The Evil in Zechariah

THE EVIL IN ZECHARIAH MARGARET BARKER

Borrowash, Derby

In an earlier article, I tried to show how the book of Zechariah gives us an indication of the political structures at the time of the re-settlement. I argued that Palestine was divided upon the most basic of issues, namely that of cultic purity. The indigenous population refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of the new Jerusalem, or its priests, and the exiles, in their turn, cut themselves off from their fellow countrymen. I propose now to extend the argument, and to look at the social conditions which resulted from this division, and the events which exacerbated them.

Haggai and Zechariah give us two comments upon these times, The fact that the prophecies are so carefully dated makes it entirely legitimate to read them as parallel works, Ezra gives us a third picture, and there is probably a fourth in Isai 56-66. This makes it an extremely well-documented period, but one about which there is still much disagreement, and even confusion. The work of the editors and compilers of the texts, in so far as it attempted to create a harmonious and consistent picture, has only added to the problems. I propose to undo their work, and to take as my starting points any passages where conflict and disagreement are apparent. I d o not wish to assume that Ezras account, because it is cast in the form of history, in fact two histories, must be the framework into which Haggai and Zechariah can eventually be fitted. I t may be the only account that we have, but that does not mean to say that it is the only possible account of the period, or even that it is the only construction possible with the evidence which has been allowed to survive, especially when we bear in mind that so much of the Ezra narrative has no parallel in the prophetic texts, and even more is, by implication, contradicted. Indeed, I believe that Isai 56-66 addresses just this period, and that the overwhelming influence of the Ezra account has obscured this fact. The point of view which prevailed in the religious struggle of the resettlement, as in so many others, was the point of view of the winning group. History is proverbially unkind to the losers. In order, therefore, to allow the prophetic books to tell their own tale, I propose to acknowledge the existence of Ezra as a negative source for the period, and to admit

1 The Two Figures in Zechariah, HeyJ XVIII (1977), pp.38-46.

12

T H E E V I L IN ZECHARIAH 13

that whatever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, may be just what I am seeking. Ezra was written long after the events which Haggai and Zechariah describe, and was written to demonstrate certain things about the new Jerusalem, and the role of her people, in the Divine plan. Issues are clear, good has prevailed, and the status quo has been justified. The less glorious aspects of the resettlement have disappeared. Ezra gives no account of the famine which prompted Haggais promise, nor of the sloth in the rebuilding. The timber from Tyre and Sidon was used in the temple, and payment was made in food, drink and oil, possibly following the account of Solomons building programme in 1 Kgs 5: 10. The people of the land opposed the setting up of the altar (Ezra 3: 3), but offered to help rebuild the temple (Ezra 4: 2 ) , an offer which was rebuffed. Haggai, on the contrary, says that the timber was local produce, that food was very scarce, and that the people of the land (Hag 4: 2) were assured of Gods help and support, in the context of the rebuilding of the temple. Zechariah, apparently, has no comment. We could, I suppose, work out detailed schemes to dovetail the two works, but it seems to me easier to work upon the broad generalization that Ezra worked with the clarity of hindsight, and described the situation as it later came to be seen, with the people of the land clearly bad, except where they were specifically converted (Ezra 6: 21), whilst the time of the resettlement was one of pioneering courage on the part of the faithful few, who managed, despite famine, to offer several hundred animals in a dedicatory sacrifice. Haggai, however, commented upon events as they happened, when issues were not so clear. The role of the people of the land was still ambiguous and the failure of the harvests a certain reality. Human nature prevailed, and the needs of the builders were relegated to the second place. If we read Haggai apart from the Ezra version of the events, I believe that we can detect in the book a series of concerns which are also present in Zechariah. There is the question of purity (Hag 2 : loff.), the question of the physical needs of the rebuilding programme (Hag 1: 8) and the problem of famine. All are central to the thought of Haggai, and also to the thought of Zechariah, but because Zechariah disagrees with Haggai in almost every respect, the fact that we possess two sets of conflicting prophecies has passed largely without comment. The two books were probably edited withii a single circle, we are told. Nevertheless, we have in these two men an example of what in pre- exilic times might have been called false prophecy. Both writings survived

2 These people of the land were differently esteemed by different people. Earlier postexilic sources show them as a distinct group, later ones as a hostile group. Thus Ezra 4 describes them as adversaries, but Haggai addresses them as fellow workers with Joshua and Zerubbabel. Isai 56-66 does not mention them, which is strange in a book so centred upon the enemies of the Lord.

14 M A R G A R E T BARKER

because they were later works, and the compilers did not have the wisdom of hindsight by which to make their assessments. A reading of the two books shows a quite remarkable difference, in what we might call the prophets self-confidence. Haggai speaks with authority, and (Hag 1 : 14ff.) records the success of his work. There is no hint that he was disregarded, or that his message was questioned. Zechariah is different. He begins with reference to the former prophets, and puts his message in the same category as theirs. I t is as though he expects to be ignored in the first instance, but eventually to be proved correct. There is no description of his success. The only narrative section tells of a mysterious embassy (Zech 7-43), but the main body of the work concludes with the hope that Zechariah will one day be proved to have been correct in his ideas, and therefore a genuine prophet. This is no coincidence. When we read Zechariah, therefore, we must be prepared to find the view which did not prevail, and therefore one of which we find no trace in Ezra.

Of the sources for the period I shall use Ezra very little, and Haggai largely as a setting for the thought of Zechariah. Isai 56-66 will be shown to offer some conveniently illuminating passages, should they be deemed admissible evidence. The argument does not depend upon them.

1

Haggai was a nationalist. He spoke from within the Jerusalem community and wanted the complete independence of the city. This entailed the building of the temple and the absolute separateness of the people from any local entanglements. He was aware of reality. There was the danger of mixing with the indigenous people, and the calamity of drought and famine. Since the indigenous people were also Yahwists, but perhaps of a different type, they recognized the claim of the temple, and also of Jerusalem, but I suspect that they did not recognize these rights as belonging exclusively to Jerusalem. A similar situation is revealed in the letters from Elephantine. At once we find ourselves confronted with the twin problems of the time: the extent and definition of the holy people, and the validity of the various centres as places of worship. Haggai demanded the help of these indigenous people in the rebuilding, even though they are described as the people of the land. Their help was acceptable because it was necessary. Haggai claimed that the bad harvests and other disasters were due to the peoples failure to rebuild the temple. The temple is depicted simply as an agricultural insurance policy. When attempts are made to reconstruct the thought of this

T H E EVIL IN Z E C H A R I A H 15

p e r i ~ d , ~ there is invariably expressed some pious sentiment about the central- ity of the temple. This is derived from Ezra. Haggai, the contemporary source, sees the temple in a very different light. The piety in Ezra is indicative of a much later attitude, and is evidence only for the age in which it was written. The temple was rebuilt, and was, we are told, regarded by the people as something insignificant (Hag 2:3). The economic function of the temple is clearly visible in what follows. Haggais hope for the future is that great wealth will fill the temple. There is no hint of Zion as the centre of enlightenment, justice, mercy or any of the more pious hopes of the Old Testament. I t is simply the recipient of wealth and splendour, and the guarantee of the peoples prosperity. Building the temple with the help of the people of the land, who were necessary for the provi- sion of lifes necessities, raised certain problems of association. I suspect that the notorious passage about clean and unclean in Hag 2 : 1Off. is to be read in this light. What Haggai says is that bad things are contagious and that good ones are not. Or, more pointedly, those who have contact with undesirables become themselves undesirable, in a way that no manner of contact with the holy people could possibly eradicate. Thus there could be no contacts outside the group for the returned exiles, and no contacts with former associates for those who became linked to the new community. This purification was the condition of prosperity. Mingling with what was unclean had caused the agricultural disaster. The rest of Haggais picture is true to the sectarian type: a chosen leader, imminent intervention by God, a glorious future for the blessed, a victory against overwhelming odds, and an inability to see beyond the limits of ones own small group.

From Ezra I extract one or two details only, as a foil to the main theme of Zechariah. An offer of help from those who claimed to be Yahwists was rejected and, significantly, we have the assertion that the temple would be built as Cyrus, the Persian king, had commanded (Ezra 4: 3). Persian money and Persian commands were, I suspect, responsible for many of the divisions within Palestine. The account of the Passover (6: 21) emphasizes the unclean state of the people of the land, and their being able to overcome this disabil- ity by joining the elect and separating themselves from their past. This is a parallel to the uncleanness passage of Haggai, and shows that the two were agreed upon this matter. (I find it both amusing and illuminating that P.R. Ackroyd can describe this attitude as the Chroniclers missionary

3 E.g. by R.E. Clements, God and Temple. The idea of the Divine presence in Ancient Israel (Oxford, 1965). This reconstruction is very broadly based, but my point is that without the other evidence which is cited, one would naturally read Haggai very differently, and that therefore perhaps one should.

16 M A R G A R E T B A R K E R

appeal). The list of the returned exiles in Ezra 2 shows that the exiles thought of themselves as a definable and therefore separate group, and the Chroniclers general picture of the times is consistent with this. The new Jerusalem was the exiles, and those whom they permitted to join them.

Ezekiel offers one passage which may or may not be relevant. Ezek 45: 9 sees the new era as one in which there will be no more oppression, violence or evictions, and he demands a just system of weights and measures. So, it may be observed, did Amos, but the Ezekiel passage goes on to give a table of comparative weights, as though some new system were being used, strange to the indigenous population, and therefore open to abuse. This is only speculation, and can add colour, rather than form, to the argument.

The last group of passages which I offer as a preliminary to my main theme occur in Isai 56-66. The problems implied in this book seem to me to be the reciprocal of those outlined in Zechariah, and indeed, of those indicated in Haggai. Isai 56: 3 points to a situation similar t o that in Hag 2, but described from the other side. from beyond the pale of purity. Isai 56:9ff. and 58: 3ff. make it very clear that there was a great deal of economic injustice, and that this was perpetuated not only by the rulers (who else has the power to do such things?), but also by those who believed themselves to be loyal Yahwists, amazed that their good lives were not drawing from God the reward which was expected. We have here another example of the problem of failed expectations, so common in the resettlement times, and treated, albeit from another angle, in Haggai also. Most significant of all is the passage in Isai 61, where the Hebrew text is normally altered before being translated. I propose to leave it untouched, and by translating what we actually have, to read that passage too as a background to the thought of Zechariah. The verses in question are Isai 61 : 5-9, translated in the RSV only after about half of the suffixes have been altered, whilst the NEB rendering is also well furnished with footnotes and probable readings. The pattern of the passage is such that the suffixes in verses 5, 6, and 7 are for the second person plural, while the suffixes for the rest of the passage, as far as verse 9 , are for the third person plural. The division is not arbitrary. I suspect that it indicates a contrast between two sets of people, two states of existence, and that renderings such as those of the NEB and RSV, which seek to make the whole passage refer to one group of people, namely the exiles, obscure the whole point of the prophets message. Briefly, the prophet is addressing Jerusalem from the outside, and knows well the two great needs of the new community, namely, to be recognized as the legitimate shrine of

4 P.R. Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration (London, 1965), p.162.


YHWH, with a legitimate priesthood, and to achieve a measure of economic stability and material prosperity. In Isaiahs scheme of things, recognition and prosperity will follow for the Jerusalem community only when they are prepared to accept the excluded ones, (the group for whom the prophet speaks, and who are the victims of exploitation by the righteous), and offer them, in their turn, recognition as YHWHs people. The passage in question would then be a contrast between the two groups, showing how both could achieve their aims with the help of each other. In the new era, the foreigners would be the farmers and would provide for the Jerusalem community (cf. Hag 1). The new community would be recognized as legitimate priests of the common deity 66 - Our God - the suffixes are quite clear on that point! There would also be prosperity for the new city and, instead of the burden of guilt (Isai 61: 7, cf. Zech 3), there would be acknowledgement for the peoplc from Babylon. In return, or in contrast, the outcasts would possess their land in joy (compare the later evidence in Neh 5 of evictions by the Jewish brothers). The prophet maintains that the Lord hates robbery (in context, one assumes the robbery of the land), or at any rate the victimi- zation of those who are the subject of the following verses. This robbery was performed with apparent piety (Isai 61 : 8a), but would be avenged by God. The descendants of these wronged people would be recognized eventually as a people of God, people with whom there was a covenant, and whose descendants would be blessed. This rendering, while not becoming involved with the finer points of the Hebrew, does make an attempt to see some sig- nificance in the division of the application of the passage, which is so striking. It provides a perfect background to the situation which I believe to have prompted the prophecies of Zech 5. Zechariah was not heeded, nor, apparently, was the writer of Isai 56-66. They advocated very similar lines of action. The fact that they were not heeded is proved by the much later passage in Neh 5, where we see the results of the situation which confronted Zechariah. There had been a vast influx of foreign money, which rendered the economy unstable (cf. Hag 1 : 6). If the indigenous group were not regarded as Gods people (and Isai 56-66 implies that they were not), then they would not have been covered by the laws of interest and moneylending (Deut 23: 20). Comments about the situation reflected in Nehemiah which assume that such a crisis could have arisen within a short period, and within the limitations of legal monetary dealings amongst Gods people, are simply unrealistic. I suspect that the question here too was one of the actual extent of the holy people, the same problem as we find reflected in the scandal of the foreign marriages and the pleas of Isai 56,66: 5 etc.

brothers in Neh 5: 8? 5 Is there anything significant in the distinction made between brothers and Jewish


I do not for one moment suggest that there is complete evidence for the picture which I propose of the nature and scope of the resettlement problems. 1 do think, however, that explanations of Isai 61 in terms of the Jerusalem peoples dream of a future where all would be priests, and gentiles would be their menials, is inconsistent with what we read in that prophet elsewhere, and that an explanation of Hag 2 in terms so tortuous that even the historians of the period are forced to concede defeat,6 at least makes it reasonable to assume that the question of what happened after the exile has not been answered. We seem to live with a very unreal picture, and then continue to embellish it.

2

Zechariah was a priest. I have argued in my previous article that he was much concerned with the validity of the priesthood and its being accepted by . . . whom? I suspected another branch of the priesthood. I also argued that h s hopes for peace lay in the joint rule of two persons one from the north, and one from the south. Zerubbabel was criticized, and no place was seen for him and his methods, that is, those represented by Haggai. Zechariah, then, was in favour of a degree of integration with those who were indigenous Yahwists, and in this, Zechariah probably reflected the views of many of the priests, since it was the priests, even the high priests, who were accused of marrying outside the holy people. Perhaps they had a wider view of the holy people. I believe that the book of Zechariah shows unmistakable signs of this attitude. Zech 2: 4, 5, for example, declares that Jerusalem will have no wall but YHWH, and in two places there is expressed the hope that people will come from far off to build the temple. If that is not a pointed remark, what is? The prophets picture of the ideal future is one where a great influx of people will come to Jerusalem, (Zech 8: 20) to seek the Lord; not, as in Haggai, where the nations will be shaken by God and come to Jerusalem with their tribute money!

There are in Zechariah two closely linked visions in chapter 5 which seem to stand apart from the rest of the book. The targum tradition suggests that they concern trade, but the usual modern interpretation is that they concern idolatry. Since there is evidence for both religious and economic malpractice in restoration times, but apparently no reference to either in other parts of Zechariah (with the exception of 7: 8-8: 17, which is usually held to be a later expansion of the text), there seems to be no harm in following up the older tradition, that referring to trade. We are told that the visions came to

6 P.R. Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration, pp.166ff.

T H E EVIL I N ZECHARIAH 19

Zechariah some three months after Haggai had finished such of his prophecies as have survived. I t is more than likely that the two prophets were dealing with exactly the same events, and that the differences between them are due to their giving different interpretations to these same events, and not to their having dealt with different topics.

THE FLYING SCROLL

The first vision was of a huge scroll flying over the land, and containing YHWHs afah. (It seems pointless to render this as oath rather than as curse, since in the other Old Testament contexts the word means what we should call a curse). The curse was upon thieves and perjurers, and would totally consume their houses. There are several problems both of interpretation and of translation. In the case of the former. I think it too vague to disniiss this vision as simply a purging out of social evils. The reference is more specific. This points to an evil in the sphere of commerce, an evil to be eradicated by YHWH himself. Does this mean that the crimes had been committed by secret means, or that they had been committed by those who would normally have enforced the law? The passages such as Isai 58: 3b, 6 , 7, give a similar picture of evil in high places, but evil of a particular kind - that which exploits men and lets them go hungry. If we suppose that the crimes were those of the ruling group, then the general meaning of the passage in Zechariah is that these men were responsible for some economic injustices, and that they were being punished by God. Was this Zechariahs explanation of the agricultural disasters, the conditions which Haggai said were caused by a failure to rebuild the temple? The actual translation of the passage is more difficult: mizzeh kamoha niqqah. The RSV gives shall be cut off henceforth according to it. The NEB gives by the writing on one side shall every thief be swept clean away, and the AV shall be cut off on this side according to it. All these renderings are a little forced, and tempt one to offer something completely different. Niqqah is usually rendered exempt from punishment, clean, free from guilt. In the interpretation of the passage which I have outlined this more common translation of niqqah would make excellent sense. Zech 5 : 3 would then be a description of every unpunished thief and perjurer. The normal rendering of niqqah in this particular verse is purged out, and the example of Isai 3: 26 is cited as evidence of the word having this other meaning. In that passage a city is described as cleaned out, in the sense of devastated. To be a strict and relevant parallel, Zech 5: 3 would need to talk of the land being purged and left empty, and not of evil men being purged. The English usage allows purged to take either meaning; but, since BDB can offer only the one


example of a parallel to this translation of niqquh, I wonder if we are justified in translating it as punished, and not as unpunished. The words mizzeh kumohu have also given rise to a number of renderings. In view of the fact that we are dealing with the effects of a curse, it is remarkable that there is no description of the affects of this curse upon the evil men. Zech 5: 4 describes the destruction of the fabric of his house, apparently a process of decay rather than a violent end. The curse will abide and consume: Zech 5: 3 provides a parallel description of the wasting effect of the curse upon the unpunished sinner. Mzh, meaning, wasted with hunger, occurs twice in the Old Testament, at Deut 32: 24 and as the suggested reading at Isai 5: 13. Kmh occurs in Ps 63: 2 meaning faint. In the context of this particular Psalm, I think it reasonable to suggest that kmh need not be restricted merely to a spiritual condition, any more than is sm: My soul thirsts for thee, my flesh faints for thee. If mzh kmh did not originally describe the effects of the wasting curse, it is certainly a remarkable coincidence that such appropriate forms exist elsewhere in the Old Testament, for not one, but both words. If we allow this translation as possible, it might also explain the LXX reading h e 5 thanutou which occurs in each case after the words mizzeh kumohu. The effect of the curse of YHWH would be a wasting and fatal condition, an appropriate punishment for those whose actions had brought hardship and hunger to others. Could Zech 5: 3b originally have meant something like every unpunished thief shall waste and faint away, every unpunished perjurer shall waste and faint away? The vision as a whole would be descriptive of the conditions around Jerusalem when food was scarce, and Persian money was plentiful.

THE WOMAN IN THE EPHAH

The second vision in Zechariah is a far more elaborate affair than the first. An ephah is produced and described as eynum bekol hu-hres. Inside it there is a woman who is described as rizuh. She is imprisoned in the ephah, and carried away by the women to Shinar, where an establishment is to be made for it, possibly a shrine. The first sort of reaction to such a conglomeration is that it is a complete nonsense, and attempts made to explain the vision tend to confirm this, for example the suggestion that the vision is linked to the later genie in the bottle stories!

There are eight visions in Zechariah, all alien to our normal patterns of thought, experience and communication. They do not seem to fit exactly into any one particular category of religious experience, and therefore to classify them (as Lindblom does) as four genuine visions, and four products

7 Lindblom,Prophecy in Ancient Israel (Oxford, 1962), pp.143ff.


of an inspired imagination, seems to me to be subjective in the extreme. Comparison with another area of experience can only offer help in the understanding of these visions, never a criterion for their authenticity.

The vision of Zech 5: 5-1 1 has many of the characteristics of an ecstatic vision - vivid detail, for example, coupled with a lack of logical connection in its overall structure. It has also some elements akin to symbolic perception, and something very like poetry in the juxtaposition of its images. The association of two or more apparently alien elements in a plane alien to both is the most potent ignition of poetry. These words, although originally written of surrealist art,8 make a point of great relevance to the understanding of Zechariah. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and expresses far more than the individual elements when separated out. The relationship of the component parts to each other is the intangible extra, the contribu- tion of the mind of the creator. No amount of dissection can, of itself, reach back into Zechariahs mind, nor into the minds of those to whom he spoke. Furthermore, the acquisition of information about the period will, in itself, establish some pattern of thought in our minds, a pattern which could just as easily precipitate judgement as facilitate understanding. Were Zechariah merely a predictable product of his environment, he would not have been a prophet. To understand him we must be prepared for the unexpected, especially if, as I believe, his message was at variance with that of Haggai, and his position one which did not ultimately find acceptance in Jerusalem. If we are to attempt to comprehend this, or indeed any, vision, we must allow all the elements to flow together, and settle where they will. We may possibly be able to detect the component parts of an ecstatic vision, but we cannot do other than accept what is made of them.

No thought, no reflection, no analysis, no cultivation, no intention. Let it settle itself.9

It has been argued that shapes and forms were the earliest religious expres- sion, and that these forms were eventually fixed in words. Perhaps here, in this most bizarre of visions, it was a contemplation of familiar forms which eventually. produced the prophetic insight. We must look at this vision in two stages. Firstly we must examine the dreamlike qualities which characterize the ecstatic vision, and try to isolate the elements from every- day experience which have been distorted and combined in new ways. Secondly we must listen for the possibilities of symbolic perception, such as

8 C . G . Jung, Man and his Symbols (Aldus Books, 1964), p.259. 9 The precepts of Tilopa, quoted from A.W. Watts, The way of Zen (Harmonds-

10 H. Read,ZkonandZdea (London, 1955). worth, 1962).


those which are found in Jer 1: 11-12, or Amos 8. Always we must beware of our own interpretations and not elevate supposition to the status of fact. Zech 5: 5-1 1 is an example of how the confusion of supposition and fact can determine an interpretation by completely circular arguments. There are two crucial words in the vision, eynam and ri?ah, since these are the words of interpretation included in the vision itself. The translation of these words should affect the whole understanding of the vision, but what actually happens is that the understanding of the vision determines the translation of the words. If we could be sure on other grounds of our understanding of the verses, this could be a reasonable practice, but to offer an emendation for one word, and a very specialized meaning for the other, does not necessarily reproduce the thought of Zechariah.

ynm (MT eyndm, their eye) is usually taken as wnm ( w6nZm) on the grounds that the LXX reads adikia. The Vg has oculus eorum, retaining the common meaning of ayin. Such evidence suggests that ynm was originally in the text, that the LXX translators had reason to render it adikia, but that by the time of the Vulgate there was no longer known a meaning or yn which could give adikia, and therefore the literal oculus was retained. There is, however, another possible way of taking yn. The Qere of 1 Sam 1 8 : 9 has a denominative verb from )n translated as eye with hostility. The Ketiv is wn, giving a confusion parallel to that in Zech 5 . Perhaps there was a meaning for yn close to wn, which may be implied in, for example, Amos 9 : 8. In 1 Sam 18: 9 the object of the hostility is et-Dawid, but in Amos 9: 8 it is bemamlakah. This is the construction in Zech 5: 6 , suggesting that the beth is not in but against, the preposition which one would expect in the context of hostility. The angels first explanation of the vision could then be read from the unaltered Hebrew as This is their hostile attitude towards the whole land. In the light of Ezra 4: 3 and Hag 2: 10-14, this makes admirable sense. The adikia of the LXX would then reflect the original nuance of their hostility, something which was remembered when the LXX was translated, but forgotten by the time of the Vg.

The second word of interpretation is risah, usually translated as wickedness, but here taken as apparently idolatry, because of the female figure, and its destination in a shrine in Babylon. Does this mean simply that pagan Babylon was the obvious home for idols, even those of the indigenous population of Palestine, or does it mean that Zechariah thought that the returned exiles were practising idolatry? Both interpretations are a little crude, and somewhat unlikely. I prefer to read this as Zechariahs version of Isai 66: 1- 6 , a passage notorious for the variety of opinions it can be made to support! Isaiah 66: 1-6 equates legitimate religious practices with those of idolatry - an unlikely situation until one looks at the context. The passage begins

THE EVIL IN ZECHARIAH 23

with a reference to temple building, and ends with the accusation that brothers have been made outcast for the sake of the name. Reading between these lines, Isaiah is saying that attitudes are more important than edifices, that the religious zeal of the exiles is misguided, and is, in itself, a form of idolatry. Zechariah sees something as fit only for a land of idolatry (thus far I can accept the idolatry idea), but this idolatry was not the worship of alien deities. The abuse of worship was, for Zechariah, associated with the ephah, the measure of the trader. Since the Targum interprets this passage in connection with commercial malpractice, we may perhaps see this vision as Zechariahs comments upon the economic situation which accompanied the rebuilding. He could be referring to the great influx of Persian money, with the economic instability and misery that any such influx always brings to the indigenous population, or he could be referring to the price which the exiles exacted from the outcasts as the price of their cultic purity, or he could be referring to the methods used by Haggai to obtain the materials necessary for the rebuilding. There are so many possibilities which are in keeping with what we know of the times that a blanket charge of idolatry or general wickedness seems to be so vague as to say nothing. The LXX renders this ri:uh as unomia, and I think the choice significant. Greek has so many words for types and degrees of wickedness that the choice of unomia must reflect what the translator thought to be an appropriate definition of risuh in this context, namely lawlessness. Adikiu, the word used to translate eynum, would rein- force the case for this interpretation of the vision, since both words represent the opposite of seduquh, dikuiosune, righteousness.

The two words of interpretation, presumably offered as guidance for the rest of the vision, show, I suggest, that the passage concerned lawlessness, a breaking of, or disregard for, the Law. At a time when the new community was establishing itself, and needing to prove its legitimacy as Gods chosen people, the charge of lawlessness would have been extremely serious.

I wonder whether this early disagreement as to the real meaning of the Law, or the extent of its application, can shed any light on the Samaritan question. The perennial problem here is why the Samaritans were separated from Jerusalem, and yet still had the Law, which came from Jerusalem. If there were some early disputes as to the application of the Law, this would be consistent with Josephuss remarks about Samaria being peopled by renegade Jews, who had broken various parts of the Law. His later remarks about the diaspora disputes are also consistent with this view, and indeed with what I

11 These are the people who were giving and receiving with false measure. For text

12 Cf. Ant. XI, 297-347, summarized by R.J. Coggins, Samaritans and Jews see A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic 111 (Leiden, 1962), p.483.

(Oxford, 1975), p.95.


believe to be the major theme in Zechariah, the legitimacy of the sanctu- ary.13 Even in Egypt, the centre of the dispute was again the question of the location of the true Temple.

Let us now examine Zech 5: 5-1 1 in detail. looking first at those features which would suggest that this was an ecstatic vision. Behind the dreamlike there will be some common object or experience. Zechariah sees an ephah between two winged figures, coming forth suspended between earth and heaven, and going to Babylon. This, to me, suggests the Ark. The two winged figures were inspired by the cherubim, and their motions are very similar to those of the Lords chariot, also the Ark, as described in Ezekiels vision. Since so much of Zechariahs visionary experience is replete with Temple imagery, I see no reason why the origin of this particular vision should not also have been something in the Temple. Ezekiel felt that the Lord could no longer tolerate the old Jerusalem Temple. Zechariah is saying that the real people of God can no longer tolerate this type of Yahwism. The Ark was said to hold the two tablets of the Law. The ephah held lawlessness, showing that the LXX choice of anomia was significant.

The centre of the new cult, then, was not the Law, but a woman described as disregard for the Law. I f we interpret this figure as merely symbolic of graven images, I fear that Zechariahs pungency is lost. The woman is Jerusalem. There is a long history behind the image of the woman, whether that of Isai 50 and 54, where she is the restored wife of the Lord, or Lamen- tations, where she is the desolate princess, or Ezekiel 23, where she is the harlot. Here the status of the city itself has superseded the true demands of the Law, and so Jerusalem becomes an idol, and has to be carried away, back to Babylon because that is where the image of the new city was born, and that is where it truly belonged, in a land of idolatry.

The subsequent history of the image is also very revealing. Contemporary outcasts referred to Jerusalem as a har10t.l~ Later outcasts said that the city was polluted and impure, e.g. 1 Enoch 91 : 9. The harlot of Rev 17 is certainly modelled upon Jerusalem, not Rome, for 17: 16 says that Rome is to destroy her. Significantly, the harlot city is still called Babylon. There were plenty of other cities which were sufficiently evil to be eligible as a symbol of evil - Nineveh perhaps, or Sodom and Gomorrah. The image of Babylon as the harlot had its origins in restoration times. In pre-exilic times the city of Jerusalem had often been called a harlot. After the exile the new Jerusalem retained the old title but for a new reason. She could accept the money and the directives of the Persians, and yet reject her own people. Something

13 Cf. Ant. XII, lO;XIII, 74-79;Cogeins, op.cit., pp.97-98. 14 Cf. P.D. Hanson, The Dawrl of Apocalyptic (Philadelphia, 197% pp.199ff.

T H E E V I L I N Z E C H A R I A H 25

whch came from Babylon made the restored city as much a harlot as the old one, at least in the eyes of one group of Yahwists, even though the Jewish tradition was that idolatry ceased after the exile.15 The symbol of the new cult was not the Ark but the ephah, the symbol of trade and commerce.

If we examine the vision in the light of what is known about symbolic perception, or, at a lower level, play upon words, some strange associations emerge. Similarity of sound and shape can play a very important part in the composition of what we now should call the surreal, especially when the resulting juxtapositions can be used to evoke in the hearer or the viewer a realization that this idea is not new to him, but one of which he has always been aware. There were doubtless many symbols of commerce. The ephah was chosen because of its similarity to other related and relevant words. The earlier vision had the scroll flying (aphah) and the curse ( alah) of the Lord, this one has the vessel, (ephah) and there is the similar sound of irphah, bake. The latter may seem outrageous, but the problem of Zechariahs time was a food shortage, and the lid of the ephah is described as a kikkar, which often means a loaf. This loaf is of lead (ophereth), a word which easily suggests aphar, dust, appropriate to famine. The second description of the lid (if it was a lid, for the imagery has changed) is a stone, a stone of lead. This change is part of the dreamlike quality of the vision, and is significant. We could read Zech 5: 8 as speaking of putting a rock in the mouth of the ephah (reminiscent of the incarceration of evil in 1 Enoch) or as putting a stone into the mouth of the woman, a symbolic retaliation. (Was a stone for bread proverbial? Compare Mt 7: 8, 4: 3.) There are two more words which provoke similar speculation. Zech 5 : 9 tells of two n.tym, normally read as naSim, women; but the consonants occur in Neh 5 : 10, l l pointed noiim, moneylenders - men who appear in Nehemiah as the cause of so much hardship. Most of the words associated with the nJym in Zech 5: 9-10 are feminine (the figures have been understood as women for a long time), but two are masculine forms, usually regarded as mistakes. I wonder whether these ladies had an earlier existence as moneylenders, especially since the text has a Qere-Ketiv problem for four of the five remaining feminine forms! For Zechariah, I suspect that the supporters of the throne of the Lord and of his city were moneylenders. Lastly, their wings are described as those of a stork or heron. Again, the point has been lost in translation. The exact nature of the bird is not important, but the sound of the name is no coincidence. The stork is proverbially the kind bird, and its name in Hebrew is derived from hasid, kind or pious. A similar idea is found in Latin, ciconza

1 5 S t r B I I I , p . l l l .


pietuticultrix. Do we here have the wings of the cherubim transformed into something more sinister? Piety, perhaps misplaced piety, as the place of refuge for the people of God, but here associated with moneylenders and something evil and idolatrous from Babylon? These cherubic figures would then be fit only for one task, namely to carry away the spirit of the new Jerusalem.

Thus, in one bizarre vision Zechariah juxtaposes a whole series of images, and we are left to draw our own conclusions, as his contemporaries doubtless did. I t would be fascinating to know whether these ideas had been accumulating in the mind of Zechariah, and a particular ecstatic state crystal- lized them into a visual form, or whether the whole concatentation of ideas appeared in the ecstatic state, and the ideas which they represented (that is, the interpretation) were subsequently appended by Zechariah. Such a phenomenon of secondary personality is often associated with visionary states, and the figure who appears as the interpreting angel may well be the prophet transported outside himself.16

3

By way of a brief postscript, I should like to examine Zech 7-8, the notorious and mysterious embassy. Zech 7: 1-3 and Zech 8: 18ff. tell of a group of men sent to enquire of the Lord. Their question is not entirely clear, nor is the direction of their journey, their number, or even the name of their leader. Some scholars have been influenced by the LXX reading eis buithel and believe that the embassy was to the old shrine at Bethel, but the final flourish of the episode (Zech 8: 20-23) shows that it was understood by the writer to have been an embassy to Jerusalem. This, in the context of Zechariahs hopes, makes excellent sense. He is telling, in fact, of a group of men coming to consult Jerusalem on a matter of ritual. Zechariah thus sees Jerusalem reestablished as a recognized centre of the cult, the fulfilment of at least one of his hopes. This recognition would have to have come from a nonexilic group, yet from a group who were,obviously, Yahwists. There is possibly a clue to the identity of the group in the very confused names of the leaders. Since it is an area of much confusion, and therefore of much speculation, I would grant that any deductions drawn have the status of coincidence, rather than evidence, but the investigation is, none

16 See, e.g., I.M. Lewis, Ecstatic Religion (Harmondsworth, 1971), or for a work which deals closely with Zechariah, P.D. Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic, pp.251, 258. I do not think, however, that he is successful in his attempt to link the visionary state to a particular social class.

T H E E V I L IN Z E C H A R I A H 27

the less, fascinating. D. Winton Thomas took regem melek as a corruption of the official title rab mag harnmelekl7 and thus reduced the embassy to one man, Bethel Sharezer, the Rab Mag. A man of similar name and title appears in Jer 39: 3, Nergal Sharezer, the Rab Mag. Could it be suggested from this strange similarity that Nergal and Bethel are comparable elements in the names, that is, theophoric? Bethel would then place the leader of the embassy quite firmly amongst the unorthodox Yahwists, whose cult was more akin to that attested at Elephantine, than to that of Ezra. Even if we place no weight upon these names, we do without doubt have a narrative about the recognition of Jerusalem. Emphasis upon the actual questions which were asked concerning the fasts is misplaced, and serves to obscure the main point of this narrative, placed as it is as a culmination to the thought of Zechariah. The prophet is nowhere concerned with fasting as such, but he is very much concerned with the status of Jerusalem. lnsertions into the chapter show that it was this question of recognition and hostility which the later writer found in the chapter, for he writes of woes and hostility which by his time were a thing of the past. Appended to the episode is the hope that one day many peoples and nations will come to Jerusalem to seek the Lord. This is no flourish of pious universalism, in order to end upon a fine note. In the last three verses of Zech 9 we have a picture of what Zechariah hoped for the future. Jerusalem would be recognized as a holy city by many peoples, and would, in her turn, allow these peoples access. We have heard that God is with you would then represent the recognition that the Lord was also, or again, with Jerusalem, and would also be a fitting conclusion to Zechariahs pleas for a mutual acceptance on the part of both the exiles and the indigenous Yahwists.

1 7 See, e.g., Interpreters Bible VI (New York-Nashville, 1956), p.1082.

Documents

The Evil in Zechariah