two poles: a pure formalistic/structuralistic and a pure functionalistic approach to interpretation of the text. Right from the beginning, RRG adopted the grammar of Information-Structure (IS) developed by Lambrecht (1994) which 'neither offers the comfort which many syntacticians find in the idea of studying an autonomous formal object nor provides the possibility enjoyed by sociolinguists of putting aside issues of formal structure for the sake of capturing the function of language in social interaction' (Lambrecht 1994, 1). Fundamental to RRG is the quest for explaining the interaction between syntax, semantics and pragmatics, and thus it can be termed a structural-functionalist theory. The starting point is to acknowledge the discourse as set within the domain of communication which is the domain of pragmatics.

This is not the place to further expound RRG which has been comprehensively done by various scholars (Pavey 2010; Van Valin 2009; Van Valin 2005; Winther-Nielsen 1995).

In terms of analyzing the participant-reference shifts in Zech. 1:1-6 it should be clear by now that a full and appropriate interpretation is not sufficiently conducted when simply treating the participantreference shifts as independent linguistic constituents. They must be analyzed in light of the larger discourse of which they are part; that is, the smaller discourse in Zech. 1:1-6 as a whole and the larger discourse in Zech. 1-8, perhaps even the whole book of Zechariah or the Minor Prophets. Secondly, the participant-reference shifts should be considered in light of pragmatics; an analysis that is beyond the scope of this paper.

## Conclusions

Using Zech. 1:1-6 as a case-study, different methodologies have been considered in this article in terms of how to deal with strange and confusing participant-reference shifts in the Hebrew Bible. A synchronic approach has been proposed in order to deal with the text as it has been received.

The linguistic data for Zech. 1:1-6 generated by Talstra provides a linguistic framework that allows for evaluation of the various translations of this paragraph. The linguistic analysis shows that Yahweh is  emphasized as the only speaker in vv. 2-6 after a narrator's introduction in v. 1. Furthermore, Zechariah seems to be addressed twice in the curious participant-reference shift in vv. 2-3 when it is recorded that Yahweh was angry with 'your' (plur.) parents, probably including Zechariah as part of the people, and when 'you' (sing.), probably Zechariah, is to speak to 'them'; that is, the people. Compared to general patterns of participant-reference shifts in the Hebrew Bible this could be an instance of Condensation in which an individual is distinguished from a larger group. All of this suggests that translations should emphasize the status of this paragraph as an oracle of Yahweh and render Zechariah as one who is at the same time addressed along with his contemporaries and called to be the medium of Yahweh's further revelation. Many modern translations miss this crucial point in their strivings to ease the reading when they render the text as if Zechariah was in fact speaking or when they distinguish too strictly between Yahweh, Zechariah and his contemporaries. In consideration of translation theory, the communication suggested by the linguistic analysis is much weaker, and this 'weakness', which engages the reader to make her own inferences, should be retained in modern, functional translations.

Zech. 1:6 b provides yet another instance of a possible participant-reference shift. Some commentators and translations treat this last part of the paragraph as a narrator's description of the repentance of Zechariah's contemporaries. The linguistic analysis, however, shows that it is Yahweh who is recording the eventual repentance of the ancestors, even though the same ancestors are recorded to be dead in v. 4. It is curios that no response on behalf of Zechariah's contemporaries is recorded in this paragraph. Perhaps the response of his contemporaries is postponed later in the larger discourse of Zechariah;  probably in  chap.  7-8. A more  conclusive  interpretation of Zech. 1:1-6 and its participantreference shifts would benefit from relating this paragraph to its larger literary context.

Finally, I have argued that an interpretation of Zech. 1:1-6 is not sufficiently conducted before looking at the discourse from a communicative point of view. Role and Reference Grammar has been suggested as a promising theory that combines the text as a linguistic structure with its setting in a communication between writer and reader.

## Acknowledgements

This paper could not have been completed without the invaluable help I have received from many people. First, I want to thank Eep Talstra for many conversations regarding participant tracking and for his production of linguistic data that is the basis of the analysis presented in this paper. I am also very indebted to Nicolai Winther-Nielsen for his excellent supervision and to Wido Van Peursen who very kindly invited me to study at the Eep Talstra Centre at Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam. A special thanks to Dirk Roorda for his technical supervision and instructions into working with the ETCBC database, SHEBANQ and LAF-fabric.

## Bibliography

- Ackroyd, Peter R. 1968. Exile and Restoration . London: SCM Press Ltd.
- Beuken, Wim. 1967. Haggai-Sacharja 1-8 .  Studia  Semitica  Neerlandica.  Assen:  Van  Gorcum  & Comp.
- Carson, D. A. 2003. 'The Limits of Functional Equivalence in Bible Translation - and Other Limits, Too'. In Challenge of Bible Translation. Communicating God's Word to the World , edited by Glen  G.  Scorgie,  Mark  L.  Strauss,  and  Steven  M.  Voth,  65-114.  Grand  Rapids,  Mich: Zondervan.
- Conrad, Edgar W. 1999. Zechariah . Sheffield Academic Press.
- Doedens, Christ-Jan. 1994. Text Databases: One Database Model and Several Retrieval Languages . Amsterdam; Atlanta, GA: Rodopi Bv Editions.
- Foley, William A., and Robert D. Van Valin (Jr.). 1984. Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar . Cambridge Cambridgeshire ; New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Glanz, Oliver. 2013. Understanding Participant-Reference Shifts in the Book of Jeremiah: A Study of Exegetical Method and Its Consequences for the Interpretation of Referential Incoherence . Studia Semitica Neerlandica 60. Leiden: Brill.
- Hanhart, Robert. 1998. Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament, Bd.14/7, Dodekapropheton . 1st ed. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Theologie.

- Ivir, Vladimir. 1981. 'Formal Correspondence vs. Translation Equivalence Revisited'. Poetics Today 2 (4): 51-59. doi:10.2307/1772485.
- Kraft, Charles H. 2005. Christianity in Culture: A Study in Dynamic Biblical Theologizing in Cross Cultural Perspective . Orbis Books.
- Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents . Cambridge; New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.
- Love, Mark Cameron. 1999. The Evasive Text:  Zechariah  1-8  and  the  Frustrated  Reader .  A&C Black.
- Mason, Rex. 1977. The Books of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi . Cambridge University Press.
- Meier,  Samuel  A.  1992. Speaking  of  Speaking:  Marking  Direct  Discourse  in  the  Hebrew  Bible . BRILL.
- Meyers, Carol L., and Eric M. Meyers. 1987. Haggai, Zechariah 1-8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary . The Anchor Bible 25B. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.
- Mitchell, Margaret M. 2008. 'Rhetorical and New Literary Criticism'. In The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies , edited by Judith M. Lieu and J. W. Rogerson, 615-33.
- Nida, Eugene Albert. 1964. Toward a Science of Translating: With Special Reference to Principles and Procedures Involved in Bible Translating . Brill Archive.
- Nida, Eugene Albert, and Charles Russell Taber. 1969. The Theory and Practice of Translation . Helps for Translators 8. Leiden: BRILL.
- Pavey, Emma L. 2010. The Structure of Language: An Introduction to Grammatical Analysis . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/the-structure-oflanguage/235D0D5BCBBB2A8EF644C40471D6612B.
- Regt, L. J. de. 1999. Participants in Old Testament Texts and the Translator: Reference Devices and Their Rhetorical Impact . SSN 39. Uitgeverij Van Gorcum.
- ---. 2001. 'Person Shift in Prophetic Texts: Its Function and Its Rendering in Ancient and Modern Translations'. In The Elusive Prophet: The Prophet As a Historical Person, Literary Character  and  Anonymous Artist ,  edited  by  Johannes  C.  de  Moor,  214-31.  Oudtestamentische Studiën 45. Leiden: Brill.
- Roorda, Dirk. 2015. 'The Hebrew Bible as Data: Laboratory Sharing - Experiences'. http://www.academia.edu/10606506/The\_Hebrew\_Bible\_as\_Data\_Laboratory\_Sharing\_-\_Experiences.
- Roorda, Dirk, Gino Kalkman, Martijn Naaijer, and Andreas van Cranenburgh. 2014. 'LAF-Fabric: A Data Analysis Tool for Linguistic Annotation Framework with an Application to the Hebrew Bible'. Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands Journal , no. 4: 105-20.
- Sellin, Ernst. 1922. Das Zwölfprophetenbuch. Übersetzt und erklärt . Kommentar zum Alten Testament, XII. Leipzig, A. Deichertsche Verlagsbuchhandlung D. Werner Scholl,.
- Smith, Ralph L. 1984. Micah-Malachi . Word Biblical Commentary 32. Waco, Tex.: Thomas Nelson.
- Talstra, Eep. 2007. 'The Hebrew Bible and the Computer. The Poet and the Engineer in Dialogue.' Journal of Humanities & Arts Computing: A Journal of Digital Humanities 1 (1): 49-59.
- ---. 2015. 'Participant Analysis'. Vrije Universiteit.

- ---. 2016a. 'Participants in Zechariah 1:1-6'.
- ---. 2016b. 'Approaching the Mountain of Exodus 19: Thou Shalt Explore Syntax First'. HIPHIL Novum 3 (1): 2-24.
- Van Leeuwen, Raymond C. 2001. 'We Really Do Need Another Bible Translation'. Christianity Today 45 (13): 28-38.
- Van Valin, Robert D. 2005. Exploring the Syntax-Semantics Interface . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- ---. 2009. 'Role and Reference Grammar'. In Grammar, Meaning and Pragmatics ,  edited by Frank Brisard, Jan-Ola Östman, and Jef Verschueren, 239-49. John Benjamins Publishing.
- Wardlaw, Terrance R. 2010. 'The Priority of Synchronic Text-Analysis: Cognitive Text Comprehension and Interpreting Deuteronomy 4:1-40'. Hiphil Novum 7: 1-42.
- Weber, David J. 2005. 'A Tale of Two Translation Theories'. Journal of Translation 1 (2): 35-74.
- Wellhausen, Julius. 1898. Die Kleinen Propheten . Walter De Gruyter Incorporated.
- Wenger, Rachelle. 2012. 'Redundancy Is Information: The Literary Function of Participant Reference in Biblical Hebrew Narrative'. The Bible Translator 63 (4): 179-84.
- Winther-Nielsen, Nicolai. 1995. A Functional Discourse Grammar of Joshua: A Computer-Assisted Rhetorical Structure Analysis . Almqvist & Wiksell International.
- Wolters, Al. 2014. Zechariah . Leuven: Peeters Bvba.

## Appendix A

Eep Talstra's participant tracking in Zech. 1:1-6.

```
domain:  1 = domat:  1 ----------------------dAt: 25   1 Speaker : NoRef Set:-999 = Writer Audience: NoRef Set:-998 = Reader L: 26    1 1?0  ZACH01,01 [B--XDC H-CMJNJ / B-CNT CTJM / L-DRJWC <sp><sp><Ti>] [HJH <Pr>] [DBR JHWH <Su>] [>L ZKRJH / BN BRKJH / BN <DW / H-NBJ> <ap><ap><ap><Co>] PRef: 27   1 B--XDC H-CMJNJ    no PSet 28 PRef:  2 B-CNT CTJM         PSet: 33= 0sf=CNH CNJM      PAct: 29  11= CNH CNJM PRef:  3 CTJM               PSet: 34=     CNJM          PAct: 12= CNJM PRef:  4 L-DRJWC            PSet: 35= 0sm=DRJWC         PAct: 13= DRJWC PRef:  5 HJH                PSet:  1= 3sm=DBR JHWH      PAct:  1= DBR JHWH PRef:  6 DBR JHWH           PSet:  1= 3sm=DBR JHWH      PAct:  1= DBR JHWH PRef:  7 JHWH               PSet:  4= 0sm=JHWH          PAct:  3= JHWH PRef:  8 >L ZKRJH           PSet:  2= 0sm=ZKRJH         PAct:  2= ZKRJH PRef:  9 BN BRKJH           no PSet PRef: 10 BRKJH              no PSet PRef: 11 BN <DW             no PSet PRef: 12 <DW                no PSet PRef: 13 H-NBJ>             no PSet L:   2 1?0  ZACH01,01 [L->MR <Pr>] PRef: 14 L->MR              PSet:  1= 3sm=DBR JHWH        PAct:  1= DBR JHWH
```

25  Domain atom

26 Line; equals clause atom

27 Participant-Reference

28 Participant-Set

29 Particpant-Actor

domain:  2 = domat:  2

----------------------

```
dAt:  2 Speaker :   5 = Set:  1 3sm=DBR JHWH       = Act:  1 DBR JHWH Audience:   8 = Set:  2 0sm=ZKRJH          = Act:  2 ZKRJH SenderSg: NoRef Set:  1 3sm=DBR JHWH       = Act:  1 DBR JHWH      [??] AddrssSg:  20 = Set:  6 2sm=               = Act:  2 ZKRJH AddrssPl:  18 = Set:  5 2pm=               = Act:  4 2pm"YOUPlmas" L:   3 2Q1  ZACH01,02 [QYP <Pr>] [JHWH <Su>] [<L >BWTJKM <Co>] [QYP <Ob>] PRef: 15 QYP                PSet:  3= 3sm=JHWH          PAct:  3= JHWH PRef: 16 JHWH               PSet:  3= 3sm=JHWH          PAct:  3= JHWH PRef: 17 <L >BWTJKM         PSet: 17= 0pm=>B 32         PAct:  7= >B 32 PRef: 18 >BWTJKM:sfx        PSet:  5= 2pm=              PAct:  4= 2pm"YOUPlmas" PRef: 19 QYP                no PSet L:   4 2Q1  ZACH01,03 [W-<Cj>] [>MRT <Pr>] [>LHM <Co>] PRef: 20 >MRT               PSet:  6= 2sm=              PAct:  2= ZKRJH PRef: 21 >LHM:sfx           PSet:  7= 3pm=              PAct:  4= 2pm"YOUPlmas" domain:  3 = domat:  3 ---------------------- dAt:  3 Speaker :  20 = Set:  6 2sm=               = Act:  2 ZKRJH Audience:  21 = Set:  7 3pm=               = Act:  4 2pm"YOUPlmas" SenderSg: NoRef Set:  6 2sm=               = Act:  2 ZKRJH         [??] AddrssPl: NoRef Set:  7 3pm=               = Act:  4 2pm"YOUPlmas" [??] L:   5 3Q2  ZACH01,03 [KH <Mo>] [>MR <Pr>] [JHWH YB>WT <Su>] PRef: 22 >MR                PSet:  8= 3sm=JHWH YB>      PAct:  5= JHWH YB> PRef: 23 JHWH YB>WT         PSet:  8= 3sm=JHWH YB>      PAct:  5= JHWH YB> PRef: 24 JHWH               PSet:  9= 0sm=JHWH          PAct:  3= JHWH PRef: 25 YB>WT              PSet: 14= 0pm=YB>           PAct:  6= YB>
```

```
domain:  4 = domat:  4 ----------------------dAt:  4 Speaker :  22 = Set:  8 3sm=JHWH YB>       = Act:  5 JHWH YB> Audience: NoRef Set:-10 SenderSg:  32 = Set: 11 1sc=               = Act:  5 JHWH YB> AddrssPl:  33 = Set: 10 2pm=               = Act:  4 2pm"YOUPlmas" L:   6 4Q3  ZACH01,03 [CWBW <Pr>] [>LJ <Co>] PRef: 26 CWBW               PSet: 10= 2pm=              PAct:  4= 2pm"YOUPlmas" PRef: 27 >LJ:sfx            PSet: 11= 1sc=              PAct:  5= JHWH YB> L:   7 4Q3  ZACH01,03 [N>M JHWH YB>WT <PC>] PRef: 28 N>M JHWH YB>WT     PSet: 69= 0sm=N>M JHWH YB>  PAct: 25= N>M JHWH YB> PRef: 29 JHWH YB>WT         PSet: 12= 0sm=JHWH YB>      PAct:  5= JHWH YB>  [1] PRef: 30 JHWH               PSet: 13= 0sm=JHWH          PAct:  3= JHWH PRef: 31 YB>WT              PSet: 15= 0pm=YB>           PAct:  6= YB> L:   8 4Q3  ZACH01,03 [W-<Cj>] [>CWB <Pr>] [>LJKM <Co>] PRef: 32 >CWB               PSet: 11= 1sc=              PAct:  5= JHWH YB> PRef: 33 >LJKM:sfx          PSet: 10= 2pm=              PAct:  4= 2pm"YOUPlmas" domain:  3 = domat:  5 ----------------------dAt:  5 Speaker :   0 = Set:  6 2sm=               = Act:  2 ZKRJH Audience:   0 = Set:  7 3pm=               = Act:  4 2pm"YOUPlmas" SenderSg: NoRef Set:  6 2sm=               = Act:  2 ZKRJH         [??] AddrssPl: NoRef Set:  7 3pm=               = Act:  4 2pm"YOUPlmas" [??] L:   9 3Q2  ZACH01,03 [>MR <Pr>] [JHWH YB>WT <Su>] PRef: 34 >MR                PSet:  8= 3sm=JHWH YB>      PAct:  5= JHWH YB> PRef: 35 JHWH YB>WT         PSet:  8= 3sm=JHWH YB>      PAct:  5= JHWH YB> PRef: 36 JHWH               PSet:  9= 0sm=JHWH          PAct:  3= JHWH PRef: 37 YB>WT              PSet: 14= 0pm=YB>           PAct:  6= YB>
```

```
domain:  5 = domat:  6 ----------------------dAt:  6 Speaker : NoRef Set:-24 Audience: NoRef Set:-16 SenderSg:  57 = Set: 24 1sc=               = Act:  5 JHWH YB> AddrssPl:  40 = Set: 16 2pm=               = Act:  4 2pm"YOUPlmas" L:  10 5Q3  ZACH01,04 [>L <Ng>] [THJW <Pr>] [K->BTJKM <Co>] PRef: 38 THJW               PSet: 16= 2pm=              PAct:  4= 2pm"YOUPlmas" PRef: 39 K->BTJKM           PSet: 18= 3pm=>B            PAct:  7= >B 32 PRef: 40 >BTJKM:sfx         PSet: 16= 2pm=              PAct:  4= 2pm"YOUPlmas" L:  11 5Q3  ZACH01,04 [>CR <Re>] [QR>W <Pr>] [>LJHM <Co>] [H-NBJ>JM H-R>CNJM <Su>] PRef: 41 QR>W               PSet: 19= 3pm=NBJ> R>CWN    PAct:  8= NBJ> R>CWN PRef: 42 >LJHM:sfx          PSet: 18= 3pm=>B            PAct:  7= >B 32 PRef: 43 H-NBJ>JM H-R>CNJM  PSet: 19= 3pm=NBJ> R>CWN    PAct:  8= NBJ> R>CWN L:  12 5Q3  ZACH01,04 [L->MR <Pr>] PRef: 44 L->MR              PSet: 19= 3pm=NBJ> R>CWN    PAct:  8= NBJ> R>CWN domain:  6 = domat:  7 ----------------------dAt:  7 Speaker :  41 = Set: 19 3pm=NBJ> R>CWN     = Act:  8 NBJ> R>CWN Audience:  42 = Set: 18 3pm=>B             = Act:  7 >B 32 SenderSp: NoRef Set: 19 3pm=NBJ> R>CWN     = Act:  8 NBJ> R>CWN    [??] AddrssPl: NoRef Set: 18 3pm=>B             = Act:  7 >B 32         [??] L:  13 6Q4  ZACH01,04 [KH <Mo>] [>MR <Pr>] [JHWH YB>WT <Su>] PRef: 45 >MR                PSet: 20= 3sm=JHWH YB>      PAct:  5= JHWH YB> PRef: 46 JHWH YB>WT         PSet: 20= 3sm=JHWH YB>      PAct:  5= JHWH YB> PRef: 47 JHWH               PSet: 21= 0sm=JHWH          PAct:  3= JHWH PRef: 48 YB>WT              PSet: 22= 0pm=YB>           PAct:  6= YB>
```

```
domain:  7 = domat:  8 ---------------------- dAt:  8 Speaker :  45 = Set: 20 3sm=JHWH YB>       = Act:  5 JHWH YB> Audience: NoRef Set:-23 SenderSg: NoRef Set: 20 3sm=JHWH YB>       = Act:  5 JHWH YB>      [??] AddrssPl:  54 = Set: 23 2pm=               = Act:  7 >B 32 L:  14 7Q5  ZACH01,04 [CWBW <Pr>] [N> <Ij>] [M-DRKJKM H-R<JM W-M<LJLJKM H-R<JM <Co>] PRef: 49 CWBW               PSet: 23= 2pm=              PAct:  7= >B 32 PRef: 50 N>                 no PSet PRef: 51 M-DRKJKM H-R<JM W- no PSet PRef: 52 DRKJKM:sfx         PSet: 23= 2pm=              PAct:  7= >B 32 PRef: 53 M<LJLJKM           no PSet PRef: 54 M<LJLJKM:sfx       PSet: 23= 2pm=              PAct:  7= >B 32 domain:  5 = domat:  9 ---------------------- dAt:  9 Speaker : NoRef Set:-24 Audience: NoRef Set:-16 SenderSg:  57 = Set: 24 1sc=               = Act:  5 JHWH YB> AddrssPl:  61 = Set: 16 2pm=               = Act:  4 2pm"YOUPlmas" L:  15 5Q3  ZACH01,04 [W-<Cj>] [L> <Ng>] [CM<W <Pr>] PRef: 55 CM<W               PSet: 18= 3pm=>B            PAct:  7= >B 32 L:  16 5Q3  ZACH01,04 [W-<Cj>] [L> <Ng>] [HQCJBW <Pr>] [>LJ <Co>] PRef: 56 HQCJBW             PSet: 18= 3pm=>B            PAct:  7= >B 32 PRef: 57 >LJ:sfx            PSet: 24= 1sc=              PAct:  5= JHWH YB> L:  17 5Q3  ZACH01,04 [N>M JHWH <PC>] PRef: 58 N>M JHWH           no PSet PRef: 59 JHWH               PSet: 25= 0sm=JHWH          PAct:  3= JHWH
```

## L:  18

5Q3  ZACH01,05 [>BWTJKM <Fr>]

PRef: 60 >BWTJKM            PSet: 18= 3pm=>B            PAct:  7= >B 32

PRef: 61 >BWTJKM:sfx        PSet: 26= 2pm=              PAct:  4= 2pm"YOUPlmas"

L:  19

5Q3  ZACH01,05 [>JH <Qu>] [HM <Su>]

PRef: 62 HM                 PSet: 18= 3pm=>B            PAct:  7= >B 32

L:  20

5Q3  ZACH01,05 [W-<Cj>] [H-NB>JM <Fr>]

PRef: 63 H-NB>JM            PSet: 19= 3pm=NBJ> R>CWN    PAct:  8= NBJ> R>CWN

L:  21

5Q3  ZACH01,05 [H-<Qu>] [L-<WLM <Ti>] [JXJW <Pr>]

PRef: 64 L-<WLM             no PSet

PRef: 65 JXJW               PSet: 19= 3pm=NBJ> R>CWN    PAct:  8= NBJ> R>CWN

L:  22

5Q3  ZACH01,06 [>K DBRJ W-XQJ <Fr>]

PRef: 66 >K DBRJ W-XQJ      PSet: 27= 3pm=DBR  XQ+S     PAct:  9= DBR  XQ+S

PRef: 67 DBRJ               no PSet

PRef: 68 DBRJ:sfx           PSet: 24= 1sc=              PAct:  5= JHWH YB>

PRef: 69 XQJ                no PSet

PRef: 70 XQJ:sfx            PSet: 24= 1sc=              PAct:  5= JHWH YB>

L:  23

5Q3  ZACH01,06 [>CR <Re>] [YWJTJ <Pr>] [>T <BDJ / H-NBJ>JM <ap><Ob>]

PRef: 71 YWJTJ              PSet: 24= 1sc=              PAct:  5= JHWH YB>

PRef: 72 >T <BDJ            no PSet

PRef: 73 <BDJ:sfx           PSet: 24= 1sc=              PAct:  5= JHWH YB>

PRef: 74 H-NBJ>JM           PSet: 19= 3pm=NBJ> R>CWN    PAct:  8= NBJ> R>CWN

L:  24

5Q3  ZACH01,06 [H-<Qu>] [LW> <Ng>] [HFJGW <Pr>] [>BTJKM <Ob>]

PRef: 75 HFJGW              PSet: 27= 3pm=DBR  XQ+S     PAct:  9= DBR  XQ+S

PRef: 76 >BTJKM             PSet: 18= 3pm=>B            PAct:  7= >B 32

PRef: 77 >BTJKM:sfx         PSet: 26= 2pm=              PAct:  4= 2pm"YOUPlmas"

```
L:  25 5Q3  ZACH01,06 [W-<Cj>] [JCWBW <Pr>] PRef: 78 JCWBW              PSet: 18= 3pm=>B            PAct:  7= >B 32 L:  26 5Q3  ZACH01,06 [W-<Cj>] [J>MRW <Pr>] PRef: 79 J>MRW              PSet: 18= 3pm=>B            PAct:  7= >B 32 domain:  8 = domat: 10 ----------------------dAt: 10 Speaker :  79 = Set: 18 3pm=>B             = Act:  7 >B 32 Audience: NoRef Set:-993 Audience Unknown SenderPl:  92 = Set: 31 1pc=               = Act:  7 >B 32 L:  27 8Q4  ZACH01,06 [K->CR <Cj>] [ZMM <Pr>] [JHWH YB>WT <Su>] PRef: 80 ZMM                PSet: 28= 3sm=JHWH YB>      PAct:  5= JHWH YB> PRef: 81 JHWH YB>WT         PSet: 28= 3sm=JHWH YB>      PAct:  5= JHWH YB> PRef: 82 JHWH               PSet: 29= 0sm=JHWH          PAct:  3= JHWH PRef: 83 YB>WT              PSet: 30= 0pm=YB>           PAct:  6= YB> L:  28 8Q4  ZACH01,06 [L-<FWT <Pr>] [LNW <Co>] [K-DRKJNW W-K-M<LLJNW <Aj>] PRef: 84 L-<FWT             PSet: 28= 3sm=JHWH YB>      PAct:  5= JHWH YB> PRef: 85 LNW:sfx            PSet: 31= 1pc=              PAct:  7= >B 32 PRef: 86 K-DRKJNW W-K-M<LLJ no PSet PRef: 87 K-DRKJNW           no PSet PRef: 88 DRKJNW:sfx         PSet: 31= 1pc=              PAct:  7= >B 32 PRef: 89 K-M<LLJNW          no PSet PRef: 90 M<LLJNW:sfx        PSet: 31= 1pc=              PAct:  7= >B 32 L:  29 8Q4  ZACH01,06 [KN <Mo>] [<FH <Pr>] [>TNW <Co>] PRef: 91 <FH                PSet: 28= 3sm=JHWH YB>      PAct:  5= JHWH YB> PRef: 92 >TNW:sfx           PSet: 31= 1pc=              PAct:  7= >B 32
```