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

68 Structure and the Book ofZechariah
promise attached to vv. 8-9 by means of mrr DM Rinn DV3, and is
probably secondary to the oracle. 1
We need only to examine vv. 1-10, but must bear in mind the
possibility of a redactional addition in vv. 8-10.
4.1-14: The Fifth Vision
This unit presents an untidy appearance. The angel shows great reluctance
to give any information to the prophet; twice he responds to his
questions by 'Do you not know what these are?' (vv. 5, 13). In
vv. 11-12 the prophet asks two questions before receiving an answer,
and it is not immediately clear which question has been answered.
Does the angel refer to the olive trees of v. 11 or the branches of the
the trees (v. 12), not mentioned in the original vision account (vv. 2-
3)? Or have they both the same significance? Here, as in other places,
there seems to be deliberate delay in giving an interpretation in order
to heighten the tension felt by the hearers or readers (cf. 1.9). 2
The answer to the question of v. 4 is further delayed by an address
to Zerubbabel (vv. 6a-10a) which includes an introductory sentence
spoken by the prophet, hardly compatible with the form of the whole.
In v. lOb we find the answer, without any awareness, apparently, that
there has been any interruption. In a book teeming with introductory
sentences we should expect at least 'And the angel said...' I therefore
agree with virtually all scholars that 4.6a-10a is a secondary passage. 3
It is possible that v. 12 is also redactional.
For the purpose of this study we must examine the section as a
whole, and also the two separate sections vv. l-6a + 10b-14 and
vv. 6a-10a. The reconstruction of the NEB: 4.1-3, 11-14, 4-5, lOb;
3.1-10; 4.6-10a is much too precarious for our purposes. There is
nothing to be gained by dividing vv. 6a-10a into two sections between
vv. 7 and 8. 4
1. Les oracles, pp. 161-89.
2. See, e.g., Zech. 5.5-6a; 6.7 (?); 7.4-8.17.
3. Rignell regards the interruption as a deliberate device of the author; the
Meyers' opt for 'the author himself, or less probably a disciple' (Haggai, Zechariah,
p. 242).
4. One suggestion worth considering perhaps, is that vv. 6a-10a might have
affinities with Haggai. See Petersen, Haggai, Zechariah and Meyers, Haggai,
Zechariah, in loc.