The Gospel of John records in 5:39 a saying by Jesus Christ: “… it is they (the Scriptures) that bear witness about me, …”. Would that saying sensitize thenceforth any would-be interpreters how they approach the Biblical texts?

If interpreters, while handling an OT text find it appropriate to engage with their fellow commentators, whether contemporary or ancient, how much more would it seem necessary for these same interpreters to also comment on those NT texts that make direct quotation or allusion to it?

The response to the above queries is at best ambivalent if one reads Mark J. Boda’s 2016 commentary on the book of Zechariah. Apart from a brief paragraph entitled “Zechariah For Today” (pg. 44), Boda largely eschews making any messianic references in his commentary proper. At various points, he expresses his apprehension of characterizing Zechariah’s vision reports as eschatological (pgs. 102, 211):
“ … there are reasons to see in Zechariah’s vision reports some of the ingredients that will be key components of the later apocalyptic form, it is not helpful to emphasize the connection, since the reading strategy associated with the later form cannot be imposed on the earlier form [vision reports that relate to recent events] without falling into anachronistic error”. (pg. 102, see also n.123)
Such warning is perspicacious and prudent, as Boda demonstrates trenchantly the historical groundings and relevance of the prophet’s message to its late sixth to the mid-5th century audience. Questions remain, however, whether interpreters of OT prophetic texts are inescapably caught between mutually exclusive quandaries of imminent visions and apocalypses. Given his rather restrictive definition of “eschatological” (pg. 211), it is apparent that Boda sees the answer in the affirmative.

Apart from the above, Boda’s commentary on the Book of Zechariah is another (after his 2004 NIVAC) important contribution to the study of this prophetic book. He offers often exhaustive references to words used in other parts of the OT. His expert translation, explication of textual relationships, cogent exegesis and fair interactions with recent commentators are invaluable resources.

One cannot help after reading this substantial commentary but feel thankful and musing at the same time. There is an urge to turn to those quotations in the NT and ask: “what about …?” Were these NT writers mistaken? For a commentary in a series that claims its affiliation, and by inference its readership, in “evangelicalism”, there is an interpretative void yet to be filled. ( )