Zechariah, Reference and the Structure of Revelation 6-8:1 101 images of the OT into his own composition, the reader is unsure whether he or she is reading John’s words or words from another context”42. He says that this method leads to the production of a new creation and the reader is encouraged to participate in the creation of meaning. Preston and Hanson mention that, “The important question is not what source does he use, but what does he make of them?”43 These statements appear to be methodologically confused. When an author directs the mind of a reader to a specific antecedent text, the relationship between the text and its antecedent is one of reference. The responsibility of the reader is to import as much information from the antecedent as is relevant to the context of the primary text. The Meaning of Zechariah 1-2 The conceptual similarities between Zech 1-2 and Rev 6-8:1 makes the term “allusion” appear unclear and unsatisfactory, but the word “reference” fits perfectly. That John has chosen to establish a referential relationship would suggest that it is his intention that the reader should import concepts from Zech 1-2 into Revelation. John is assuming that he and the reader have a common understanding of the meaning of Zech 1-2. This section shall provide a general overview of the meaning of Zech 1-2, with the hope that we shall be able to retrace the hermeneutical steps of the original reader when they first encountered the Revelation text. Underlying Zech 1-2, there appears to be an Eden motif. The first demonstration of this is the reference to myrtle trees. The Babylonians adopted a scorched earth policy when invading Israel (Jer 6:6; 7:20) and it would be fair to assume that all the trees in the vicinity of Jerusalem were destroyed. The presence of a myrtle tree in the “deep,” i.e. near water in a ravine,44 suggests that floral life has started to come back to the region. Isaiah prophesied that, “I will put the cedar in the wilderness, the acacia and the myrtle and the olive tree…” (41:19, similarly 55:13), Petersen refers to the area as a “garden paradise”45. The point is that the land of 42 S. Moyise, The Old Testament in the Book of Revelation (Sheffield 1995) 137; S. Moyise, “Does the New Testament Quote the Old Testament out of Context?”, Anvil 11 (1994) 136. 43 R. Preston & A. Hanson, Revelation, the Book of Glory (London 1968) 93. 44 Contra T. Chary, Aggée, Zacharie, Malachie (Paris 1969) 57. Chary argues that hlcum. is semantically very similar to ~AhT., and the latter tends to be mythological, suggesting that the former is also. 45 D. Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1-8: a Commentary (London 1985) 144.