English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Four views have been offered for the identity of צמח (Ṣemaḥ) in the Ṣemaḥ-oracles of Zechariah. Recently, however, the view that Ṣemaḥ is, and always was, thought to be a future figure not present on the scene has been argued more forcefully by Wolter Rose and Marko Jauhiainen on the basis of syntactical arguments. I will take up parts of both of these works, and through a syntactical analysis of parts of Zech 6,12–13 – specifically, an analysis of the syntactical function of the Hebrew particle הנה and the discourse function of והיה – I will show that a determination of the identity of Ṣemaḥ is far from a closed case.

Two Philological Notes on Zechariah 6,12–13 relevant for the Identification of Ṣemaḥ