A Note on Zephaniah

Zeph 2,10-11 has a long history within biblical scholarship as a "problem text". Scholars have recognised a fundamental difference between Zeph 2,10-11 and its surrounding context in that while these two verses are prose, those around it are poetry. Moreover, Zeph 2,10-11 expresses a universal view of Yahweh’s dominion which sits ill with the oracles against Moab and Ammon in Zephaniah 2,8-9¹. On this basis, most commentators would argue for a postexilic date for these two verses².

        However, a further difficulty occurs in 2,11 which seems to express the belief that Yahweh will overcome the gods of the nations and that their worshippers will desert them in favour of the God of Israel. Although this interpretative line is taken by almost all commentators, there is in fact very little consensus on the way in which Yahweh is to overcome these foreign gods. The Hebrew text itself reads:

yhl)-lk t) hzr yk Mhyl( hwhy )rwn 
Mywgh yy) lk wmwqmm #$y) wl-wwxt#$yw Cr)h

"The Lord will be terrible unto them: for he will famish all the gods of the earth; and men shall worship him, everyone from his place, even all the isles of the nations" (RV). Most discussion has taken place about the meaning of the verb hzr, for it is on this word that the meaning of the whole verse hinges.

        The Meaning of hzr

        The form hzr is a Qal perfect 3 m.sg. and is a hapax legomenon, although the root is attested elsewhere in the OT as a niphal "to be weak" (Num 13,20; Isa 10,16; 17,4; 24,16; Ezek 24,20; Mic 6,10; Ps 106,15). The translations of the Septuagint and Peshitta (LXX: e)xoleqreu/sei; P: [nwbd]) suggest a meaning "destroy", although this seems to be an attempt to interpret the verb from its context rather than its root meaning³. Similar in this respect is the Targum’s Ky)m) ("humble"), although the Vulgate’s attenuabit supports the meaning of Yahweh "enfeebling" or "famishing" the gods.

        The fact that the context seems to demand a transitive and causative rendering of the verb (i.e. "to make lean, famish") lies behind the suggestions of several commentators that the form should be emended to a Piel imperfect hz@Eray: understanding the yodh to have fallen out through

_______________________
110

haplography⁴. While this is possible, Ben Zvi points to a possible similar usage of the Qal of #$lx in Exod 17,13 ("Joshua overwhelmed Amalek/made Amalek weak") which may suggest that the Qal of hzr could, after all, be understood causatively⁵.

        An alternative suggestion made by Sabottka is that the verb in Zeph 2,11 is derived from a second root hzr "to be strong, to rule", known from Aramaic (cf. Prov 14,28), and on this basis he translates it "beherrscht"⁶. While this particular suggestion has some sympathy from Ben Zvi and Berlin, the consensus remains that we are dealing with root hzr (I) "to be famished"⁷.

        In what sense, then, can Yahweh be said to "make lean" the gods of the nations? The apparent inappropriateness of this meaning of the verb has been remarked upon more than once⁸. Various explanations have been put forward by commentators. Berlin, for example, translates hzr "shrivel" (so also NRSV, NJPS), arguing that Yahweh will "shrink" the gods by constricting their domain⁹. Watts attempts to sidestep the problem by combining Sabottka’s suggestion with the scholarly consensus and agrees with the NEB’s "reduce to beggary", effectively arguing that Yahweh will famish the gods and rule over them totally¹⁰. Smith puts forward two suggestions, the first being that by destroying the nations, Yahweh will enfeeble the gods, the second being a more literal understanding of the verb in which either by destruction of the nations or by their conversion, sacrificial offerings for the gods would cease (cf. Ezek 44,7)¹¹.

        Perhaps because of a lack of hard evidence, Smith’s latter suggestion has been largely ignored. I have been unable to find any reference to altar-offerings as "food" for the gods in the Akkadian or Egyptian literature. However, there are a number of Akkadian texts which do bear directly on the problem in Zeph 2,11.

        Babylonian Evidence

        When the OT speaks of gods other than Yahweh, it is to all intents and purposes speaking of idolatry (e.g. 1 Chr 16,26 cf. Ps 96,5; Isa 42,17; Jer 2,28; 10,11 cf. 10,12-16). While we know comparatively little about religious practices surrounding the cult image in Palestine, much is known

_______________________
111

about such practices in Babylon and Egypt. According to Babylonian thought, there was a clear identity between the cult statue and the god whom it was supposed to represent. While the god remained transcendent, something of the divine essence lodged within the statue, and it was held to be truly "alive". In this context, Jacobsen cites an inscription of King Agum-kakrime of Babylon (1602-1585 BCE) speaking of the return of a statue to the temple from which it was plundered in terms underlining its identity with the deity¹²: "I sent to a faraway land and so they verily led hither by the hand Marduk and Sarpanitum...To Esagila and Babylon I verily returned them..."¹³.

        In both Egypt and Babylon, the cult statue was animated by means of a ceremony called "opening (or washing) the mouth". According to Morenz, this was "a ritual...performed on the statues while they were still in the sculptor’s workshop..., as a result of which the work of human hands was thought to come alive"¹⁴. Such a belief is reflected in a text in the British Museum relating how an image of the sun god Shamash was remade at the command of Nabu-appla-iddina (885-852 BCE): "...he carefully prepared the image of Shamash, the great lord...he washed his mouth and he (i.e. Shamash) took up his dwelling (sc. in the statue)" (BM 91000 col. iv. 20-28). This belief in the "living" nature of the statue is reflected in this particular text by the lavish gifts of food (cols. iv. 1.47–v. 1.7) and clothes (cols. v. 39–vi. 13) given to the image by Nabu-apla-iddina¹⁵. In the same context, a hymn from the time of Ashurbanipal deals with the animation of a statue of the moon-god:

You day on which a god was formed, a pure image perfected,
You day on which a god was made manifest unto all countries...
...(Yet) this new moon cannot
— not having undergone the rite of mouth washing —
Smell incense, eat food, drink water¹⁶.

        Concerning this idea, Curtis observes that "the daily care given to the statue reflects the belief that the statue was alive and needed the same attention and sustenance that any living individual would require. Two meals a day were provided for the images in the Uruk temple"¹⁷. The

_______________________
112

elaborate ritual of these meals, comparable to those of the king, is amply described by Oppenheim: specific cuts of meat and aesthetically arranged fruit were served on golden platters to the image and a linen curtain drawn around it while it "ate" the meal. Then water would be brought for the image to wash its hands and the curtain drawn once more¹⁸. The similarity between the "life" of a cult image and that of a king is underlined further by the fact that they were even taken out to hunt on occasion¹⁹!

        If one considers the conversion of the nations to the worship of Yahweh in the light of these practices, it is clear that the claim that Yahweh will "famish" the gods in Zeph 2,11 probably refers to the withdrawal of the daily meals allocated to the cult images. As Faur notes, "the idol ate the food offered to him, drawing from it the energy needed for his sustenance and the execution of his numerous activities"²⁰.The text in Zeph 2,11 would therefore play ironically on the idea of the withdrawal of this food resulting in the gods becoming "famished" and powerless (just as idol fabrication texts in Jeremiah and Deutero-Isaiah play on the inability of the Babylonian craftsmen to create a living image)²¹. If commentators such as Kapelrud and Keller are correct in their argument that the text in question is postexilic, it may even have been the specifically Babylonian ceremonies cited above which called to mind the metaphor — although there is no evidence that similar practices did not go on in Palestine before the Babylonian exile.

SUMMARY

The phrase Cr)h yhl) lk t) hzr ... hwhy in Zeph 2,11 has long been a source of confusion for commentators and various attempts have been made to explain the term hzr: does Yahweh "shrink" the gods by reducing their domains, or can we understand this term as derived from an Aramaic root and translate, "Yahweh...will rule..."? An alternative suggestion, long-discarded, takes a more literal line and understands Yahweh to "famish" the gods through the withdrawal of burnt offerings made by their worshippers. While this reading is working along the right lines, this passage appears in fact to refer to the Babylonian ritual of providing cult images with formal meals - a practice which will end with the conversion of the nations.

© 1999 Biblica

Notes: