130. - Collection Point® | The Total Digital Asset Management System

222 Structure and the Book ofZechariah
(vv. 3, 4). This means that the reader is invited to see the connection
between the two verses. Having seen it, we note the similarity between
iptf in v. 3, and ttfnD in v. 4. The two roots occur together in
Lev. 19.11-12 (as verbs in v. 11, with "iptf 1 ? 'Dt±3 uatfn in v. 12) and
are likely to have been connected in the mind of our writer. (We note
also here two strong allusions to older traditions: Jacob's deceiving the
hairy Esau with goatskins, and Amos's statement in 7.14.) The most
obvious difference between the two verses is that v. 4 goes on to
speak about prophets in the plural, which makes the D'K and the singular
suffix on the two following words in v. 4 stand out more clearly.
5. Verses 5-6 do not have any obvious connection with what has
gone before, and should not be forced into a neat plan. 1 They appear
to be a picturesque commentary on v. 4, and they match v. 3 in their
conversational style.
Summary
The basic pattern is that given at the outset, which is largely indicated
by the introductory and continuation formulae that are used. Within
this overall plan there are several small units that exhibit a regular
structure (e.g. v. 4). There is a stronger link here with chs. 1-8 than
we have discovered so far, not only in the concentration on Jerusalem,
which would not necessarily link the writers at all, but in the method
of structuring the material. It is not possible, in my opinion, to say
that there must be or there could not be an editor who had a hand in
both Zechariah 1-8 and Zechariah 12. We may find further evidence
in Chapter 4 below.
Zechariah 14
There are 67 words which occur at least twice in Zechariah 14, and
we must again eliminate some of them before attempting to produce a
table. We may ignore the following words (numbers in brackets
denote occurrences in Zech. 14 and in Zech. 1-14 respectively): mrr
deuterosacharjanische Frage', p. 104). It makes no difference to the structure.
1. Lamarche says: 'Les correspondances entre les deux strophes ne sont peutetre
pas assez nettes pour qu'on puisse parler de structure a proprement parler'
(Zacharie 9-14, p. 89). The correspondences seem to be both (even) less clear than
he thinks, and more clear—but different.