348 Mark J. Boda to their diachronic and synchronic dimensions. But certain aspects of his argument do invite critical scrutiny. In splendid fashion, Weis has undermined the enduring assumption that ma¢¢˝’ texts are negative prophecy, but as he replaces it with this new hypothesis that they are explicative prophecy, he seems to replicate similar problems. Consistently in his work on the genre’s constitution (the ma¢¢˝’ texts apart from their final literary context) he must deal with exceptions to patterns he has highlighted for these ma¢¢˝’ texts. Thus, for example, on his way to concluding that the “norm” for these texts is that they are not a verbatim report of YHWH speech, but rather the speech of the prophet, he must explain away exceptions in three texts (27). In his search for formal elements of the genre, Weis must finally admit: While we have been able to uncover some typical formal aspects of these texts, there remains among them a certain degree of formal diversity — especially of superstructural diversity. Various formal means — albeit falling within certain boundaries — are used to accomplish the same purpose. This suggests that intention may play a much more significant role as a unifying and characterizing aspect for ma¢¢˝’ texts as a genre than form does (28). (27) WEIS, “Definition”, 212-213. (28) Ibid., 227. Although focusing on the final literary rather than original oral level, Floyd says he follows Weis in identifying three formal elements of the ma¢¢˝’ genre, that is, 1) assertion about Yahweh’s involvement in a particular situation; 2) allusion to previous prophecies whose status is clarified by the assertion; and 3) directives concerning an appropriate response to Yahweh’s ¯ initiative based on this assertion; FLOYD, “MA››A’”, 411. As with Weis, however, Floyd regularly admits inconsistency in the structure of his proposed genre (see comments on Habakkuk, p. 414, and on Malachi, p. 416). Additionally, for Floyd there is the problem of his identification of the proposed “previous revelation” (#2), especially the identification of Nah 1,11-14 and Hab 1,5-11, and for Malachi, the Torah. Such a claim is difficult to question as at many points in prophetic books there are allusions to earlier revelation, whether that is the Torah or the earlier prophets. Sweeney also is open to criticism on this point. In the case of Zech 9–11 and 12–14, Sweeney claims that the “previous revelation” is the book of Isaiah. Sweeney bases this on an allusive play he discerns between Zechariah ben Berechiah ben Iddo (Zech 1,1) and Zechariah ben Jeberechiah (Isa 8,2) and on his claim that “much of the material in Zechariah 9–11 and 12–14 appears to be heavily indebted to Isaiah”; SWEENEY, Twelve, II:657. The first basis is speculative and although the second may be true, Isaiah is certainly not the only prophet alluded to in Zech 9–14; cf. Bringing Out the Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusion and Zechariah 9–14 (eds. M.J. BODA – M.H. FLOYD) (JSOTSS; Sheffield 2003). Note ironically FLOYD, Minor Prophets, 547, whose criticism of Jeremias’ work on “theophany” could have been directed at Weis’ work: “He calls the