For my reading today, I read the introductions to Carol and Eric Meyer’s Haggai, Zechariah 1-8, and William Propp’s Exodus 1-18.
On pages lxx-lxxi, the Meyers state the following about Paul Hanson’s position regarding the post-exilic apocalypticists:
In promulgating his engaging view of the emergence of apocalyptic visions, he portrays the followers of the so-called Third Isaiah as visionaries and the audience and followers of Haggai and Zechariah 1-8 as pragmatists dedicated to stabilizing the status quo and selling out to the Achaemenids.
The Meyers have a different point-of-view from that of Hanson. Is it that Haggai and Zechariah themselves were radical and didn’t support selling out to the Achaemenids? Of course, Haggai and Zechariah were pro-Temple, whereas Third Isaiah is somewhat snarky about the Temple in Isaiah 66. At the same time, Third Isaiah can be pro-Temple, as in Isaiah 56. Is building the Temple under the auspices of the Persians an act of selling out to the Persians?
On that note, on to Propp! I’m not sure why I was assigned this introduction. It doesn’t really get into much meat about the Exodus, and it regurgitates the Documentary Hypothesis, like one would do for beginners in the historical-critical method. Propp does appear to have a dry sense of humor, though, and he doesn’t treat the Documentary Hypothesis as infallible.