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

3. The Structure of Individual Sections of Zechariah 93
The most striking result of excluding vv. 16-17 is that we have
an inclusio with v. 2 (*]!ip,*]^p) formed by *]Sj3,*]2iip and TISSJ?.
Otherwise in Zechariah the root occurs only in 7.12 (*]*p) and 8.14
(ppipro), and it is therefore capable of acting as an important marker
word for the whole of Zechariah 1-8. We noted that v. 15 strongly
links the roots *]:sp and t«p Onwp n«]p), and these two forms also
occur in 8.2 but nowhere else in Zechariah. We therefore look forward
to more illuminating results in dealing with chs. 7-8. We must
also note in v. 15 that D'3]Rtfn is directly related to noptfl in v. 11 by
both meaning and context, and that in the use of pa in v. 17 we have
an unusual sense (only Prov. 5.16 otherwise) which reminds us of
run 1 ? mro, v. 15.
The Structure of Zechariah 1.1-17
The composition of this chapter according to traditional biblical critical
methods is clear. There are two separate sections dated about three
months apart: an oracle and a 'night vision' plus oracle; and possibly
there are additions in one or both sections.
It seems improbable that two independent sections have simply been
placed side by side so as to form a literary unity. It seems more likely
that the overall structure which was indicated most strongly by «]Sp
and nwp is due to some editorial additions or modifications—possibly
by Zechariah? 1 On the other hand it seems unlikely that vv. 14-15 can
be detached from vv. 7-13, and we are on safer ground in suggesting
that v. 2 is an editorial expansion. This conclusion has been reached
by perhaps the majority of modern commentators, but usually without
suggesting any constructive purpose with regard to the literary
composition of the book.
Petitjean 2 argues that the correlation between the themes of nwp
(v. 14b) and alliance-election (v. 17b) together with the correspondence
between 1.14b -17 and 8.2-8 establishes the unity of this section.
He believes that the former has been modelled on the latter, and
v. 14a added to introduce it. This implies an original oracle that
ended at v. 13 which does not seem satisfactory, but further consideration
must be given after looking at ch. 8.
The most reasonable theory of composition seems to me to be this:
1. Cf. Mason, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, pp. 35-36.
2. Les oracles, pp. 75-88.