Magazine: Catholic Biblical Quarterly, January, 1996

THE EVIL IN THE EPHAH: READING ZECHARIAH 5:5-11

IN ITS LITERARY CONTEXT

Of all the Bible's prophetic visions, the one reported in Zech 5:5-11 is surely one of the strangest. An angelic interpreter appears and directs the prophet's gaze toward a moving object. At first the prophet does not recognize the object, but the angel identifies it as an ephah (i.e., a container that holds a standard measure of dry volume, something like a bushel). The ephah has a lead lid on top, which is lifted to reveal a woman sitting inside. Thereupon the angel calls her "Wickedness," pushes her down into the container, and jams the heavy lid back on tight. Two flying women then appear who bear the ephah upward on their stork like wings. In response to the prophet's question regarding the women's destination, the angel explains that they are headed for the land of Shinar, that a house will be built there for the ephah, and that the ephah will be given a place of honor in the house.

This text, by its very nature, raises acutely the issue of the context in which it is to be read. Because the narration is so sparse, the bizarre scene is hardly comprehensible as a discrete episode. The few words of explanation given in the conversation between the angel and the prophet scarcely provide the reader with enough information to grasp the significance of the strange things that appear and happen.

In order to make sense of the vision, the reader must presuppose some context in which to fit the fragmentary bits of imagery, action, and dialogue that are so starkly juxtaposed on so blank a background.

In making sense of this vision interpreters have sometimes emphasized its historical context, reading it in relation to the major developments of the restoration in which Zechariah was involved. Some interpreters have emphasized its cultural context, reading it in relation to ancient Near Eastern iconographic and mythic traditions. Recently scholars have tended to emphasize its relation to the phenomenological context of prophetic visionary experience and the expression of such experience in visionary reports.[1] All these areas of investigation are obviously relevant in some way to the interpretation of this text, and all have made important contributions to our understanding of it. In this essay, however, a case will be made for reading the vision in relation to its immediate literary context.

This is not meant to imply that historical, cultural, or phenomenological concerns are irrelevant to the meaning of the vision; it is meant to suggest that some of this text's problems become less intractable when its literary context becomes the main point of departure for its interpretation. The literary context is the basis from which to consider this text in relation to these other contexts.

I

Any consideration of the overall structure of Zechariah, or even of its major sections, lies beyond the scope of this essay. For present purposes it is necessary to look only at the way 5:5-11 is related to the two immediately preceding pericopes (the vision of the lampstand in 4:1-14 and the vision of the flying scroll in 5:1-4), because this is sufficient to allow us to see what the vision of the ephah is mainly about.[2] Accordingly, the analysis that follows will compare and contrast the ways in which the motifs 5:5-11 has in common with these two preceding units are developed in 5:5-11 itself.

In both 4:1-14 and 5:5-11 the focus is on an object that will become the cultic symbol in a temple, and in both cases this temple is in the process of being built. The tableau of the vision in 4:1-14 consists of(1)the cultic symbol, the lampstand, (2) the golden containers of the olive oil with which the burning lamps are replenished, and (3)attending figures that bespeak this sanctuary's relationship with the natural world and human society. These figures include, on the one hand, the olive trees that naturally produce the oil and on the other hand, the two officials who are responsible for providing the oil as part of the temple's overall construction and maintenance.

The scene of the vision in 5:5-11 has analogous elements: (1) a female figure that turns out to be a cultic symbol because it is headed for the place of honor in a "house" or temple sanctuary, (2) a container for agricultural produce (i.e., the ephah itself), and (3) attending figures that bespeak this sanctuary's relationship both with the natural world and with human society. The two women, by virtue of their bird like wings, belong to the nonhuman as well as the human realm, and like their counterparts in the vision of the lampstand, they are responsible for the construction and maintenance of their temple, where the ephah will be installed.

In comparison with the scene of the lampstand, the scene of the ephah seems defective. The golden vessels are brimming with olive oil, a staple whose production decisively affects the quality of life. The ephah, a vessel that is characteristically full of the cereal foods whose production is similarly essential, contains instead only "wickedness." The lampstand's attendants conform to the natural boundaries between the human and the nonhuman, but the ephah's attendants transgress those boundaries. The scene of the lampstand thus connotes the peace and plenty that result from living in harmony with the created order, while the scene of the ephah connotes the dearth and discord that result from not living in tune with creation.

In contrast with the more or less static tableau described in the vision of the lampstand, the vision of the scroll in 5:1-4 is highly dynamic. The scroll is characterized with respect to its mobility, proportionality, and effectiveness: (1) it can fly, and it thus "goes forth over the surface of the whole earth"; (2)there is a discrepancy between its dimensions, which are quite extraordinary, and its contents, which are simply the precepts that one would ordinarily read from a torah scroll (such as prohibitions against stealing and against taking Yahweh's name in vain); (3) it commands the respect of those to whom it goes, as it enforces their adherence to the norms of the covenant.

In 5:5-11 the ephah is similarly characterized with respect to its mobility, proportionality, and effectiveness: (1)it also "goes forth" and becomes airborne, rising to a level somewhere "between earth and heaven"; (2) there is also a discrepancy between its dimensions, which are quite ordinary, and its contents (the woman), which would not ordinarily fit into a container the size of an ephah; (3) it also commands the respect of those to whom it goes, as it becomes the object of their devotion.

In comparison with the scene of the scroll, however, the scene of the ephah again seems defective. The scroll can fly on its own, because Yahweh has sent it forth; but the weighted-down ephah needs the help of the winged women to get off the ground. Even as the scroll flies, it stays on a relatively down-to-earth human level, but the ephah loses touch with its earthly human roots, without ever quite reaching heaven, either. When the teachings of the torah are borne on a scroll that is too large actually to be read from, they amount to more than they seem; but when a woman is carried in an ephah, a container that is actually too small to hold her, she amounts to less than she seems. The scroll itself can actively destroy any "house" (household) that is not ordered according to its precepts, but the ephah must passively depend upon others to build a "house" (temple) for it. Whereas the scene of the scroll connotes the capacity to form a religious community on principles that seem quite ordinary but are really rather superhuman and promising, the scene of the ephah connotes the capacity to form a religious community on principles that seem quite superhuman but are really rather ordinary and disappointing.

When 5:5-11 is considered in relation to the two previous visions in 4:1-14 and 5:1-4, the salient fact is that the ephah and its contents ironically mimic the lampstand and the scroll in nearly every aspect of their appearance and action. This shows that the ephah and its contents are being satirized. Let us then attempt to read the vision of the ephah more closely, keeping in mind the fact that it seems to be mocking something that would pose an alternative both to the lampstand, as the main cultic symbol for postexilic Judaism, and to the torah scroll, as the basis for postexilic Jewish communal identity.

II

What, then, does the ephah itself represent? When the prophet asks, "What is it?" (Zech 5:6a) the angel identifies the unrecognized object as an ephah, and then gives a brief explanation. Most commentators have understood this explanation in much the same way as the NRSV translates it: "This is their iniquity in all the land." The ephah is thus taken to represent the "iniquity" of those who have come back to live in "the land" of Judah, and the deportation of the ephah to Shinar is taken to represent Yahweh's removal of "their" iniquity from this land. This understanding of the angel's explanation is immediately questionable on three counts, however.

First, there is some doubt about the word in 5:6c that is translated as "iniquity." The MT reads [greek text cannot be represented into ASCII Text.), "their eye," not "their iniquity." The NRSV's rendering reflects a widely accepted emendation based on the LXX, which reads eta alpha delta Kappa i alpha. The Greek seems to presuppose the Hebrew form [greek text cannot be represented into ASCII text], whose consonants differ from those of the MT only by having a waw where the MT has a yod. Since a manuscript copyist might well confuse waw and yod, the masoretic reading could indeed be a corruption of the reading represented by the LXX. If so, there is a sound reason for supposing that the ephah represents the sins of some group. The evidence of the versions is by no means unanimous, however. The Peshitta agrees with the LXX, but the Latin reads oculus eorum, thus strongly affirming the MT; the Targum's paraphrase reflects an underlying Hebrew text concerned with sight rather than sin, apparently presupposing something like the MT.[3] Because this evidence is inconclusive, one cannot jump too quickly to the conclusion that the LXX reflects the original Hebrew reading and that the present MT shows a corruption.[4] Neither reading can be preferred on text-critical grounds alone, and the question which is better must be resolved, therefore, by weighing other factors as well.

Second, with regard to the same word in 5:6c there is some question concerning the referent of its third person masculine plural pronominal suffix. Regardless of whether the word itself means "their iniquity" or "their eye," who are "they"? It is commonly assumed that the persons in question are those who have returned from Babylon to Jerusalem, but since there is neither an explicit antecedent for this pronominal suffix nor an explicit reference to the restored community as such anywhere in the pericope itself, this is by no means certain.[5]

Third, in the prepositional phrase [Greek text cannot be represented into ASCII text] at the end of 5:6, concluding the angel's explanation, the key term [Greek text cannot be represented into ASCII text] is commonly understood in the sense of "land," and thus, the phrase is read as an indication that the entire territory of Judah is pervaded by guilt. If the "iniquity" represented by the ephah pervades "all the land" of Judah, then its deportation to Shinar indicates the removal of this all-pervasive guilt from Judah to some other location. The problem with this reading of the phrase, of course, is that [Greek text cannot be represented into ASCII text] can mean "earth" as well as "land." If it had the former connotation here, it would indicate that the entity modified by the prepositional phrase, whether it be "iniquity" or "eye," is worldwide in its extent or scope. Whatever the ephah represents, there is nothing in the pericope itself, aside from this rather ambiguous prepositional phrase, to indicate that it pertains specifically to Judah, or that its deportation to Shinar commences specifically from Judah.

In sum, though the angel's explanation of the ephah's significance is widely understood in a way that generally agrees with the NRSV's translation, such a reading is highly questionable. On purely philological grounds this clause might just as well be rendered, "this is their eye in all the earth," or the like.[6] The act of moving the ephah to Shinar would then not represent anything like Yahweh's removal of guilt from Judah, regardless of what this "eye" and its worldwide scope might signify, and regardless of who "they" might be.[7]

If the issue of the ephah's significance is approached in terms of its relationship with the lampstand and the scroll in the two preceding visions, it is significant that even before the ephah is identified as such, the angel characterizes it as something whose role is in some respects analogous to theirs. They act similarly. The ephah does just what the scroll does, namely, it "goes forth" ([Greek text cannot be represented into ASCII text],); in the ephah's going forth it also resembles the lampstand's lights, whose rays similarly "range" ([Greek text cannot be represented into ASCII text]) outward from the sanctuary. Moreover, the action in all three cases has exactly the same scope, extending over [Greek text cannot be represented into ASCII text] The question whether this means that the ephah functions throughout "the whole earth" or throughout "the whole land," as well as the question whether the ephah stands for some kind of "iniquity" or some kind of "eye," can be addressed by further extending this comparison of the ephah with the scroll and the lampstand.

The torah scroll contains covenantal norms that serve as a basis for the newly emerging Jewish communal identity, not only for those who live in Judah but also for those who remain dispersed throughout the Persian empire. This communal identity is also defined in the recognition that the cult of Yahweh is exclusively centered in Jerusalem, but such recognition is possible for those who live beyond the bounds of Judah and Jerusalem. It is likely, therefore, that the forcefulness of the scroll's norms and the lampstand's purview are both envisioned as extending over "the whole earth," not just over "the whole land." In comparison with the scroll and the lampstand, the ephah represents an alternative basis for Jewish communal identity, something that is also contending for the allegiance of those who remain abroad as well as those who live in Judah. It stands for a way of life defined in some terms other than adherence to the teachings of the torah and acceptance of Jerusalem as the place of the sole central sanctuary. Since this other way of life is similarly possible for Jews wherever they live, the ephah's efficacy should also extend over "the whole earth."

An ephah can symbolically represent such an alternative because it, like the torah and its precepts, is a kind of communal norm. Its enforcement similarly requires the common consent of those who recognize it as an ideal. As a standard measure for such staple commodities as grain and flour, the ephah connotes the possibility of communal cooperation and well-being. Nevertheless, the ephah is apparently a troublesome sort of norm, for the lack of a "just ephah," a scriptural commonplace, is something that portends social chaos.[8] The reality of the ephah thus characteristically falls far short of the ideal. The ephah, used to represent an alternative way of Jewish religious life, suggests that its inner content will not actually live up to the claims of its outer packaging, and that the consequences will be the assimilative disintegration of the community.

In comparison with the lampstand, the ephah also appears to represent an alternative cultic symbol. In Zech 4:1-14 the lampstand represents. Yahweh's presence in the temple being rebuilt in Jerusalem. The ephah is similarly headed for a temple that is being built, but it is a temple located elsewhere, in "the land of Shinar." There the ephah will be installed upon a [Greek text cannot be represented into ASCII text], the kind of pedestal that serves to display a cultic object or image.[9] The lampstand represents Yahweh's presence by virtue of a symbolic identification with his "eyes" ([Greek text cannot be represented into ASCII text]), which suggests that the MT may not be amiss in similarly characterizing the ephah's cultic function in terms of an "eye," To see whether this is the case, we must first delve a little deeper into the symbolism of the divine eye, considering also why the ephah might be characterized as "their eye."

To describe the lampstand of the second temple in terms of "Yahweh's eyes" is to make certain claims about the way in which Yahweh's divine kingship is represented there. This is rooted in the notion that the Persian emperor does not need to impress his subjects throughout his domain with direct manifestations of his royal power beyond his capital city, that he maintains his authority indirectly instead, through a network of both official and unofficial informants, emanating from the capital, who serve as his "eyes."[10]

The symbolism of the lampstand similarly implies that Yahweh's kingship over heaven and earth needs no direct manifestation anywhere outside Jerusalem, and that even there it needs no direct representation--no image of Yahweh or any member of his heavenly council of gods, no human king to serve as his vice-regent. The lampstand flanked by its two human attendants is enough to represent in earthly symbolism the heavenly reality of Yahweh enthroned as king over all, flanked by his heavenly attendants (4:14; cf. 6:5b). Yahweh's earthly authority is maintained indirectly through the human network that serves as his "eyes," the covenant community that emanates from the sanctuary of the lampstand in Jerusalem and extends throughout the world. This network corresponds on the earthly level to the mounted patrols of Yahweh's host through which he exercises his cosmic oversight on the heavenly level (6:1-8).

As an alternative to the lampstand, the ephah is a different symbol of the divine "eye," a different earthly, human representation of heaven's divine royal rule. The ephah's description suggests that a more direct representation

III

The next development is the disclosure of the ephah's contents, as the lid is lifted to reveal a woman sitting inside (Zech 5:7). The angel identifies the woman as "Wickedness" and forcefully attempts to confine her by replacing the heavy lead lid on the ephah's mouth (v 8). What is the role of this feminine figure? Why should she be treated like this?

When guilt and forgiveness are assumed to be the main themes of this vision, this feminine personification of wickedness is sometimes quite gratuitously associated with an archetypal sinful woman. The figure in the ephah has been identified with the idolatrous whore denounced in prophetic diatribe, with the unclean menstruant subjected to priestly taboos, and with the primeval temptress imagined in misogynist interpretations of Genesis.[11] In such cases her deportation tends to be understood in terms of the divine retribution that is directed against women because of their inherently sinful nature. This tendency is often implicit, but it occasionally becomes explicit, as when Jones writes that "wickedness is pictured in the form of a woman probably because a woman first suggested rebellion against God, and because the Bible has no illusions about woman's power to entice and inveigle."[12] This vision's feminine personification of evil may well have connotations that are unfavorable to women, but there is nothing in the text itself that explicitly invites any interpretations of this sort. It all depends on the context in which one sees the things that are explicitly stated.

If the disclosure of the ephah's contents is viewed in the literary context of the two preceding visions, in line with the possibilities opened up in the previous section of this essay, this part of the vision appears to be a kind of mock theophany.[13] The ephah's character as a kind of cultic symbol antithetical to the lampstand is further developed in the symbolic connotations of its contents, which play upon the ephah's pretended capacity to represent divine royal rule.

The cultic manifestation of Yahweh's divine presence is typically

acknowledged in one or more of the following ways: (1) Yahweh's enthronement is acclaimed;[14] (2) he is named king, and the praiseworthy attributes that entitle him to reign are recited;[15] (3) his rule over all creation is described in terms of a victory over the forces of cosmic chaos, or of a world-shaking breakthrough of his cosmic power in the form of something like a violent thunderstorm, an earthquake, or a flood or tidal wave.[16] These verbal responses often accompany ritual actions treating some object as a material representation of the divine presence, as the ark was in preexilic times.[17]

In the opening of the ephah and the angel's reaction to it (Zech 5:7-8) there are ironic inversions of all these elements of a theophany. The lifting of the lid reveals a woman who is "enthroned" ([Greek text cannot be represented into ASCII text],), just like Yahweh. Of Yahweh, however, it is typically said that he is "enthroned [upon the] cherubim" ([Greek text cannot be represented into ASCII text]e.g., Pss 80:1; 99:1) or that he "sits enthroned ([Greek text cannot be represented into ASCII text];) over the flood" (Ps 29:10), and that his throne is manifest "in the midst of ([Greek text cannot be represented into ASCII text]) the children of Israel" (Ezek 47:3). The woman, in contrast, is only enthroned "in the midst of ([Greek text cannot be represented into ASCII text]) the ephah." Yahweh's enthronement is acknowledged, both explicitly and implicitly, when he is named king with the exclamation [Greek text cannot be represented into ASCII text], ("Yahweh reigns!"), and when he is extolled as strong, just, and merciful (e.g., in Psalms 93; 97; 99). In contrast, the only acclaim that greets the disclosure of the woman's enthronement is the angel's exclamation ascribing to her a rather more negative attribute, "This is Wickedness ([Greek text cannot be represented into ASCII text].)!"[18] And instead of emerging victorious over the forces of cosmic chaos, or causing a cosmic dislocation, the woman is thrust into the ephah's "mouth" ([Greek text cannot be represented into ASCII text])-imagery that connotes her being swallowed up into the nether world.[19] The ruler of creation ought to control such forces, not be subject to them. The woman thus stands for a kind of cultic object which is meant to represent divine royal rule but which from the standpoint of the vision can only do so defectively. In the vision's symbolism, the woman is neither a goddess nor the image of a goddess; she is literally a woman. By the way she is characterized, however, she becomes the kind of concrete representation of a female deity that would typically be the object of veneration in an ancient Near Eastern temple. This particular goddess is one who could claim a place of honor--presumably alongside Yahweh--in the kind of Jewish worship which might be practiced in temples everywhere. The angel's reaction obviously expresses fierce opposition to the worship of this goddess, portraying it as the embodiment of "wickedness." The reason for such hostility is expressed in the final section, as the winged women appear and fly away with the ephah to Shinar.

IV

What is the role of the winged women (Zech 5:9-11), and what is meant by their deportation of the ephah? They are often seen as agents of Yahweh, the removal of the ephah signifying Yahweh's removal of Judah's guilt, but this interpretation is highly problematic in view of the vision's conclusion. If the winged women are Yahweh's agents, then the goal of their activity must also be something intended and effected by Yahweh. Since the winged women are explicitly said to be taking the ephah to Shinar in order to install it as a cultic image in a temple built for it, this, in the line of interpretation just mentioned, would imply that Yahweh is in effect the founder and patron of some idolatrous cult.[20] And if the removal of the ephah signifies Yahweh's removal of Judah's guilt, the conclusion of the vision would imply that he brings about the forgiveness of his own people by dumping their guilt, like so much toxic waste, on the hapless heathen of Shinar. It is difficult to imagine that the vision imputes either action to Yahweh.

It can be said that Yahweh, as creator of the world, has allotted to the nations their various forms of worship just as he has allotted to them their land and their ethnic heritage.[21] This reflects the theological insight that in all religions there is at least to some extent a manifestation of the one true God. It hardly follows that Yahweh is in the business of constructing pagan cults and installing their idolatrous images.[22] Yahweh has been known to visit the consequences of idolatry on those who practice it, but not to visit idolatry itself on anyone. Since this is precisely the goal of the winged women's actions, they can scarcely be Yahweh's agents.

The question whether the ephah's removal means Judah's forgiveness is a bit more complicated. First of all, it should be noted that this interpretation depends largely upon an emendation based on the LXX reading of 5:6c, identifying the ephah as "their guilt" ([Greek text cannot be represented into ASCII text]). We have already seen that there are good reasons to stick with the MT reading, "their eye" ([Greek text cannot be represented into ASCII text]). In case these reasons are not persuasive enough, another aspect of the matter is considered here. If the ephah is taken to represent Judah's [Greek text cannot be represented into ASCII text], and the winged women are taken to represent Yahweh's agents, then the description of what they do with the ephah must be seen as a narrative representation of a theological idea. Since the term that describes the action of the winged women is [Greek text cannot be represented into ASCII text], "bear" or "lift," their deportation of the ephah becomes a narrative symbolization of Yahweh's "bearing guilt."

The phrase [Greek text cannot be represented into ASCII text] is a formulaic expression that basically describes the effects of violating an ethical or ritual norm. Those who do so must "bear the guilt" and, hence, pay the consequences of their actions. Such consequences are usually not conceived as penalties imposed by some juridical authority but as misfortunes that result when the balance of the moral order has been upset. The effects of this misfortune can extend into the lives of the wrongdoer's close associates, so that they too end up having to "bear guilt," even though they are not directly responsible for any wrongdoing. To "bear guilt" thus entails the kind of penalty that is indirectly imposed by Yahweh in the very scheme of things. Conversely, the same phrase is also used to describe Yahweh's forgiveness of sins: by taking responsibility for the wrongdoing of those whom he has pardoned, he "bears" their guilt, and that obviates their having to pay the consequences of their own actions. Similar ideas are expressed by the less frequent combinations of same verb with other terms for sin besides [Greek text cannot be represented into ASCII text], such as [Greek text cannot be represented into ASCII text] and [Greek cannot be repesented into ASCII text].[23]

Three kinds of parallel evidence have been adduced to support the notion that Yahweh is removing the guilt of Judah so as to visit it upon Shinar. (1) In a couple of poetic and highly figurative passages Yahweh's forgiveness of sin is described in terms of his sending it far away (Ps 103:2; Mic 7:19b). (2) In biblical and other ancient Near Eastern texts there are rituals of purification and atonement that are based on the concept of sin's spatial displacement (e.g., the rituals for purification from leprous infection in Lev 14:2-9, 33-53 and for the Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16). (3) There are ancient Near Eastern texts that describe a god's deportation of evil from the land of his own people to the land of their enemies; among them are some Hittite texts that also feature the motif of evil's confinement in containers to lead lids.[24]

All such parallels have at least some superficial similarity to what is apparently described in the vision of Zech 5:5-11. The terminological observation made above, however, calls for a somewhat different approach to the question whether the ephah's deportation signifies the removal of Judah's guilt. The question is not just whether there is any precedent for the very idea of Yahweh's sending his people's sins away; it is more specifically a question whether the winged women's treatment of the ephah is an apt narrative representation of the idiomatic expression [Greek text cannot be represented into ASCII text].

When all the relevant examples of this phrase are considered,[25] it is evident that the phrase does not usually imply the spatial removal of guilt. In a couple of cases the people's guilt is "borne away" by Yahweh or by a surrogate, but this entails its removal from the realm of human habitation altogether, not the transferal of the people's guilt to the land of their enemies.[26] The phrase [Greek text cannot be represented into ASCII text] is not used with this latter connotation. One could perhaps argue that the highly symbolic language of the vision is not subject to such terminological consistency, but it seems unlikely, nevertheless, that a narrative symbolization of Yahweh's "bearing guilt" would in this one instance be so largely based on connotations that the terminology never assumes elsewhere.

Thus, the deportation of the ephah cannot be satisfactorily interpreted as Yahweh's removal of Judah's guilt. This is not to say that the restoration community did not regard Yahweh's forgiveness as something that was necessary in order for them to make a fresh start; it is to say only that such forgiveness is not the theme of this particular vision. What, then, are the winged women up to, as they carry the ephah off to Shinar? When the description of the ephah's flight is read in the literary context of the two preceding visions, and in continuity with the interpretation of the previous parts of the vision already offered in the light of that context, it brings the mock theophany begun in vv 7-8 to its conclusion. The final destination ominously portends the disastrous consequences of all that the ephah represents.

In the imagery of theophany, Yahweh not only ascends the throne: he also traverses the heavens in a chariot that is the metamorphosis of his throne. On such occasions Yahweh is often attended by winged creatures whose form incorporates human features with those of such relatively impressive animals as the lion, the eagle, and the bull. On the same occasions the heavens are torn by epiphanic storms and bursts of lightning to which the earth responds with awe and praise.[27] In contrast, as the figure of Wickedness takes flight in her ephah-throne, she is attended by winged creatures that incorporate human features with those of such a relatively unimpressive animal as the stork. There are no heavenly pyrotechnics, as the ephah never quite reaches the heavenly realm, and though the construction of a sanctuary for this godlet is envisioned, the earthly reaction is not exactly overwhelming.

By heading to a place called Shinar, a legendary toponym equivalent to Babylon (Gert 10:10), the woman flying off in the ephah mimics one theophanic flight of Yahweh in particular. In one of Ezekiel's visions, Yahweh left Jerusalem and came to Babylon in much the same way, borne on his chariot-throne by winged cherubim (Ezekiel 10). In anticipation of Jerusalem's complete destruction, Ezekiel's vision emphasizes that Yahweh's rule need not have a direct representation ([Greek text cannot be represented into ASCII text]) in the sanctuary there, and that it can instead be indirectly manifest in the midst of his people wherever they are, in order to insure their survival. In the vision of the woman in the ephah, this is all turned upside down: in anticipation of Jerusalem's complete restoration, a direct representation of royal rule seems to be necessary wherever Yahweh's people are, and as a result they will no longer survive. The exportation of the goddess worship represented by the woman in the ephah, to form a basis for Jewish communal life in the diaspora's various localities, will only result in their assimilation. Such a flight leads truly to Shinar, the land of scattering (Gen 1 1:1-9).[28]

V

In sum, when the vision of the ephah is read in its literary context, in relation to the two preceding visions of the lampstand and the torah scroll, it appears to caricature a popular alternative to the form of Jewish communal life represented by these two symbols. The lampstand represents the restored royal temple in Jerusalem, viewed as the only legitimate place for offering sacrificial worship, in its solely legitimate aniconic form, to Yahweh, the only legitimate God. The torah scroll represents scriptural instruction, viewed as the primary form of communal activity and the primary means of maintaining in every locality, whether back home in Judah or elsewhere, a worldwide community based on covenantal norms.

The ephah, conversely, symbolizes a type of Judaism that advocates the construction of temples in places besides Jerusalem, as well as the use of an image of a goddess in the worship of Yahweh so as to have a concrete representation of divine royal rule in every local community.[29] This alternative expression of Judaism is parodied in the vision of the ephah, but in a way that admits the attractiveness of this type of Judaism. It is treated as the chief rival of the restoration in which Zechariah was involved. The satirical mode of description recognizes the fact that the alternative represented by the ephah has both a measure of momentum and some theological cogency, even as it ridicules the possibility that the alternative's appeal has any basis in reality.

It is difficult to be much more specific about this alternative form of Judaism. Some scholars have identified the woman in the ephah with the worship of a specific goddess such as the Babylonian Ishtar or the "queen of heaven" whose worship, according to Jeremiah 44, was popular among the people of Judah in late preexilic times.[30] In this regard it is perhaps significant that the vision seems to portray the worship of the goddess as something that is being taken into the dispersion, not something that is being brought from it. In other words, it seems to be understood not as an imported non-Jewish cult but as an alternative form of the Jewish cultic tradition itself, with precedents that may be continued if temples come to be built outside Jerusalem. There is no direct evidence of an attempt to establish such temples in Babylon, but there is evidence of them elsewhere.[31]

A lack of evidence makes it difficult to tell whether this implies the persistence of some unreformed, nondeuteronomic variety of Israelite religion that not only allowed sacrifice everywhere but also imagined Yahweh to have a consort such as Asherah.[32] The texts from Elephantine can be read as later evidence of the exportation of this variety of Yahwism, much like what the vision of the ephah condemns, and Jeremiah 44 clearly suggests that after the destruction of Jerusalem the Jews who fled to Egypt took the practice of worshiping a goddess with them.[33] Our knowledge of both of these developments is still too uncertain, however, to link either of them directly with the vision of the ephah.

Whether this vision aims to suppress the worship of a once commonly venerated Israelite goddess, or to reject a more recent syncretistic attraction to the cult of a foreign goddess, its critique of such worship seems not to be predicated on the assumption that the reign of God cannot be manifest in feminine form. On the contrary, the assumption seems to be that a female image can represent divine royal rule in general, and even participate somehow in the representation of Yahweh's kingship over heaven and earth. It is assumed that women play roles inversely related to the dominant roles played by men, and since the ephah is an ironic inversion of the lampstand and the scroll, the characters in the vision of the ephah are feminine inversions of their masculine counterparts in the two preceding visions. Such inversion is the stuff of the vision's satire, but it is not the basis on which the worship of the goddess is ultimately disqualified.

Jewish temple cults outside Jerusalem that feature the anthropomorphic image of a goddess are theologically objectionable because they cannot provide the basis for maintaining Jewish communal identity under the conditions of an ongoing diaspora. Thus, from the vision's viewpoint the issue of assimilation is the decisive criterion, and the theological legitimization of Zechariah's program of restoration is based on its claim to be a better guard against this threat. The debate over the elimination of the goddess from the biblical tradition is now being reopened.[34] Participants in the debate might well consider whether such claims ever had any substance, whether such considerations were valid for the Jews of the restoration period, and whether such factors still have any theological relevance for the heirs of Second Temple Judaism, who live in today's communities of faith.[35]

1 In addition to the commentaries on Zechariah there are several specialized studies of the visions: M. Bic, Die Nachtgesichte des Sacharja (BibS[N] 42; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1964); B. Halpern, "The Ritual Background of Zechariah's Temple Song," CBQ 40 (1978) 167-90; C. Jeremias, Die Nachtgesichte des Sacharja (FRLANT 117; Gottingen: Vanden-hoeck & Ruprecht, 1977); D. L. Petersen, "Zechariah's Visions: A Theological Perspective," VT 34 (1984) 195-206; L. G. Rignell, Die Nachtgesichte des Sacharja (Lund: Gleerup, 1950); J.W. Rothstein, Die Nachtgesichte des Sacharja (Beitrage zur Wissenschaft vom Alten Testament 8; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1910); H,-G. Schotter, Gott inmitten seines Volkes (Trierer theologische Studien 43; Trier: Paulinus, 1987); K. Seybold, Bilder zum Tempelbau (SBS 70; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1974); idem, "Die Bildmotive in den Visionen des Propheten Sacharja," Studies on Prophecy (VTSup 26; Leiden: Brill, 1974) 92-110.

Among the studies of this particular vision (5:5-11) are M. Barker, "The Evil in Zechariah," HeyJ 19 (1978) 12-27; M. Delcor, "La vision de la femme dans l'epha de Zach. 5,5-11 a la lumiere de la litterature hittite," RHR 187 (1975) 137-45; B. Luria, "The Ninth Vision of Zechariah (5:5-1 I)" (Hebrew), Proceedings of the Tenth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, August 16-24, 1989, division A (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1990) Hebrew section 25-30; L. Rost, "Erwagungen zu Sacharjas 7. Nachtgesicht," ZAW 58 (1940 41) 223-28; A. Van Hoonacker, "La vision de l'epha dans Zach. V. 5 ss.," RBen 35 (1923) 57-61.

2 In Zechariah's nocturnal revelations (4:1-6:15), the vision of the ephah is the central turning point in the second episode (1:7-6:15). It is intimately connected with the two following prophecies (6:1-8 and 6:9-15), as well as with the two preceding ones (4:1-14 and 5:1-4), and it serves as a kind of transition from 4:1-5:4 to 6:1-15; see M. Floyd, "Cosmos and History in Zechariah's View of the Restoration (Zech 1:7-6:15)" in the forthcoming festschrift for R. Knierim (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).

3 Rignell (Nachtgesichte, 189-90) conveniently assembles all the text-critical data, together with a comment of Jerome showing that he knew of both the LXX reading and what is now the reading of the MT On the Targum, see further K. J. Cathcart and R. P. Gordon, The Targum of the Minor Prophets (Aramaic Bible 14; Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1989) 196.

4 Though modern scholars have largely preferred the LXX reading, a significant minority including Rignell, Nachtgesichte, 189-90; Bic, Nachtgesichte, 50-51; C. L. Meyers and E. M. Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1-8 (AB 25B; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1987) 297; and R. L. Smith, Micah-Malachi (WBC 32; Waco, TX: Word, 1989) 209, has resolutely retained the MT

5 A few commentators (e.g., Bic, Nachtgesichte, 56), therefore, suppose that the suffix refers to "the thief" and "the one who perjures" in v 4a alpha of the foregoing pericope (5: 1-4), rather than to the implied inhabitants of "all the land" (see below). Meyers and Meyers (Haggai, Zechariah 1-8, 297-98) alternatively suppose that the suffix must refer to the ephah itself, though this should entail a feminine singular form rather than the actually occurring masculine plural form.

6 Those who retain the MT generally observe that [Greek text cannot be represented into ASCII text] has several derivative idiomatic meanings besides "eye," such as "gleam" and "appearance"; some (e.g., Rignell, Nachtgesichte, 191, and D. R. Jones, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi [Torch Bible Commentary; London: SCM, 1962] 83) ascribe to [Greek text cannot be represented into ASCII text] the general sense of "what they see" as something visible to all, while others (e.g., Luther, the KJV, and Bic, Nachtgesichte, 56) take it as a visual representation of "what they seem." Meyers and Meyers (Haggai, Zechariah 1-8, 297-98) treat the suffix as a reference to the ephah: "This is its appearance." They do not explain, however, what sense this might make in terms of the narrative's progression. The initially unrecognized object has already been identified by the angel as an ephah. Why would the angel then have to tell the prophet that this is what an ephah looks like? Barker ("Evil in Zechariah," 24) idiosyncratically proposes that the sense of the substantive in quesition, whether it is written [Greek text cannot be represented into ASCII text] or [Greek text cannot be represented into ASCII text], is derived from the denominative verb [Greek text cannot be represented into ASCII text], which means "to eye hostilely"; she translates Zech 5:6c "This is their hostile attitude toward the whole land." Modern scholars seem uninterested in the possibility raised by older commentators like D. Kimchi (Rabbi David Kimchi's Commentary on the Prophecies of Zechariah [London: James Duncan, 1837] 49) and J. Calvin (Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets 5: Zechariah and Malachi [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950] 134), that the pronominal suffix is an objective genitive and that the general sense of the angel's explanation is "This is the eye (of God) that sees them everywhere." This notion may be on the right track, as we shall see.

7 Even tithe emendation based on the LXX is rejected, a conventional interpretation can be maintained, not on the basis of what the ephah itself is said to represent in v 6b but on the basis of what its contents are said to represent in v 8a--provided, of course, that the winged women are indeed direct agents of Yahweh, which is questionable.

8 See Deut 25:15; Amos 8:5; Prov 20:10; Lev 19:36; Ezek 45:10; Mic 6:11.

9 See 1 Kgs 7:27-43 (thirteen times); 2 Kgs 25:13; Jer 27:19; 2 Chr 4:14; Ezra 3:3.

10 A. L. Oppenheim, "'The Eyes of the Lord,'" JAOS 88 (1968) 173-74.

11 Mitchell, for example (H. G. Mitchell, J. M.P. Smith, and J. A. Bewer, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, and Jonah [ICC; New York: Scribner's, 1912] 173), identifies the woman with the prophetic prostitute; W. Rudolph (Haggai-Sacharja 1-8, Sacharja 9-14, Maleachi [KAT 13/4; Gutersloh: Mohn, 1976] 120) identifies her with Eve; he is tentatively followed by D. L. Petersen (Haggai and Zechariah 1-8 [OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984] 257-58). The woman is identified with Ezekiel's figure of the land as an unclean menstruant (Ezek 36: 17) by R. Mason (Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi [CBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977] 58).

12 Jones, Haggai Zechariah, Malachi 82.

13 Jeremias, Nachtgesichte, 198-200.

14 For example, Pss 47:9 (RSV 47:8); 99:1; 103:19.

15 For example, Pss 47:3 (RSV47:2); 93:1; 95:3; 99:1-5.

16 For example, Judg 5:4-5; Pss 18:8-16 (RSV 18:7-15); 68:8-9 (RSV 68:7-8); 77:17-20 (RSV 77:16-19); 93:3-4; 97:1-5; Hab 3:3-12.

17 For example, Ps 132:8; Num 10:35-36; 2 Chronicles 5; cf. Ps 24:7-10.

18 In the wake of Rost's discussion of the meaning of [Greek text cannot be represented into ASCII text]. ("Erwagungen," 223-27), many commentators have recognized that this term denotes "lawlessness" in particular, rather than "wickedness" in general (see Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1-8, 302-3). This personification thus creates another link between the ephah in 5:5-11 and the scroll in 5:1-4: the scroll is able to enforce the covenant law, while the ephah is unable to do so.

19 For Hittite mythic parallels associating leadlidded vessels containing evil with the underworld, see D. P. Wright, The Disposal of lmpurity (SBLDS I01; Atlanta: Scholars, 1987) 263-64, and Delcor, "Vision de la femme," 140-43. On the voracious "mouth" of Death or Sheol, see N. J. Tromp, Primitive Conceptions of Death and the Nether Worm in the Old Testament (BibOr 21; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1969) 104-7. Cf. Nuru 16:32.

20 Some see this problem but duck it by saying that Yahweh is setting up the idolatrous cult only in order to destroy it later (e.g., Rudolph, Haggai-Sacharja 1-8, 121; cf. J. G. Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi [Tyndale OT Commentaries; London: Tyndale, 1972] 130; also K. Elliger, Das Buch der zwolf Kleinen Propheten 2 [ATD 25; 3d ed.; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1956] 112-13).

Of those who attempt to deal with the problem, only S. Amsler (Aggee, Zacharie, Malachie [CAT 11c; Neuchatel/Paris: Delachaux & Niestle, 1981] 101) confronts it head-on: "On reste embarrasse derant cette promotion de la [Greek text cannot be represented into ASCII text] d;Israel au rang de divinite a Babylone." He sees this as consistent with the logic of historical reversal prominent elsewhere in Zechariah (e.g., in 1:16; 2:14-16): just as Babylon once dominated Judah but does so no longer, now that the tables are turned, and just as Yahweh once abandoned his sanctuary and left with the exiles for Babylon (Ezekiel 9-11) but now has returned to Zion. so also the idolatry that was responsible for Judah's misfortune has been banished from Jerusalem and consigned to Babylon, which becomes the "antitype of Jerusalem," Amsler says.

Such analysis, however, has muddled somewhat the logic of Zeehariah's antitype. The reversal can hardly entail that Judah and Babylon were opposites with respect to idolatry before the exile, so that they can switch in this respect after the exile. On the contrary, they were both idolatrous nations before the exile, and the reversal thus entails that both will change in this regard after the exile. in bringing about the restoration's establishment of a purely nonidolatrous cult in Jerusalem, Yahweh is not promoting the establishment of idolatrous worship elsewhere; he is making it possible for all to turn from idolatry (Zech 2:15).

21 Deut 4:19; 29:25-26; 32:8-9. Cf. Rom 1:20-25.

22 Contra Mitchell, Haggai, Zechariah, 175, as well as Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1-8, 315.

23 R. Knierim, Die Hauptbegriffe fur Sunde im Alten Testament (Gutersloh: Mohn, 1965) 219-24; also W. Zimmerli, "Die Eigenart der prophetischen Rede des Ezechiel," ZAW 66 (1954) 8-11.

24 In an especially good example (the Daily Prayer of the King, ANET, 397), the Hittite king Mursilis asks the god Telepinus to alleviate the plagues with which he is punishing the kingdom and to inflict them instead on the foreigners who have desecrated Telepinus' sanctuaries and have rebelled against the king. See also two texts cited by Wright, Disposal of Impurity, 46 (the Pulisa ritual, lines 20-21) and 51 (the Ashella ritual, lines 26-27). Cf. the Mesopotamian text on p. 256, and the examples mentioned in n. 85 on the same page. Wright (pp. 264, 267) also cites texts that combine the motifs of guilt dumped on enemies and guilt contained by lead lids: the Myth of Telepinus, the Myth of Lihzina, and a text that is untitled (see also Delcor, "Vision de la femme," 141-43). On the basis of such parallels Wright (p. 273 n. 150) regards the conclusion of Zech 5:5-11 as "an example of disposing of evils in the foreign or enemy land," thus reflecting the view that the deportation of Judah's sins to Babylon is at the same time an act of divine retribution against Judah's enemies.

25 Exod 34:7; Num 14:18; 2 Sam 24:10; Hos 14:3; Mic 7:18; Zech 3:9; Pss 32:5; 85:3; cf. Isa 33:24.

26 In Mic 7:18-19 the divine epithet "guilt bearer" ([Greek text cannot be represented into ASCII text]) is juxtaposed with the statement that Yahweh will "cast [his people's] sins into the depths of the sea," and in Lev 16:22 it is said that the scapegoat in the ritual for the Day of Atonement "will bear ([Greek text cannot be represented into ASCII text]) * * * all their iniquities ([Greek text cannot be represented into ASCII text]) to a solitary land." In contrast with the Hittite texts cited in n. 23 above, which describe a god's spatial displacement of evil from the land of his own people to the land of their enemies, these two texts describe its removal from the realm of human habitation altogether. In the case of the atonement ritual, this entails its being sent from a settled locality's center to its periphery (as does the other frequently compared ritual in Lev 14:2-9,33-53; see Wright, Disposal of Impurity, 29-30, 77-80). In Mic 7:18-19 the evil is sent beyond the ends of the earth (though Wright contends that biblical concepts of forgiveness generally differ from those of surrounding cultures by not involving guilt's displacement to the extremities of the cosmos). The supposedly parallel Hittite texts thus do not really compare with any of the biblical texts that use [Greek text cannot be represented into ASCII text].

27 See, e.g., Ezek 1:4-25; Ps 18:11 (on the likely composition of the cherub, see D. N. Freedman and M.P. O'Connor, "'[Greek text cannot be represented into ASCII text]" TWAT, 4. 330-34); cf. Deut 33:26; Pss 29:3-9; 68:34; 97:4-8 and 104:3b.

28 M. Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics That Shaped the Old Testament (Lectures on the History of Religions ns 9; New York/London: Columbia University Press, 1971) 240 n. 52. As most commentators point out, Shinar is Babylon. in this context, however, this legendary toponym is not just a cipher for Babylon. It implies that the condition of exile, with the attendant problem of confused ethnic and cultural identity, is liable to become a more or less permanent condition; even though the Babylonian policies have been reversed by the Persians.

29 Ibid., 90-91.

30 Mitchell (Haggai, Zechariah, 174) and Delcor ("Vision de la femme," 144) are among those who have proposed Ishtar, and P. Ackroyd (Exile and Restoration [OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968] 204) has proposed the "queen of heaven."

31 A. Lods (The Prophets and the Rise of Judaism [London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1955] 218) suggests that Babylonian Jews may have established a temple at Kasiphia.

32 This depends largely on how one interprets the inscriptions of Kuntillet Ajrud and Khirbet el-Qom. See the discussion of M. S. Smith, The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel(San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1990) 85-94, as well as the works he cites in the bibliographical notes to chap. 3.

33 See A. E. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1923) xviii-xxviii.

34 Compare, e.g., the range of views expressed by U. Winter, Frau und Gottin: Exegetische und ikonographische Studien zum weiblichen Gottesbild im alien Israel und in dessen Umwelt (OBO 53; Fribourg: Universitatsverlag; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983) 203-51; R. Patai, The Hebrew Goddess (Jewish Folklore and Anthropology; 3d ed.; Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1990); and T Frymer-Kensky, In the Wake of the Goddesses: Women, Culture, and the Biblical Transformation of Pagan Myth (New York: Free Press, 1992).

35 This article was completed while the author was on a sabbatical leave sponsored by the Episcopal Seminary of the Southwest and the Conant Fund of the Episcopal Church's Board for Theological Education. Their support is gratefully acknowledged.

~~~~~~~~

By MICHAEL H. FLOYD, Episcopal Theological Seminary of the Southwest Austin, TX 78768

Copyright of Catholic Biblical Quarterly is the property of the Catholic Biblical Association of America and its content may not be copied without the copyright holder's express written permission except for the print or download capabilities of the retrieval software used for access. This content is intended solely for the use of the individual user. Source: Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Jan96, Vol. 58 Issue 1, p51, 18p. Item Number: 9606206767

Result 11 of 33