O Daughter Zion. In Hebrew poetry, “daughter” (bat) plus a toponym is commonly
used. It is thought to designate the inhabitants of a particular place (Haag
1975: 334) or to indicate the place itself and thus, collectively, its
population. However, close attention to the grammar of the expression indicates
population. However, close attention to the grammar of the expression indicates
a more specific usage. Although “daughter” (bat) plus a place name is
frequently translated “daughter of [place].” Thereby implying that the place
has a daughter, it is clear that such a translation is erroneous. The idiom
refers to the place itself, personified as a daughter. . . . The specific daughter-Zion
combination appears twenty-six times in the Hebrew Bible.
The
frequent use of “daughter” or “daughters” in Scripture to personify a place and
to enhance its role in a poetic text is imperfectly understood. Perhaps because
place names are normally feminine, this female kinship term came to designate
various locales and their inhabitants. The suitability of “daughter” here is
probably related to the dependent status of daughters. Just as unmarried daughters
cannot act independently of their parents, so Yahweh’s people must rely on God and
on the king who is coming for their future to be arranged. . . . “Daughter Zion”
in this verse is parallel to “Daughter Jerusalem,” the two expressions together
signifying the holy city. Although these exhortations at the beginning of verse
9 apparently draw upon Zeph 3:14 . . .they do not include “Israel,” which
accompanies “Zion” and “Jerusalem” in Zephaniah. Zechariah 9, in contrast,
focuses especially on Jerusalem. This attention to Zion/Jerusalem in verse 8
that God will be in the Temple in Jerusalem . . . Just as this verse echoes the
language of the oracular expansion of Zechariah 2 (especially 2:14 [NRSV
2:10]), so too the previous verse uses images associated with that chapter of First
Zechariah, again 2:14 (NRSV 2:10) in particular. The fact that both
verses 8 and 9 connect with First Zechariah, along with their common concern for
Jerusalem, provides continuity between the first and second subunits of chapter
9. The theme of Jerusalem as a sacred city where the future king will rule (v
10) is thus a natural sequel to the theme of reestablishing God’s presence in
the Temple. Thus, although the second subunit (9:9-10) of this chapter in many
ways stands apart from verses 1-8 and 11-17, it nonetheless is thematically connected
to its context . . . The call to Zion as witness and celebrant of a new world
order, characterized by stability (worldwide peace), is part of Zion’s traditional
role in the expectation for Yahweh to overcome Israel’s enemies and establish Israelite/Davidic/divine
sovereignty in Jerusalem. This role for Zion is part of the “Zion tradition”,
in which a number of motifs accrue to the depiction of Zion, especially in
Psalms . . . These motifs are part of a general Near Eastern typology of royal accession
. . . It should be noted that “Daughter” appears twice here, thus prefiguring
the double use of “sons” in verse 13 . . . This is another of the ways in which
the subunits of Zechariah 9 are interconnected. (Carol L. Meyers and Ric M.
Meyers, Zechariah 9-14: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB
25C; New York: Doubleday, 1993], 121, 122)
Although a
lowly beast (Gen 49;14ff.), it also could signify royalty. The story of Saul
retrieving asses may be an allusion to his future office, and the succession
story of Solomon has him on a mule rather than a horse (although the word there
is pered rather than ḥămōr [1 Kgs 1:33, 38]). The range of images
attached to ḥămōr is striking, and they all may contribute to the
message of this passage—that the king represents peace, that his humble beast
is suitable for his role in submitting to divine power while exerting his own
royal dominion, and that he is a legitimate monarch. The use of a lowly animal
is one of the ways in which a royal figure partakes of the life-style of the
people he dominates. In this way he bridges the structural gap between those in
power and those subjugated and thereby helps to win the cooperation of people
dominated by a royal elite . . . (Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers, Zechariah
9-14: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 25C; New York:
Doubleday, 1993], 130)
