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

46 Structure and the Book ofZechariah
various gaps are to be seen; and Holladay has not attempted to
demonstrate that the changes are significant.
A further problem with Holladay's analysis of Jeremiah 1-20 arises
from his main thesis that in chs. 2-3 there is a 'harlotry cycle' which
is followed in chs. 4-6 by a 'foe cycle'. However, the material is not
so clearly defined as one might hope. The 'harlotry cycle' turns out to
be 2.5-37, 3.1-5, 12b-14a, 19-25 where the omissions are almost
entirely prose passages. This assumption may be acceptable, but the
prose section 3.24-25 is not omitted, and this seems to commit us
prematurely to a theory of the redaction history of the passage, viz
that 3.24-25 was added so as to form a coherent structure, before 3.6-
10 (+ ll-12a), 14b, 15-18, which disrupted the structure. Many
scholars regard vv. 19-23 as originally following immediately after
vv. 1-5. Holladay wants to include vv. 12b-14a but the grounds he puts
forward for doing so are at least partly structural: 'There is a quite
lovely chiasmus in the assonances with mtf in vv. 12b, plus 14a and
vv. 22... 5l In attempting to establish a new theory concerning the
structure of a book, one needs to have surer foundations and, at least,
to respect the scholarly consensus when departing from the received
text. In fact Holladay departs from most scholars in arguing that 4.1 -4
is not the end of this cycle, but the beginning of the 'foe cycle' (4.1-
6.30 + 8.4-10a, 13). 2 His three arguments for this conclusion depend
upon spotting inclusios. 3 On pp. 46-47 Holladay had written:
It is clear that there is much secondary material within chapter 3, and it is
difficult to avoid circular reasoning as we attempt to locate the material
here that participates in any basic structure, and to discern that structure.
We must proceed with care.
I think it is clear, even from this very brief critique, that he has not
proceeded with nearly enough care.
Holladay's book is a stimulating study, which I have enjoyed reading.
He shows himself to be aware of many of the dangers of subjectivity,
and the need for safeguards, but he proceeds as if unaware of what he
has said. His theory must be regarded as a suggestion that has not been
properly tested. In general, his work here confirms our conviction
that most structural studies are not carried out with sufficient
1. Architecture, p. 50.
2. In his commentary he treats Jer. 2.1-4.4 together.
3. Architecture, pp. 55-56.