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

4. Connections Between Sections ofZechariah 1-14 275
4. 'Will be' (2.4), 'were at rest' and 'were settled' (7.7), 'will
remain intact' (12.6), and 'remain' (14.10). He notes that 'the
Hebrew verb.. .is the same for all of these'. (It is clear that
the use is different, and the verb is a common one [3tf'].)
All in all we must say that Barker has provided evidence against the
unity of Zechariah 1-14 rather than for it.
The detailed tables that I have produced, and our examination of
repeated words, show:
1. That there are many words which are repeated in Zechariah
1-8 and 9-14.
2. That there are very few words that are used in the same sense
in both parts of the book.
3. That very often, the distinctive repeated words belong to sections
of the book attributed to the same author on other
(usually form-critical) grounds.
It is true that I have not proved the existence of two or more authors/
editors who were responsible for the composition of Zechariah 1—14,
but the evidence suggests at least two separate individuals who worked
on chs. 1-8 and 9-14. ! Further, it seems more likely than not that a
different editor moulded the primary material of Zechariah 1-8 in
order to give us our present text. However, there is also strong
evidence that these individuals or groups shared a common background
and theological understanding.
Gott inmitten seines Volkes by H.-G. Schottler
I have said that we do not find confirmation of conservative theories
concerning the unity of Zechariah 1-14. At the other end of the scale
we do not find confirmation of the radical theory of Schottler, who
finds evidence of five stages of redaction in Zechariah 1-6 alone. He
presents his conclusions on p. 448 and they may be summarized as
1. Since this book was completed M.G. Kline has written an article, 'The
Structure of the Book of Zechariah' (JETS 34 [1991], pp. 179-93), which argues
for a unified editing of the whole book. He finds a 'three-hinge framework' in 3.1-
10, 6.9-15 and 11.1-17. I cannot attempt a detailed criticism at this point, but it
seems that, if my findings concerning the work of Lundbom, Holladay, Lamarche e
al. are justified, then Klines's hypothesis must be rejected as highly subjective.