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

1. Investigating Structure 39
The final verses (16-17) are strange in their lack of verbal correspondence
with the rest of the passage. Perhaps they are a later
addition from another editor. The content is, however, quite similar
to v. 1, and we do have an inclusio here.
In conclusion it would appear that de Waard fails to carry
conviction in his presentation because:
1. He has employed unconscious, imprecise criteria in deciding
which correspondences are significant with respect to
structure; he has apparently ignored some correspondences
completely.
2. He does not consider all the data available, but is selective
and apparently arbitrary.
3. He does not consider alternative theories that might rival
his own.
4. He accepts uncertain emendations to the text.
5. He offers no rationale for his procedure, nor criteria for
estimating the significance of the available data.
6. He ignores the wider context of the book of Amos, which
might have a bearing on the passage in question; for example,
what is the significance of the correspondences between this
passage and others in Amos?
7. He does not specify which redactional stage he is interested in. 1
Having looked at examples of work done on texts of one or two
verses, and on one whole chapter, we move on to consider work done
by two scholars on the book of Jeremiah.
3. J.R. Lundbom and W. L. Holladay: The Structure of the Book of
Jeremiah
These scholars have made ambitious attempts to determine the structure
of a large section of Scripture. Their work was influential in
setting the frame of reference for the present work and I believe that
they present insights of great value. It is impossible to embark upon a
detailed exposition and critique of their work, but it is necessary to
1. At the end of the article there is a reference to J. de Waard and W.A. Smalley,
A Translator's Handbook on Amos (forthcoming). I have not yet managed to find a
copy of this book.