ZECHARIAH’S FLYING SCROLL

Zechariah is one of the more cryptic and difficult books to understand. His imagery and

language is strange and frequently confusion. The vision of the flying scroll certainly represents

this esoteric nature of the book. While the flying scroll passage may be esoteric, the text is not

the product of haphazard, fanciful story telling. Closer examination reveals that there is a specific

purpose and agenda for the text. Zechariah wrote to the people of sixth century Judah, who had

no king and thus turned to God and to Torah to govern their lives. Zechariah’s vision of the

flying scroll represents a personification of the Torah as the new judge in a time when the

enforcement of Torah was difficult outside of Jerusalem, demonstrating that the written form of

the Torah had taken on new meaning and authority for sixth century Persian period Judeans.

HISTORICAL SETTING FOR THE FLYING SCROLL

Zechariah’s flying scroll appears in the first section of the canonical book of the Hebrew

Bible, Zechariah. Its location within the book is significant because Zechariah in its present form

appears to be a composite document. 1 The first eight chapters are an earlier composition more

closely associated with the historical figure, Zechariah.2 Chapters nine through fourteen are a

later addition.3 The historical setting of the character, Zechariah, is the post-exilic community4 in

the late sixth century B.C.E. Judah only existed as a puppet/vassal sate to Persia during this time. 1 Carol Meyers and Eric Meyers, “The Book of Zechariah: Zechariah 1-8,” ABD 6:1061.2 Edgar Conrad, Zechariah. (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 13.3 This paper will refer to the two compositions as First Zechariah (Chapters 1-8) and Second Zechariah

(Chapters 9-14).4 Postexilic refers to the period after a small number of Jews were able to return to Israel, however, the

majority of all Jews were still in exile.

1

2

Mention of the Persian king, Darius, in Zech 1:7 locates the visions of First Zechariah circa 519

B.C.E.5

Genre of Zechariah

The literary genre of First Zechariah is most closely associated with apocalyptic

literature, but it is an early form of that genre. Apocalyptic literature does not fully develop until

the third and second centuries B.C.E.6 Thus, many identify First Zechariah with the nether-genre,

proto-apocalyptic.

First Zechariah represents a type of literature in flux in multiple ways. The concept of a

Hebrew Prophet from the early monarchical period was a person who gave ecstatic utterances.

Students of the prophets would record these ecstatic utterances as prophetic oracles. These

prophetic oracles comprise a large portion of the latter prophetic7 corpus.8 Prophesy slowly

moved from primarily prophetic oracles to records of prophetic visions. These visions were

present in the earlier prophets, but oracle usually accompanied them.9 The visions also did not

contain the same style of highly symbolic language. 1 Samuel 9:9 makes the claim that prophets

were formerly called “Seers” (ראה), indicating that visions had always been part of prophetic

activity. However, when the postexilic prophets, Ezekiel and Zechariah, write their respective

works, vision becomes the primary vehicle for prophesy. A distinctive feature in Zechariah

found in Ezekiel and other apocalyptic works is the intermediary angel. The angel explains the

cryptic visions to Zechariah, allowing both Zechariah and the reader to understand partially their

5 T. Cuyler Young, “Darius,” ABD 2:38.6 Paul D. Hansen, “Apocalypse and Apocalypticism.” ABD 1:279. 7 Latter Prophets refers to a subdivision in the Jewish Tanak, which encompasses Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel

and the book of the twelve (Hosea-Malachi). Notable omissions from this group compared to Protestant division of the Hebrew Bible include Lamentations and Daniel.

8 John Schmitt “Preexilic Hebrew Prophecy,” ABD 5:483.9 See Amos 8 for an example of an early Prophetic vision accompanied by oracle.

3

meanings. Another key feature of the genre is highly symbolic objects and characters. This high

symbolism is evident in the flying scroll passage.

The movement towards visions and a proto-apocalyptical genre also represents another

shift in prophetic function. The main role of the earlier prophets was to warn people about

injustice and unrighteousness. Prophetic predictions of disaster from the earlier prophets were

usually contingent on the continuation of evil. The phrase “Who knows? He might relent,”

occurs in Joel 2:14 and Jonah 3:910 to indicate that it is still possible to avert YHWH’s wrath.11

Other prophets use the term “perhaps” (אולי) to indicate that God may not bring the promised

destruction.12 Proto-apocalyptic genre moves towards a more firm idea of prophesy. That which

the prophet sees in his vision and reports to the people is the unavoidable future.13 Zechariah’s

visions tend to fit this latter model of prophesy. One may see evidence of the shift in Jeremiah.

Jeremiah is not an apocalyptic work, but still contributes to the shift in prophetic agency. “You,

do not pray for this people, do not lift up a prayer or plea on their behalf, and do not meet with

me; I will not listen to you” (Jer 7:16). Prophesy became final verdict rather than corrective

warning.

THE LOCATION OF THE FLYING SCROLL IN ZECHARIAH

Five visions precede the vision of the flying scroll in First Zechariah, and two visions

take place in sequence after it. All of these visions purportedly took place on the twenty-fourth

day of Shebat in the second year of Darius, the king of Persia (Zech 1:7). The text describes the

visions in quick sequence, leaving no significant breaks between the visions. An angelic

10 It s difficult to date Jonah and Joel, so they are ambiguous examples of early prophesy.11 Samuel A. Meier, Themes and Transformations in Old Testament Prophesy, (Downers Grove: IVP

Academic), 31.12 Meier, 29.13 Meier, 36.

4

intermediary unifies the visions, and the only breaks in the visions allow the angel to explain

their cryptic nature. The preceding visions are mostly about the restoration of Zion by

Zerubbabel and the priesthood in the form of Joshua the high priest. From the fourth visions

forward, the themes of the visions take a more global perspective. The vision of the flying scroll

does not contain anything specific about Israel or Zion. The angel tells Zechariah in Zech 5:3

that the scroll goes out over the face of the whole land. It is possible that the text only refers to

the land of Judah, but the text does not explicitly state this. The term used for “land” (ארץ)

frequently means just the land of Israel. The distinction is observable in the book of Ruth, where

the text refers to Moab as the “field,” but it calls Israel the “land” (Ruth 1:6-7).

The vision that follows the flying scroll is a vision about stork-winged women carrying a

basket, which contains the iniquity of all the land (Zech 5:5-11). Other than its juxtaposition with

the flying scroll, there are key links between the two passages. Both visions have a flying object,

which is highly symbolic in some way. The major distinction is that the scroll flies on its own

power. The text does not mention wings or something carrying it, but it appears to fly completely

inexplicably. The basket does not fly on its own power as the stork-winged women carry it. The

phrase “all the land” also connects the two visions. Further investigation of the relationship

between these two visions will prove useful after an extensive study of the flying scroll.

MYTHIC FUNCTION AND DIVINE RETRIBUTION

The most obvious theme from the text is the punishment of lawbreakers, namely thieves

and those who swear falsely by the name of YHWH. The angel in the text describes the scroll, or

the roll, as the curse that goes into the houses of the thief and those who swear falsely. The text is

5

particularly interested with God’s roll in the administration of punishment and, presumably,

justice. Below is an original rendering of the text.

1 I turned and I lifted up my eyes and I saw behold a flying roll. 2 And he14 said to me, “What are you seeing?” And I said, “I see a flying roll,15 its width is twenty in cubits, its length is ten in cubits.” 3 And he said to me, “This is the curse16 which is going out before the presence of all the land, for every thief according to this has been purged and everyone who swears according to this has been purged.17

4 I send it out, utterance of YHWH,And it goes to the house of the thief and to the one who swears by my name falselyAnd it will dwell in the middle of his house and finishes it and its wood and its stone.(Zech 5:1-4)

Mythic Retribution Against Oath Breakers

The mythic function of the text relates to the notion of divine retribution. In some way,

thieves and those who swear falsely receive punishment for their crimes from a divine agent.

Unfortunately, there are no known texts predating this one, which describe an unrealistically

large flying scroll administering justice.18 However, it is common in ancient Near Eastern texts to

call upon deities to enforce oaths, curses and laws.19 Zechariah 5 illustrates a divine agency

punishing the ones swearing falsely and thieves for their crimes (Zech 5:3-4). Frequently, it is

impossible to know whether a person has broken a law or an oath, thus administration of justice

breaks down. When this happened, the Israelites, Babylonians and Hittites relied on divine

powers to administer justice. Hittite oaths included a variety of sayings to invoke deities to curse

the breaker of the oath.20 Yitzhaq Feder provides some translations of these Hittite oath formulae:

14 “he” refers to the messenger of God or angle. The text first mentions the messenger in 1:9 [8] and he is present throughout the visions.

15 Hebrew word is מגלה, meaning scroll. It is formed from the verb גלל, meaning “to roll.” The sense of the word is a roll of paper or a scroll. See Brown “מגלה,” BDB: 166.

16 The Hebrew word אלה, translated “curse” here, can also mean oath. See Brown “אלה,” BDB: 46.17 This translation represents a close rendering of the Hebrew. Here is a highly nuanced translation:

“according to one every thief has been purged and according to the other side the one who swears falsely has been purged.”

18 Dominic Rudman, “Zechariah 5 and the Priestly Law,” SJOT 14 (2000), 195.19 Yitzhaq Feder, “Mechanics of Retribution in Hittite, Mesopotamian and Ancient Israelite Sources,”

JANER 2 (2010), 134. 20 Feder, 122.

6

“May the oath deities destroy,” “May the oath deities seize,” and “May the oath deities

devour.”21 The oath deities are not the chief gods but are sub-deities whose purpose is to guard

oaths., Similarly, in the Zechariah passage, the vision portrays a mythic scroll enforcing the laws

rather than YHWH. The scroll’s function is similar to the Hittite oath deities.

There is a common oath formula in the Hebrew Bible, which calls upon YHWH to

enforce oaths. 1 Kings 2:23 has a clear example of this formula: “And King Solomon swore by

YHWH saying ‘Thus may God do to me and thus may he add...’” In this text, Solomon calls God

to punish him if he does not fulfill his oath. The concept of the oath being a self-curse is evident

in this text. The Hebrew Bible uses this formula for primarily negative oaths. The formula from

the Hebrew Bible differs from the Hittite formulae in that it calls upon God22 to enforce the oath

rather than specific oath deities.

Mythic Retribution against Lawbreakers

A clear point of contrast to the Hittite oath deities is that Zech 5 punishes lawbreakers

rather than oath breakers. The curse going against lawbreakers has strong parallels in Hebrew

Bible and in other ancient Near Eastern literature.

“And it will be the one who hears the words of this curse and he will bless himself in his heart saying ‘there will be peace to me, for there is stubbornness of my heart, I walk on account of destruction of the wet and the dry. YHWH will not yield to forgive him, then the anger of YHWH will smoke and his jealousy against the man. And every curse written in this book will rest on him and YHWH will blot his name out from under heaven.” (Dt 29:18-19)

This text does not invoke God to punish those who break the covenant, but it indicates that these

curses are fact and that YHWH has already promised to send these curses; the Deuteronomistic

author merely reported what would be. A key difference between this text and the Hittite oath

formulae is that YHWH is the initiator. In the Hittite oath formulae, humans, who are the

21 Ibid.22 A clear perversion of the oath formula appears in 1 Kgs 19:2, where Jezebel uses the formula, but

invokes multiple gods probably referring to Baal and Asherah.

7

presumed definers of the oath, ask the oath deities to curse the ones breaking the oath. However,

the text of Deuteronomy portrays God as both the one who defines the conditions and initiates

the punishment.

The Deuteronomy text is more similar to the Code of Hammurabi than the Hittite oath

formulae. Hammurabi was an ancient Babylonian king. His code is one of the oldest known

systems of laws in the world. The code is quite extensive and proscribes punishments for those

who broke each law. However, at the end of the code is an extensive list of curses, which

Hammurabi invokes upon the lawbreaker.

May Ninkarrak, the daughter of Anum, who speaks on my favour in Ekur, bring upon his limbs a grievous sore, an evil plague, a sore wound which none can assuage (and) of which nor physician knows the nature (and) cannot relieve it with dressings, (and which) like the sting of death cannot be plucked out, so that he may then bewail his lost manhood until his life is extinguished. May the great gods of heaven and earth, the Anunnaki all together, and the protecting deity of the house, the brick god of Ebabbar, curse that (man), his seed, his land, his soldiers, his people and his army, with a baleful curse. May Illil with his word which shall then be unalterable curse him with clear curses, and may they quickly overtake him!23

While some societies may not have been able to enforce their laws adequately, ancient Babylon

was more than capable of doing so. The curses are there for the unknown lawbreaker. This

comes from the idea that when the justice system broke down, God or the deities would

administer justice. While Zech 5:1-4 does not state that the culprits are anonymous, it makes

logical sense that these types of crimes may be difficult to uncover.24 However, sixth century

Judah was not particularly capable of enforcing its laws.25 For this reason, the circumstances

required divine action for the integrity of justice in the land.

23 Hammurabi’s Code, Column XXVIII, lines 50-91. Taken from G. R. Driver and John C Mills, The Babylonian Laws, (vol. 2, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968), 107.

24 Carol Meyers and Eric Meyers, Haggai and Zechariah 1-8, ABC 25b (New York: Double Day, 1987), 285.

25 David Janzen, “Politics, Settlement, and Temple Community in Persian-Period Yehud,” CBQ 64 (2002), 494.

8

The problem of unresolved crimes comes up in the Hebrew Bible. The Torah gives

instructions about how to deal with suspected crime that is unprovable in regards to marital

unfaithfulness in Num 5. The text specifies that this procedure is only appropriate if the crime is

“hidden from the eyes of her husband” (Num 5:13). The text proceeds to describe a type of trial

by ordeal. The priest is to make a concoction identified as the water of bitterness, made from

dust from the floor of the tabernacle and the ink used to write a curse. If the woman is guilty, her

womb will swell and her thigh will fall. In this text, the priest invokes God to administer the

justice along with the water of bitterness, thus God acts alongside the water of bitterness, but

Zech 5 has the scroll administering justice, and God is less active in that text.

Nature of Divine Retribution

There is a raging debate about divine retribution, and how God punishes people. Typical

understanding of divine retribution believes that God administers punishments the way a court

system does, and that God is actively administering justice. The opposite way of understanding

divine retribution is that God has constructed the universe to punish people who break his

commandments. Chapman identifies these two models as the “Judicial Model” and the “Act-

Consequence Model” respectively.26 The Judicial model promotes the idea that God is very

active in the world, but it can also cast a picture of a vengeful God. The key aspect of the Judicial

model is God as judge.27 The Act-Consequence model represents a closer relationship of crime to

punishment.28 There are certainly cases in the Hebrew Bible that reflect both models, but the

flying scroll from Zechariah is not entirely clear example of either. The key element of God as

judge is missing from the passage because the scroll is the judge. However, the scroll is a divine

agent that administers punishment. It is better to interpret the Zech 5:1-4 the Act-consequence 26 Stephen Chapman, “Reading the Bible as Witness: Divine Retribution in the Old Testament.” PRS 31

(2004), 177-182.27 Chapman, 178.28 Chapman, 179.

9

model. God has made this scroll such that it will automatically punish those who swear by

YHWH’s name falsely and those who steal. The work of the scroll has become part of natural

law.

THE FLYING SCROLL AND SPECIFIC LAWS

The culprits identified are specifically thieves and those who swear falsely, which

connects this passage to the Decalogue (Ex 20:1-17, Dt 5:1-21).29 Even if the Torah had not

come to its present form in the time of Zechariah, the Decalogue represents a very ancient

tradition of law and one of the most fundamental. The most obvious commandments that the

flying scroll enforces are “Do not steal,” (Ex 20:15) and “Do not answer with false testimony

against your neighbor” (Ex 20:16). The same trilateral root is in Zech 5:3-4 and Ex 20:15 (גנב),

which means to steal as a verb and thief as a noun. This clearly connects the criminals to the law.

Additionally, the word for false (שקר) appears in Ex 20:16 and Zech 5:4. This connection is not

as close because the Decalogue prohibits false witness (עד), and the flying scroll curses the ones

swearing falsely. However, these concepts are close semantically.

A third command from the Decalogue that the flying scroll in Zech 5 possibly enforces is

the command not to “lift up the name of YHWH your God for vanity” (Ex 20:7). The connection

revolves around the name of YHWH. Zechariah 5:4 is an “Utterance of the YHWH,” and the

punishment is against “the one swearing by my name falsely.” Lifting up the name of YHWH for

vanity is a vague phrase, but it likely relates to taking oaths in the name of YHWH.30 Psalm 24:4

is an indication where similar language references an oath. When Deuteronomy restates the

29 Meyers and Meyers, Haggai and Zechariah 1-8, 285.30 William Propp, Exodus 19-40, ABC 2A (Edited by David Noel Freeman and William Albright, New

York: Doubleday, 2006) 174.

10

Decalogue, it uses the term for vanity (שוא) where Ex 20:16 uses false (שקר).31 This significance

of this is that the culprits in Zech 5:3-4 may be guilty of breaking three of the Decalogue’s

commandments. If the perpetrators are guilty of lifting up the name of YHWH for vanity, they

are subject to the direct judgment of YHWH. The text says that YHWH “will not consider the

one innocent who lifts up [his] name for vanity” (Ex 20:7). Court language is in both texts. Lack

of innocence is in Ex 20:7 and swearing by YHWH’s name falsely, or perjuring, is in Zech 5:4.

Zechariah’s flying scroll may represent the judgment from Ex 20:7.

Reference to Decalogue or another Torah Text?

Zechariah 5:3-4 likely refers to the Decalogue, but Rudman argues that it fits better with

another source from the Torah.32 The passage from the Torah that most accurately represents

Zech 5:1-4 is Lev 19:11-12a, which reads, “Do not steal, do not act deceitfully, do not lie each

man to his comrades and do not swear falsely in my name.” The language more accurately

reflects Zech 5:3-4 than the commandments of the Decalogue. However, the evidence about the

dating of Leviticus is ambiguous at best. It is unlikely that the formation of the Torah was

complete in the late sixth century B.C.E. Leviticus is most likely from the “Priestly”33 source,

which scholars dating back to Wellhuasen have considered to be from the late Persian period. 34

Thus, Zech 5:3-435 likely predates Lev 19:11-12. The Decalogue is at least as old as the

Deuteronomistic source, which means it predates or is a contemporary of Zechariah’s visions.36

Zechariah 5 may influence the composition of the Leviticus more than Leviticus influences

31 The Exodus’ version of the Decalogue may also be from the Deutronomistic source. See John Van Seeters, The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus-Numbers (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1994), 254.

32 Rudman, 198.33 This refers to traditional Documentary Hypothesis made popular by Julius Wellhausen in the late

nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.34 Christophe Nihan, From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch: A Study in the Composition of the Book of

Leviticus. (Edited by Mark Smith, Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 3.35 Meyers and Meyers, “The Book of Zechariah” ABD 6:106136 Van Seeters, 254.

11

Zechariah. While the language more accurately reflects Lev 19:11-12, the text is more likely to

be referring to the Decalogue.

FLYING SCROLL AS TORAH

The angel told Zechariah that the scroll is the “curse” which goes out upon all the face of

all the land” (Zech 5:3). However, one may render the text: “this is the oath which goes out upon

the face of all the land” (Zech 5:3). The word in question is “אלה.” While this word typically

denotes a self-curse conditional on a vow, which one takes, it may also be an imposed curse or

oath.37 1 Samuel 14:24 demonstrates this aspect of the concept as Saul put an “oath/curse” on the

people, forbidding them to eat. If one reads Zechariah’s scroll as the oath, which goes out up on

the land, it is easy to see the connections to the law or Torah. The scroll is the binding

requirements that will inflict harm on those who do fulfill its words. Thus, the criminals may be

under the oath even if they did not swear to follow it.

Zechariah has a strong connection to Deuteronomy that goes deeper than a few passing

references. The language of Zechariah reflects the Deuteronomistic school, which was

responsible for the composition of Deuteronomy.38 Some have even suggested that the

Deuteronomy served the same purpose as Zechariah and Haggai, which was to support

Zerubabel’s regime and bolster the reconstruction of the temple in the late sixth century.39

Person, Meyers and Meyers note the distinctive Deuteronomistic flavor40 to the beginning of

Zechariah (Zech 1:1-6), citing words such as “earlier prophets” and “statutes,”41 which are

37 Josef Scharbert, “אלה” TDOT 1:263.38 Debate rages about the Deuteronomistic school, but many now consider this one school to be responsible

for the composition of Deuteronomy-2 Kings. See Raymond Person, The Deuteronomic School: History, Social Setting, and Literature, (Atlanta: The Society of Biblical Literature, 2002), 140.

39 Person, 138.40 Meyers and Meyers, Haggai and Zechariah 1-8, 94-96.41 Person, 140-41.

12

favorites of the Deuteronomistic school. The connection between Zechariah and Deuteronomy is

strong. If the late sixth century community had a concept of Torah as a single book, it was likely

an early form Deuteronomy.42 Later hands have likely added and redacted material from

Deuteronomy, but a coherent unified form of the book likely existed in the time of Zechariah,

which was the Torah of YHWH.

The text discussed earlier in conjunction with divine retribution, Deuteronomy 29, uses

the term “אלה” as a parallel for the word for covenant. “Is it not with you, and you alone, that I

am cutting this covenant and its oath?” (Dt 29:13 [14]). While it is not the primary term used for

Torah, Deuteronomy connects these terms. The angle in Zech 5 uses this exact word to describe

the flying scroll. Covenants and oaths are both binding agreements, which the author used in

conjunction with Torah. Covenant may have a more positive connotation than oath, but the terms

have semantic overlap. Strong association of Deuteronomy and the sixth century prophets

implies that a scroll, which the angle describes as an oath, would most likely be a Torah Scroll.

The Image of Scroll as Torah

In light of modern Jewish practices, it may seem obvious that a scroll, especially a large

one, would be a symbol for Torah. However, this has not always been the case. The earlier43

depictions of law are tablets. “And [Moses] wrote upon the tablets the words of the covenant, the

ten words”44 (Ex 34:28b). A text in Exodus speaks about a book45 of the covenant (Ex 24:7) prior

to Ex 34, but it is likely an addition from the Deuteronomistic or Priestly sources.46 However, the

Deuteronomistic source seems to have a special interest in the Law as a book or scroll. The

42 There were likely other extant Torah sources (J and E) in the sixth century, but the concept of the Torah as judicial law was likely Deuteronomy.

43 Here “earliest” meaning the Hebrew Bible’s presented chronology.44 The “ten words” are the Decalogue or the Ten Commandments.45 Or a scroll46 F. L. Hossfeld and E. Reuter, “ספר,” TDOT 10: 333

13

phrase “book47 of the Torah” is replete throughout Deuteronomy (Dt. 28:6, 29:21, 30:10, et al).48

In comparison, the word “book” (ספר) does not appear in Leviticus, a text ascribed to the Priestly

source. This illustrates that Deuteronomistic school had a vested interest in Torah as a document

where other works and sources were not as concerned. Zechariah’s connection to the

Deuteronomistic school implies that he would have conceived of the Torah as a scroll or a book.

Perhaps the clearest example where the Torah is a scroll in the Hebrew Bible is in

Josiah’s reform (2 Kgs 22:8). Josiah’s reform has many similarities to Deuteronomy, which has

caused some to postulate that the “Book of the Torah,” which they found in 2 Kgs 22 was

Deuteronomy. 49 The story may have been Deuteronomistic propaganda,50 but this bolsters the

case for a strong concept of the Torah as a scroll. If the story from 2 Kgs 22 is a fabrication from

a sixth century Deuteronomistic school,51 it demonstrates a movement in the concept of Torah

that is poignant to Zechariah. The Deuteronomistic history references many books,52 thus Torah

is not the only scroll, which Zechariah would have been familiar with, but it would have been the

most prominent.

The proportions of the scroll are completely absurd. Creating a scroll ten cubits by twenty

cubits would require and immense out of time an effort for a nearly functionless object. Its size

carries mythic weight and aura. However, the ratio of the height to the wit may indicate that the

scroll was a sacred scroll. The biblical scrolls found at Qumran, which were different from other

scrolls, all had a height to width ratio of two to one.53 While Zechariah is somewhat removed

47 Note that the ancient concept of a Book was a scroll. The modern book evolved from the codex, which originated in the early years of the Common Era.

48 This phrase is also common in Joshua and other Deuteronomistic literature. 49 Nadav Na’aman, “The ‘Discovered Book’ and the Legitimation of the Josiah Reform,” JBL 130 (2011),

48. 50 Ibid.51 Person, 31.52 Book of Jashar, the Book of the Matters of the Days of the Kings of Israel, et al.53 Meyers and Meyers, Haggai and Zechariah 1-8, 282.

14

from the Qumran community, the practices of the Qumran community represent ancient scribal

tradition. This evidence is certainly not conclusive, as there is a significant time gap between the

two communities, but does strengthen the likely hood that the scroll from Zech 5 was a Torah

scroll.

TORAH AS JUDGE

The particular dimensions of the scroll, twenty by ten cubits, may also illuminate the

symbolic purpose of the scroll. The propensity for apocalyptic and proto-apocalyptic texts to use

numbers as symbolic representations makes it likely that these dimensions are for specific

purpose. The dimensions of the scroll correlate to the size of the porch of Solomon’s temple.

“The porch along the front of the temple was twenty cubits longs along the face of the width of

the house and it was ten cubits wide” (1 Kgs 6:3). It is possible that this text connects Torah to

the temple. Meyers and Meyers postulate that the porch of the temple had a judicial role.54 The

judicial and punitive nature of the text lends credence to this theory. People from the ancient

Near East frequently performed trials and signed contracts at the city gate. One may see an

example of this in the story of Ruth. Boaz and the “kinsman redeemer” made a deal at the city

gate (Ruth 4:1), and Absalom went to the city gate to look for people who were seeking justice

(2 Sam 15:1). The porch represents an intermediary zone for the ancient cult; It served as the

gate to the house of God. Here is where the priest would theoretically administer justice.55

There was some type of rivalry between the monarchy and the priesthood for the

administration of justice. However, in the late sixth century, the Judean government was not able

to administer justice adequately. Zerubbabel was the person with the most authority in the Judah

54 Meyers and Meyers Haggai and Zechariah 1-8, 280.55 Ibid

15

to administer justice; however, most of his power was superficial at best.56 This does not mean

that the priests were then able to administer justice freely. At this time, the Judeans had failed to

rebuild the temple and there was no temple to give the priests the authority to administer justice.

The people had to rely primarily on foreign power for the peace in the land, but it was difficult to

maintain local justice. The local governors were able to maintain justice within Jerusalem, but

their power diminished quickly outside of the city.57 The combination of the priests and the local

governors may have been able to enforce Torah in Jerusalem, but they were unable to do so

outside the city.

The function of the scroll in Zech 5 is to go out upon all the land. The vision

demonstrates that the Torah has power over more area than Jerusalem. The lack of ability for the

Judean leaders to enforce Torah means that now God will have to be the one who enforces

Torah. However, God is not the central figure in the passage. The scroll, representative of Torah,

is the one exacting justice. Zechariah 5:1-4 is a personification of Torah as the new enforcing

agency of itself. Torah has power from God to punish and become the curse, which rests in the

house of all the lawbreakers. Even if the Judean governors have to obey the laws, which the

Persians and other Empires impose, the Torah still has ultimate authority over all the land of

Israel and the entire earth.

The written law is an important piece of Israelite society from the beginning. However,

the Deuteronomistic school and the sixth century community placed a higher value on the Torah

as writing. The Torah, as written word, became extremely important and may have been serving

as a hypostasis of God in Zech 5. The voice of YHWH as a hypostasis58 was more important than

the written word of YHWH in sources other than the Deuteronomistic school. God used his voice

56 Sean McEvenue “The Political Structure in Judah from Cyrus to Nehemiah,” CBQ 42 (1981), 335.57 Janzen, 494.58 Azzan Yadin, “קול as Hypostasis in the Hebrew Bible,” JBL 122 (2003), 602.

16

to create the world in Gen 1, which is likely from the Priestly source. One may observe the

mythic power of the voice of YHWH in Ps 29. In that text, the voice of YHWH is over the water

and shakes trees and the wilderness. One may easily see the connection between the mythic

power of the voice of YHWH and the written word of YHWH. The text does not clearly make

the flying scroll a hypostasis for God, but it is a personification of the Torah as the new judge

and justice giver for the land of Judah. In Zech 5, Torah has greater power to administer justice

without specific action from YHWH than it ever had under Judean monarchy.

Personifications of Torah is Hebrew Bible

A few other instances in the Hebrew Bible personify Torah. “For Torah comes out of

Zion and the word of YHWH from Jerusalem. He has judged between the nations and rebukes

many peoples” (Is 2:3c-4a). Micah 4:2c-3a is essentially the same text.59 These texts directly

connect the word of YHWH and the Torah. Torah and the word of YHWH are certainly not

hypostatic in Micah and Isaiah. In order for them to be hypostases of YHWH, they must be

independent of YHWH. The flying scroll is certainly a divine agent and works independently of

YHWH, thus one may more accurately describe Zechariah’s vision of Torah as hypostatic, but

there is no indication that the Torah is a sub form of YHWH. In Micah and Isaiah, YHWH is still

the central judging figure, and he uses Torah and his word to judge between the nations.

However, Zechariah’s flying scroll is judge, jury and executioner for the thief and the one

swearing falsely.

Deutero-Isaiah uses the theme of Torah going out from YHWH. “For Torah will go out

from me and my justice to illuminate peoples” (Is 51:4b). This text, which is likely a

contemporary of Zechariah,60 is another example of Torah having power independent of YHWH. 59 One is clearly a quotation of the other or both are from a third source, but determining which came first is

difficult.60 For a discussion on the dating of Second Isaiah, see Richard Clifford “The Book of Second Isaiah,” ABD

3:492.

17

None of these references has the same quality of personification that the flying scroll has in

Zechariah, but they demonstrate a clear progression of the concept of Torah. Torah became more

than a system of laws, but it was a representative for YHWH on earth. Torah gained authority

beyond being the written Law of Moses in the late sixth century, but spoke directly for God.

The Ephah Revisited

Bringing the vision of the Ephah, which follows the flying scroll, in dialogue with the

vision of the scroll brings a degree of clarity to both. The texts are antitheses accomplishing the

same mythic purpose. Both texts involve mythic items flying from one place to another. The first

vision is Torah flying by its own power over all the earth. Torah is extending its influence to all

the land and administering justice. The second vision is about the woman who represents the

iniquity of all the land. Stork-winged women contain that iniquity and carry it to Shinar, which

possibly relates to Babylon (Gen 11:1), so that it may remain there. These texts accomplish the

purpose of cleansing the land of sin. Both promote righteousness; the first accomplishes this

through the spread of Torah and condemnation of the wicked, and the second through the

containment and exportation of iniquity.

CONCLUSION

Zechariah’s flying scroll represents movement towards the tradition of Torah being the

most important aspect of Judean religion. In this vision, the flying scroll, which is a symbol for

Torah, has its own mythic power to enforce the laws of God. YHWH and Torah are not

dependant on governments or people to bring justice into the land. Thus, when the people of God

were at their weakest point, Torah remained as powerful and potent as it all ways had been. God

has established Torah to be the power, which dictates the righteous life and punishes the wicked

18

and he made the Torah to be part of the natural order of the world. These messages would have

been encouraging to the late sixth century Judean community because it was likely struggling

with understanding God as all-powerful when his kingdom was in ruins and most of his people

were in exile.

19

BIBLOGRAPHY

Baron, David. The Visions and Prophesies of Zechariah, Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1972.

Chapman, Stephen B. “Reading the Bible as Witness: Divine Retribution in the Old Testament,” pages171-90 in Perspectives on Religious Study 31 (2004).

Clifford, Richard. “The Book of Second Isaiah,” pages 490-501 in vol. 3 of Anchor Bible Dictionary, edited by David Noel Freedman, New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Driver, G. R. and John C Mills, The Babylonian Laws, vol. 2, 2 vols., Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968.

Feder, Yitzhaq. “Mechanics of Retribution in Hittite, Mesopotamian and Ancient Israelite Sources,” Pages 119-157 in Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religion 2 (2010).

Hanson, Paul D. “Apocalypse and Apocalypticism.” Pages 279-80 in vol. 1 of Anchor Bible Dictionary, edited by David Noel Freedman, 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Hossfeld, F. L. and E. Reuter, “ספר,” Pages 326-41 in Vol. 10 The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Edited by Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Riggren and Heinz-Josef Fabry, 15 Vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.

Janzen, David. “Politics, Settlement, and Temple Community in Persian-Period Yehud,” Pages 490-510 in Catholic Biblical Quarterly 64 (2002).

McEvenue, Sean “The Political Structure in Judah from Cyrus to Nehemiah,” 353-54 Catholic Biblical Quarterly 42 (1981).

Meier, Samuel A. Themes and Transformations in Old Testament Prophesy. Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2009.

Meyers, Carol L. and Eric M. Meyers. “The Book of Zechariah: Zechariah 1-8,” Pages 1061-65 in vol. 6 of Anchor Bible Dictionary, edited by David Noel Freedman, 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Meyers, Carol L. and Eric M. Meyers. Haggai and Zechariah, The Anchor Bible 25B, New York: Doubleday, 1987.

Na’aman, Nadav “The ‘Discovered Book’ and the Legitimation of the Josiah Reform,” Pages 47-62 in Journal of Biblical Literature 130 (2011).

20

Nihan, Christophe. From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch: A Study in the Composition of the Book of Leviticus. Edited by Mark Smith, Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007.

Person, Raymond F. The Deuteronomic School: History, Social Setting, and Literature, Atlanta: The Society of Biblical Literature, 2002.

Propp, William. Exodus 19-40, Anchor Bible Commentary 2A, Edited by David Noel Freedman and William Albright, New York: Double Day, 2006.

Rudman, Dominic. “Zechariah 5 and the Priestly Law,” 194-206 in Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 14 (2000).

Schaper, Joachim. “Exilic and Post Exilic Prophesy and the Orality/Literacy Problem,” Pages 324-41 in Vetus Testamentum 55, (2005).

Scharbert, Josef. “אלה” pages 261-66 in vol. 1 of The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, edited by G. Johannnes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren, 15 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974.

Schmitt, John. “Preexilic Hebrew Prophecy,” Pages 482-89 in Vol. 5 of Anchor Bible Dictionary, Edited by David Noel Freedman, 6 Vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Van Seeters, John The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus-Numbers Louisville: John Knox Press, 1994.

Wellhausen, Julius. Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel, Translated by J. Sutherland Black and Allan Menzies, World Publishing: Cleveland, 1965 [reprint from 1878].

Yadin, Azzan. “קול as Hypostasis in the Hebrew Bible,” pages 601-626 in Journal of Biblical Literature 122 (2003).

Young, T. Culyer. “Darius,” pages 37-8 in vol. 2 of Anchor Bible Dictionary, edited by David Noel Freedman, 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992.