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

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

cipg.codemantra.us
from cipg.codemantra.us More from this publisher
02.04.2013 Views

2. Division of Zechariah 71 peoples and strong nations' (v. 22) will do (vv. 21-22). The chiastic structure is therefore immediately obvious, 1 although the distance between the extremities might suggest later additions to the original chiasmus. This means it might be profitable to suppose an earlier literary unit: 7.1-3 + 8.18-21 (22?, 23?) and to determine the literary nature of subsequent treatment. Most commentators divide ch. 7 into vv. 1-3, narrative, followed by oracular material: vv. 4-14, 2 or vv. 4-6 + 7-14, 3 or vv. 4- 7 + 8-14. 4 Verses 4-7 are introduced by 'And the word of Yahweh came to me' as in 8.1, 18, whereas 7.8 reads '. ..to Zechariah'. It is possible, therefore, that v. 8 is redactional and that v. 9 originally followed v. 7. If this is so then the division vv. 4-6 + 7-14 is logical. However, we are also interested in the structure of the text after v. 8 was inserted. In other words we want to know whether the redactor helped to create or to destroy a planned structure. It is even possible that he did both. We must therefore consider vv. 4-14 with and without v. 8. 1. Nevertheless I can only find one example of a commentator past or present who has apparently noted this. C. Stuhlmueller, in his brief Rebuilding with Hope: A Commentary on the Books of Haggai and Zechariah (International Theological Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), says: 'The editor formed a carefully crafted unit of chs. 7-8 and then stitched this finale harmoniously into place. The question about fasting (7.3-5; 8.18f.) and the role of foreigners (7.If.; 8.22f.) constitute an envelope around the other material in the final two chapters.' Even the Meyers', who show considerable concern at times for structure, and compare these chapters with Hag. 1-2, content themselves with pointing out the similarities between 8.18-23 and 7.1-6 and the implication that thereby chs. 7-8 are given their own literary integrity, Haggai, Zechariah, pp. 442-43. Petersen makes no attempt to introduce chs. 7-8 as a whole, despite the fact that he also notes 8.18-23 as an answer to 7.3. R.L. Smith says that 'the arrangement of the materials in chaps. 7 and 8 is rough' and that they can best be divided into three broad sections: 7.1-6, the question about fasting; 7.7-14, reiteration of the words of the former prophets; 8.1-23, a Decalogue of promises, Nahum-Malachi (WBC; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1984), p. 220. A little later he comments that there are superscriptions at vv. 18, 19, 20 and 23 which indicate 'separate collections that have been put together' (pp. 238-39). Even Beuken, who devotes much space to chs. 7-8 (pp. 15-19, 118-83), does not offer a full explanation of their structure. 2. E.g. Petitjean. 3. E.g. Amsler, Beuken, Meyers, R.L. Smith. 4. E.g. Petersen.

72 Structure and the Book ofZechariah Chapter 8 readily divides into ten short oracles by means of the phrase "Thus says Yahweh': vv. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7-8, 9-13, 14-17, 19, 20-22, 23. Longer introductory formulae are found in vv. 1 and 18. It is very doubtful whether these were originally independent, and even if they were, they are too short for our purposes. There is broad agreement as to how these are to be grouped together: vv. 1-8 + 9- 17 1 (or simply 1-17); 2 and vv. 18-23. The main sections to be investigated in chs. 7-8 are: 7-8; 7.1- 3 + 8.18-23; and 7.4-14 + 8.1-17. Having considered the individual sections of chs. 1-8, we must obviously consider these chapters as a whole. In addition chs. 1-6 form a clear major unit, and we must examine these chapters together, bearing in mind the possibility that 6.9-15 might need to be detached. Zechariah 9-14 The divisions are much less clear in the second part of the book of Zechariah, and much more difficult to describe from a form-critical point of view without prejudging certain issues. We may say at the outset that at least three large sections need to be investigated: chs. 9-11, 12-14 and 9-14. These are marked off by the heading Rfon, and recognized as major divisions by all scholars. 3 In dealing with smaller divisions of the text we shall opt to deal with too large rather than too small a section. 9.1-8 This section is a clear unit despite the severe problems which beset its detailed interpretation. This is not to deny that it may have an important connection with the following verses (see below). Verses 1- 7 all contain references to a foreign city or people, but v. 7 suddenly introduces an unexpected message of salvation for the Philistines. We should consider the possibility that this is redactional. Some 4 would treat vv. 9-10 with the first section, and v. 8 does 1. E.g. Beuken, Petitjean, R.L. Smith. 2. E.g. Amsler, Meyers, Petersen, Rudolph. 3. This does not rule out structures that may cut across this major division, as the situation with 11.15-17 and 13.7-9 shows. 4. E.g. E.G. Kraeling, The Historical Situation in Zech. 9.1-10', AJSL 41 (1924-25), pp. 24-33; quoted by P.O. Hanson, in The Dawn of Apocalyptic

2. Division of Zechariah 71<br />

peoples and strong nations' (v. 22) will do (vv. 21-22). <strong>The</strong> chiastic<br />

structure is therefore immediately obvious, 1 although the distance<br />

between the extremities might suggest later additions to the original<br />

chiasmus. This means it might be profitable to suppose an earlier<br />

literary unit: 7.1-3 + 8.18-21 (22?, 23?) and to determine the literary<br />

nature of subsequent treatment.<br />

Most commentators divide ch. 7 into vv. 1-3, narrative, followed<br />

by oracular material: vv. 4-14, 2 or vv. 4-6 + 7-14, 3 or vv. 4-<br />

7 + 8-14. 4 Verses 4-7 are introduced by 'And the word of Yahweh<br />

came to me' as in 8.1, 18, whereas 7.8 reads '. ..to Zechariah'. It is<br />

possible, therefore, that v. 8 is redactional and that v. 9 originally<br />

followed v. 7. If this is so then the division vv. 4-6 + 7-14 is logical.<br />

However, we are also interested in the structure of the text after v. 8<br />

was inserted. In other words we want to know whether the redactor<br />

helped to create or to destroy a planned structure. It is even possible<br />

that he did both. We must therefore consider vv. 4-14 with and<br />

without v. 8.<br />

1. Nevertheless I can only find one example of a commentator past or present<br />

who has apparently noted this. C. Stuhlmueller, in his brief Rebuilding with Hope: A<br />

Commentary on the Books of Haggai and Zechariah (International <strong>The</strong>ological<br />

Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), says: '<strong>The</strong> editor formed a carefully<br />

crafted unit of chs. 7-8 and then stitched this finale harmoniously into place. <strong>The</strong><br />

question about fasting (7.3-5; 8.18f.) and the role of foreigners (7.If.; 8.22f.)<br />

constitute an envelope around the other material in the final two chapters.' Even the<br />

Meyers', who show considerable concern at times for structure, and compare these<br />

chapters with Hag. 1-2, content themselves with pointing out the similarities<br />

between 8.18-23 and 7.1-6 and the implication that thereby chs. 7-8 are given their<br />

own literary integrity, Haggai, Zechariah, pp. 442-43. Petersen makes no attempt to<br />

introduce chs. 7-8 as a whole, despite the fact that he also notes 8.18-23 as an<br />

answer to 7.3. R.L. Smith says that 'the arrangement of the materials in chaps. 7 and<br />

8 is rough' and that they can best be divided into three broad sections: 7.1-6, the<br />

question about fasting; 7.7-14, reiteration of the words of the former prophets;<br />

8.1-23, a Decalogue of promises, Nahum-Malachi (WBC; Waco, TX: Word Books,<br />

1984), p. 220. A little later he comments that there are superscriptions at vv. 18,<br />

19, 20 and 23 which indicate 'separate collections that have been put together'<br />

(pp. 238-39). Even Beuken, who devotes much space to chs. 7-8 (pp. 15-19,<br />

118-83), does not offer a full explanation of their structure.<br />

2. E.g. Petitjean.<br />

3. E.g. Amsler, Beuken, Meyers, R.L. Smith.<br />

4. E.g. Petersen.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!