Abstract The vision of the ephah (Zech 5 5-11) is probably the most obscure of all of Zechanah's visions
Its symbolic meaning is not mentioned, and the prophet himself does not comprehend it Some commentators hold that the prophecy is a rebuke to the Judeans, others hold that the intention
is to foretell the fall of Judah's enemies All interpretations of the vision do not address the
problem, namely that wickedness will be reestablished in Shinar and will not be eliminated as
expected Why would the prophet propose that a house be built for the sinner outside the land
rather than inflict on wickedness the punishment prescribed in other biblical sources«* The the
sis advanced in this paper is that the vision of the ephah is an anti-Samaritan prophecy The
woman in the ephah represents the Samaritans, the vision foresees their return to their original
home in Babylon, where their temple would be erected This interpretation provides a full
explanation of the tension between the reference to the woman as wickedness and her happy ending in her permanent home in the Land of Shinar The prophet wanted to advance the
theological argument that the ultimate solution of the dispute between the two groups would
be for the Samaritans to build their own house, that is, their own separate temple, in Shinar—
their original historical homelands, and far away from Yehud
The vision of the ephah (Zech. 5:5-11) is one of the most obscure of all of
Zechariahs visions.1 As in most of them, the symbolic meaning is far from
clear. But whereas in some of them the interpretation is provided right after
the vision, here no solution is ever provided. The prophet s difficulty in mak
ing sense of his vision is also attested by the fact that this is the only one in
which he looks up twice in an attempt to make sense of it (w. 5 and 9).2 This
is also the only time that the prophet himself does not know what he sees
and accordingly asks, "What is it?" (v. 6). To which the angel replies, "this is
an ephah" (ibid.).3 Because the prophet cannot fathom the symbolic meaning
of the ephah, the angel solves it for him: "This is their eye in all the land". But
the angels explanation remains obscure.
Another indication of Zechariahs inability to comprehend his vision is the
repetition of "he said" in v. 6. Both times it introduces what the angel says,
but there is no break between the angels two statements. The obvious expla
nation for this repetition is that there was an interruption between the angels
two statements, requiring a new introduction. Evidently at this point the
angel paused, waiting for the prophet to respond; but Zechariah remained
mute. Only after he failed to respond did the angel speak again, which is why
the text needs the second "he said".4 The narrators indication of the prophets
1) Some regard this vision as a continuation of the preceding one, 5 1-4, bringing the total
number of visions to seven The prevalent opinion, however, is that the scroll vision (5 1-4) and
the Ephah vision should be distinguished See H G Mitchell, Haggai and Zechariah (ICC,
Edinburgh, 1912), pp 171-172, Τ Chary, Aggee-Zachane-Malachie (Paris, 1969), ρ 101 2) M L Ruffin, Symbolism m Zechariah A Study in Functional Unity (Ph D diss , Southern
Baptist Theological Seminary, 1986), ρ 163 3) The common understanding is that an ephah is a measure of volume, equal to approximately
40 liters, here it refers to a vessel of that size Because that is too small to hold a woman,
Marenof suggested that the word ephah means byr\—"temple" in Sumenan—and is a loan
word in biblical Hebrew This conjecture has not been adopted by commentators on the book
See S Marenof, "Note Concerning the Meaning of the Word 'Ephah', Zechariah 5 5-11",
AJSL 48 (1931-32), pp 264-267 But I see no problem in the fact that a real ephah cannot
hold a human being The text in Zechariah is describing one of many imaginary visions, which
are not restricted by realistic criteria See also A Kohler, Die Nachexilischen Propheten Der Weis
sagungen 5αώαηα5 erste Hälfte, Cap 1-8 (Erlangen, 1861), ρ 170, and Chary, Aggee-Zacharie-
Makchie, ρ 101 4) See M Shiloach, "And he said And he said", A Weiser and Β Ζ Luna (eds ), Sefer Korn-
green (Tel-Aviv, 1964), pp 251-267 (Hebrew) For a thorough critique of Shiloach s analysis
see S A Meier, Speaking of Speaking Marking Direct Discourse m the Hebrew Bible (VTSup 46,
Leiden, 1992), pp 68-91
E. Assis I Vetus Testamentum 60 (2010) 15-32 17
silence and of the angels expectation of a response is evidently intended to highlight the prophets bewilderment and failure to understand what has been set before his eyes, even after the angel tells them that it is an ephah.
Given that the prophet cannot identify the object he is looking at and does not understand its symbolic meaning, we can understand why this prophecy has so perplexed scholars and commentators and why the explanations offered for it are so varied and frequently even contradictory.
Many questions can be asked about these verses: What does the ephah represent, and why? What is the meaning of the lead weight? What is the wickedness that is being removed to the Land of Shinar? What is its transgression? Who are the two women who are taking the ephah to Shinar? Why do they have the wings of a stork? What is meant by the statement that a house will be built for wickedness in the Land of Shinar? Finally, why was it so difficult for the prophet to understand his vision? Is there an explanation for the mystery that enwraps this vision? A satisfactory reading of this prophecy should resolve all of these difficulties.
The most difficult crux in this prophecy, which scholars have not taken into account, is the fact that a vision about the removal of wickedness ends with the construction of a house for it. If the woman in the ephah is indeed wickedness and is accordingly being removed from the land, why does the story end on a positive note, with the construction of a house for her? Any explanation of the prophecy must take this tension into account and resolve it.
Interpretations of the Vision
The various explanations of the vision go in two main directions. Some commentators hold that the prophecy is a rebuke addressed to certain groups among the people; others hold that the intention is to foretell the fall of the enemies of Judah.
Abraham Ibn Ezra took the first tack. In his view, the prophecy announces the punishment of the exiles who did not return from Babylonia. Their punishment is that they will remain in Babylon. This explanation seems unlikely, because in the vision wickedness is taken away to Shinar, whereas in Ibn Ezras reading it is not removed but remains in Babylon.5 It is also difficult to
5) R. David Kimchi adopted a variant of this approach: in his opinion the "wickedness" repre
sents the ten tribes. (For an English translation of this commentary see A. M. Caul, Rabbi
David Kimchis Commentary upon the Prophecies of Zechariah [London, 1837], pp. 48-49.)
18 E Assis I Vetus Testamentum 60 (2010) 15-32
understand the punishment: what punishment is it for those who did not
want to return to Judah and preferred to stay in Babylon that their house is
built in Babylon, which is precisely what they wanted?
Joseph Kara explained that the ephah alludes to the sin of false weights and
measures, a context in which the ephah is mentioned several times in the
two figures who carry wickedness to Shinar are female (see further on this point below). It is especially hard to understand the ultimate good fortune of idolatry in its new home in Shinar. Not only does the prophet not speak of the elimination and extirpation of idolatry, as everywhere else in Biblical literature, he actually refers to the construction of a temple for a foreign god.
Rothstein believed that we are dealing with an amalgamation of two kinds of transgressions, social sins and idolatry, with which the people were still infected. He derived this from the previous vision, that of the flying scroll (5:1-4), which he believes to be part of the vision of the ephah. The background for both, he held, is the idea that in the Zechariahs time the people were at the dawn of a new age, an age of redemption. Zechariah continues Ezekiels view on redemption. To realize this vocation the people and land of the Lord must be free of sin. The continued existence of sin in the land will frustrate the fulfillment of the divine promise. But unlike the period before the destruction of the Temple, when God removed the sinners from the land, in Zechariahs prophecy He removes the sin from the land but does not destroy the people.10 Hanhart went in a similar direction, but emphasized the contrast between Zechariah and Ezekiel. Ezekiel distinguished between those who remained in the land and those who lived in exile. According to Ezekiel, the guilt attached to those who remained in the land, and their only possible atonement is through their removal from it, while the exiles return there and the divine promise is realized through them. Zechariah, by contrast, does not distinguish between the exiles and those who remain, who constitute a single entity for him. The restoration will come from the removal of sin from the land, not the removal of the sinners.11
These explanations, too, do not account for the positive tone of the establishment of a house for idolatry, even if it is outside the land. Because these two scholars emphasize that redemption depends on the elimination of sin, it is even more difficult to understand why nothing is said about the destruction of sin, but only its relocation to Babylon. What good can this do? What need does this fulfill for the Jews to whom the prophecy was addressed? If this interpretation is correct, this is the only place in the entire Bible where we encounter, not the destruction of idolatry, but only its relocation.
10) J. W. Rothstein, Die Nachtgesichte des Sacharja Studien zur Sacharjaprophetie und zur judis
chen Geschichte im ersten nachexihschen Jahrhundert (Beitrage zur Wissenschaft vom Alten Testament 8; Leipzig, 1910), pp. 146-154. n ) R. Hanhart, Sachatja (BKAT XIV/7,5; Neukirchen, 1975), pp. 362-363.
20 E. Assis I Vetus Testamentum 60 (2010) 15-32
According to Floyd, the vision of the ephah describes those who built alternative Israelite sanctuaries outside the land. The prophet rejects and mocks this cult. The woman inside the ephah represents the cult of a goddess, which the prophet opposes and denigrates as wickedness after sealing here inside the ephah with a lead weight. The prophecy is meant to counter those who believe that they can maintain a covenant with the Lord while promoting alternate ritual centers to Jerusalem.12 But here too it is hard to understand why the prophet foresees that those sinners, who had set up alternative cults, would reestablish their cult and flourish outside the land, in Shinar.
According to Lurie, at the time of the rebuilding of the Temple (early fifth century BCE), Judah was the scene of a conflict between Joshua the High Priest and Zerubbabel, the scion of the House of David. He holds that Joshua won their contest and that Zerubbabel returned to Babylon. Lurie believes that this is the meaning of the woman's going back to Shinar to build her house.13 This explanation, too, poses a number of problems, but we will note only one. Although here the prophet refers to the woman removed from the land as "wickedness", nowhere in the book of Zechariah is Zerubbabel referred to as wicked. It is no accident that Lurie fails to mention the woman's wickedness in his explanation of this passage.
The second approach to interpreting the vision hold that it does not refer to the evil deeds of Judah but to the removal of some anti-Judahite element from the land and its relocation in Babylon—a consolation for Judah. This idea is first found in an explanation that Abraham Ibn Ezra transmitted orally to his student. It will soon be published in Miqra'ot Gedolot Haketer and is now available in the electronic version of that edition. In this reading, wickedness is the Babylonian Empire; the two women who remove it, the Medes and Persians. The problem with this original explanation is that in Zechariahs day the Persian Empire had already supplanted Babylon.
Uffenheimer also went in this direction. His starting point is "their eye" (v. 6). After an extensive discussion of the sense of this word he proposes that it means "the eye of the king"—an official of the Persian king whose function was to spy on his subjects and report on their loyalty. "Their eye" accordingly
12) M. H. Floyd, "The Evil in the Ephah: Reading Zechariah 5:5-11 in Its Literary Context", CBQ5S (1996), pp. 51-68. 13) B.-Z. Lurie, "The Ninth Vision of Zechariah (5:5-11)", Proceedings of the Tenth World Con
gress of Jewish Studies, Division A (1990), pp. 25-29 (Hebrew).
E. Assis I Vetus Testamentum 60 (2010) 15-32 21
stands for the Persian administration in Yehud; only its removal can guarantee Judah's redemption.14
Sweeney believes that the woman in the ephah stands for a Babylonian goddess; but he does not speak about an Israelite sin of idolatry, as the commentators mentioned above do. He believes that the vision is an allegory of the expulsion of the Babylonian goddess from Yehud and her transfer to Babylon—that is, the restoration of the political independence of Judah.15 This interpretation was already advanced by Tanhum Yerushalmi, a Jewish commentator who lived in Egypt in the thirteenth century.16
A New Direction
Each of the interpretations presented above is beset by problems, some of which I have mentioned. But there is one difficulty, also mentioned, that applies to all of them: Why does the wickedness that is removed end up in a comfortable situation when it reaches Shinar? This question is relevant to all the interpretations, whether the woman represents a sinful group from Judah or a foreign nation that has transgressed against the people of Yehud. Only a solution that takes account of this tension between wickedness' transgression and its ultimate good fortune can provide a suitable explanation. We must find a form of wickedness about which it is reasonable that the prophet seeks its removal and reestablishment outside the land, rather than its total destruction, as is usual in biblical prophecy.17 That is, we must propose why
14) B. Uffenheimer, The Visions of Zechariah: From Prophecy to Apocalyptic (Jerusalem, 1961), pp. 112-116 (Hebrew). 15) M. A. Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets (Volume Two; Collegeville, 2000), pp. 218-223. See also B. G. Curtis, Up the Steep and Stony Road: The Book of Zechariah in Social Location Trajec
tory Analysis (SBL 25; Atlanta, 2006), p. 142. 16) Tanhum ha-Yerushalmi's Commentary on the Minor Prophets (éd. H. Shy, Jerusalem, 1991), pp. 288-289. 17) Ruffin adopted an original approach. In his opinion the wickedness represents the foreigners, who are forgiven for their sins and rewarded by relocation to Shinar. Ruffin is right to take the upbeat ending seriously. But to explain it in such a manner he had to find a way to invert the plain meaning of the text: there is no evidence in the text for the forgiveness of sin. Moreover, why was the woman relocated if her sin was absolved? See Ruffin, Symbolism in Zechariah,
pp. 162-166. Love, too, is aware of the positive ending. He explains that the woman is a harlot who was forced into prostitution by her poverty. The prophet foresees her prosperity after she settles in Shinar. See M. C. Love, The Evasive Text: Zechariah 1-8 and the Frustrated Reader
(JSOTSup 296; Sheffield, 1999), p. 212. For the woman in the ephah as a prostitute, see
22 E Assis I Vetus Testamentum 60 (2010) 15-32
resettlement in Babylon is the best solution according to Zechariahs theology
and the one most soothing to the ears of his audience of Judeans.
The most persuasive explanation, I believe, is that the wickedness in the
ephah represents the "adversaries of Judah and Benjamin" mentioned in Ezra
iv, who are usually identified with the Samaritans.18 According to the biblical
account, the Samaritans were foreigners from Babylonia, Cuthah, Awa,
Hamath, and Sepharvaim, exiled by the Assyrians to the district of Samaria
(2 Kings 17:24), where they adopted the Israelite faith out of fear and to save
themselves from marauding lions (w. 27-41). The historical veracity of this
tale is irrelevant to the present discussion; I merely want to show that the
prophecy of the ephah fits with the tradition presented in 2 Kings 17. Schol
ars distinguish between the inhabitants of the Samaria, and the religious
community that worshiped in the temple on Mount Gerizim.19 Many schol
ars are skeptical about the identification of the "adversaries of Judah" with the
Samaritans.20 Here I adopt the view, accepted by many, that the adversaries
of Judah are people who live north of Judah and are conventionally referred
to as "the Samaritans", albeit a clear identification cannot be made.21 In this
view, Samaria and Yehud were at odds from the very start of the post-exilic
G Wallis, "Die Nachgesichte des Propheten Sacharja \ Congress Volume Gottingen 1977 (VTSup
29, Leiden, 1978), pp [377-391] 388 Tigchelaar noticed that in this prophecy evil is not anni
hilated but is rather removed from Judah (E J C Tigchelaar, Prophets of Old and the Day of the
End Zechariah, the Book of Watchers and Apocalyptic [Leiden, 1996], ρ 62) This, in my opin
ion, is why he does not offer an explanation for the vision (ibid , ρ 59 ) 18) The only scholar who seems to have hinted this is M Zer-Kavod, Haggai, Zechariah, Mah-
chi (Jerusalem, 1957), pp 85-86 (Hebrew) 19) See eg R J Coggins, Samaritans and the Jews The Origins of Samantanism Reconsidered
(Atlanta, 1975), pp eg 162-165, R Egger, Josephus FUvius und die Samaritaner Eine termi
nologische Untersuchung zur Identitatsklarung der Samaritaner (NTOA 4, Freiburg/Gottingen,
1986), H Eshel, "The Development of the Attribution of the Sanctity to Mount Gerizim", in
E Stern and H Eshel (eds ), The Samaritans (Jerusalem, 2002), pp 192-209 (Hebrew), J Zan
genberg, "Berg des Segens, Berg des Streits", Theologische Zeitschrift 63 (2007), pp 289-309,
esp pp 296-297 20) See M Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament1 (London, 1987),
pp 85-86, F M Cross, "Samaria and Jerusalem in the Era of the Restoration", in idem, From
Epic to Canon History and Literature in Ancient Israel (Baltimore and London, 1998), pp 184-185 21) Many scholars identify the ΓΠΙΓΡ H2 as the Samaritans See, e g , R S Foster, The Restoration
of Israel A Study in Exile and Return (London, 1970), pp 107-122, F C Fensham, The Books of
Ezra andNehemiah (Grand Rapids, 1982), pp 65-76, M Cogan, "'For We, Like You, Worship
Your God' Three Biblical Portrayals of Samaritan Origins", VT38 (1988), pp [286-292] 287
E. Assis I Vetus Testamentum 60 (2010) 15-32 23
period.22 The confrontation with the Samaritans seems to have begun as soon as the altar was built (Ezra 3:3).23 Aside from their efforts to prevent the building of the Temple, they also tried to prevent the construction of the walls of Jerusalem (Ezra 4-.17-23).24 The group that lived in Samaria saw itself as affiliated with the Jews who had come from Babylonia; but after the Jews refused their request to help rebuild the temple in Jerusalem this group (according to Ezra 4:1-5), became fiercely hostile to Judah and worked vigorously to interfere with the rebuilding of the Temple and Jerusalem.25 They succeeded at this for 20 years, during which time the construction work was suspended.
Without going into the complex issue of the relations between Samaria and Yehud, according to the account in Ezra the Samaritans saw themselves as adherents of the Mosaic faith, because they worshiped the God of Israel (v. 2), whereas the leaders of the people in Yehud saw them as foreigners (v. 3). The text in Ezra describes the Samaritans' request to help build the temple in Jerusalem and the returnees' preference to isolate themselves and view the northerners as a separate entity. According to this passage, the confrontation between Yehud and Samaria stemmed from a disagreement about the national and religious identity of the residents of Samaria.261 believe that this is the backdrop against which we can understand the vision of the ephah. Many have already discussed the prophets' verbal attacks on the Samaritans.27
22) J. Bright, A History of Israel1 (OTL; London, 1972), pp. 411-412; Cross, "Samaria and Jeru
salem in the Era of the Restoration", pp. 179-192. 23) Fensham, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, pp. 60, 66. 24) See also A. Spiro, "Samaritans, Tobiads, and Judahites in Pseudo Philo", PAAJR 20 (1951),
pp. 279-355. 25) Josephus identified this group with the Samaritans (Josephus, Antiquities, 11:84-86). See
also Fensham, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, p. 66. Not all accept this; see, e.g., Coggins,
Samaritans and the Jews, pp. 13-37. 26) Bright, A History of Israel, pp. 445-447. 27) I will mention only a few examples: The pericope in Haggai 2:10-14 has been interpreted as
an anti-Samaritan polemic; see J. W. Rothstein, Juden und Samaritaner: Die grundlegende Schei
dung von Judentum und Heidentum. Eine kritische Studie zum Buche Haggai und zur jüdische
Geschichte im ersten nachexilischen Jahrhundert (BWANT 3; Leipzig, 1908), pp. 5-41; F. Horst,
Die zwölf kleinen Propheten II: Nahum bis Maleachi (HAT XIV; Tübingen, 1938), pp. 208-209;
Κ. Elliger, Das Buch der zwölf kleinen Propheten II (ΑΤΌ; Göttingen, 1967), pp. 93-96. See also
E. Assis, "Haggai: Structure and Meanings", Biblica 87 (2006), pp. 531-541. According to Fos
ter, Zechariah 7:1-7 is an anti-Samaritan prophecy (Foster, The Restoration of Israel, pp. 109-
110). In his opinion, Isa. 66:5 is to be understood as Deutero-Isaiah's positive attitude towards
the Samaritans (ibid., pp. 113-114). On Browne's suggestion that Isa. 63:7-64:12 was written
24 E. Assis I Vetus Testamentum 60 (2010) 15-32
In light of the friction between the Samaritans and Yehud, it is plausible that Zechariah would refer to them as "wickedness", reflecting the Judeans' perception of them. If the wicked woman in the ephah represents the Samaritans, we can understand why Zechariah foresees their removal from the land. Because Babylon was one of their original homelands, we also understand that the vision of the removal of wickedness from the land and its relocation to Babylon means that they will be restored to their national birthplace.28
This proposal provides a full explanation of the tension between the reference to the woman as wickedness and her happy ending in her permanent home in the Land of Shinar. As already noted, it is hard to understand why the prophet promises that wickedness will "live happily ever after". But if the reference is to the Samaritans, who are at odds with the Judeans with regard to the temple in Jerusalem, it is understandable that, in Judean theology, the natural solution is to remove the Samaritans from the land. I agree with those scholars who think that the building of a house in the vision means to build a temple. Many have explained this to mean the construction of a temple for a pagan deity. This strikes me as problematic, because nowhere does the Bible speak positively of idolatrous cults. If, however, the reference is to the construction of a Samaritan temple, there are good theological reasons why the prophet would want it to be outside the Land of Israel. Because the Samaritans wanted to help build the temple in Yehud, in keeping with their view that they were members of the same ethnic group, the ultimate solution for the dispute between the two groups would be for the Samaritans to build their own house, that is, their own separate temple, in Shinar, far away from Yehud. If the prophecy refers to the Samaritans, we can understand why Zechariah emphasizes that their temple will be erected in the Land of Shinar. He is trying to counter their claim that they have a bond to the temple in Jerusalem by showing where they are truly rooted—Shinar—and that that is where their temple will be built. This is why the root j"O occurs twice in v. 11, to emphasize that Shinar is their natural habitat and where their temple will be erected.
According to this explanation we can understand why wickedness is transferred to Shinar, of all places. If the reference is to the Samaritans, some of whom came from Babylon, it makes sense that Zechariah holds that their transfer to Shinar would be tantamount to returning them to their home,
by a Samaritan prophet, see L. E. Browne, Early Judaism (Cambridge, 1920), p. 70-86; Foster, The Restoration of Israel, pp. 114-117. See also Coggins, Samaritans and Jews, pp. 37-57. 28) See also Zer-Kavod, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, pp. 85-86.
E. Assis I Vetus Testamentum 60 (2010) 15-32 25
where they had lived before they were exiled to Samaria by the king of Assyria. Zechariahs view is consistent. Judah was exiled to Babylon and must return to its homeland in Judah; at the same time, the exile of Babylonians to Samaria will be reversed when they return to their homeland in Babylon. The removal of destructive elements is also found in Isaiah 49:17-19; there too some scholars believe that the intention is to the same group as that referred to in Ezra 4:1-5.29
The theory presented here can also explain the difficult expression "He said, 'This is an ephah coming out'. And he said, 'This is their eye (üpy) in all the land' " (Zech. 5:6). Here the Septuagint reading, adopted by many scholars, is "their iniquity" (DJ1JJ instead of Dry).30 However, because of the mismatch in this reading between the masculine noun pj? and the feminine deictic ΠΝΤ, the Masoretic text seems to be preferable.31 This word can be
explained according to the conjecture that the prophecy deals with the
Samaritans. According to the book of Ezra, the bulk of the Samaritans'
actions against the people of Yehud involved transmitting information to
the Persian authorities (Ezra 4:5; 4:8-24; according to some scholars, the
Samaritans were partners in the hostile action against Yehud in the time of
Zerubbabel by Tattenai, the governor of the province of Beyond the River
[Ezra 5:l-6]).32 As noted, Uffenheimer suggested that "their eye" refers to a
Persian official who kept an eye on developments in the far-flung empire and
reported on them to the central government.33 The same designation could
be applied to the Samaritans who informed the Persian authorities about
what was taking place in Yehud. This is why it was so important for the resi
dents of Yehud to remove the Samaritans from the land.
But why is wickedness represented by a woman? Many explanations have
been advanced. Some say is that she is related to the seductress who leads
men astray, as in Genesis 3.34 According to the reading that the sin is that
of idolatry, scholars note that this transgression is frequently symbolized by
29) See, e.g., J. D. W. Watts, Isaiah 34-66(Revised Edition, WBC; Nashville, 2005), p. 744. 30) Mitchell, Haggai and Zechariah, p. 176; W. Rudolph, Haggai-Sacharja 1-8-Sacharja 9-14-
Maleachi (ΚΑΤ; Gütersloh, 1976), p. 118; Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1-8, p. 256. 31) The MT is attested in the Vulgate and adopted by many; e.g., Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah
1-8, p. 297; Floyd, "The Evil Ephah", pp. 55, 58-59. 32) Cross, "Samaria and Jerusalem", p. 184. 33) Uffenheimer, The Visions of Zechariah, pp. 114-115. The word pj? with a similar meaning is
found in Num. 10:31. 34) See Rudolph, Haggai-Sacharja 1-8-Sacharja 9-14-Maleachi, p. 120; Petersen, Haggai and
Zechariah 1-8, pp. 257-258. Mason thinks that the motif of a land cleansed from wickedness
26 E. Assis I Vetus Testamentum 60 (2010) 15-32
harlotry.35 Wallis believes that the reference is not to the pagan cult but that
the woman inside the ephah is an actual harlot.36 I find all of these explana
tions rather problematic. The only point emphasized in the vision is the
figure s gender; nor is there any hint either of prostitution per se or of prosti
tution as metaphor for idolatry. Baldwin believes that the allegorical figure is
female because nyun 'wickedness' is a feminine noun.37 But this is not per
suasive; the masculine PUH could have been used just as well. Consequently
the link seems to run precisely in the opposite direction: the feminine noun
is used because the symbolic figure is a woman.38 As noted, many explana
tions have been advanced for the female identity of wickedness. More diffi
cult to explain are the stork-winged women who remove wickedness from the
land. Here scholars have not offered any persuasive suggestions; many agree
that the problem remains an open riddle or that this part of the allegory may
have no significance.39 According to Crafer, if wickedness is represented by a
woman it is only natural that those who remove it from the land are also
women.40 Conrad believed that these women, too, represent evil. But this
explanation is implausible, not only because it ignores the play on words
of ΠΤΟΠ *£)JD 'wings of a stork' and ΤΟΠ 'pious person, but also and chiefly
because these women play a positive role in the vision—removing wickedness
from the land.41 Jeremías believes that they descend from the familiar iconographie image of the ancient East—the female form that is half beast and half human.42
personified as a woman is connected with the unclean woman in Ezekiel 36:17 (Mason, The
Books of Haggai, Zechariah, andMalachi, p. 58). 35) Mitchell, Haggai and Zechariah, p. 173. See also Jeremías {Die Nachtgesichte des Sacharja,
pp. 196-197), who claims that the woman in the ephah represents the "Queen of Heaven"
worshiped by the women of Judah (Jer. 44:17-19). 36) G. Wallis, "Die Nachgesichte des Propheten Sacarja", Congress Volume Gottingen 1977
(VTSup 29; Leiden, 1978), pp. [377-391] 388. 37) J. G. Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Makchi (The Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries;
Leicester, 1972), p. 129. 38) Redditt, however, suggests that the feminine form of "wickedness" was determined by the
gender of ephah (Redditt, Haggai, Zechariah, Makchi, p. 74). 39) Chary, Aggée-Zacharie-Mahchie, p. 103; R. Mason, The Books of Haggai, Zechariah and
Malachi (CBC; Cambridge, 1977), p. 58; Hanhart, Sacharja, pp. 358-359. 40) T. W. Crafer, The Books of Haggai and Zechariah (Cambridge, 1920), p. 99. 41) E. W Conrad, Zechariah (Sheffield, 1999), p. 120. 42) Jeremías, Die Nachtgesichte des Sacharya, p. 199 n. 19.
E. Assis I Vetus Testamentum 60 (2010) 15-32 27
The most common view seems to be that the women are angels of some
sort.43 There are those who associate this vision with the cherubim44 or with
the vision of the chariot of Ezekiel 1. Although these links are possible, they
seem to violate the balance between the woman in the ephah and the women
who remove her: the former is a personification of evil, whereas the winged
women are angels. According to the theory presented here, this question, too,
is resolved.
How can we identify these women? Many theories could be proposed; in
such an obscure vision the range of possibilities is vast. The first point we can
settle, it seems to me, is that the figure inside the ephah and those who carry
the ephah away are all women and consequently have some common denom
inator. We can also discern an inverse relationship among them. The woman
in the ephah is referred to as "wickedness", whereas the two women who carry
her off to Shinar have the wings of a stork. Many scholars have noted the
wordplay of ΠΤΟΠ 'stork' and ΤΟΠ 'pious person,45 but without probing its
meaning.
According to my reading, the woman in the ephah represents the Samari
tans. The use of a woman to stand for a nation is a biblical commonplace
convention (see, for example, Ezek. 17 and 23; Π2 'daughter' to personify a
nation is very widespread in the biblical literature).46 According to the prin
ciple that all the female figures in the vision have something in common,
these two women must also represent nations. If the woman inside the ephah
is wickedness, the two women with stork wings are not; their function in the
vision is to take the ephah with wickedness inside it and remove it to Shinar.
This fits with the biblical opposition of P^TI and ΤΟΠ, as in "He will guard
the feet of his faithful ones (ΓΤΟΠ); but the wicked (D^ttm) shall be cut
off in darkness; for not by might shall a man prevail" (1 Sam. 2:9; see also
4 3 ) Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1-8, pp. 306, 315. Exodus Rabbah sees the women as angels:
Midrash Rabbah Exodus0 (trans S. M. Lehrman; London, 1983), pp. 303-304. See also Moses
Maimonides, The Guide of the Perplexed, vol. 1 (trans. S. Pines; Chicago and London, 1963),
chapter 49, pp. 108-110. 44) Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets, p. 622. Against this explanation see Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah
1-8, p. 306. 4 5 ) See bHullin 63a. Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1-8, p. 306; Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Mala-
chi, p. 129; M. C. Love, The Evasive Text, p. 206. Love does not accept this wordplay because
the stork is an unclean bird (Lev 11:13). However, the fact that an animal is unclean does not
mean that it can bear only negative connotations. For instance, the lion and donkey are both
used positively in Gen 49:9, 14. 4 6 ) See H. Haag, "bath", TDOT(vol. 2; Grand Rapids, 1975), pp. [332-338] 334-335.
28 E. Assis I Vetus Testamentum 60 (2010) 15-32
Ps. 37:28; 97: IO).47 If the wicked woman represents the Samaritans, we may
conjecture that the women who are to be viewed favorably represent the
Judeans. But there are two women, not one; if this has any significance, we
must be dealing with Israel and Judah, the two groups descended from
Jacob.48 The two women with storks' wings, then, represent Israel and Judah,
who cooperate to remove the hostile Samaritans from their neighborhood.
Elsewhere Zechariah refers to these two groups, Judah and Israel, sepa
rately: "And I said to the angel who talked with me, <What are these?' And he
answered me, "These are the horns which have scattered Judah, Israel, and
Jerusalem' (Zech. 2:2 [1:19]); "and as you have been a byword of cursing
among the nations, O house of Judah and house of Israel, so will I save you
and you shall be a blessing. Fear not, but let your hands be strong" (8:13).
They are also found in chapters 9-14, which are thought to be set against the
backdrop of the Second Temple period: "For to the Lord belong the cities of
Aram, even as all the tribes οι Israel" (9:1). "I will cut off the chariot from
Ephraim and the war horse from Jerusalem; and the battle bow shall be cut
off, and he shall command peace to the nations; his dominion shall be from
sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth" (9:10). "For I have
bent Judah as my bow; I have made Ephraim its arrow. I will brandish your
sons, O Zion, over your sons, O Greece, and wield you like a warrior's sword"
(9:13). "Then Ephraim shall become like a mighty warrior, and their hearts
shall be glad as with wine. Their children shall see it and rejoice, their hearts
shall exult in the Lord" (10:7). "Then I broke my second staff, Union, annul
ling the brotherhood between Judah and Israel" (11:14).
Ezekiel, with his strong preference for the exiles over those who remained
in the land (Ezek. 33:23-29), nevertheless prophesies the fusion of Judah and
Israel into a single nation (37:15-28). Clearly Zechariah, who lived in Jerusa
lem, saw before his eyes two legitimate fraternal groups—Judah and the rem
nant of Israel—and an illegitimate entity—the descendents of those whom
the Assyrians had exiled from Babylon to Samaria.
Understanding the vision as a prediction of the Samaritans' removal from
the land and their resettlement in Babylon can also explain the surprising
links between this prophecy and the story of the Tower of Babel in Genesis
11:1-9:
4 7 ) The words PUH and ΤΟΠ are paired opposites in rabbinic literature as well (e.g., Mishna
Avot5:13). 48) See also Zer-Kavod, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, p. 86.
E. Assis I Vetus Testamentum 60 (2010) 15-32 29
1. In both cases a human transgression is repaired by the Lord.
2. Both stories relate to the Land of Shinar. Except for these two passages,
the use of Shinar to designate Babylonia is found only in Genesis 14
and Daniel 1:2. It is hard to avoid the feeling that the uncommon use
of Shinar in Zechariah 5:5-11 is intended to create an association with
the story in which Shinar is mentioned for the first time.
3. In both cases a building is erected in Shinar. In Genesis the people want
to build "a city, and a tower with its top in the heavens" (Gen. 11:4); in
the vision in Zech. 5:5-11 a house will be built in Shinar.
4. The story in Genesis begins with the fact that all human beings "settled
there" in Shinar (Gen. 11:2). God's reaction is to "scatter them from
there over the face of the earth" (v. 9). In Zechariahs vision the situa
tion is precisely the opposite, and concludes with settling in Shinar:
"they will set the ephah down there on its base" (Zech. 5:11). The roots
pD in Zechariah and ΊΰΡ in Genesis have a similar sense; they are often
employed in biblical parallelisms and belong to the same semantic field,
as in "There He settles (iWl) the hungry and they establish (ΊΉΌΊ) a
city to live in" (Ps. 107:36).49 In all three verses cited here, from Gene
sis and Zechariah, we encounter the locative adverb ÜW 'there' linked to a verb that expresses settlement or dispersion.
These connections strongly suggest that the vision of the ephah in Zechariah alludes to the story of the Tower of Babel. Some of these links have been noticed by scholars,50 but their significance has not always been explained. Rudolph explains that the reference to sin in Zechariah is meant to establish a link with the ancient sin of the rebellion against God in the story the Tower of Babel.51 But it is not clear why the author chose to compare the transgressions of the people of Yehud (as Rudolph interprets the vision) to the sin of the Tower of Babel. In fact, this association, too, can be explained by the idea that the woman Wickedness in Zechariah stands for the Samaritans.
49) See also Num. 35:34; Judg. 5:17; 1 Kings 8:13, 39, 43, 49; Isa. 16:5; 18:3; 32:16; Obad. 3;
Ps. 9:8; 101:7. 50) Some scholars have noted the connection between Gen. 11:1-9 and Zech. 5:5-11 but
with no attempt to explain its meaning. See, e.g., Curtis, Up the Steep and Stony Road, p. 142.
Love noted connections between Zechariah 1-8 and Genesis 11:1-9 (Love, The Evasive Text,
pp. 207-208). 51) Rudolph, Haggai, Sacharja 1-8, Sacharja 9-14, Maleachi, pp. 120-121.
30 E. Assis I Vetus Testamentum 60 (2010) 15-32
Various explanations of why the Jews segregated themselves from the Samaritans have been offered.52 On the assumption that the "adversaries of Judah" in Ezra 4:1-5 are the Samaritans, we may infer that the Judeans viewed them as a foreign nation and alien element. The Samaritans, for their part, claimed that they were part of the same nation because they worshiped the same God. The story of the Tower of Babel can be incorporated into this dispute between separatists and inclusionists. The separatists could use the story of the Tower of Babel to show that the distinction among peoples is an ancient one and that any attempt to blur ethnic differences contradicts the nature of the human race, which is made up of separate peoples. The Samaritans' return to Shinar is not just removing them from the land; it also expresses the idea that they are going home. Babylon is their land and they will be sent back there. The allusion to the Tower of Babel supports the argument that one must not alter what was fixed in the original division of the nations when they were scattered in the wake of the Tower of Babel. That story reinforces the national and ethnic divisions between peoples and bolsters the Jews' view that the fact that the Samaritans worship the same God as they do does not obviate the ethnic differences in their origins and is not sufficient grounds for a merger of the two groups.53
If we broaden the canvas and look at relations with the Samaritans as one issue associated with the separatist agenda in Judah at the start of the return to Zion, of which the rejection of mixed marriages is another manifestation, we may be able to uncover how each position based itself on a different story in Genesis. Malachi's prophecy against foreign wives quotes the ideological claim of the proponents of intermarriage.
"Have we not all one father? Has not one God created us? Why then are we faithless to one another, profaning the covenant of our ancestors?" (Mai. 2:10). Against the almost unanimous scholarly opinion that this sentence is addressed by the prophet to his people, I follow the fifteenth-century commentator, Isaac Abravanel, who holds that the prophet is quoting the argument invoked by the people to justify intermarriage with non-Jews. It reflects their universalist philosophy of the equality of all people and nations, based on the Genesis creation narrative in which Adam and Eve are the ancestors of all humans. They justified marriage with foreign women by a universal
52) For various views on the topic see Foster, The Restoration of Israel, pp. 110-111. 53) Some have taken the connections between Zechariah and Genesis in the opposite direction. See J. E. Tollington, Tradition and Innovation in Haggai and Zechariah 1-8 (JSOTSup 150;
Sheffield, 1993), pp. 241; Love, The Evasive Text, p. 208.
E. Assis I Vetus Testamentum 60 (2010) 15-32 31
humanism that regarded breaking down the barriers between Israel and the nations as positive and desirable.
The universalists drew on the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden; the separatists, on the division of the nations after the Tower of Babel. Each group could base itself on the Genesis stories to define the nature of the human race.
Another point bears mention. Many scholars have noted a connection between Zechariahs second vision (2:1-4 [1:18-21]) and that of the ephah (5:5-11).54 The reading offered here makes this link even stronger. Without going into all the details mentioned by scholars, let us consider the argument that both prophecies deal with the relations with Yehud and the world. Thus we can say that the second vision foretells calamity for those who caused Judah to be dispersed and exiled from its land. The sixth prophecy deals with the Samaritans, who have interfered with Judah's resettlement in its land. In the vision of the horns the prophet anticipates that those who exiled Israel will be scattered; in the vision of the ephah he foresees the removal from the land of those who would prevent Judah from being restored to its land.
In conclusion, the anti-Samaritan explanation of this vision may also explain its lack of clarity. Because the Samaritans were very close to Judah, both linguistically and geographically, we may conjecture that it was better to keep the Samaritans from deciphering its content. If the prophecy deals with the bitter conflict with the neighbor to the north, it would be difficult to spread it widely and unwise to set off an even fiercer struggle with the Samaritans. The enigma that conceals the meaning of the prophecy may thus derive from the danger of publishing it. The mysterious character is meant to conceal its content.
Summary and Conclusions
The thesis advanced in this paper is that the vision of the ephah is an anti-Samaritan prophecy. The woman in the ephah represents the Samaritans; the vision foresees their return to their original home in Babylon, where their temple will be erected. Zechariah endeavors to forge a link between the Samaritans and Babylon and the temple that will be built for them there, to
54) See W. A. M. Beuken, Haggai-Sacharja 1-8: Studien zur Überlieferungsgeschichte der frühna-
chexilischen Prophétie (Assen, 1967), pp. 252-255; Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1-8, pp. 311-312. On the overall structure of the book, in which these two oracles stand as parallels, see Baldwin,
Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, pp. 74-86.
32 E. Assis I Vetus Testamentum 60 (2010) 15-32
bolster the position that denies their affiliation with the Judeans and to strengthen the argument that they should not be allowed to have anything to do with the Temple in Jerusalem. This thesis has major implications for an understanding of the relations between Samaria and Yehud in the post-exilic period. First of all, if the identification of the two women with storks' wings with Judah and Israel is correct, it means that the prophecy reflects the idea that there is no identity between the Samaritans and the people of the northern kingdom. This is compatible with the biblical tradition in 2 Kings 17 about the origins of the Samaritans.55 Second, the people of Yehud believed that the Samaritans had come from Babylon and hoped they would return to their original home. We may assume that they felt that this hope was realistic. Perhaps they saw the Samaritans' return to Babylon as a restoration of the status quo ante, just as they had returned to the land from which they had been exiled. Third, even if this hope was reasonable, it was not realized; we know of no movement of Samaritans back to Babylon. Zechariahs solution remained up in the air, at an ancient juncture in the history of Samaria and Yehud; the aspiration found no later expression in the tortuous relations between these two groups.
55) Kaufmann claimed that there was a clear distinction between those who were deported from
Babylon to Samaria and the original Israelite population of the north. See Y. Kaufmann, Toledot
haEmunah haYisreelite (vol. 8; Tel Aviv, 1963), pp. 185-188 (Hebrew).
^ s
Copyright and Use:
As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.
No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.
The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.
