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

74 Structure and the Book ofZechariah
However we might understand the details they are a prophecy of
salvation.
The Rinn ova of v. 16 does not begin the sentence but I shall entertain
the possibility that it might be redactional. 1 Verse 17 seems to be
a comment on what has gone before and forms an apt conclusion to
the section. Zech. 10.1 begins with a new imperative and subject
matter. I shall therefore deal with the divisions vv. 9-10 and 11-17. 2
1961), pp. 48, 50-51. If we were to take 'them' to mean the enemies of Judah, this
would involve taking p (hiphil) in a negative sense 'surround' rather than 'cover,
defend', and this would be contrary to the meaning in Zech. 12.8. The only other
instance is Isa. 31.5, parallel to "ran, nos and D'^on!
1. Most commentators accept vv. 16-17 as an integral part of the text. Saeb0
('Die deuterosacharjanische Frage', pp. 193-207) considers vv. 13-16a and 16b-17
together. Otzen has an unusual view. See p. 73 n. 1 below.
2. This again is agreed by most scholars. Lamarche considers 9.11-10.1 to be a
unit on the basis, it seems, of a chiastic arrangement in 9.17b-10.1. So he puts:
a Grain shall make the young men flourish
and wine the maidens
b Ask of Yahwch rain
in the time of spring rain
a' Yahweh makes flashes of lightning
he gives showers of rain to them
to each one vegetation in the field
Lamarche says: 'Si 1'on entend respecter le texte. . .Ton doit simplement constater
que 1'exhortation a demander la pluie sert de pivot litteraire k une double
description de la prosperite" agricole' (Zacharie 9-14, p. 49). He refers to
Deut. 11.13-15. We may agree with him that van Hoonacker was wrong to place
10.1 before 9.17b in order to make a chronological improvement: ask for rain first
and the picture of prosperity follows. But Lamarche is not justified in ignoring the
form-critical observations made above. From our point of view it would simply be
begging the question to employ structural arguments (which in any case look rather
tenuous) in order to divide up the text. If there is any true insight in Lamarche's view
it needs to be allowed to appear when we consider the larger unit of Zech. 9-11 (or
at least 9.1-11.3).
Lacocque differs from Lamarche in treating 9.11-17 together. He notes a double
chiastic structure between vv. 11-12 + 16-17 (abcddcba) and vv. 13-14 (abba
(Amsler et al,, Ag£e, Zacharie, Malachi, pp. 160-61).
Baldwin follows Lamarche's division, noting that 'there are differences of opinion
as to where this section (9.1 Iff.) should end, but as 10.2b leads into the "shepherd"
theme the break has been made at the end of 10.1.' Since the 'flock of his people'
has already occurred in 9.16, this is not a strong argument.