Ezekiel: Current Debates and Future Directions (Forschungen Zum Alten Testament) 9783161530890, 9783161547140, 3161530896

Citation preview

Forschungen zum Alten Testament Edited by Konrad Schmid (Zürich) · Mark S. Smith (Princeton) Hermann Spieckermann (Göttingen)

112

Ezekiel Current Debates and Future Directions

Edited by

William A. Tooman and Penelope Barter

Mohr Siebeck

William A. Tooman is Senior Lecturer in Hebrew Bible, University of St Andrews. Penelope Barter is Teaching Associate, University of Chester.

e-ISBN PDF 978 3-16-154714-0 ISBN 978 3-16-153089-0 ISSN 0940-4155 (Forschungen zum Alten Testament) Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data is available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

© 2017  by Mohr Siebeck Tübingen, Germany. www.mohr.de This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was typeset by Martin Fischer in Tübingen, printed by Gulde-Druck in Tübingen on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Spinner in Ottersweier. Printed in Germany.

for Frank

Table of Contents Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XI Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIII Part 1

The State of the Art Karl-Friedrich Pohlmann Ezekiel: New Directions and Current Debates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Thomas Krüger Ezekiel Studies: Present State and Future Outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Part 2

Ezekiel’s Book and its Thought in Diachronic Perspective Franz Sedlmeier The Proclamation of Salvation in the Book of Ezekiel: Restoration or Traces of ‘Eschatological’ Hope? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Anja Klein Ezekiel 6.1–7 and 36.1–15: The Idea of the Mountains in the Book of Ezekiel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Steven S. Tuell The Book of Ezekiel as a Work In Progress: Indications from the Lament Over the King of Tyre (28.11–19) . . . . . . . . . . 66 Franz Sedlmeier The Figure of David and His Importance in Ezekiel 34–37 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Michael Konkel The Vision of the Dry Bones (Ezek 37.1–14): Resurrection, Restoration or What? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

VIII

Table of Contents

Penelope Barter The Reuse of Ezekiel 20 in the Composition of Ezekiel 36.16–32 . . . . . . . . . 120 Michael A. Lyons Extension and Allusion: The Composition of Ezekiel 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 Christophe L. Nihan Ezekiel 34–37 and Leviticus 26: A Reevaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 Anja Klein Salvation for Sheep and Bones: Ezek 34 and 37 as Corner Pillars of Ezekiel’s Prophecy of Salvation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 Frank-Lothar Hossfeld † The Gog Oracles of Ezekiel between Psalms and the Priestly Writer . . . . . . 194 Michael Konkel Ezekiel 38–39 in Current Research: Questions and Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . 199 Ingrid E. Lilly ‘Like the Vision’: Temple Tours, Comparative Genre, and Scribal Composition in Ezekiel 43 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210 Part 3

Ezekiel’s Book and its Thought in Synchronic Perspective Tyler D. Mayfield Literary Structure and Formulas in Ezekiel 34–37 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 John T. Strong Cosmic Re-Creation and Ezekiel’s Vocabulary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245 John T. Strong The Conquest of the Land and Yahweh’s Honor before the Nations in Ezekiel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285

Table of Contents

IX

Tobias Häner Reading Ezekiel 36.16–38 in Light of the Book: Observations on the Remembrance and Shame after Restoration (36.31–32) in a Synchronic Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323 Stephen L. Cook Burgeoning Holiness: Fecundity Let Loose in Ezekiel 34–36 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345 Stephen L. Cook Ezekiel’s Recovery of Premonarchic, Tribal Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 360 Part 4

Trauma and its Effects Jacqueline E. Lapsley The Proliferation of Grotesque Bodies in Ezekiel: The Case of Ezekiel 23 . . 377 Daniel L. Smith-Christopher Deconstructing Terror in Ezekiel: The ‘Valley of Bones’ Vision as Response to Trauma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391 Part 5

Ezekiel’s Afterlife: Interpretation and Reception Michael A. Lyons Who Takes the Initiative? Reading Ezekiel in the Second Temple Period and Late Antiquity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417 Mark W. Elliott The Contribution of the History of Ezekiel Interpretation and the Tradition of ‘Reformed’ Exegesis, with Particular Reference to Ezekiel 21.25–27 (30–32) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 442 Paul M. Joyce Reception and Interpretation in Ezekiel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 459 Daniel L. Smith-Christopher Ezekiel as José Posada: An Experiment in Cultural Exegesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 477

X

Table of Contents

Part 6

Reappraisal William A. Tooman Literary Unity, Empirical Models, and the Compatibility of Synchronic and Diachronic Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 497 Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 513 Index of Ancient Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 515 Index of Modern Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 538 Subject Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 547

Acknowledgements First and foremost, we would like to thank the authors who have given of their time, energy, and ideas to make this volume possible. Working with each and every one of you was a privilege and a pleasure. We would also like to thank the Society of Biblical Literature for allowing us to embed our two conferences within the international meeting, greatly simplifying the logistics to be managed. Of course we would be remiss to overlook Dr. Henning Ziebritzki, Cheflektor für Theologie und Judaistik at Mohr Siebeck, and the editors of the FAT series, Profs. Konrad Schmid, Mark Smith, and Hermann Spieckermann, who graciously accepted the volume into the series Forschungen zum Alten Testament. William Tooman would like to extend special thanks to the Russell Trust for providing funds to underwrite the two conferences and to the universities of St Andrews and Vienna for hosting us. Thanks are also due to my co-editor, Penelope Barter, for her cheerful labor and her meticulous editorial eye. Penny made the task of editing the papers as much a delight as such a task can ever be. I would also like to thank various colleagues and university seminars that allowed me to formulate and express some of my own ideas related to this project in the last three years: Profs. Alexander Samely and George Brooke of the University of Manchester, colleagues and students of the Biblical Studies Research Seminar (St Andrews) and the Centre for Jewish Studies Research Seminar (Manchester), the Ezekiel program unit of the Society of Biblical Literature, and the Prophets program unit of the SBL international meeting. Finally, thanks are due in particular to the members of the Yaḥad. (You know who you are.) Penelope Barter would firstly like to thank the contributors and guests at the Ezekiel in International Perspective symposia in St Andrews and Vienna for such thought-provoking and supportive discussion over the years – what a joy! Thanks are also obviously due, and warmly given, to my co-editor, Dr. William Tooman, without whose dedication and enthusiasm this volume would not exist. Moreover, even though both the meetings and the volume attracted contributions from some senior scholars of immense prestige in Ezekiel studies, he was insistent upon also including the more junior amongst us from the start – a sentiment for which I am most grateful. Last, but by no means least, I offer my thanks to those who heard or read earlier versions of my own chapter and so graciously offered their feedback: Prof. John T. Strong (Missouri State University), Dr. Tyler D. Mayfield (Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary), and the students and staff of the University of St Andrews Biblical Studies Research Seminar.

Preface The papers collected in this volume were first presented at the Society of Biblical Literature international meeting in St Andrews (2013) and Vienna (2014). All the papers were invited, presented in a series of special sessions under the title “Ezekiel in International Perspective.” The principal aim was to widen contact, cultivate understanding, and foster collaboration between international colleagues who, though working on the same ancient text, possess diverse points of view and operate from different methodological frames. The goal was not quixotic, to resolve our methodological differences once-and-for-all or to span the wide chasms between our academic cultures. Rather, the aim was to allow a moment of introspection, to provide the freedom and opportunity to reflect on questions of appropriate evidence, suitable methodology, and argumentative plausibility by juxtaposing papers from diverse perspectives and providing a collegial environment for dialogue and debate. There were two secondary goals as well. In the conference sessions themselves, we hoped to foster interaction with colleagues who seldom or never attend the society’s national meeting. With an eye on this volume, we also hoped to make the scholarship of certain prominent voices in Ezekiel scholarship available to English readers for the first time. Twenty scholars were invited to present papers in St Andrews and twenty in Vienna. The invitees represented a wide array of prominent voices from English-, Hebrew-, and German-speaking scholarship. It goes without saying that many who were invited could not participate, and not every participant could give his or her paper to the volume. Nonetheless, we have striven to represent as many of the dominant voices in the field as possible. What results is a snapshot, a momentary reflection of the topics, texts, and methods with which the majority of Ezekiel scholars are currently working. This, as we will see, is instructive in its own right, even apart from the results of the research. For St Andrews, participants were asked to write papers that would present any results that they had achieved in their recent research, resulting in highly diverse array of papers. On the morning of the final day of the conference, a workshop was convened to discuss the similarities and differences, compatibilities and incompatibilities in the approaches and the results reflected in the various papers. Anticipating the discussion, Karl-Friedrich Pohlmann and Thomas Krüger offered synthetic, analytic papers on the state of Ezekiel research across the international scene, including reflection on trends and geographical distinctives apparent within the international landscape as a whole. During the workshop, the participants agreed that a second year of papers was desirable. It was decided

XIV

Preface

that restricting our attention to certain chapters in Ezekiel would facilitate comparison and contrast. In the end, we chose Ezekiel 34–39. These chapters have been the focus of numerous monographs and article-length studies in recent years and seemed rich ground for discussion and debate. The meeting in Vienna that resulted followed the pattern set in St Andrews: three days of papers followed by a morning workshop in which we reflected on the papers as a body and identified gaps in current research on the book. The organization of this book reflects the design of the two meetings. Pohlmann’s and Krüger’s essays make up the first part, “The State of the Art.” The two chapters offer different assessments of the current scholarly situation, its influences, trajectories, and limitations. The last section, “Reappraisal,” presents a single essay by William Tooman. This essay offers some reflections on the primary methodological divide highlighted by Pohlmann and Krüger, namely the compatibility or incompatibility of synchronic and diachronic reading. Between the two poles, the chapters have been collected in four divisions, following a pattern broadly shared by Pohlmann and Krüger. These divisions represent the major programmes operative in Ezekiel studies today. Not every methodological approach is equally productive in current Ezekiel scholarship. Our contributors do not commonly apply the wide varieties of ideological criticism that are available to modern readers, for example. Rather, the traditional disciplines of biblical studies predominate, approaches like historical-criticism, literary and structural analyses, and comparison with ancient Near Eastern literatures. These studies are collected in Parts 2 and 3: “Ezekiel’s Book and its Thought in Diachronic Perspective” and “Ezekiel’s Book and its Thought in Synchronic Perspective.” (It is important to point out that the editors applied the classical Saussurian meaning of ‘synchronic’ and ‘diachronic’ in the organization of the volume, that is: ‘at a fixed point in time’ and ‘through time.’ Pohlmann and Krüger use these terms with a somewhat different denotation, to designate types of text-analytic methodologies.) Beyond the traditional biblical methodologies, the speciality that has made the most significant inroad in Ezekiel studies is reception history. Likewise, it is not surprising considering the book’s content that Ezekiel has also begun to feature rather prominently in trauma studies. Because of the growing prominence of these two approaches in contemporary scholarship, each is represented by a division of its own: “Part 4. Trauma and its Effects” and “Part 5. Ezekiel’s Afterlife.” Most readers will, of course, dip into the book only at points of interest. If, however, one reads through a Part from beginning to end, an evolvement will be detected. Part 2 is organized as a movement. It begins with five essays on the evolution of ideas represented in the book, followed by three essays comparing Ezekiel to other scriptural literature from an inner-biblical point of view. Three text-genetic essays, postulating the evolution of particular parts of the book, follow these, in turn. The section concludes with a text-critical essay exploring the

Preface

XV

affect of genre on scribal interventions reflected in the Hebrew manuscripts and in the Greek versions. The other parts of the volume are organized in broadly impressionistic movements as well. Part 3 is ‘synchronic’ in the sense that these chapters do not concern themselves with diachronic dimensions of the book’s literature or thought. The first two essays are global in their perspective. The first deals with the structure of the book as a whole, the second with the dependence of the book (as an intact product) on ancient Near Eastern creation and chaos traditions. The others deal with smaller text-segments and are arranged in the order of Ezekiel’s chapters to which they attend. Part 4 comprises only two chapters, but Part 5 was organized based on methodological considerations. The first pair of essays examine aspects of history-of-interpretation, whereas the second pair take a wider reception-historical approach. A book of this kind serves more than one purpose. It is our hope that it can accomplish two. It provides a snapshot of some of the main avenues of exploration in current Ezekiel studies, each chapter representing, as it were, a case study on a current academic endeavor. It can also serve to identify gaps in current scholarship. In this way, it can be a catalyst to new research, fostering new trajectories of investigation and inquiry. During the preparation of this volume, one of our contributors, the eminent Prof. Frank-Lothar Hossfeld passed away. Frank was Professor for Old Testament at the Department of Catholic Theology at the University of Bonn from 1982 until his retirement in 2009. More than this, he was a creative and influential scholar, a consummate gentleman, and a friend. This volume is dedicated to his memory. St Andrews/Chester, June 2016

William A. Tooman and Penelope Barter

Part 1

The State of the Art

Ezekiel: New Directions and Current Debates Karl-Friedrich Pohlmann

1. Some Short Remarks about Developments in Research at Present 1.1 Holistic Interpretation – Synchronic Reading of the Text Scholars such as Moshe Greenberg, Daniel Block and others are convinced that most parts of the Book of Ezekiel came from the prophet himself. The chronology of the oracles and the historical circumstances reflected in them assign them to a narrow temporal range well within the span of a single life. The persuasion grows on one as piece after piece falls into the established patterns and ideas that a coherent world of vision is emerging, contemporary with the sixth-century prophet and decisively shaped by him, if not the very words of Ezekiel himself.1

Greenberg states “that the present book of Ezekiel is the product of art and intelligent design”2 in spite of “irregularities in the grouping of the oracles”;3 he advocates a “holistic interpretation”4 rejecting the usual methods of modern biblical criticism because of their approach, which is “a priori, an array of unproved (and unprovable) modern assumptions and conventions that confirm themselves through the results obtained by forcing them on the text and altering, reducing, and reordering it accordingly.”5 Greenberg admits that: we can hardly suppose that the standard text (MT) represents a verbatim record of what Ezekiel published to his audience of exiles. But the received Hebrew is the only Hebrew version of his words extant; it must ultimately go back to him and therefore must serve as the main – often the sole – primary source for the study of his message.6

The influential contributions of Moshe Greenberg have “spurred a number of studies that basically accept his viewpoint.”7 These scholars want the interpreta1 Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 22 (Garden City: Doubleday, 1983), 26 f. 2 Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 26. 3 Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 5. 4 Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 18. 5 Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 20. 6 Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 19. 7 Casey A. Strine, Sworn Enemies: The Divine Oath, the Book of Ezekiel, and the Polemics of Exile, BZAW 436 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013), 20.

4

Karl-Friedrich Pohlmann

tion of the Hebrew Bible restricted to the text as it stands in the canonical versions of the books;8 their interpretations do not take into account literary versions that are possibly earlier, and their different and special theological insights. Daniel I. Block, in the wake of Greenberg,9 sees “the possibility of the prophet’s own hand in the book’s composition,”10 adding: “Given the apparently decreasing frequency of his prophetic experiences toward the end of his tenure, he probably had time to transfer them all to a series of scrolls, inserting glosses in earlier oracles in the light of later prophecies, and occasionally correlating oracles with catchwords and phrases.”11 Further, Daniel I. Block’s commentary is “based on the Hebrew text”;12 and “… the reconstruction of a Hebrew Vorlage on the basis of LXX, or any other early version for that matter, even when the manuscripts agree, is a highly subjective task and full of pitfalls.”13 Scholars with a similar perspective include: Gordon H. Matties, Mark F. Rooker, Julie Galambush, Thomas Renz, Jacqueline E. Lapsley, Ka Leung Wong, and, in Germany, Volkmar Premstaller among others.14 The latest study I have come across on the Book of Ezekiel as a holistic and synchronic approach is Ruth Poser’s voluminous dissertation.15 It is worth mentioning, of course, that synchronically-oriented treatises ignore the importance of the Old Greek manuscript Papyrus 967 (Pap967). I will come back to that later in more detail.   8 On this point see the critical remarks by Konrad Schmid, Buchgestalten des Jeremiabuches. Untersuchungen zur Redaktions‑ und Rezeptionsgeschichte von Jer 30–33 im Kontext des Buches, WMANT 72 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1996), 24 f.   9 See Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel. Chapters 1–24, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 24. See also 33: “I follow Greenberg’s more holistic approach.” 10 Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 20. 11 Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 22. 12 Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 42 f. 13 Block, The Book of Ezekiel. Chapters 25–48, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 340. 14 Gordon H. Matties, Ezekiel 18 and the Rhetoric of Moral Discourse, SBLDS 126 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990); Mark F. Rooker, Biblical Hebrew in Transition: The Language of the Book of Ezekiel, JSOTSup 90 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990); Julie Galambush, Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel: The City as Yahweh’s Wife, SBLDS 130 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992); Thomas Renz, The Rhetorical Function of the Book of Ezekiel, VTSup 76 (Leiden: Brill, 1999): “… yet the focus will remain on a synchronic reading of the text” (22); Jacqueline E. Lapsley, Can These Bones Live? The Problem of the Moral Self in the Book of Ezekiel, BZAW 301 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000); Ka Leung Wong, The Idea of Retribution in the Book of Ezekiel, VTSup 87 (Leiden: Brill, 2001): “… the approach we adopt is basically synchronic” (29); Volkmar Premstaller, Fremdvölkersprüche des Ezechielbuches, FB 104 (Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 2005). 15 Ruth Poser, Das Ezechielbuch als Trauma-Literatur, VTSup 154 (Leiden: Brill, 2012): “Als Textgrundlage meiner Analysen habe ich die in der jüdischen Tradition eindeutig festgelegte gewählt, ich richte mich also nach dem masoretischen Text …” (8); “… die Rückführung der Befremdlichkeiten auf (wenig geschickte) Eingriffe späterer Redaktoren oder Buchherausgeber wird dem Ezechielbuch – das sich derarart einheitlich darstellt, dass eine Trennung zwischen primären und sekundärem Material kaum möglich ist – nicht gerecht” (51). On Poser’s book, see also 5.0 Ezekiel Texts and Trauma Studies below.

Ezekiel: New Directions and Current Debates

5

1.2 Diachronic Approaches On the other hand, there are many scholars arguing in favour of a diachronic reading of the book, because, in recent decades, they have discovered multiple redactional layers, far beyond Zimmerli’s Fortschreibungsmodell. For them, there is every indication that the majority of the text is a product of the Persian period or later. See for example: Jörg Garscha, Thomas Krüger, Karl-F. Pohlmann, Thilo A. Rudnig, Michael Konkel, Karin Schöpflin, Peter Schwagmeier, and Anja Klein.16 In a few words, I would like to outline my own working model of the origin and the development of the Book of Ezekiel. In a series of related texts (e. g. 1.1–3*; 3.10–16*; 8–11*; 14.21–23; 15.6–8; 17.19–24; 24.25–27*; 33.21–39) in the Book of Ezekiel the reader is told that after the disaster of 587 BCE Yahweh completely rejected the people that remained in Judah and Jerusalem and that, in the end, none of them were left in the land of Israel. As we well know, this view did not correspond to the historical facts. Yet, the editors of these passages wanted to demonstrate that it was exclusively the exilic community of 597 BCE and their descendants in Babylon who would play a possible role in Yahweh’s plan for Israel’s future.17 It is for that reason that I have proposed a gola-oriented or exilic-redaction in the Book of Ezekiel (and in the Book of Jeremiah as well, cf. Jer 24).18 The editors responsible were probably active around the end of the 6th century or later, revising an older collection or book of prophetic messages. To give an exact date to this first-gola oriented redaction is very difficult. In postexilic days, the existence of a world-wide Israelite diaspora raised the question of 16 Jörg Garscha, Studien zum Ezechielbuch. Eine redaktionskritische Untersuchung von Ez 1–39, Europäische Hochschulschriften 23 (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1974); Thomas Krüger, Geschichtskonzepte im Ezechielbuch, BZAW 180 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989); Karl-F. Pohlmann, Ezechielstudien. Zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Buches und zur Frage nach den ältesten Texten, BZAW 202 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992); Thilo A. Rudnig, Heilig und Profan. Redaktionskritische Studien zu Ez 40–48, BZAW 287 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000); Michael Konkel, Architektonik des Heiligen: Studien zur zweiten Tempelvision Ezechiels (Ez 40–48), BBB 129 (Berlin: Philo, 2001); Karin Schöpflin, Theologie als Biographie im Ezechielbuch. Ein Beitrag zur Konzeption alttestamentlicher Prophetie, FAT 36 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002); Peter Schwagmeier, Untersuchungen zu Textgeschichte und Entstehung des Ezechielbuches in masoretischer und griechischer Überlieferung (PhD diss., Universität Zürich, 2004); Anja Klein, Schriftauslegung im Ezechielbuch. Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Ez 34–39, BZAW 391 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008). 17 We only have to remind ourselves of those groups who returned under the leadership of Zerubbabel, grandson of the king, Jehoiachin, having been exiled in 597 BCE. These groups claimed political and religious control over Jerusalem, and among them were the editors who made great efforts to prove the theological legitimacy of such claims; they revised older texts and rearranged the texts at hand, because they wanted to prove that only the exiles of 597 BCE were Yahweh’s chosen people and not the remnant of “Israel” in Judah and Jerusalem after 587 BCE. 18 See Pohlmann, Ezechielstudien, 3–45, 120–131; Karl-F. Pohlmann, Studien zum Jeremiabuch. Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach der Entstehung des Jeremiabuches, FRLANT 137 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978), 183 ff.

6

Karl-Friedrich Pohlmann

its legitimate relationship to Jerusalem as the centre of the Yahweh-religion. For this reason, we find several redactional texts laying special emphasis on the diaspora situation, that is Yahweh’s care for and interest in the dispersed Israelites.19 Finally, there are some very late passages of the text in Ezekiel’s visions (Ezek 1–3; 8–11; 37.1 ff.; 40–48) which describe the prophet’s visionary insights into the sphere of divine planning and action. They are similar to a special type of apocalyptic vision as found, for instance, in the Book of Daniel (the final edition between 167 and 165 BCE) and other apocalyptic texts.20 In Germany, scholars such as Christoph Levin, Konrad Schmid, Reinhard Gregor Kratz, Thilo A. Rudnig, Peter Schwagmeier, Anja Klein, and others, propagate similar ideas.21 For scholars pursuing research in this direction, the history of the origin of the Book of Ezekiel covers the time from the early period of the Persian Empire22 at least until the mid-4th century BCE, possibly until the end of the 3rd century. Yet as we have seen, exact dating is very difficult. So this is the situation with which we are faced: there are synchronic as well as diachronic approaches to the Book of Ezekiel. Must we decide between them or is there a middle course? 1.3 A Middle Course? Recently, Casey A. Strine has emphasized that “both trends are susceptible to exaggerating their position, because there is a tendency either” towards “splintering the text into an unmanageable number of layers or” towards “falling into an implicit attribution of the entire book to the prophet himself.” In his opinion “[t]he actual historical development most likely lies somewhere in between.”23 Because of the existence of Papyrus 967, according to Strine: “Space must remain 19 See e. g., Ezek 4.13; 6.8–10; 11.16 f.; 12.11, 15 f.; 20.23; 22.15 f.; 36.19 (cf. Jer 23.7 f.; 32.37– 41); cf. Karl-F. Pohlmann, Das Buch des Propheten Hesekiel (Ezechiel) Kapitel 1–19, ATD 22/1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 31 f.; Pohlmann, Ezechielstudien, 46–87, 131–134. 20 See e. g., J. Becker, “Erwägungen zur ezechielischen Frage” in Künder des Wortes, ed. Lothar Ruppert, Peter Weimar, and Erich Zenger (Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1982), 137–149; see also Pohlmann, Hesekiel 1–19, 61. 21 Christoph Levin, Verheissung des neuen Bundes in ihrem theologiegeschichtlichen Zusammenhang ausgelegt, FRLANT 137 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985); Schmid, Buchgestalten, 254 ff; Reinhard G. Kratz, Translatio iperii: Untersuchungen zu den aramäischen Danielerzählungen und ihrem theologiegeschichtlichen Umfeld, WMANT 63 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991), 192 ff; Rudnig, Heilig und Profan; Schwagmeier, Untersuchungen; Klein, Schriftauslegung im Ezechielbuch. 22 See, e. g., Klein, Schriftauslegung, 352. 23 Strine, Sworn Enemies, 20, with reference to Ronald E. Clements’ statement that “there is little reason therefore for allocating this part (c. 1–24) of the formation of the book of Ezekiel beyond the end of the sixth century, by which time most of the material contained in it can be satisfactorily explained” (cf. Ronald E. Clements, “The Chronology of Redaction in Ez 1–24” in Ezekiel and His Book, ed. Johan Lust, BETL 74 [Leuven: Peeters; Leuven University Press, 1986], 294).

Ezekiel: New Directions and Current Debates

7

for arguments that selected parts of the text did receive further editing or expansion in the fifth century BCE or later. Granting this possibility, there is a solid foundation of evidence that the majority of the book, arranged largely in its final shape, is a product of the Neo-Babylonian period.”24 Paul Joyce declares on the one hand, “there is no clear-cut distinction between the style and theology of Ezekiel and of those who followed him”, and on the other, “we must endeavour where possible, then, to discriminate between primary material and secondary elaboration, but we must undertake this task in the realization that assured results will be rare.”25 Leslie C. Allen’s commentary “endeavours to stand midway between those of Zimmerli and Greenberg.”26 According to Allen, “American scholarship rightly tends to look askance at the excesses of some German redaction critics.”27 He decides that: the book contains persistent evidence of literary units that are made up of three layers: a basic oracle, a continuation of updating that stays relatively close to the basic material, and a closing oracle that stands apart from the earlier two pieces. The conclusion to be drawn is that the first two layers are to be ascribed to Ezekiel and the third to heirs to his work who were concerned to preserve it and adapt it to the needs of a succeeding generation.28

Allen adds that “… the intent of the exilic redactors was obviously to amplify and explain theologically the positive messages of Ezekiel for a second generation …”29 “The intended readers or hearers were living in the closing years of the exile …”30 Furthermore I would like to mention Franz Sedlmeier who argues for a “Mittelweg zwischen beiden Positionen,” i. e. “zwischen einer synchron orientierten Exegese und einem diachron orientierten Auslegungskonzept.”31 Also, Frank-Lothar Hossfeld recommends “in der Ezechielexegese den ‘goldenen Mittelweg’.”32 Sworn Enemies, 21. Joyce, Divine Initiative and Human Response in Ezekiel, JSOTSup 51 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989), 31; see also Joyce’s Ezekiel: A Commentary, LHBOTS 482 (New York: T&T Clark, 2007). 26 Leslie C. Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, WBC 28 (Dallas, Word: 1994), xxiii. 27 Leslie C. Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, WBC 29 (Dallas: Word, 1990), xxv. 28 Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, xxv. 29 Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, xxvi. 30 Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, xxvi. 31 Franz Sedlmeier, Studien zu Komposition und Theologie von Ezechiel 20, SBB 21 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1990), 55. Recently Sedlmeier takes into account a “längere(n) Wachstumsgeschichte des Ezechielbuches … bis in die hellenistische Zeit …”: Franz Sedlmeier, Das Buch Ezechiel 1–24, Neuer Stuttgarter Kommentar 21,1 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2002); see also Sedlmeier’s chapters in this volume. 32 Frank-L. Hossfeld, “Das Buch Ezechiel” in Einleitung in das Alte Testament, ed. Erich Zenger et al., 8th ed., Kohlhammer Studienbücher Theologie 1,1 (Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer, 2012), 605. 24 Strine, 25 Paul

8

Karl-Friedrich Pohlmann

1.4 Conclusions The existence of the Old Greek manuscript Pap967,33 and the fact that the content and arrangement of at least Ezek 36–39 was still not settled at the time of this translation, is a strong argument against an exclusively synchronic approach, and also an irrefutable indication that the book did receive further editing. In my view it is not possible to sweep aside the evidence that there are different redactional layers in the book. That said, it is not in question that a synchronic approach is possible and useful for understanding the last version of a work (or rather, in the case of Ezekiel, last versions, because of the existence of both MT and Pap967). But if we leave it at that, and if we do not try to reveal the former editions, we will not understand the special nature of the canonical version (final text). I think the result of an exclusively synchronic approach is that the theological relevance of prophetic books – the development of and the supplementations to theological reflections – are reduced and distorted. A middle course between the synchronic and diachronic approaches, maintaining the actual historical development most likely lies somewhere in between certainly seems like a pragmatic decision. But to stop identifying and analysing different redactional layers, suggesting, for example, that three layers are enough34, does not seem to me a helpful way to clear up the complicated history of the origins of the book, nor does it reveal the process of theological reflections of different persons and groups with different experiences and in different periods of time mirrored in the book. Since centuries elapsed between the time of the prophet and the last edition(s) of the corresponding book, it is precisely this complex of problems that we have to solve.35

2. Some Remarks on Papyrus 967 and its Importance Proponents of a synchronic approach frequently insist on the veritas hebraica.36 Even earlier diachronically-oriented treatises ignored the importance of Pap967. Scholars such as Jörg Garscha, Frank-L. Hossfeld, and Leslie C. Allen,37 did not 33 See

below. David Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2011). 35 See Karl-F. Pohlmann, “Synchrone und diachrone Texterschließung im Ezechielbuch,” HeBAI 1 (2012): 246–270. 36 So e. g. Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 342–343: “There is no need, therefore, to abandon MT in favor of a hypothetical archetypal ‘original’ based on Papyrus 967 that might then serve as the basis for exegesis … In any case, the content of 36:16–38 is thoroughly Ezekielian.” 37 Garscha, Studien zum Ezechielbuch, 122 n. 349; Frank-L. Hossfeld, Untersuchungen zu 34 E. g.,

Ezekiel: New Directions and Current Debates

9

realize that Pap967 represents a preliminary stage in the literary development of the book, which means there is a straightforward linear development from the Hebrew Vorlage of Pap967 to the proto-MT.38 Since then, the importance of Pap967 has been increasingly recognised. Recent studies worthy of particular mention are, for instance, those of Anja Klein, Bernd Biberger, William A. Tooman, and Christoph Rösel.39 Perhaps the reason for this is Peter Schwagmeier’s work. In 2004 he presented his Untersuchungen zu Textgeschichte und Entstehung des Ezechielbuches in masoretischer und griechischer Überlieferung, a very important treatise because of its careful and extensive analysis of Pap967.40 In it, one can find many very important insights into the development of the text of Ezekiel. Unfortunately Schwagmeier’s work is available only in libraries; that is a real pity, because in my opinion it is a fundamental treatise of a high methodological standard.

3. Some Remarks on Methodological Points Because of Pap967, and with regard to Schwagmeier’s studies and his insights, it is essential that our research into the Book of Ezekiel work on both the given Books of Ezekiel, that is, MT and Pap967. In my opinion, it is methodologically very much mistaken to take only the MT, “as the least shaky foundation for the study of the prophecy of Ezekiel.”41 We can not ignore Peter Schwagmeier’s emphasis, “dass die Buchgenese sich noch deutlich in den überlieferten Handschriften niederschlägt, daß methodisch auf der Suche nach dem ezechielischen ältesten Text also ein enges Zusammenspiel von Text‑ und Literarkritik sowie Redaktionsgeschichte vonnöten ist.”42 And it follows from this that a middle course between the synchronic and diachronic approaches is not practicable. It would be pointless to stop at a certain Komposition und Theologie des Ezechielbuches, FB 20 (Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1977), 287–340; Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 177 f. 38 So already Johan Lust, “Ezekiel 36–40 in the Oldest Greek Manuscript,” CBQ 43 (1981): 517–533; see also Johan Lust, “Major Divergences between LXX and MT in Ezekiel,” in The Earliest Texts of the Bible. The Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered, ed. Schenker, SBLSCS 52 (Atlanta: SBL, 2003). 39 Klein, Schriftauslegung, 60–65; Bernd Biberger, Endgültiges Heil innerhalb von Geschichte und Gegenwart. Zukunftskonzeptionen in Ez 38–39, Joel 1–4 und Sach 12–14, BBB 161 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010), 120–132; William A. Tooman, Gog of Magog. Reuse of Scripture and Compositional Technique in Ezekiel 38–39, FAT 2/52 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011); Christoph Rösel, JHWHs Sieg über Gog aus Magog. Ez 38–39 im Masoretischen Text und in der Septuaginta, WMANT 132 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2012), 44. 40 Note William Tooman’s assessment: “The most thorough introduction to Pap967 of Ezekiel” (Gog of Magog, 77). 41 Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 20. 42 Schwagmeier, Untersuchungen, 237.

10

Karl-Friedrich Pohlmann

stage of analysis.43 However, it is of course necessary to show the theological motives and reasons for textual additions and alterations, and to answer the question of the social position of the editors, and of the author’s era. There are several more points and questions I would like to see better reflected and clarified in future research, such as: 1. The question of the trustworthiness of the chronological data in the Book of Ezekiel. 2. The question of a Palestinian Ezekiel,44 or, more precisely, are there passages in the book that have been put there to give either the land’s or Jerusalem’s point of view?45 3. The question of the first edition of this prophetic book, that is, the question of the origin of the genre “Books of the Prophets.” Which background (theologically reflected) do we have to assume behind the origin of the first edition?46 The next point is a related issue: 4. The question of the oldest text-passages (basic layer) in the book.47 5. Concerning the question of the criteria for establishing direction of dependence between texts, I find David Carr’s catalogue of criteria very helpful.48 A text tends to be later than its ‘parallel’ when it: (1) Verbally parallels that text and yet includes substantial pluses vis-à-vis that text. (2) Appears to enrich its parallels (fairly fully preserved) with fragments from various locations in the Bible (less completely preserved). 43 But see David M. Carr, “Moving Beyond Unity: Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives on Prophetic Literature” in Prophetie in Israel, ed. Irmtraud Fischer, Konrad Schmid, and Hugh G. M. Williamson (Münster: LIT Verlag, 2003), 63: “I am suggesting that theories that posit five, six or more stages of growth stretching across multiple prophetic texts stretch the limits of plausibility and do not generate consensus.” 44 Against Bernhard Lang’s verdict that “Der ‘Jerusalemer Ezechiel’ ist ein Irrweg der Forschung” (Bernhard Lang, Ezechiel, EdF 153 [Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1981], 30), see, e. g., Hans F. Fuhs, “Ez 24 – Überlegungen zu Tradition und Redaktion des Ezechielbuches,” in Ezekiel and His Book, ed. Johan Lust, BETL 74 (Leuven: Peeters; Leuven University Press, 1986), 273 n. 28: “Die Annahme, daß die Worte in Jerusalem verkündet wurden, ist trotz der Bemerkung Langs … wahrscheinlich und die Frage nach dem Ort der Wirksamkeit Ezechiels keineswegs erledigt”. See also Hans F. Fuhs, Ezechiel 1–24, Die Neue Echter Bibel (Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1984), 13. 45 Note the formulations in, for example, Ezek 14.7 and 22.7; 18.6, 11, 15; see Pohlmann, Ezechielstudien, 128 f. 46 See Karl-F. Pohlmann, “Erwägungen zu Problemen alttestamentlicher Prophetenexegese,” in “Wer ist wie du, Herr, unter den Göttern?” Studien zur Theologie und Religionsgeschichte Israels, ed. Ingo Kottsieper, Jürgen van Oorschot, Diethard Römheld, and Harald Martin Wahl (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994). 47 See Pohlmann, Ezechielstudien, 135–219: “Zur Frage nach den ältesten Texten im Ezechielbuch.” 48 See David M. Carr, “Method in Determination of Direction of Dependence: An Empirical Test of Criteria Applied to Exodus 34,11–26 and its Parallels,” in Gottes Volk am Sinai. Untersuchungen zu Ex 32–34 und Dtn 9–10, ed. Matthias Köckert and Erhard Blum, (Gütersloh: Kaiser, Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2001), 126.

Ezekiel: New Directions and Current Debates

11

(3) Includes a plus that fills what could have been perceived as an apparent gap in its parallel. (4) Includes expansive material in character speeches, particularly theophanic speech. (5) Has an element which appears to be an adaptation of an element in the other text to shifting circumstances / ​ideas. (6) Combines linguistic phenomena from disparate strata …49

4. Ezekiel Texts and Their Relation to H / ​P / ​Holiness Code Some of us are convinced of the temporal precedence of the Holiness Code / ​ Holiness School (HS) over against Ezekiel’s book. Michael A. Lyons, for example, argues that “the locutions present in both Lev 26 and Ezek 34 should be explained as a literary strategy in which material in Ezekiel is being enriched with imagery taken from the covenant blessings of Lev 26, which is in turn modified to fit the outlook of Ezekiel.”50 Stephen L. Cook is working on the assumption that “Ezekiel’s book orients itself on HS”, asserting that “[t]he traditions of the Holiness School (HS) particularly impressed themselves on the mind of the prophet Ezekiel and his priestly school.”51 According to John Strong Ezekiel read “the Holiness Code … as an authoritative document.”52 It is remarkable that a large number of scholars specializing in research on the Pentateuch are convinced of the temporal precedence of certain passages in Ezekiel’s book over the Holiness Code / ​HS. For instance, Reinhard Müller, Christophe Nihan, and Eckart Otto “have argued that Lev 26 is part of a late postexilic redactional layer in the Pentateuch and that it is borrowing these shared locutions from Ezekiel.”53 Christoph Levin is convinced “Das Heiligkeitsgesetz quoted by Tooman, Gog of Magog, 34. Michael A. Lyons’s paper “Ezekiel 34: Composition and Allusion” in the present volume. See also footnote 53 below and Michael A. Lyons, “Transformation of Law: Ezekiel’s Use of the Holiness Code (Leviticus 17–26),” in Transforming Visions: Transformations of Text, Tradition, and Theology in Ezekiel, ed. William A. Tooman and Michael A. Lyons, PTMS 127 (Eugene: Pickwick Press, 2010), 1–32. 51 See Stephen L. Cook’s paper “Ezekiel’s Recovery of Premonarchic, Tribal Israel” in the present volume. 52 See John T. Strong’s chapter “The Cosmic Realignment of Ezekiel and the Election of a New Israel: A Study of Ezekiel’s Vocabulary,” in the present volume. 53 Reinhard Müller, “A Prophetic View of the Exile in the Holiness Code: Literary Growth and Tradition History in Leviticus 26,” in The Concept of Exile in Ancient Israel and its Historical Context, ed. Ehud Ben Zvi and Christoph Levin, BZAW 404 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010); Christophe Nihan, From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch. A Study in the Composition of the Book of Leviticus, FAT 2/25 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007); Eckart Otto, “Innerbiblische Exegese im Heiligkeitsgesetz Levitikus 17–26,” in Levitikus als Buch, ed. Heinz-J. Fabry and HansW. Jüngling, BBB 119 (Berlin: Philo, 1999). Quotation from Lyons, “Ezekiel 34: Composition and Allusion,” in the present volume. 49 Also 50 See

12

Karl-Friedrich Pohlmann

steht in Abhängigkeit von der ezechielischen Tradition, deutlicher: es ist das Gesetz, das aus der ezechielischen Tradition (die ihrerseits zunächst am deuteronomischen Gesetz ausgerichtet gewesen ist) hervorgegangen ist.”54 Likewise, Reinhard Achenbach emphasizes that “It was mainly the texts of the Ezekielian tradition that had the strongest impact on the hierocratic Priestly expansions of the Pentateuch, especially the Holiness Code, which were part of the Pentateuch redaction.”55 Because of this controversy, we should not ignore Achenbach’s critical observation: Die Redaktionsgeschichte des Pentateuch steht in einer spannungsvollen Beziehung zur Redaktion des prophetischen Schrifttums, mit der sie teilweise korrelierbar ist. Gleichwohl verlaufen die Untersuchungen zur Redaktionsgeschichte der Prophetenschriften in eigentümlicher Isolation gegenüber der Pentateuchforschung.56

This constitutes a complex series of problems: the question of the temporal precedence of the Holiness Code / ​HS (Holiness School) over Ezekiel’s book or vice versa; and the necessity to avoid isolating our research work from the research into the redaction history of the Pentateuch. For now, at least, I can only mention these problems and hope that we will find solutions, and explore opportunities for dialogue and cooperation. More intensive intertextual research is of course welcome, but I think in any case it has to be done in cooperation with researching the redaction history of books if we wish to determine the true dependent relationships of texts and theologies with other texts and theologies.

5. Ezekiel-Texts and Trauma Studies Ruth Poser in her dissertation Das Ezechielbuch als Trauma-Literatur (2012) emphasizes with reference to Brad E. Kelle that, “die Trauma-Perspektive jedenfalls in der US-amerikanischen Exegese des Ezechielbuches bereits ‘an increasingly prominent place among the more standard approaches’ gefunden hat.”57 She 54 Levin, Verheissung, 227. “Damit soll nicht ausgeschlossen sein, daß für die späten Ergänzungen des Ezechielbuches umgekehrt die Abhängigkeit vom Heiligkeitsgesetz möglich gewesen ist” (ibid., 228). 55 Reinhard Achenbach, “The Pentateuch, the Prophets, and the Torah in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries B. C. E.,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B. C. E., ed. Oded Lipschits, Gary N. Knoppers, and Rainer Albertz, (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 275. 56 Reinhard Achenbach, “Die Tora und die Propheten im 5. und 4. Jh. v. Chr.,” in Tora in der Hebräischen Bibel. Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte und synchronen Logik diachroner Transformationen, ed. Reinhard Achenbach, Martin Arneth, and Eckart Otto, BZAR 7 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2007), 26. 57 Poser, Das Ezechielbuch als Trauma-Literatur, 55; cf. Brad E. Kelle, “Dealing with the Trauma of Defeat: The Rhetoric of the Devastation and Rejuvenation of Nature in Ezekiel,” JBL 128 (2009), 469 f.

Ezekiel: New Directions and Current Debates

13

refers to David G. Garber’s article “Traumatizing Ezekiel, the Exilic Prophet” (2004) because Garber schlägt … eine ähnliche Herangehensweise an das Ezechielbuch vor wie die hier von mir gewählte. ‘[I]nstead of trying to formulate a medical past of the exilic prophet’, so heißt es bei ihm, ‘we should look at the book of Ezekiel from a literary perspective, as literature of survival produced by a community that lived in the aftermath of traumatic events of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and the subsequent exile’.58

I think this approach – trauma studies – is a very interesting and important one, but I do not understand why it must exclude redactional studies of the book, as Ruth Poser does, propagating an exclusively holistic and synchronic approach.59 On the contrary, I am convinced that different redactional layers in the book, text-passages from different times, are the result of different attempts to cope with the past traumatic events of 597 and 587 BCE and the developments in Jerusalem / ​Judah after them.

6. Concluding Remarks Recent studies on the prophetic literature, especially in Germany, make it clear that there is no chance of reconstructing the prophet’s curriculum vitae, his historical life story. It is impossible to describe the historical prophet’s mentality, the different individual phases of his prophesying, and the exact succession of these phases.60 The reason is that the development of a prophetic book from the beginning, to the final edition, could go on for centuries. Each and every generation had its own special problems: the catastrophe of 587 BCE; the situation of the exile; the diaspora; and very probably the situation in the Hellenistic age. So what we see in these books is not the life and the message of an individual prophet in a certain historical situation. That does not mean that there was not a historical Amos, Isaiah, Jeremiah, or Ezekiel. But their original words and messages can only rarely be ascertained. I think, however, the theological significance of a prophetic book has nothing to do with the question of whether most parts of the book come from the prophet himself or not. The theological impact of words and 58 Poser, Das Ezechielbuch als Trauma-Literatur, 53; see also David G. Garber Jr., “Traumatizing Ezekiel, the Exilic Prophet” in Psychology and the Bible: A New Way to Read the Scriptures, Vol. 2, From Genesis to Apocalyptic Vision, ed. J. Harold Ellens and Wayne G. Rollins, (Westport: Praeger, 2004), 216. 59 See footnote 15. 60 See already Rolf Rendtorff, Das Alte Testament. Eine Einführung (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1983), 226: “Die vielschichtige und kunstvolle Komposition des Buches Ezechiel macht es so gut wie unmöglich, über die Person des Propheten Genaueres zu erfahren”; one will “angesichts der Komposition des Buches auf die Rekonstruktion einer ‘ursprünglichen’ Verkündigung des Propheten selbst verzichten müssen”; cf. Karin Schöpflin, Theologie als Biographie, 341 ff.

14

Karl-Friedrich Pohlmann

thoughts in the texts does not depend on the fact that there is a prophetic personality somewhere around announcing ‫“( כה אמר יהוה‬So Yhwh has spoken …”). The Book of Ezekiel, like other prophetic books, testifies to enormous theological effort and debate, made to support and explain the conviction that the individual as well as the whole people are under Yahweh’s rule, and that they are not left to the chaotic constellations and developments of the world. Therefore, it is an important task for the research on the Book of Ezekiel “to restore the ‘frozen dialogue’ of the Old Testament tradition to a living theological discussion between groups and parties.”61

Bibliography Achenbach, Reinhard. “Die Tora und die Propheten im 5. und 4. Jh. v. Chr.” Pages 26–71 in Tora in der Hebräischen Bibel. Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte und synchronen Logik diachroner Transformationen. Edited by Reinhard Achenbach, Martin Arneth, and Eckart Otto. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 7. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2007. –. “The Pentateuch, the Prophets, and the Torah in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries B. C. E.” Pages 253–285 in Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B. C. E. Edited by Oded Lipschits, Gary N. Knoppers, and Rainer Albertz. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007. Albertz, Rainer. Religionsgeschichte Israels in alttestamentlicher Zeit 1. Alte Testament Deutsch Ergänzungreihe 8/1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992. Allen, Leslie C. Ezekiel 1–19. Word Biblical Commentary 28. Dallas: Word, 1994. –. Ezekiel 20–48. Word Biblical Commentary 29. Dallas: Word, 1990. Becker, J. “Erwägungen zur ezechielischen Frage.” Pages 137–149 in Künder des Wortes. Edited by Lothar Ruppert, Peter Weimar, and Erich Zenger. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1982. Biberger, Bernd. Endgültiges Heil innerhalb von Geschichte und Gegenwar. Zukunftskonzeptionen in Ez 38–39, Joel 1–4 und Sach 12–14. Bonner Biblische  Beiträge 161. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010. Block, Daniel I. The Book of Ezekiel. Chapters 1–24. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids; Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1997. –. The Book of Ezekiel. Chapters 25–48. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids; Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1998. Carr, David M. “Method in Determination of Direction of Dependence: An Empirical Test of Criteria Applied to Exodus 34,11–26 and its Parallels.” Pages 107–140 in Gottes Volk am Sinai. Untersuchungen zu Ex 32–34 und Dtn 9–10. Edited by Matthias Köckert and Erhard Blum. Gütersloh: Kaiser, Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2001. –. “Moving Beyond Unity: Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives on Prophetic Literature.” Pages 59–93 in Prophetie in Israel. Edited by Irmtraud Fischer, Konrad Schmid, and Hugh G. M. Williamson. Münster: LIT Verlag, 2003. 61 Rainer Albertz, Religionsgeschichte Israels in alttestamentlicher Zeit 1. ATD Ergänzungreihe 8/1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992), 31.

Ezekiel: New Directions and Current Debates

15

Clements, Ronald E. “The Chronology of Redaction in Ez 1–24.” Pages 283–294 in Ezekiel and His Book. Edited by Johan Lust. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 74. Leuven: Peeters; Leuven University Press, 1986. Crane, Ashley S. Israel’s Restoration. A Textual-Comparative Exploration of Ezekiel 36–39. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 122. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Davis, Ellen F. Swallowing the Scroll: Textuality and the Dynamics of Discourse in Ezekiel’s Prophecy. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 78. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989. Fuhs, Hans F. “Ez 24 – Überlegungen zu Tradition und Redaktion des Ezechielbuches.” Pages 266–288 in Ezekiel and His Book. Edited by Johan Lust. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 74. Leuven: Peeters; Leuven University Press, 1986. –. Ezechiel 1–24. Die Neue Echter Bibel. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1984. –. Ezechiel II: 25–48. Die Neue Echter Bibel. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1988. Galambush, Julie. Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel: The City as Yahweh’s Wife. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 130. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. Garber Jr., David G. “Traumatizing Ezekiel, the Exilic Prophet.” Pages 215–235 in From Genesis to Apocalyptic Vision. Vol. 2 of Psychology and the Bible: A New Way to Read the Scriptures. Edited by J. Harold Ellens and Wayne G. Rollins. Westport: Praeger, 2004. Garscha, Jörg. Studien zum Ezechielbuch. Eine redaktionskritische Untersuchung von Ez 1–39. Europäische Hochschulschriften 23. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1974. Greenberg, Moshe. Ezekiel 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 22. Garden City: Doubleday, 1983. Hossfeld, Frank-L. Untersuchungen zu Komposition und Theologie des Ezechielbuches. Forschung zur Bibel 20. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1977 –. “Das Buch Ezechiel”. Pages 592–609 in Erich Zenger et al (eds.), Einleitung in das Alte Testament. 8th ed. Kohlhammer Studienbücher Theologie 1,1. Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer, 2012. Joyce, Paul M. Divine Initiative and Human Response in Ezekiel. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 51. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989. –. Ezekiel: A Commentary. Library of Hebrew Bible / ​Old Testament Studies 482. New York: T&T Clark, 2007. Kelle, Brad E. “Dealing with the Trauma of Defeat: The Rhetoric of the Devastation and Rejuvenation of Nature in Ezekiel.” JBL 128 (2009): 469–490. Klein, Anja. Schriftauslegung im Ezechielbuch. Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Ez 34–39. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 391. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008. Konkel, Michael. Architektonik des Heiligen: Studien zur zweiten Tempelvision Ezechiels (Ez 40–48). Bonner Biblische Beiträge 129. Berlin: Philo, 2001. Kratz, Reinhard G. Translatio iperii: Untersuchungen zu den aramäischen Danielerzählungen und ihrem theologiegeschichtlichen Umfeld. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 63. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991. Krüger, Thomas. Geschichtskonzepte im Ezechielbuch. Beihefte  zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 180. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989. –. “Review: Block, Daniel Isaac: The Book of Ezekiel. Chapters 1–24. Grand Rapids  – Cambridge, 1997.” Theologische Literaturzeitung 124 (1999): 153–154. Lang, Bernhard. Ezechiel. Erträge der Forschung 153. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1981.

16

Karl-Friedrich Pohlmann

Lapsley, Jacqueline E. Can These Bones Live? The Problem of the Moral Self in the Book of Ezekiel. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 301. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000. Levin, Christoph. Verheissung des neuen Bundes in ihrem theologiegeschichtlichen Zusammenhang ausgelegt. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 137. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985. Lust, Johan. “Ezekiel 36–40 in the Oldest Greek Manuscript.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 43 (1981): 517–533. –. “Major Divergences between LXX and MT in Ezekiel.” Pages 83–92 in The Earliest Texts of the Bible. The Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered. Edited by A. Schenker. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 52. Atlanta: SBL, 2003. Lyons, Michael A. “Transformation of Law: Ezekiel’s Use of the Holiness Code (Leviticus 17–26).” Pages 1–32 in Transforming Visions: Transformations of Text, Tradition, and Theology in Ezekiel. Edited by William A. Tooman and Michael A. Lyons. Princeton Theological Monograph Series 127. Eugene: Pickwick Press, 2010. Matties, Gordon H. Ezekiel 18 and the Rhetoric of Moral Discourse. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 126. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990. Müller, Reinhard. “A Prophetic View of the Exile in the Holiness Code: Literary Growth and Tradition History in Leviticus 26.” Pages 207–228 in The Concept of Exile in Ancient Israel and its Historical Context. Edited by Ehud Ben Zvi and Christoph Levin. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 404. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010. Nihan, Christophe. From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch. A Study in the Composition of the Book of Leviticus. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2/25. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Otto, Eckart. “Innerbiblische Exegese im Heiligkeitsgesetz Levitikus 17–26.” Pages 125– 196 in Levitikus als Buch. Edited by Heinz-J. Fabry and Hans-W. Jüngling. Bonner Biblische Beiträge 119. Berlin: Philo, 1999. Pohlmann, Karl-F. Studien zum Jeremiabuch. Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach der Entstehung des Jeremiabuches. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 137. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978. –. Ezechielstudien. Zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Buches und zur Frage nach den ältesten Texten. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 202. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992. –. “Erwägungen zu Problemen alttestamentlicher Prophetenexegese.” Pages 325–341 in “Wer ist wie du, Herr, unter den Göttern?” Studien zur Theologie und Religionsgeschichte Israels. Edited by Ingo Kottsieper, Jürgen van Oorschot, Diethard Römheld, and Harald Martin Wahl. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994. –. Das Buch des Propheten Hesekiel (Ezechiel) Kapitel 1–19. Alte Testament Deutsch 22/1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. –. Ezechiel. Der Stand der theologischen Diskussion. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2008. –. “Synchrone und diachrone Texterschließung im Ezechielbuch.” Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 1 (2012): 246–270. Poser, Ruth. Das Ezechielbuch als Trauma-Literatur. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 154. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Premstaller, Volkmar. Fremdvölkersprüche des Ezechielbuches. Forschung zur Bibel 104. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 2005.

Ezekiel: New Directions and Current Debates

17

Rendtorff, Rolf. Das Alte Testament. Eine Einführung. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1983. Renz, Thomas. The Rhetorical Function of the Book of Ezekiel. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 76. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Rösel, Christoph. JHWHs Sieg über Gog aus Magog. Ez 38–39 im Masoretischen Text und in der Septuaginta. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 132. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2012. Rooker, Mark F. Biblical Hebrew in Transition: The Language of the Book of Ezekiel. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 90. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990. Rudnig, Thilo A. Heilig und Profan. Redaktionskritische Studien zu Ez 40–48. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 287. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000. Schmid, Konrad. Buchgestalten des Jeremiabuches. Untersuchungen zur Redaktions‑ und Rezeptionsgeschichte von Jer 30–33 im Kontext des Buches. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 72. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1996. Schöpflin, Karin. Theologie als Biographie im Ezechielbuch. Ein Beitrag zur Konzeption alttestamentlicher Prophetie. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 36. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. Schwagmeier, Peter. Untersuchungen zu Textgeschichte und Entstehung des Ezechielbuches in masoretischer und griechischer Überlieferung. PhD diss., Universität Zürich, 2004. Sedlmeier, Franz. Studien zu Komposition und Theologie von Ezechiel 20. Stuttgarter biblische Beitrage 21. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1990. –. Das Buch Ezechiel 1–24. Neuer Stuttgarter Kommentar 21,1. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2002. Strine, Casey A. Sworn Enemies: The Divine Oath, the Book of Ezekiel, and the Polemics of Exile. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 436. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013. Tooman, William A. Gog of Magog. Reuse of Scripture and Compositional Technique in Ezekiel 38–39. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2/52. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Wong, Ka Leung. The Idea of Retribution in the Book of Ezekiel. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 87. Leiden: Brill, 2001.

Ezekiel Studies: Present State and Future Outlook Thomas Krüger In a recent paper, titled “Synchrone und diachrone Texterschliessung im Ezechiel­ buch,” Karl-Friedrich Pohlmann presents a comparison between a synchronic holistic interpretation of the oracles against foreign nations in Ezekiel and a diachronic redaction historical explanation.1 This comparison leads him to the conclusion that a holistic reading of Ezekiel produces only general, broad-stroke, and superficial theological statements, whereas a redaction historical analysis shows how the texts grew out of successive processes of theological reflection and thus represent a cross-section of the colorful exilic and post-exilic history of theology and the struggle for new theological answers during that period. I agree with Pohlmann in terms of his description of the present state of research. But I think that there is a potential for future development in different directions that are not mutually exclusive. (1) I think that synchronic readings or, as I would prefer to say, readings that are not primarily focused on text-genetic questions, often are, but do not have to be, holistic, harmonizing, and superficial. Such readings can (and should) also be aware and appreciative of fractures, tensions and contradictions in the texts of Ezekiel and in the book as a whole. (2) I think it is true that redaction-historical analyses and reconstructions usually help us to understand – and sometimes even bring to our attention – the variety of theological conceptions in the texts that point to the processes of theological reflection and discussion that lie behind the texts and gave them their present shape. However, this approach also has a tendency to historicize the theological discussions and to avoid an examination of them, in which the modern reader becomes involved in the debates of the texts and in turn involves the texts in present theological discussions. (3) The redaction-critical analysis of Ezekiel has shown that we should most probably not trust the suggestion of the book that it is some kind of record of what God said to the prophet Ezekiel. I think this is true, but I wonder if we should not imagine a sort of ‘prophetic’ text production and transmission even for the editors and redactors of prophetic texts. Let me elaborate on these three points. 1 Karl-Friedrich Pohlmann, “Synchrone und diachrone Texterschließung im Ezechielbuch,” HeBAI 1 (2012): 246–70.

Ezekiel Studies: Present State and Future Outlook

19

1. Reading and Interpreting the Fractures of the Book of Ezekiel Synchronic readings often are, but do not have to be, boring. As an example, I cite Georg Fischer’s comments on Ezekiel in his recent book, Theologien des Alten Testaments.2 Fischer points to tensions and contrasts in conceptions of God in Ezekiel. Occasionally they are so severe, he writes, “that one could sometimes assume God’s actions are almost self-contradictory.” “In Ezekiel we find statements about God that are difficult to understand and contradict familiar concepts.” “Even the opening vision, in chap. 1, has strange and exotic features. In the progression of the book they appear even more.” I quote Fischer as an example that shows that not all synchronic readings of Ezekiel are simply holistic and harmonizing. He also reminds us that fractures, tensions and contradictions are not always the products of a redaction-critical exegesis but rather their cause: phenomena that impose themselves on a reader who simply tries to read through the text and make sense of it. Let me briefly call to mind three major sets of fractures, tensions and contradictions challenging every reader of Ezekiel. 1.1 The Transcendence and Immanence of God In chap 1, Ezekiel sees the glory of Yhwh, enthroned above the firmament, which is carried by the four winds, appearing to him in a whirlwind coming out of the north. The vision is located on earth, by the river Chebar, but what Ezekiel sees appears to be in heaven, as the introduction indicates: “the heavens were opened and I saw visions of God” (Ezek 1.1). To make things even more complicated, Ezekiel stresses that his description of the vision is, at most, only approximately true: “This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of Yhwh” (1.28). This concept of God is highly sophisticated, but one may ask whether it is coherent at all. Beyond chap 1, Ezekiel’s descriptions of God sound much more naive and less sophisticated. In chaps 8–11 Yhwh appears to depart from his cherub throne in the temple in Jerusalem, transfer to the mobile cherub throne of chap 1 and leave Jerusalem via the east gate. In chap 43 Yhwh enters his new temple, returning in the reverse direction. At the end of the book, Yhwh is (again) in the temple, which is now located outside the city, and perhaps also in the city (depending on the understanding of ‫ יהוה ׁשמה‬in Ezek 48.35). Can God no longer appear in other parts of the world? And does he no longer sit enthroned above the heavens? Or should we understand all these later assertions about God in the light of chap 1 as ultimately inadequate approximations to an elusive reality? Or are these fractures, tensions and contradictions in Ezekiel witnesses to a religio-historical 2 Georg Fischer, Theologien des Alten Testaments (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2012), 96–101.

20

Thomas Krüger

development leading from a conception of God as dwelling in the temple of Jerusalem, through the insight that God can be everywhere and transcend the world, and finally back to the idea that God resides in a temple, in contrast to, by way of example, Isaiah 66?3 1.2 Collective and Individual Punishment In chaps 1–24 Ezekiel announces a catastrophe that will strike Jerusalem and the Israelites who remained in Canaan after 597 BCE. This catastrophe is understood as God’s punishment of Jerusalem’s or Israel’s crimes, which include their cults devoted to gods and goddesses besides Yhwh. It appears to be essential for most of the texts that this punishment is just. The criterion for just punishment is the correspondence between crime and punishment. Yhwh will judge Jerusalem or Israel “according to their ways.” This should hold true for Jerusalem or Israel as a whole as well as for every single Jerusalemite or Israelite. However, this can be true if and only if every single Jerusalemite and Israelite deserves the announced punishment. There are texts that allege such a claim, such as chap 22.4 As a final consequence, this implies that every victim of a crime is at the same time a criminal. But then one may ask why criminals committing crimes against each other need to be punished at all. However, if there are victims who are not criminals, can it be called just punishment if the tormented falls victim to the punishment of his or her tormentor? Ezekiel 9 announces that “the men who sigh and cry over all the abominations that are done within” Jerusalem will not be killed in the catastrophe – as distinct from “old and young men, maidens and little children and women” who will 3 This inconsistency regarding God’s transcendence or immanence (to use these philosophical terms a bit imprecisely) is not peculiar to the Book of Ezekiel. It can be found also, for example, in 1 Kings 8 (v. 12: Yhwh dwells in a dark cloud; v. 13: Yhwh dwells in the Solomonic temple; v. 27: God does not dwell on earth, in heaven, or in a temple; v. 30: Yhwh dwells in heaven; etc.), or in Exodus 25–31 (25.8: Yhwh dwells in the sanctuary; 25.22: Yhwh meets with Moses in the sanctuary; etc.), and is in fact widespread in the ancient Near East, if not characteristic of the ancient Near Eastern understanding of god(s), cf. John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006), 97–99. 123–29. Accordingly, this inconsistency need not be indicative of multiple authorship, because ancient authors and editors conceivably did not realize it. Nevertheless, it is an inconsistency from the viewpoint of present-day exegetes, and can be explained by the historical development of religious ideas (successive expansion of the sphere of action of deities; increasing distance of deities from everyday life; new insights do not replace older traditions but complement them; etc.). Thus, inconsistency alone is not a sufficient reason for redaction critical (diachronic) conjectures (but an important indication!). However, that does not mean that it should be ignored or explained away in a holistic reading. Rather, inconsistencies should be worked out and appreciated as leverage points for an ideological-critical assessment of the texts, which is vital for their theological interpretation. 4 The problem does not come to the fore when Israel (and Judah) or Jerusalem (and Samaria) are conceptualized as single persons, such as in Ezekiel 16 and 23.

Ezekiel Studies: Present State and Future Outlook

21

be slain pitilessly (9.5–6). According to Ezekiel 33, Yhwh, before he collectively punishes a land, gives every single inhabitant a chance to mend her or his ways and consequently be spared from punishment. However, these hopes are obviously unrealistic. As Ezekiel 12.16 says, there will be guilty Israelites who survive the catastrophe, only to “declare all their abominations among the Gentiles wherever they go” and thus prove that Yhwh’s punishment has been just. At the same time, according to Ezekiel 21.8–10 (ET 21.3–5), there will be innocent victims of Yhwh’s punishment in the land of Israel, where he “will cut off both righteous and wicked.” Together these statements illustrate mutually exclusive approaches to the problem of collective and individual punishment in Ezekiel.5 The only solution to the problem that is posed by these contradictions is that even God is not able to solve it. Or is he? 1.3 Retributive and Creative Justice A small but significant number of texts in Ezekiel say that Yhwh will not act with the Israelites according to their ways and actions. In the future God will give up his unsuccessful and impossible striving for retributive justice. Instead he will practice what can be called creative justice, i. e. he will cease punishing criminals and begin making them righteous. This will be accomplished by different means, mainly by giving them a new heart and a new spirit (Ezek 6 [?]; 11; 36) and by making them feel ashamed because of their undeserved good fortune (Ezek 20; 36) – where the first may be achieved by the second. In view of these texts, it becomes even more difficult to understand why Yhwh did not give up his striving for retributive justice much earlier, in favor of this practice of creative justice – particularly if he never had “any pleasure at all that the wicked should die,” but rather “that he should turn from his ways and live,” as Yhwh says in chap 18 (v. 32 bis). Was it because he still hoped that the Israelites would be able to “get [themselves] a new heart and a new spirit” as he calls on them to do in that same chapter (18.31)? Be that as it may, there are obviously not only tensions but also significant contradictions between the different views of God’s punishment and justice in

5 These approaches may trace back to one author or to different successive authors or editors. Taken together in a holistic view of the Book of Ezekiel as a whole, these approaches suggest (a) that it is not possible to govern the world in a way that does justice to every single human being; (b) that there are different ways to come close to that ideal; and (c) that the same reality can be viewed differently (as just or as unjust), depending on which of these different ways one prefers, so that (d) it is difficult, if not impossible, to tell whether there is a just world order and a just deity who is responsible for it. Presumably, none of these conclusions was intended by the author (or one of the authors or editors) of the Book of Ezekiel, or even noticed by them. Nevertheless, their work has prompted such theological insights, at least for modern readers.

22

Thomas Krüger

Ezekiel, which at least in my understanding cannot be harmonized or synthesized into a holistic interpretation of the book.6 1.4 Different Future Outlooks Even a superficial reading of the Book of Ezekiel shows that it contains oracles of doom as well as predictions of prosperity. According to the arrangement of the book, in which chapter 33, where Ezekiel receives the message of the fall of Jerusalem, marks a turning point, Ezekiel prophesied doom and prosperity before and after that catastrophe. However, only among his oracles from the time before the fall of Jerusalem (Ezek 1–24) one finds predictions of a total and final destruction of Jerusalem and Israel (e. g., chaps 4–7,7 12, 15, 19, 21, 22, and 24).8 Before and after chapter 33, there are oracles of destruction and subsequent restoration (e. g., chapters 16, 17, 23, and 34). Restoration is in some instances connected with the homeland (e. g., 36.1–15), in others with the exiles in Babylonia (e. g., 11.14–21, 37.1–15) or with the worldwide diaspora (e. g., chap. 20, 36.16–38, 37.15–28). In some texts the repentance of Israel appears to be a precondition (or a starting point) of restoration (e. g., chap. 3, 18, and 33), whereas others expect that Yhwh will transform (or resurrect) the Israelites in the course of restoration and thus change their behavior (e. g., 11.14–21, 20.39–44, 36.16–38), or that he will exclude wrongdoers from Israel before making it prosper again (e. g., 20.33–38, 13.9). Again, it is not possible to fit the different and divergent expectations of Israel’s future in the Book of Ezekiel into a kind of master plan. Viewed as a whole, the book appears to communicate that Ezekiel (or / ​and Yhwh) had no clear and distinct knowledge of what would happen in the future. 6 Again, the different perspectives can be attributed to an intellectual development of one author or to an ongoing process of reflection by subsequent authors or editors. However, in this case it appears materially impossible to retain the older model of divine retribution after the concept of a creative justice of God is developed. Once one has realized this possibility of divine action, one can hardly continue to imagine a deity that kills the guilty instead of making them righteous. Thus, what appeared to fit together in the eyes of the ancient authors and editors does not always fit together from the viewpoint of modern exegetes (cf. 1.1 above). 7 Ezekiel 6.8–10 speaks about survivors, who understand their own responsibility for the catastrophe, but does not envision a positive future for Israel connected with these survivors. 8 It is reasonable to guess that these texts belong to the older material in the Book of Ezekiel dating from a time when the prophet (or his followers) still did not expect any future for Israel. This would go well together with the greater part of the oracles against the foreign nations in Ezekiel 25–32, where Yhwh seems to be no longer concerned with Israel, but with the international world order, with Babylon at the top. Apparently, the expectation of a restoration developed only when it became clear that Jerusalem and the Israelite community in the homeland was not destroyed, but continued to operate under the leadership of the Babylonian vassal Gedaliah. The placement of restoration oracles among Ezekiel’s preaching before the catastrophe in chapters 1–24 apparently intends to show that Ezekiel did not erroneously promote the end of Israel, which he obviously did.

Ezekiel Studies: Present State and Future Outlook

23

2. Redaction Criticism and Beyond Fractures, tensions and contradictions like the ones briefly mentioned above hint at a redaction-critical reconstruction of the literary genesis and history of the Book of Ezekiel.9 To say it in no uncertain manner: the evidence from different manuscripts and versions, and from documented cases in ancient Near Eastern and ancient Hebrew texts, makes clear that we must expect the Book of Ezekiel’s literary development through multiple stages over a considerable period of time. According to our present understanding, this is the default hypothesis. The burden of proof is on the side of those claiming literary unity. In view of the differences between different editions of Ezekiel that are documented by Hebrew, Greek and Latin manuscripts, it is patently impossible to take the Masoretic Book of Ezekiel as a source for the sixth century BCE without any source-critical analysis (in the sense of a critical examination of the worth of Ezekiel as a historical source).10 However, redaction criticism is not the only way to explain and understand the fractures, tensions, and contradictions in Ezekiel and in other biblical texts. Such fractures, tensions, and contradictions can also result from the complexity and inconsistency of a single author’s mind or from the complexity and inconsistency of communication and the broader context of discussions to which the text contributes. One author may simultaneously have different and only partially compatible communicative intentions. He or she may simultaneously orient him‑ or herself toward or be unconsciously influenced by different and incongruous traditions. And his or her experiences of reality (or reality itself) may not be free of tensions and contradictions. If this is true, it could be helpful to distinguish between the ‘real’ or ‘historical’ author and a plurality of virtual or implied authors who can be discerned in their texts, the more so if the real author wrote the book over a period of twenty   9 However, as already noted, they do not provide sufficient evidence for editorial work. Even if there is additional evidence like peculiarities of language and / ​or style, historical or intertextual allusions, and / ​or the place of a text in the history of traditions, redaction-critical reconstructions are never more than an educated guess. The popular procedure to cut out and clear away from a given text what appears to disrupt a smooth and coherent flow of reading to get an older stratum of the text (which can again be analyzed in the same way) is probably too simple in view of the complexities of editorial work in the ancient Near East. See David M. Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2011), 13–149. 10 See Karl-Friedrich Pohlmann, Ezechiel (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2008), 127–30. The numerous differences between MT and the usually shorter LXX version, conveniently presented in the translations of Karl-Friedrich Pohlmann, Der Prophet Hesekiel / ​ Ezechiel 1–19, ATD 22/1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996) and Der Prophet Hesekiel / ​ Ezechiel 20–48, ATD 22/2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001), can be explained largely and most easily as expansions of an older Hebrew Vorlage of LXX in the MT tradition. On source criticism as a historical method, see Martha C. Howell & Walter Prevenier, From Reliable Sources: An Introduction to Historical Methods (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2001).

24

Thomas Krüger

years, as the Book of Ezekiel suggests.11 Of course, the same distinction between ‘real’ or ‘historical’ and ‘virtual’ or ‘implied’ author(s) must be made for every redactional layer of the book.12 If our understanding of redactors or editors of biblical texts is basically correct (as I think it is), these people must have had a kind of ‘split (authorial) personality’. For they wanted to say something that had not already been said, or at least that had not already been said clearly enough, in the texts they edited, otherwise there would have been no need for them to make additions. At the same time, they preserved the parts of the texts that they viewed as wrong or at least insufficient.13 So they produced texts with fractures, tensions, and contradictions, the meanings of which are not simply identical with the intentions of the editors or redactors. The more complex these texts became as they grew, the greater the differences between the intentions of the people who were responsible for the present shape of the texts and the meanings of these texts became. Thus, if it is the task of biblical exegesis to clarify the meaning(s) of biblical texts, this task is not accomplished when the genesis and literary development of the texts is critically reconstructed and described. When this redaction-critical work is done – and again, I think it has to be done – there remain the tasks of describing and exploring the potential meaning(s) contained in the texts, which may be the potential to think further, beyond what is already thought of in the texts, and perhaps also to criticize what is thought of in the texts by way of rethinking it. So, for example, I think we can learn from Ezekiel that the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem and Judah in the years 597 and 587 BCE should rather not be interpreted as God’s punishment for the crimes of the Judahites and Jerusalemites as Ezekiel suggests. Even if all authors, redactors and editors of the book held this view, their reflections on Yhwh’s collective and individual retributive justice show that even God would not be able to realize such justice. Rather than asking why God brought disaster on them, people should instead ask whether their ways and actions are right and how they can improve them. Or, to mention just one other example, after having imagined God as transcendent, immanent and inconceivable, as Ezekiel 1 describes him (her?), it appears 11 Even more so if the Book of Ezekiel has been produced over a period of hundreds of years, as it seems probable from a redaction-critical point of view. 12 Cf. Wolf Schmid, “Implied Author,” in Peter Hühn et al. (eds.), The Living Handbook of Narratology (Hamburg: Hamburg University Press), paragraphs 1–39. Published online by the Interdisciplinary Center for Narratology, University of Hamburg (Germany): http://wikis.sub. uni-hamburg.de/lhn/index.php/Implied_Author (accessed April 6, 2014). 13 In fact, this mentality, which is difficult to understand for members of modern ‘Western’ cultures, appears to have been common in the tradition-oriented cultures of the ancient Near East, which on the one hand valued their traditions more than the present experiences of one person alone (cf. Bildad’s reply in Job 8.8–10 to Job’s insistence on his experience in Job 6.2–7), but on the other hand continually updated their traditions in view of new experiences.

Ezekiel Studies: Present State and Future Outlook

25

difficult to imagine that Yhwh desires to live in a temple (chap. 43) and in or next to a city (chap. 48) or that he is not able to communicate directly with people outside of Israel (which is an implicit presupposition of the argument in chaps. 20 and 36). Here again the Book of Ezekiel points beyond itself, and that should be noticed by an interpretation that does not confine itself to a reconstruction of the authorial intention(s) behind a literary work. I hope that these two examples show how a synchronic exegesis of Ezekiel that does not ignore or downplay its fractures, tensions, and contradictions, but rather appreciates them as a challenge for theological reflection on and rethinking of this text, could be an interesting and theologically promising supplement to a redaction-critical interpretation – but not a substitute for it.

3. Prophetic Editors Such a synchronic view of the fractures, tensions, and contradictions in Ezekiel could then perhaps also contribute to a refinement and clarification of a redaction-critical interpretation. As Karl-Friedrich Pohlmann wrote in the article cited at the beginning of this chapter, redaction criticism interprets texts as products of successive processes of theological reflection. Accordingly, differences, tensions, and inconsistencies on a conceptual level are the primary hints of literary growth. As already noted above, this picture of conceptually consistent authors (including editors and redactors) may be a bit unrealistic. Furthermore, this picture does not conform to the picture of authorship that the book of Ezekiel itself presents. Of course this is not compelling evidence, since the picture of authorship that Ezekiel presents may simply be wrong. Yet it may be worthwhile to consider for a moment what kind of authorial activity the Book of Ezekiel presents to its readers. According to the book, Ezekiel can be viewed as the book’s author only insofar as the book documents what Yhwh has disclosed to the prophet on several occasions. The book is not simply the word of God, but rather documents the word of God as Ezekiel understood it, which was probably not without its own problems if one imagines that the voice of God was “like the noise of many waters” or “the noise of an army” (Ezek 1.24). This implies that Ezekiel is not responsible for the contents of the texts he wrote. Thus, he is also not responsible for their conceptual consistency. If Yhwh said “a” on one day and “b” on another day (cf. Ezek 29.17–21), this may be a challenge for further reflection, but the prophet is responsible not for finding a solution to this problem but for passing on what he heard from God as accurately as possible. As I said, this picture of prophetic authorship may be fictitious. Nevertheless, it may reflect the self-understanding of the ‘real’ authors (including editors and redactors) of Ezekiel. In fact, the Book of Ezekiel does not claim that it was written completely by the prophet Ezekiel. It only claims that it contains what God

26

Thomas Krüger

said to Ezekiel, written by whomever. In the past decades we have learned from Susan Niditch, David Carr, and others that the authors and revisers of biblical texts probably worked not with written texts on their desks but with memorized texts and traditions in their hearts.14 I would like to propose combining this insight with the conjecture of Helmut Utzschneider, Odil Hannes Steck, and others that the editors of the prophetic books understood themselves not so much as scribes but rather as prophets.15 If that is true, it might well be that their literary products are less the result of conscious discussions and reflections than of unconscious processes in their hearts (or brains) for which they did not feel responsible themselves but which led them to insights that came to them like a word or a thought communicated to them by another person or by God. In making this proposal I do not wish to re-mystify the production of the prophetic books. If it is true, it remains a paramount task of exegesis to reconstruct the discussions and reflections that found expression in the texts of the editors, albeit by way of their subconscious. At the same time, it would make it easier to understand why the editors and redactors could produce complex texts with apparent fractures, tensions and contradictions and not feel obliged to harmonize the texts (or perhaps they even felt unauthorized to do so). Thus, they preserved and regenerated the texts as a challenge to continuing theological reflection, a challenge that should be accepted and appreciated by contemporary readers and not explained away by holistic readings.16

Bibliography Carr, David M., The Formation of the Hebrew Bible. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2011. Carr, David M., Writing on the Tablet of the Heart. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2005. Fischer, Georg, Theologien des Alten Testaments. Neuer Stuttgarter Kommentar. Altes Testament 31. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2012. Howell, Martha C. & Walter Prevenier, From Reliable Sources: An Introduction to Historical Methods. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2001. 14 Susan Niditch, Oral World and Written Word (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996); David M. Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2005); Karel van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible (Cambridge, MA & London: 2007); Carr, Formation. 15 Helmut Utzschneider, Künder oder Schreiber (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1989); Odil Hannes Steck, “Prophetische Prophetenauslegung,” idem, Die Prophetenbücher und ihr theologisches Zeugnis (Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1996), 125–204, ET The Prophetic Books and Their Theological Witness (St. Louis, MO: Chalice Press, 2000). 16 I would like to thank Sarah Sheetman and William Tooman for improving my English.

Ezekiel Studies: Present State and Future Outlook

27

Niditch, Susan, Oral World and Written Word. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996. Pohlmann, Karl-Friedrich, “Synchrone und diachrone Texterschließung im Ezechielbuch,” HeBAI 1 (2012): 246–70. Pohlmann, Karl-Friedrich, Der Prophet Hesekiel / ​Ezechiel 119. ATD 22/1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. Pohlmann, Karl-Friedrich, Der Prophet Hesekiel / ​Ezechiel 20–48. ATD 22/2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001. Pohlmann, Karl-Friedrich, Ezechiel. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2008. Schmid, Wolf, “Implied Author,” in Peter Hühn et al. (eds.), The Living Handbook of Narratology (Hamburg: Hamburg University Press), Paragraphs 1–39. Published online by the Interdisciplinary Center for Narratology, University of Hamburg (Germany): http://wikis.sub.uni-hamburg.de/lhn/index.php/Implied_Author (accessed April 6, 2014). Steck, Odil Hannes, Die Prophetenbücher und ihr theologisches Zeugnis. Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1996. ET The Prophetic Books and Their Theological Witness. St. Louis, MO: Chalice Press, 2000. Toorn, Karel van der, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible. Cambridge, MA & London: 2007. Utzschneider, Helmut, Künder oder Schreiber. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1989. Walton, John H., Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006.

Part 2

Ezekiel’s Book and its Thought in Diachronic Perspective

The Proclamation of Salvation in the Book of Ezekiel: Restoration or Traces of ‘Eschatological’ Hope? Franz Sedlmeier This paper is concerned with a quaestio disputata et disputanda: is Ezekiel’s message of salvation primarily to be understood in the sense of a restoration that is meant to reinstate the pre-exilic institutions? Or does this message of salvation bring into consideration a qualitative change in the post-exilic time in such a way that at least traces of an ‘eschatological’ hope come into view? Two preliminary observations are necessary here.

1. The Preliminary Observations 1.1 The Book of Ezekiel – A Work in Progress In his account of the state of research in relation to Ezekiel, Karl-F. Pohlmann comes to the following conclusion: “The current principal point of contention is whether the so-called ‘holistic’ interpretation, what may be called ‘final-textexegesis’, or the literary-critical and redaction-critical oriented research can do justice to the facts contained in the ‘Book of Ezekiel.’”1 The following reflections are based on the conviction that the Book of Ezekiel had a long history of growth, a history that found its starting point in the work of the historical prophet who was active during the Babylonian exile. This initial work was then revised and updated by the School of Ezekiel (agreeing with Zimmerli). This growth probably continued even into the Hellenistic era, with further interpretations and re-interpretations during this long process of the book’s transmission. 1.2 The Book of Ezekiel as an Exilic Literature Although it is not the historical figure Ezekiel, but the book named after him (together with its moving history of tradition) that is the centre of interest, the 1 Karl-Friedrich Pohlmann, Ezechiel. Der Stand der theologischen Diskussion (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2008), 209: “Der Hauptstreitpunkt ist derzeit, ob die sog. ‚holistische‘ Interpretation bzw. ‚Endtextexegese‘ oder die literar‑ und redaktionskritisch orientierte Forschung dem Sachverhalt ‚Ez-Buch‘ gerecht werden kann”.

32

Franz Sedlmeier

fact still remains that the Book of Ezekiel presents itself as exilic literature. The catastrophic experience of the Babylonian exile necessitated a critical reflection on Israel’s past. At the same time, the question arose anew and radically in this time of woe as to what the future of the people would look like. In order to cope with the fact of the exile, it was necessary not only to understand the past but also to have fresh visions for the future. The book’s stated historical context is the Babylonian exile, when the prophet called ‘Ezekiel’ worked, and this affirmation is not altered in the following centuries when the message of Ezekiel was adapted and interpreted according to different perspectives.2 The time of the exile with its experiences of demolition, the connected necessity of a new beginning and re-orientation, as well as the dramatic renewal of Israel and of each Israelite by God, made the experience of the exile the ‘existential context’ of later re-reading of the Ezekielian message. How does the future salvation that arises from the crisis experience of the exile present itself according to the Book of Ezekiel?

2. Thesis The message of salvation of the Book of Ezekiel, as generated by the crisis experience of exile, is not primarily geared towards a political restoration but rather towards a new quality of the relationship of Israel to her God against the backdrop of the world of the other nations. Future salvation is not primarily a restoration in the sense of creating a new version of the past. With the return from the exile and the rebuilding of Jerusalem, the promises are not yet fulfilled. The words of salvation reach beyond the physical restoration and make it appear to be merely a preliminary fulfilment. This is valid not only for the rebuilding immediately after the exile. It is also valid for the later phases of consolidation, even into the late Old Testament times under the Hasmoneans. The traces of an “eschatological” hope are clearly indicated in the Book of Ezekiel and are not to be overlooked: They point towards a coming fullness of time which far exceeds human capability. In fact, they point towards a future salvation of Israel in a life before the face of God. I am quite aware that the use of the expression “eschatological” is at the same time a pointer to a problem.3 This essay employs the expression “eschatological” 2 Among the different perspectives on the revisions, see for example, Karl-Friedrich Pohlmann, Der Prophet Hesekiel / ​Ezechiel. Kapitel 20–48, mit einem Beitrag von Thilo Alexander Rudnig, Das Alte Testament Deutsch 22.2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001), 526, who, starting from an older prophetic book, accepts gola-oriented and diaspora-oriented redactions which were once again edited “von einer bereits der Apokalyptik nahestehenden oder von ihr beeinflussten Bearbeitung” (“from a revision already close to the apocalyptic tradition or influenced by it.”). 3 The original concept coined in the systematic theology of the nineteenth century emphasizes the close of this present time, focuses on the hereafter and the life after death, and knows a

The Proclamation of Salvation in the Book of Ezekiel

33

in a particular way. “Eschatological” here means ‘a vision of future that cannot be improved or retracted.’ In the phase of this no-longer-revisable salvation, Israel finds her abiding place before God. This gives a special meaning to the aspects of the change and the transformation, which include an essentially qualitative renewal with respect to the past. This will be elaborated in what now follows with some appropriate texts from the Book of Ezekiel.

3. Unfolding the Thesis The proclamation of salvation is concentrated in the third part of the Book of Ezekiel (Ezek 33–48), but it is not limited thereto. The rough outline of the Book of Ezekiel, according to the so-called tripartite eschatological scheme, can only manifest in a very schematic fashion how much the judgement oracles and the message of salvation are linked together in Ezekiel. Just as the prophetical words of judgement in Ezek 1–24 and 25–32 are repeatedly interrupted by perspectives of salvation (see Ezek 11.14–21; 13.9; 14.6, 11; 16.53–63; 17.22–24; 20.39–44; 28.24, 25–26), so too the message of salvation in the third section of the Book of Ezekiel expressly includes both words of judgement and words of threat (compare Ezek 33.23–33; 34.1–10, 17–22; 35; 36.16–20; 38–39; 43.7–9; 44.6–10; 45.9). The earlier misdeeds and faults of the people are not relegated to the realm of the forgotten, but rather are remembered. This remembering belongs to the horizon of salvation (see Ezek 36.16–23, 29, 31; 39.23–24).4 The resulting interconnection of subject and argument, even in the case when it is owed to diachronic processes of redaction, allows the ‘change’ from punishment to salvation to appear central in the case of ‘eschatological’ texts, and for the coming salvation, which arrives with the change, to manifest new qualities. In the journey through the threefold eschatological structure of the Book of Ezekiel this interconnection of themes, old and new, will be concretely explained. cosmic-universal, a collective-communitarian and a personal-individual dimension. This narrow understanding of “eschatology” plays scarcely any role in an Old Testament eschatology. If Old Testament texts are qualified as “eschatological”, the concept is employed now and then in a very broad sense and in reference to all prophetic promises. However, such a concept clarification does not explain much. Klaus Koenen, “Eschatologie”, in WiBiLex Wissenschaftliches Bibellexikon im Internet WiBiLex. Number 1 (January 2007; accessed on 15 April 2013), suggests this paraphrase for a concise definition of the expression: “Eschatology describes the idea of a definitive inner-worldly time of salvation … One awaits not the end of time, but a change of time which leads to the fulfillment of creation; no other world but this world instead; no life in heaven, but heaven on earth; no end of time, but an end of suffering in a time without end.” 4 The Book of Deuteronomy, in which Moses prepares the people for the gift of the land (cf. Deut 4.9–10, 23; 6.10–12; 8.10–18; 9.7), also sees this connection of “remembering” or “not forgetting” and salvation. In Deut 9.7, 23–24, for instance, the history of the people’s sins, which preceded the renewal of the covenant, is remembered.

34

Franz Sedlmeier

3.1 The Message of Salvation in the Context of the Judgement Oracles: Ezekiel 1–24 In studying the message of salvation within the oracles of judgement against Israel in Ezek 1–24, an extensive diachronic explanation must be provided. Nevertheless, there arises through the work of redactors on the level of the book a foundational and thematic connection which gives the salvation message of Ezekiel its profile. 3.1.1 Salvation for the Banished (“ far from God”, v. 15): Ezekiel 11.14–21. Within the vision about the sin of Israel at the sanctuary and of the departure of the divine glory from the Temple in Ezek 8–11, there is a passage that speaks about the judgement on the city, on the one hand (Ezek 11.1–12), and, on the other, about salvation for the community living in the exile (Ezek 11.14–21). It is the first word of salvation in the Book of Ezekiel that a redactor has consciously inserted. According the view of “the people of Jerusalem” (‫ )ישבי ירושלם‬the banished ones are, “far from Yhwh” (‫ ;רחקו מעל יהוה‬v. 15), but in the view of Yhwh, these very people, who had to undergo his judgement, are allowed to experience in the midst of this judgement the hidden nearness of God: ‫ואהי להם למקדש מעט‬ (“surely I have been near them as their sanctuary”; v. 16b). Precisely for these apparent losers in history Yhwh begins to unfold a new future (vv. 17–20a). In that way, the message of salvation receives a function that is critical of authority and destabilizing of system. According to Ezek 11.14–21, salvation is promised to those who are in need of it, and who have also brought with them a readiness for a new beginning, which they manifest in turning away from the false gods (v. 18). The saving future itself is described as a fundamental and transforming action of Yhwh: an inner renewal of man (a ‫“ לב אחד‬united, undivided heart”, as ‫“ לב בשר‬a heart of flesh”, and ‫“ ורוח חדשה‬and a new spirit”) and as a new exodus (the gathering of those destroyed, the reunification of the people of God, the gift of the land). If one accepts with Barthélemy that the original message of salvation had in mind the changing of the human heart from a ‫“( לב האבן‬heart of stone”) to ‫“( לב אחר‬another heart”)5 then that would have brought into expression in 5 In an article deserving attention, Dominique Barthélemy has shown that the MT ‫לב אחד‬ “one heart” could have replaced an older and accepted reading found in the LXX. That means that an earlier ‫ אחר‬would have been corrected in many parts of the Book of Ezekiel in favour of a later ‫אחד‬. He sees the reason for this revision of text in a pejorative use of ‫אחר‬, which could be clearly observed at the time of the Books of Chronicles. “Il semble donc bien qu’en corrigeant … ‫ ַא ֵחר‬en ‫א ָחד‬, ֶ les transmetteurs du Texte Massorétique d’Éz 11.19a aient voulu éviter que leurs contemporains ne risquent de comprendre cet ‘autre cœur’ (que le Seigneur donnera à ceux qu’il aura ramenés de l’exil) comme un cœur idolâtre ou effronté”: “It seems that, in correcting … ‫ ַא ֵחר‬to ‫א ָחד‬, ֶ the transmitters of the Masoretic Text of Ezekiel 11.19a wanted to avoid risking their contemporaries understanding this “other heart” (which the Lord will give to those that will be brought back from exile) as an idolatrous or brazen heart.” (Dominique Barthélemy, “‘Un seul’, ‘un nouveau’ ou ‘un autre’? A propos de l’intervention du Seigneur sur le cœur de l’homme selon Éz 11,19a et des problèmes de critique textuelle qu’elle soulève,” in Der Weg des

The Proclamation of Salvation in the Book of Ezekiel

35

a particularly vivid fashion the change wrought by Yhwh. From the undivided heart (‫)לב אחד‬, to remain with the MT, on the one hand, and, on the other, from the gift of the new spirit (‫)רוח חדשה‬, there arise the freedom and the enablement to live according to the law of Yhwh (v. 20). Just as the final introduction ‫ למען‬at the beginning of v. 20 shows, the real goal of the divine action is located in the preparation and enabling of people, in this case the exiles, to open their lives to the divinely proclaimed will of God and to live by it. The covenant formula, ‫והיו־לי‬ ‫“( לעם ואני אהיה להם לאלהים‬and they will be my people, and I will be their God”), appears here in its two-part formulation, expressing the new quality of the unity between God and his people. This is very much more than mere restoration. Rather, there comes into view a future of God’s people in a situation of lasting salvation. This future is no human possibility. It can only come into reality by means of a heart that has been healed and renewed by God himself, and by means of a unity that God has brought about in God’s people. 3.1.2 The Community of Yhwh Beyond Judgement – Without False Prophecy: Ezekiel 13.9. In his oracle of judgement against false prophecy6 in Ezek 13.9, Ezekiel threatens the false prophets with expulsion from the future community of Yhwh, after the judgement: “They will not belong to the community of my people, ‫בסוד עמי לא־יהיו‬ and they will not be listed in the list of the House of Israel, ‫ובכתב בית־ישראל לא יכתבו‬ and they shall not enter the land of Israel …”. ‫ואל־אדמת ישראל לא יבאו‬

With this threefold denial, the false prophets, who had just been profiled as messengers of salvation, are denied a share in the salvation on the other side of the judgement. In reverse, this means that in the saving future, which Ezekiel sees on the other side of judgement for the community of Yhwh, there will be no more false prophecy, those powers which becloud or darken the reality of God with their words. The way of judgement, which the people of Yhwh are to follow, separates between life and lies.7 It is only through this that the way opens for the knowledge of God, a knowledge that is not veiled, as the fourfold use of

Menschen. Zur philosophischen und theologischen Anthropologie: Festschrift für Alfons Deissler, ed. Rudolf Mosis and Lothar Ruppert [Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1989], 335.) For the details in the argumentation one can refer to the article itself. 6 For more detail, see Franz Sedlmeier, “‘Wie Füchse in den Ruinen …’ Falsche Prophetie und Krisenzeit nach Ezek 13”, in Gottes Wege suchend: Beiträge zum Verständnis der Bibel und ihrer Botschaft: Festschrift für Rudolf Mosis zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Franz Sedlmeier (Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 2003), 293–321; Rudolf Mosis, “Ezechiel 13: Verkündigung aus eigenem Herzen. Zur Unterscheidung der Geister,” Trierer Theologische Zeitschrift 120 (2011): 46–63. 7 In hindsight, Zech 10.2 sees the misbehaviour of the false prophets as one of the causes of the exile.

36

Franz Sedlmeier

the formula of recognition in v. 9, 14, 21, 23 shows.8 This transparency between Yhwh and his people reflects the desire for conversion found in Ezek 14.1–11. 3.1.3 Israel’s Guaranteed Place before God: Ezekiel 14.1–11. The word of judgement in Ezek 14.1–11 against the idolaters and against the prophets, who put themselves at the service of idolatry, is to be understood as a call to conversion that aims at salvation and new life.9 Some of the elders, representatives and speakers of the people of Yhwh come to Ezekiel in order to consult God through him. They thereby reveal that Yhwh is the decisive reference point of their lives. At the same time, they still depend on other gods and are not ready to free themselves from them. However, service to the gods and faith in Yhwh do not go together. Ezekiel receives the task of manifesting this hypocrisy. As a prophet and a priest, he combines the situational prophetic oracle of judgement with the typical priestly style of teaching the law (vv. 3–5, 7–10) which comes in form of casuistic statements of law and is formulated as permanently valid. Through the combination of prophetic oracle of judgement and priestly teaching of the law, Ezekiel was able to transcend the immediate circumstances and make a timeless argument: Yhwh-worship and the service of the gods are mutually exclusive. Ezekiel 14.1–11 aims at a believing Israel, so much that she has left every hypocrisy and ambivalence behind and become totally transparent to God. Readiness for conversion is the preparation for the coming salvation. Thereby, Israel will find a lasting place before her God that cannot be abrogated. Verse 11a vividly expresses this goal of the ways of God: ‫למען לא־יתעו עוד בית־ישראל מאחרי ולא־יטמאו עוד בכל־פשעיהם‬ So that those of the house of Israel will no longer leave me for what is mistaken, and will no longer make herself impure with all her wrongdoing.

The concluding covenant formula certifies this goal of the ways of God – the abiding and no-longer-losable communion with him: “Then they will be my people (‫)והיו לי לעם‬, and I, I will be their God (‫ואני אהיה להם לאלהים נאם אדני‬ ‫)יהוה‬ – saying of my Lord, Yhwh” (v. 11b). 3.1.4 God-given Conversion and God’s ‘Eternal Covenant’: 16.53–58, 59–63. The great historical narrative in Ezek 16 about the chosen mistress, Jerusalem, who 8 The fact that the New Testament also warns against false prophets and reckons with them even unto the return of Christ shows that the New Testament also understands itself as ‘between-times’ and therefore knows that the fulfillment of that which has begun with Christ is still pending. Some relevant texts are: Mt 7.15–20; 24.4–5, 23–25; Mk 13.21–23; Gal 1.8–9; Eph 4.14; 1 Tim 4.1–2; 2 Tim 3.13; Tit 1.10; 2 Pet 2.1–3; 1 Jn 2.18; 3.7–8; 4.1–6; 2 Jn 7–11; Jud 3–4; Rev 13.11–17 etc. 9 For more details on the issue, see Rudolf Mosis, “Ezek 14,1–11 – ein Ruf zur Umkehr,” Biblische Zeitschrift 19 (1975): 161–194 (reprinted in Rudolf Mosis, Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Alten Testament, Forschung zur Bibel 93 [Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1999], 201–241).

The Proclamation of Salvation in the Book of Ezekiel

37

becomes a prostitute, finds its apex in the God-inspired reconciliation (vv. 59– 63) and in the promise of God’s eternal covenant. In this conversion, the two sisters Samaria and Sodom are connected with their former daughter cities (v. 53). These two, as observed in the rare formulation of v. 61, are given to Jerusalem as daughters (‫)ונתתי אתהן לך לבנות‬, “even if not from your covenant” (‫)ולא מבריתך‬.10 According to Zimmerli, these statements mean that the thought arises, “dass Jerusalem seine Wiederherstellung im Rahmen eines Großisrael erfährt, in dem auch Samaria, die Kapitale des Nordreichs, und Sodom, die verwunschene Tiefe des Jordantals, nicht fehlen.”11 This would allow for the further claim that the minimal promise would include a transformed political programme, in which Jerusalem could achieve liberation and preeminence and so limit Samaria’s area of influence (Ezek 16.59–63).12 10 The formula ‫“ ולא מבריתך‬if also not from your covenant” is not clear. Much depends on the understanding of the preposition ‫( מן‬see Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel 1–24, New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1997), 518). If the preposition were understood as causative (see GKC § 119z) ‘because, as a result of’, the undeserved position of Jerusalem and the divine sovereignty is stressed. As ‫מן‬-privativum understood (Waltke and O’Connor § 11.2.11e: “a privative marker”) “it marks what is missing … or unavailable”. With the denial of the preposition, there would be added the contrary idea that “Samaria and Sodom are not kept outside the covenant as second-class citizens. Instead, as the daughters of Jerusalem they are fully incorporated into the covenant people of Yahweh” (Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 518). Were the preposition understood in a concessive sense that would mean that “Sodom and Samaria will become benefactors of this covenant, even though they had no covenantal ties with Jerusalem. This interpretation seems to account most satisfactorily for the second person suffix on bĕrît” (Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 518). 11 “… Jerusalem experiences her restoration as part of a Greater Israel, including Samaria, the capital of the northern kingdom, and Sodom, the haunted ruin of the Jordan Valley” (Walther Zimmerli, Ezechiel 1–24. 1. Teilband, Biblische Kommentar Altes Testament XIII/1 [Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1979], 370). Compare also Karl-Friedrich Pohlmann, Der Prophet Hesekiel / ​Ezechiel. Kapitel 119, Das Alte Testament Deutsch 22.1 (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2008), 235 (under the reference to Hölscher): “V. 61 deutet an, daß Jahwe für die weitere Zukunft doch wieder eine Vormachtstellung Jerusalems vorgesehen hat: ‚Jerusalem soll die Metropolis des ganzen Landes mit allen seinen Orten werden.’” Similarly Leslie C. Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, Word Biblical Commentary 28 (Dallas: Word, 1994), 246: “Sodom and Samaria and their dependencies, restored as promised in vv. 53 and 55, would be subordinated to Jerusalem as capital of a promised land that included their territory (cf. 47.15–20).” Compare also Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 518: “Jerusalem will receive Samaria and Sodom as daughters, an inheritance granted to her by Yahweh. By this act, those whom she had previously despised are now rendered her subordinates; Judah, Israel, and Sodom will be united as one nation under the rule of Jerusalem.” 12 Thomas Krüger, Geschichtskonzepte im Ezechielbuch, Beheifte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 10 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1986), 329–333, sees in Ezek 16.44–63 an effort at work “die stärker am Grundsätzlichen interessierten und Spielräume der Konkretisierung offenlassenden Restitutionsprognosen des EB [= Ezechielbuch] zu konkretisieren und in ein politisches Programm umzusetzen” (332). While 16.44–58 could have in mind … “ein mit Samaria und Idumäa / ​Edom assoziiertes Judäa / ​Jerusalem”, “ohne eine Vormachtstellung Jerusalems zu behaupten, was den politischen Realitäten der Zeit nach Gedalja entsprechen könnte”, then 16.59–63 would have had a change of these realities in view (see Krüger,

38

Franz Sedlmeier

Even if this kind of restorative struggle stands behind the text or if vv. 59–63 should be read in the sense of a restoration, the text itself still shows evidence that something more is in view than mere political restoration. In her forgetfulness the woman Jerusalem had once “not thought” (vv. 22, 43) of the saving divine actions on her behalf in the days of her youth. It is the thought of God (v. 60), of a God who remains true to his covenant and who does not break his promise, which will also make possible and effect a new thinking on Jerusalem’s part (vv. 61, 63). The fact that God is ‘mindful’ of his people is also the cause and the solid ground for the change of destiny.13 The earlier covenant, which Yhwh had once established (v. 8), had been broken by Jerusalem, while the chosen bride had still scoffingly set aside and forgotten her promised vow (v. 59). This full rupture is a fact and, as such, it will be inscribed into the coming history of Jerusalem after salvation. Jerusalem will consequently have always to picture herself such that infidelity is a part of her identity (vv. 61, 63).14 From her own potentialities, the way of Jerusalem led into a history of guilt, in which she was in solidarity with Samaria and Sodom. On the other hand, in contrast with his bride, God remained aware of his covenant into which he had entered (v. 60). Indeed, he will set up a new covenant “for you” (‫)והקמותי לך‬, namely Jerusalem, as an “eternal covenant” (v. 60). This “eternal covenant” (‫ )ברית עולם‬will be withdrawn from human grip, and so it may not be broken by the human partner. At the same time, it is Yhwh who extended the “eternal covenant” between himself and his people to Samaria and Sodom. In this case, it is not the superiority of Jerusalem but rather the extension of ‫ ברית עולם‬that stands in the foreground. Finally, God’s ‘radical fidelity’15 expresses itself in the victory of his mercy and love. The salvation announced here renews the people of God from their roots and offers the gift of ‫ ברית עולם‬not only to Israel but to the nations of the world, as the inclusion of Sodom indicates. 3.1.5 The “Tender Branch” (v. 22) – A Trace of Messianic Promise? (Ezek 17.22–24). According to Ezek 17, the Davidic kingdom seemed to have reached its end as, among other texts, the dirge in Ezek 19 bears witness. The collapse of the kings of Israel in their function as mediators of salvation sets up the negative backGeschichtskonzepte, 332 n. 229). This change could thereby bring about a freeing of Jerusalem from Samaria’s realm of influence. 13 The biblical writings frequently stress that God’s remembering means a change of destiny. Cf. Gen 8.1 (Noah); 19.25 (Lot); 30.22 (Rachel); 1 Sam 1.19 (Hanna). “In diesem Gedenken,” – thus C. Westermann – “ist das Erbarmen mit dem Todbedrohten impliziert; zugleich aber ist damit schon das rettende Handeln eingeleitet” (Claus Westermann, Genesis 1–11, Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament I/1 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1983) 92 f.). 14 For a salvation expectation that is exclusively understood as political restoration, the recollection of the past guilt history in the form it is done here would make no sense. 15 Martin Mark, “Ewiger Bund als radikalisierte Treue: Zur rhetorischen Strategie von Ezechiel 16” in Gottes Wege suchend, 203.

The Proclamation of Salvation in the Book of Ezekiel

39

ground against which vv. 22–24 highlight salvation beyond the demise of the Davidic dynasty. This salvation will be the work of God alone, which he himself will bring about in a future that is not clearly determined. For this salvific future, which God and only he can bring about (theocentrism!), he will also make use of a mediating kingly figure. The humble beginning of the messianic king – the ‘tender branch’ and his unimaginable growth into a ‘world-tree’ (i. e., universal acknowledgement of the nations of the world) – show that this growth process will be effected by God alone. This salvation is for Israel, Jerusalem, and Zion,16 but it will also open itself out to the nations of the world. The concrete localization of salvation (“the mountain of the height of Israel”), together with its universal width and efficacy (the horizon of the nations of the world), do not exclude each other, but condition each other mutually. Even if Ezek 17.22–24 in its gola-oriented view pictures a descendent of Jehoiachin (e. g., Zerubbabel; 1 Chr 3.19; Hag 1.1), the aforementioned vision concerning the world-tree cannot be accounted for as a hyperbolic expression of hope for a political restoration. Indeed, the messianic dimension in Ezek 17.22–24 will be articulated later in Ezek 34.23–24 and 37.24–25. Likewise, the concrete location of salvation on the high mountains of Israel will emerge again in Ezek 20.40 and in Ezek 40.2. 3.1.6 A Cultic Service Pleasing to God and Israel’s Acceptance by God: Ezekiel 20.39, 40–41. Ezekiel 20 reflects Israel’s history, beginning with its great tradition of exodus, which it destroys, contending that Israel’s denial of her God reaches to the roots of her existence as a nation. In the light of this denial, Yhwh announces a new exodus (vv. 33–39, 40–44), which will not be under the sign of salvation as in Deutero-Isaiah but under the omen of judgement. This new exodus will lead Israel out of exile in order to prevent her from assimilating to the world of the nations; it will lead into the ‘wilderness of the nations,’ in order to remove Israel from the field of influence of the nations. In the immediate confrontation, ‘faceto-face’ with her God, Yhwh’s people will be confronted with a decision ‘for’ or ‘against’ Yhwh. The exclusion of the rebels implies (by analogy with Ezek 13.9; 14.1–11; 18 and the pericopae of the sentries) a future community of the people of Yhwh who belong very decisively to him. Verses 40–44, concluding the chapter, provide a theology that clearly diverges from previous context. Regarding Israel’s infidelity to the covenant relationship through the worship of the other gods, God himself will obviate it, in the sense that he will make future infidelity impossible. How this will happen is not indicated. At the same time, Israel will be rendered ‘incapable’ of serving the gods further. The goal of the journey, which God himself travels with his people, is a new presence of God among his people and a new 16 This connection of Jerusalem and Zion is a matter of fact, even when Ezekiel never mentions Zion explicitly.

40

Franz Sedlmeier

presence of the people before the face of God. Put another way, the object is to overcome the separation from God experienced in the exile. This overcoming is expressed in the images of Israel’s ‘self-disgust’ and ‘abhorrence’ at her godless past. The memory of these will inspire a new search for God, indeed a new turning towards God. As was already expressed in Ezek 17.22–24, the God-given salvation will be bound to a definite place, to Zion, even though this name is never mentioned in the Book of Ezekiel. Verses 40–42 spell this out: “my (Yhwh’s) holy mountain” and “the high mountain of Israel.” In the future, the sacrifice that is pleasing to God will also take place here, and through it God will be ‘served’ in truth (Ezek 43.27). The use of the metaphor “sweet odour of sacrifice,” which Yhwh is pleased to accept, brings into view the inward relationship of Yhwh to his people in an unequalled manner: Yhwh and Israel will each be within the other. As in the earlier judgement (vv. 1–39), so here the fulfilment is proclaimed in the forum of the nations of the world. With the renewal of Israel, Ezekiel has in view, once again, the whole world. The coming salvation is consequently of universal importance, for Yhwh brings about this salvation “for the sake of my name.” As proof of the universal power and glory of Yhwh, Israel will be led into a new and pleasant future and will find an abiding place before her God. 3.2 The Proclamation of Redemption within the Framework of the Oracles Concerning the Foreign Nations: Ezekiel 25–32 In the final edition of the book, the oracles concerning the foreign nations mark the transition to the proclamation of salvation in Ezek 33–39, 40–48. At the same time, these words open a sphere which influences, in a not insignificant fashion, the understanding of the proclamation of salvation. 3.2.1 The Horizon of the Oracles Concerning the Foreign Nations in Ezekiel 25–32. The oracles concerning the foreign nations in general: The fact that in Ezek 25–32 a total of seven nations are held up as the objects of the divine judgement, and that, furthermore, the saying against Sidon (28.20–23) is composed almost exclusively from pre-existing textual building blocks, shows that the final redactors focused on the sevenfold number of the nations. The seven date formulae are conspicuous, which, with the exception of Ezek 29.17, all revolve around the fateful years of 587–585 BCE. Also conspicuous are the seven songs of lament that proclaim the collapse of Tyre (presented as four complaints: Ezek 26.17–18; 27.2–27; 27.32–36; 28.12–19) and Egypt (presented as three complaints: Ezek 31; 32.2–6; 32.18–32). Over and above all this, there is the large complex of oracles against Egypt in Ezek 29–32 that may have once constituted an independent collection, and, once again, were composed from seven smaller words of judgement. The last of these words of judgement against Egypt (Ezek 32.17–32) mentions seven nations and their fate in the underworld.

The Proclamation of Salvation in the Book of Ezekiel

41

It is probable that the number seven should be understood as pointing towards universal or all embracive salvation. Were the focus on the restoration of Israel in the Persian period (resetting into a pre-exilic status quo or validating the temple community of Persian Yehud), such an encompassing judgement would be unnecessary. Universal judgement of the nations is meaningful and necessary only if a qualitative change in the destiny of Israel is also in sight, a change which includes abiding salvation for the nations of the world too. 3.2.2 The Oracles Concerning Tyre, Ezekiel 26–28. There is no Old Testament text where Tyre comes to such prominence as in the Book of Ezekiel, which devotes three large chapters, made up of four oracles, to that rich seaport-state. The first two oracles of judgement are directed against the city, while the two subsequent oracles are against its rulers. In that way, the collapse of the city at first is described realistically (Ezek 26) and then it is clothed in an allegorical and artistic statement (Ezek 27) depicting the collapse of the beautiful ship Tyre, over which a lament for the dead is made. A corresponding succession of judgement-lament marks the two following oracles also: the word of judgement against the ‘prince’ (‫ ;נגיד‬Ezek 28.1–10) and the lament of the dead for the ‘king’ (‫ )מלך‬of Tyre in vv. 11–19. The once thriving city will be thrown down into the underworld (Ezek 26.19– 21; 27.26–36), and it will remain there forever. The judgements and laments over the city clearly go beyond the human horizons of space and time. The destiny of Tyre ends in the realm of the underworld, and they extend its unhappy lot infinitely (“forever”). Ezekiel 26.21b is formulated as follows: “Whoever seeks you, will never find you (‫)ולא־תמצאי עוד לעולם‬ – a saying of God, the Lord.” A similar statement is found in Ezek 27.36b and 28.19b.17 In addition, there are universal effects on the world’s nations and the hereafter, which Ezek 27.26–36 expressly highlights. The worldwide lament about death and the picture of the world’s abiding horror of the hereafter widen space and time immeasurably – a widening of horizon which would not be necessary if the dramaturgy of the Book of Ezekiel was aimed merely at a restoration of the nation of Israel as a Temple community. In a corresponding fashion, the words of judgement are also directed against the prince or king of Tyre, who is similarly threatened with final destruction. To him it is said: “You have become a picture of ‘the horrible’; you will be nothing forever (‫( ”)ואינך עד־עולם‬Ezek 28.19b). A renewed widening of horizons is evident here. The prince is compared with the wise king Dani’el, that legendary figure from the early times who may be mythical. Something similar is true of the king. Eden is his home, and he lives in the company of the cherub, in the fiery presence of the Godhead. Even the lot of this ruler leads down into the depths of 17 Ezek 27.36b: “You have become the picture of horror, you are nothing forever”. Ezek 28.19b: “You have become like a picture of horror, you are nothing forever.”

42

Franz Sedlmeier

the underworld, into an everlasting oblivion. Now mythical statements are not to be equated with with ‘eschatological’ statements. Still, through the tendency towards the mythical, and along with the aforementioned extension of space and time, there exists a renewed widening of horizon which makes it difficult to reduce the quality of the current change for the people of Yhwh to a mere political restoration. 3.2.3 The Oracles Concerning Egypt, Ezekiel 29–32. Just as in the aforementioned oracles of judgement against Tyre, the seven oracles about Egypt in Ezek 29–32 are formulated to condemn the Pharaoh’s hubris. First, the prophet announces the judgement of Yhwh against the role of Egypt in Israel’s history – as an undependable and deceitful coalition partner. In any case, the historical dimension is consciously overlooked while Egypt is described in its ambivalence as a world power with an inclination towards selfdivinisation. When the Pharaoh is addressed as ‫התנים הגדול‬, “the great crocodile” (29.3), there emerges in this address a certain multivalence. The motif of the crocodile is many-layered. It can express the strength of the Pharaoh and his armies, as epigraphic evidence shows. In his link with the waters, he is at the same time an element of chaos and, as such, the very contradiction of the divinity of the creator who conquers the beast and in that way ensures the order of creation. Since the cosmic-mythological elements in Ezek 28 (against Tyre) and in Ezek 29–32 (against Egypt) occur frequently, the imagery is to be interpreted as a mythological code (“als mythologische Chiffre”), which “must be translated with ‘the great dragon’ or its equivalent, and can hardly be simply compared with an animal.” The expression, “the great crocodile” “means … in the mythological language the historically real world power in his divinised essence”.18 This transgression of boundary will bring about the downfall of the Pharaoh and will destroy the whole of Egypt, his realm of power (compare Ezek 30.1–19 with the motif of ‘the Day of Yhwh’). The grandiose image of the Pharaoh as ‘world tree’ Ezek 31.1–18 now develops the image of world power in accord with the example of Assyria, which collapsed because of its own self-exaltation, and transfers this image at the same time to the Pharaoh. Through the interconnection between the destinies of the two world powers, the one in the North and the other in the South, the phenomenon of world power is depicted in a unique way.19 The one tree stands opposite all the 18 Rudolf Mosis, “‫גָ ַדל‬,” in Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Vol. I. Stuttgart; (Berlin; Köln; Mainz: Verlag W. Kohlhammer, 1973), 933 f.: Der Ausdruck “das große Krokodil” “meint … in mythologischer Sprache die historisch-reale Weltmacht in ihrem gottwidrigen Wesen”. 19 It is to be assumed that an original text, which presumably had nothing to do with the Pharaoh, was reworked. How this text, which had as its content the motif of the tree of beauty, looked originally may only be described hypothetically. The suggestions that are offered thereto are equally manifold.

The Proclamation of Salvation in the Book of Ezekiel

43

remaining trees (note the frequent use of the particle ‫)כל‬. It becomes the centre, just as its intimidating size and its fruitfulness show. This tree not only bursts all spaces in a horizontal direction, it also outstrips the usual vertical borders: the roots reach to the very waters of the flood, the treetop reaches up to the clouds. Thus, the world power seems to stand out again in its multivalence: it offers a home for all and at the same time leans towards the position where it creates and absolutizes its own world order. The felling of the tree, which is pushed into the underworld, shakes the underworld. Ezekiel 31 is a paradigmatic text, which demystifies every world power. In this way, Israel’s view, blinded as it is by the fascination of the world powers, is freed to observe a greater reality: Yhwh himself. The quality of future salvation, which God himself will bring about, can in the light of the fall of the great powers clarify that which is of lasting and ultimate reality. This question is posed and has to be answered. The dirge about the Pharaoh, who is metaphorically addressed as ‘the crocodile in the waters’ (‫ ;ואתה כתנים בימים‬Ezek 32.1–16), and the descent of Pharaoh with all his forces into the underworld in Ezek 32.17–32, shows once more that here the foundation of Yhwh’s historical might is being expressed. It is not accidental that we find here again a sevenfold group of nations – Assur, Elam, Meschech, Tubal, Edom, the princes of the North and of Sidon – indicating that all the nations of the world are in view.20 Not only Assyria and Egypt (see Ezek 31), but all the kingdoms of the past, whether great or small, ended in the realm of the dead: nothing from them has remained. This fate will be the fate of the Pharaoh, too. In the middle of the gloomy picture of Egypt’s fate (a picture devoid of consolation), a message of fundamental significance and consequence can be heard: the Pharaoh of Egypt and all his property will end where all the kingdoms and all holders of power end, even those who reigned in terror and shook the world. They all end in the world of the dead. This judgement inspires all to fear God and prepares an end for the lordliness of the lords. Thus, it reveals who is truly the Lord of history. The horizon of God’s saving might cannot and should not remain behind the horizon of his might as expressed in judgement. There is an abidingly valid alternative to the world of the dead. The alternative is an irrevocable salvation for Israel. Judgement on the powers of the world (who, as we have seen, are presented as anti-God) makes smooth the coming of the 20 According to Larry Boadt, Ezekiel’s Oracles against Egypt: A Literary and Philological Study of Ezekiel 29–32, Bibliotheca Orientalis 37 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980), a basic text 32.17–28 was added to verses 29–32 in order to get the sevenfold number of the nations: “All that can be ascertained is that the finals redaction creates a general impression of about 7 nations” (151). See also Marco Nobile, “Beziehung zwischen Ezek 32,17–32 und der Gog-Perikope (Ezek 38–39) im Licht der Endredaktion,” in Ezekiel and his Book. Textual and Literary Criticism and their Interrelation, ed. Johan Lust, Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensum 74 (Leuven: Leuven University Press 1986), 255–259. According to Nobile the final redaction presents a connection expressly between Ezek 32.17–32 and the Gog pericope.

44

Franz Sedlmeier

lordship of Yhwh. Thus, here too, there is more to be seen than hope for mere national restoration. 3.2.4 The Overcoming of Hatred towards Israel and the Lasting Salvation for Israel: 28.24, 25–26. Among the oracles on the foreign nations, Ezek 28.24, 25–26 presents itself as an explicit oracle of salvation and is connected with the oracle against Sidon in Ezek 28.20–23. The contrast between the oracle of judgement against Sidon (vv. 20–23), which stands as an example for the enemies, and the proclamation of salvation of v. 24 and vv. 25–26 to the House of Israel, is typical. Verse 24 focuses on the consequences that result from Yhwh’s judgement of the Nations for the people of God. Not only Sidon, but the nations of world in general, will overcome their hatred of Israel, as expressed in the images of ‘stinging thorn’ and ‘painful sting,’ so that the contempt of the nations might end. This change in the destiny of Israel – no longer to be the object of the hatred and contempt of the nations – finds its culmination in the knowledge of the God by the nations. While v. 24 characterizes the God-given amnesty as the end of oppression and threat, vv. 25–26 offer an inner view of God’s salvation. The word of salvation in vv. 25–26 is indeed formulated from the beginning in relation to its context. Evidence for this is the fact that various statements from Ezek 33–39 appear in these verses, especially from Ezek 39.21–22. On the level of the redaction of the whole book, verses 25–26 thereby have the purpose of preparing the salvation statements in Ezek 33–39 and of connecting the sayings of the foreign nations with the proclamation of salvation. At the same time, this means that these verses belong to a late phase in the composition of the Book of Ezekiel. The following important themes emerge in vv. 25–26: –– The new gathering of Israel, as a central motif of the prophetic proclamation of redemption.21 –– Yhwh’s proof of his holiness: Yhwh makes holy his name precisely through and in the fact that he overcomes the nations’ hatred of Israel and gathers Israel. In this way, he shows himself before the world of the nations as the God who is great in history and determines its course. This theme is central in Ezek 36.16–23. –– The dwelling in the land that was once given to Jacob, and dwelling in safety: The first expression, ‘dwelling in the land’, that was given to Jacob, is re-employed in Ezek 37.25. The second expression, ‘dwelling in safety’, emerges twice in this short passage. It appears anew in Ezek 34.25, 27–28, and further in both chapters that deal with Gog and Magog in Ezek 38.8, 11 and 39.26. 21 It is found in Ezekiel in the following places: Ezek 11.17; 20.34, 41; 34.13; 36.24; 37.21; 37.8 and 39.27.

The Proclamation of Salvation in the Book of Ezekiel

45

–– The image of house building and of the planting of vineyards shows the relationship of the salvation statements in the Book of Ezekiel with those found in the Book of Jeremiah. –– The concluding knowledge of God indicates the purpose of this word and provides at the same time the purpose of all the ways of God also for the nations. It is not a question of the happy possession of some kind of salvation benefits, even when these are certified by God. The reference to God himself (and the recognition of Yhwh acting in history on humanity and on the world, together with his covenant fidelity) is the decisive salvation gift, towards which Israel is on the way. Therein is Israel already in touch with fullness in this temporal world, with the fullness of time. 3.3 Images of the Fullness of Salvation: Ezekiel 33–39, 40–48 3.3.1 Yhwh, the Good Shepherd, and his Prince: Ezekiel 34.11–16, 23–24; 37.24–25. Due to the incriminating misbehaviour of the shepherds of Israel (Ezek 34.1–10) and of the wicked members of the flock (vv. 17–19) the prophet announces two oracles of salvation (vv. 11 + 15–16 and 20–22). It is Yhwh himself as the good shepherd who will follow his scattered people, gather and unite them, care for his own, and prepare a pasture for them, all of which expresses “the indestructible community life of God and his people.”22 Here, the decisive claim is that Yhwh is not far from his people. Note v. 12: “on the day of cloud and cloud darkness” (‫ביום‬ ‫ )ענן וערפל‬he is “in their midst” (M. Buber: “mitten inne”). Thus, God’s faithfulness accompanies the judgement and becomes the starting point of a new hope and a new life. The new exodus is not simply a repeat of the first but implies a new beginning after judgement. Verse 15 confirms and certifies that communion with Yhwh (note the emphatic ‫ )אני‬is the goal of the new exodus and of the guidance of the good shepherd. The misbehaviour in the community (vv. 17–19) moves Yhwh to take action in a twofold way: through the freeing (‫ )נצל‬of the oppressed from the hand of the oppressors (vv. 20–22) and through the gift of a shepherd according to the mind of Yhwh (vv. 23–24). The statement in Ezek 34.23–24 is influenced by Jer 23.5–6 and Ezek 37.24–25. Ezek 37.24–25 announces “one shepherd only” (‫)רועה אחד‬, who is “my [Yhwh’s] servant David” (‫)עבדי דוד‬, and is at the same time “king over them” (‫)מלך עליהם‬. The political dimension of this statement is self-explanatory from the context of Ezek 37.15–28, which announces the unity of the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah which were divided many hundreds of years earlier, a unity which is presented as a political reality. In contrast, in Ezek 34.23–24 the title ‫“( מלך‬king”) is replaced by the title ‫“( נשיא‬prince”), a term 22 “die unzerstörbare Lebensgemeinschaft von Gott und Volk”; Ernst Haag, “Herz-Jesu-Fest. Ezek 34,11–16” in Die alttestamentlichen Lesungen der Sonn‑ und Feiertage. Auslegung und Verkündigung. Lesejahr C/2, ed. Josef Schreiner (Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1971), 135.

46

Franz Sedlmeier

lacking the same political connotations. This new title could explain itself as standing in opposition to the bad shepherds.23 Above all, however, the double transparency of the mediating figure should become visible here: in relation to Yhwh (‫“ ;עבדי דויד‬my servant David”) and in relation to the people (‫;נשיא בתוכם‬ “the prince in their midst”). On the basis of this double transparency Yhwh can bring about his salvation which is unfolded in the following images in vv. 25–30. Here there is more happening than a mere new version of the pre-exilic kingdom. 3.3.2 The ‘Covenant of Peace’ and Paradisiacal Fullness of Life: Ezekiel 34.25–30. The state of the salvation which the expression ‫“( ברית שלום‬covenant of peace”) intends, is developed in three stages in vv. 25–30. (1) With the elimination of the wild beasts and of fear (vv. 25, 28), there comes into view a salvation that cannot be lost beyond the judgement, since the wild animals serve on the one hand as instruments of the judgement of Yhwh (Ezek 5.17; 14.15, 21; 33.27), and, on the other hand, act as ciphers for chaotic and life-destroying powers. (2) With the fruitfulness of the soil (vv. 26–27, 29), the whole land is transformed. The grey areas – “wildernesses”, “forests” and “the district of my hill”, perhaps the destroyed area around the Temple mountain – will be transformed simultaneously into a paradisiacal space. There will be no more “hunger,” which had been a part of Yhwh’s instruments of judgement (Ezek 5.12, 16, 17; 6.11–12; 7.15). With it there comes into view a renewed lasting salvation after the judgement. (3) Liberation from the yoke of the nations (vv. 27–28, 29) will be explained as a new exodus in an analogy with the liberation from Egypt. The concluding covenant formula, itself linked to the divine promise of assistance, brings the restored relationship to God into the foreground and at the same time makes clear that the previously described transformation is evidence of the real goal and the centre of that which is meant by “the covenant of peace”, namely, the living and non-losable communion with Yhwh. 3.3.3 The Resurrection of the Dead Bones: Ezekiel 37.1–14. In the strength of the Spirit, Ezekiel sees – as it appears in the scenario of Ezek 37.1–2 – a boundless and comprehensive lack of hope. Among the people of God in the exile, signs and traces of life have completely disappeared, as the discussion in v. 11 indicates. Through the action of the word of Yhwh and of the spirit what is impossible, humanly-speaking, occurs: the wonder of the resurrection of Israel. It is still contested whether the resurrection relates merely and exclusively to the exiled Israel and is to be understood in the sense of a mere restitution, or whether there also comes into view (following a later stage of elaboration from Hellenistic times) 23 See Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel 25–48, New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 300: “Ezekiel’s preference for nāśî´ over melek, the normal designation for Israel’s rulers, is not intended to deny this person’s true kingship but to highlight the distinction between him and the recent occupants of the office.”

The Proclamation of Salvation in the Book of Ezekiel

47

the resurrection of individuals, due to the violent death of the righteous people. In the latter case, there would certainly be an “eschatological” statement in the narrow sense of the concept. Leaving this debated hypothesis aside, it would still have to be asked whether one could be content with an interpretation of the vision of the dead bones as the renewal of Israel in the exile, as if Ezek 37.1–14 deals merely with a restitution of the earlier situation which was obtained before the exile. The salvation promises in vv. 12–14 link the opening of the graves, and the leading out from them, with the exodus theme (vv. 12–13), and link the leading into the land with the gift of the divine spirit (v. 14). The gift of the land is thus connected as in Ezek 36.24–28 with the inner renewal of Israel. That is more than mere restitution in the sense of political restoration. 3.3.4 The Unity of the Future People of Yhwh: Ezekiel 37.15–28. The understanding of the vision of the future unity of Yhwh’s people, divided since the death of Solomon, as a real political programme for post-exilic efforts at restoration, can hardly be maintained. Even if in late Old Testament times, such as under the Hasmonaeans, there were tendencies to instrumentalize the salvation message of Ezekiel for legitimating one’s own ruling dynasty, this was only possible at the price of doing violence to the texts. Ezekiel 37.15–28, the last symbolic-action of the Book of Ezekiel, is divided into two parts – the sign-act proper (vv. 15–19), and the connected explanatory discourse (vv. 20–28). The latter divides again into two sections, which are determined through the two headings ‫“( אחד‬one / ​ unity”; vv. 20–24a) and ‫“( עולם‬eternal”; vv. 24b–28). The oracle of salvation announces the unbreakable future unity of Yhwh’s people that can never again be lost, just as the discourse about “covenant of peace,” which is at the same time an “eternal covenant” presents. The ultimate ground of this “eschatological” salvation-benefit of “unity” is God’s abiding and, at the same time, unavailable presence among his people. With this promise of the abiding presence of God among his people, the climax of Ezekiel’s proclamation of salvation is reached. With it is laid the bridge to the vision in the temple in Ezek 40–48. 3.3.5 Gog from Magog and the Horizon of the Proclamation of Salvation: Ezekiel 38–39. Within the Book of Ezekiel, the proto-apocalyptic text of Ezekiel 38–39 is inserted into the proclamation of salvation in Ezek 33–48. The Gog pericope also should be read and understood in connection with this “eschatologically” impregnated message of salvation. According to the received text, composed as it is in the Masoretic Text tradition, the Gog pericope separates the connection of Ezek 37.15–28 with the promise of God dwelling among his people from the temple vision of Ezek 40–48, and shifts the second temple vision into an unforeseeably distant future, which lies beyond the threat posed through Gog in a distant future. The Septuagint manuscript Papyrus 967 (Pap967) and the Wirceburg Codex (OLW) witness to another and probably older text sequence, according to

48

Franz Sedlmeier

which the vision of the dry bones in Ezek 37.1–14 belongs not before but after the Gog pericope. It is not convincing merely to say that the vision of the dry bones is only mentioned because those Israelites, fallen in the battle against Gog from Magog, were awoken again to life for the sake of the restoration of Israel. The universal scenario of oppression in Ezek 38–39 does not describe some kind of military struggle, but rather – in a further development of the oracles against the foreign nations in the Book of Ezekiel – a general danger for the people of Yhwh already gathered in peace. When Gog is conquered as the last great enemy, then the resurrection of Israel will come into view as an event at the edge of the turn of an era. A possible argument for a foregrounding of the Gog pericope in the succession of events in MT could lie in the presumed anti-Hasmonaean tendency of MT, as suggested by Konkel and others. If the Hasmonaeans were monopolizing for themselves the successive events as recorded in Pap967, relating the Gog pericope to the successful battles against the Seleucids and ideologically used the vision of the dead bones, the unity of the people of God, and a second Temple vision for self-legitimization, they could explain the current era as an era of realized salvation. Such an eschatology is obviated by pushing the second Temple Vision into a more distant future, after the future decisive battle against Gog in order to characterize their own current era as merely a temporary intervening time. This context can (possibly) be applied to the late text Ezek 36.23bβ–38 as well. 3.3.6 The Comprehensive Transformation of the People of God: Ezekiel 36.16–23a, 23bß–38. Ezekiel 36.16–38 speaks of God’s new beginning with his people in spite of Israel’s infidelity. The defamation of the divine name before the nations of the world is replaced by the God-effected hallowing of the name, which will be made known to all nations by means of the divine saving action. This saving action also includes, besides a new exodus and the inner renewal of Israel, the transformation of man (“new heart,” “heart of flesh,” “new spirit,” “my spirit”) and of the whole area of life, which, like the Garden of Eden, makes visible the Godeffected renewal. The covenant formula or the formula for belonging together: “then you will be my people” (‫)והייתם לי לעם‬ – “and I, I will be your God” (‫ואנכי‬ ‫ ;אהיה לכם לאלהים‬v. 28) receives therewith a new quality, because the quality of the relationship between the covenant partners has grown to become something else. Even when discourse is not explicitly about a “new covenant,” this covenant is to be understood as a “new” and “lasting covenant” on the basis of the renewal of humanity already experienced. Ezekiel 36.26–38, a late text, probably presupposes the statements in Ezek 11.19–20 and 18.31, and equally the statements from Jer 32.37–41, which have already been employed in Ezek 11.19–20, and presumably also Jer 31.31–34. In Jer 31.31–34 there emerges the expression “new covenant” (‫)ברית חדשה‬, unique in the Old Testament. The newness is to be seen in the fact that Yhwh “gives” the

The Proclamation of Salvation in the Book of Ezekiel

49

Israelites the Torah “in the inside” and writes it on their heart (v. 33) in order to enable them to know God. The new covenant is therefore connected with forgiveness of sins. Ezekiel 36.26–38 can thereby refer back to the undivided “one” heart (Ezek 11.19; Jer 32.39) as also to the combination of “new heart” / ​“new spirit” in Ezek 18.31. With the new formulation of “heart of flesh,” Ezekiel indicates that this heart does not present any more a foreign body, but rather the human being who is at peace with himself, who also allows himself to be healthy, and makes him receptive to the life directive of Yhwh. While the expressions “a new heart” and “a new spirit” describe the anthropological transformation, which is clearly expressed in the movement from a “heart of stone” to a “heart of flesh,” the expression “my spirit” does not belong to the human side but to the side of God. It is this human heart, once filled by the spirit of God, which facilitates a life lived according to the Torah of Yhwh and transforms man to become a faithful partner in a new and lasting covenant. Ezekiel 36.23bβ–38 can also possibly be regarded as one of the latest texts of the Book of Ezekiel in its critical function against the Hasmonaean court theology. This is because the description of the coming salvation as given in Ezek 36.23–24 leaves no doubt about the fact that the realization of this salvation, including the preparation of man, is the work of God solely, and the fullness of salvation can only be realized as God’s work. However, this means not only that the quality of being the fullness of time is removed from the Hasmonaean epoch, but also that Ezek 36.23–24 brings to expression the eschatological fullness of salvation, and precisely as a gracious and God-effected event. 3.3.7 The Second Temple Vision – New Temple, New Cult, New Land, New City, New Acceptance by God: Ezekiel 40–48. The concluding chapters of the Book of Ezekiel (Ezek 40–48) refuse to be reduced to a planning preparation for a real new reconstruction after the exile. Even if the text material is truly heterogeneous, and different hands may have worked on it with varying message intentions, still the second Temple vision in its basic meaning is to be understood as a visionary design of a salvific future after the judgement. This future salvation after the judgement as a real utopia remains relevant for the contemporary time. From the future point, it frees the present, insofar as it allows a standing before God even in the present time, namely, the gracious acceptance by God (Ezek 43.27).24 24 The dissertation of Tobias Häner explains this well: Tobias Häner, Bleibendes Nachwirken des Exils. Eine Untersuchung zur kanonischen Endgestalt des Ezechielbuches, Herders Biblische Studien 78 (Freiburg, Basel, und Wien: Herder, 2014), 540–45. With reference to the metaphor ‘verbal icon’ which was brought into the discussion by Stephen S. Tuell (“Ezekiel 40–42 as Verbal Icon” CBQ 58 [1996]: 649–664), Häner has in his reception-oriented study come to this conclusion: “Die vorliegende Untersuchung hat … gezeigt, dass in wirkungsästhetischer Sicht

50

Franz Sedlmeier

Notwithstanding all linguistic and content differences from the previous chapters, the references back to Ezek 1–39 are not to be overlooked.25 It is obvious that the tension created from the beginning of the Book of Ezekiel (Ezek 1–39) is to be brought to its conclusion in Ezek 40–48. The contexts (jubilee year, Babylonian akitu-Feast, exodus tradition and land acquisition tradition, including the renewal of the Passover under Josiah), which are connected with the relevant dating in Ezek 40.1, and the constructed measurements which describe the Temple area (Ezek 40–42), all suggest that an ideal and visionary design is being presented here. The twenty-fifth year of the reign of Jehoiachin (Ezek 40.1) refers to the year 573 BCE. Since the thirtieth year from Ezek 1.1–2 is in fact the fifth year from the abduction of Jehoiachin in 598/7 BCE, Ezekiel sees the second vision in the Temple twenty-five years after the beginning of the exile. If one counts backwards another 25 years then one meets with the reform of King Josiah (623/22 BCE). In the setting of this reform, both king and people commit themselves again to follow the Torah of Yhwh (2 Kings 23.1–2). They purify the Temple and the land from the worship of the other gods (2 Kings 23.4–20) and celebrate the Passover, according to 2 Kings 23.21–23. Between this reform and the second Temple vision lie fifty years. While the beginning of the exile of 598/7 marks the greatest temporal distance between two jubilee years, the date in Ezek 40.1 indicates the beginning of a new year of jubilee. In fact, in Ezek 46.17 a year of liberation comes into view. Moreover, Ezek 40.1 speaks of a year’s beginning, and indeed of the tenth day. Now the Old Testament recognizes two year-beginnings. According to the older calendar, the month of Tischri in the autumn, the Day of Reconciliation, is celebrated on the tenth day (see Lev 16.29; 23.27; Num 29.7). Lev 25.9 clearly expresses that on this day the jubilee year is to be launched with the blowing of the trumpet. The later New Year’s date, the tenth day of the month of Nisan in the spring, is connected in Babylon with the akītu-feast. While Marduk leaves his temple Esaglia on this day, in order to receive the homage of the gods of his die Schlussvision weder ein (von Israel zu verwirklichendes oder gegen die gegenwärtige Ordnung polemisierendes) Programm vorgibt noch sich in erster Linie als Verheißung des künftigen Heilswirkens YHWHs präsentiert, sondern die Exilierten als den unmittelbaren Adressaten des Propheten, dann aber auch den Leser als Adressat des Buches, in die Gegenwart YHWHs versetzen will. Die bereits erwähnte, von Tuell vorgeschlagene Bezeichnung als ‚verbale Ikone‘ erweist sich daher für Ezek 40–48 als passend. … Die Visionsschilderung vermittelt dem Leser – wie dem Beter vor der Ikone – eine ewige, transzendente Wirklichkeit, der damit die Gegenwart des Göttlichen erfahren soll” (550–551). 25 The two date indications in Ezek 40.1 (“in the twenty-fifth year after our abduction” and “in the fourteenth year after the capture of the city”) refer to the beginning of the exile (Ezek 1.1–2) and to the taking of the city of Jerusalem (Ezek 33.21–22). They take up the whole book of Ezek 1–39 by means of these centrally positioned statements. The return of the glory in 43.1–12 sets up the bridge to the visions in Ezek 1–3 and 8–11; the level in 37.1–14 to the one of 3.22–23.

The Proclamation of Salvation in the Book of Ezekiel

51

great kingdom, Yhwh enters into the Temple, unimpressed by the Babylonian scenario, in order to remain abidingly present to his people. The tenth day of the month of Nisan hints at still further inner-biblical references: according to Exod 12.3–5, there begins on this day the selection of the lambs for the Passover, which will be celebrated on the fourteenth day of Nisan. Joshua 4.19 recounts that Israel came into the promised land on the tenth of Nisan and there set up camp in order some days later  – on the fourteenth of Nisan – to celebrate the Passover in the Promised Land. With that, there is therefore a conscious celebration at the beginning of the second Temple Vision of the exodus tradition, the conquest tradition, and the renewal of the Passover under Josiah. The whole Temple vision lies under the symbolism of the new exodus. In the fact that the new exodus and the homecoming into the land are connected to the forgiveness of guilt (Ezek 36.25) and the gracious acceptance by God (20.39–44), which according to Ezek 43.13–27 is expressly assured, the connection with the day of reconciliation and the year of jubilee may also be indicated.26 The return of the glory of God (Ezek 43.1–12) transforms the Temple area into a place of abiding presence of God. In the Temple there takes place the cult as revised according to the cult directive of Ezek 43.13–46.24 and whose principal task is the full reconciliation with God. In that fashion, the acceptance, as announced in Ezek 20.41, comes to its fullness through God (Ezek 43.27). The text pieces imported at a later time, which deal with the various priestly classes and positioning the Zadokites before the other Levites, tend to reflect later conflicts in the second Temple. An “eschatological” perspective is again provided against this by the spring flowing out of the Temple (Ezek 47.1–12), perhaps also with the ideal division of land (Ezek 47.13–48.29) and the special renaming of the city (Ezek 48.30–35): ‫ושם־העיר מיום יהוה שמה‬.

4. Summary The Book of Ezekiel presents a complex tapestry in which many and different voices, sometimes even contradicting one another, are heard. To the radicalism of the judgement, which Ezekiel proclaims, there corresponds the radicalism of a new beginning. This new beginning does not allow itself to be reduced to a new version of past greatness, past structures, past institutions. Throughout the Book of Ezekiel there may be voices that speak of a restitution of what has been in terms of a restoration. Yet there is still the stamp of a change which influences the whole book, and which does not deny what is qualitatively new in the phase of salvation after the judgement. The good news of salvation of the Book of Ezekiel is impregnated with a life-fullness, in which the people of Yhwh find 26 See

in this regard the dissertation of Häner, Bleibendes Nachwirken, 541–544.

52

Franz Sedlmeier

their lasting and henceforth secure place before God. Whether this lasting place before God, in particular cases, also brings into focus the boundary between here and hereafter depends on the interpretation of some central texts such as Ezek 36.16–38; 37.1–14, 15–28; 38–39. This becomes still clearer when one thinks of the lateness in the development of the relevant texts or the revision on them. The early inner-biblical reception, as with the Jewish and Christian reception and also some newer interpretations, does not exclude a priori such theological borderline questions concerning the Book of Ezekiel. The salvation message of Ezekiel is not in the first instance one of restoration. It shows too clearly the traces of an “eschatological fulfilment”, within time and even to the borders of time. Ezekiel is and remains borderline-crossing, both in the oracles of judgement and in the oracles of salvation.

Bibliography Allen, Leslie C. Ezekiel 1–19. Word Biblical Commentary 28. Dallas: Word, 1994. Barthélemy, Dominique. “‘Un seul’, ‘un nouveau’ ou ‘un autre’? À propos de l’intervention du Seigneur sur le cœur de l’homme selon Éz 11,19a et des problèmes de critique textuelle qu’elle soulève.” Pages 329–338 in Der Weg des Menschen. Zur philosophischen und theologischen Anthropologie: Festschrift für Alfons Deissler. Edited by Rudolf Mosis and Lothar Ruppert. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1989. Boadt, Larry. Ezekiel’s Oracles against Egypt: A Literary and Philological Study of Ezekiel 29–32. Bibliotheca Orientalis 37. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980. Block, Daniel I. The Book of Ezekiel 1–24. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Block, Daniel I. The Book of Ezekiel 25–48. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Haag, Ernst. “Herz-Jesu-Fest. Ezek 34,11–16.” Pages 131–137 in Die alttestamentlichen Lesungen der Sonn‑ und Feiertage. Auslegung und Verkündigung. Lesejahr C/2. Edited by Josef Schreiner. Echter Verlag: Würzburg, 1971. Häner, Tobias. Bleibendes Nachwirken des Exils. Eine Untersuchung zur kanonischen Endgestalt des Ezechielbuches. Herders Biblische Studien 78. Freiburg, Basel, und Wien: Herder, 2014. Koenen, Klaus. “Eschatologie” in Wissenschaftliches Bibellexikon im Internet WiBiLex. Number 1. January 2007 (accessed on 15 April 2013). Krüger, Thomas. Geschichtskonzepte im Ezechielbuch. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 10. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1986. Mark, Martin. “Ewiger Bund als radikalisierte Treue: Zur rhetorischen Strategie von Ezechiel 16.” Pages 203–251 in Gottes Wege suchend: Beiträge zum Verständnis der Bibel und ihrer Botschaft: Festschrift für Rudolf Mosis zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by Franz Sedlmeier. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 2003. Mosis, Rudolf. “‫גָ ַדל‬.” Pages 928–956 in Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Vol. I. Stuttgart; Berlin; Köln; Mainz: Verlag W. Kohlhammer, 1973.

The Proclamation of Salvation in the Book of Ezekiel

53

Mosis, Rudolf. “Ezek 14,1–11  – ein Ruf zur Umkehr.” Biblische Zeitschrift 19 (1975): 161–194. Reprinted in Mosis Rudolf. Pages 201–241 in Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Alten Testament. Forschung zur Bibel 93. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1999. Mosis, Rudolf. “Ezechiel 13: Verkündigung aus eigenem Herzen. Zur Unterscheidung der Geister.” Trierer Theologische Zeitschrift 120 (2011): 46–63. Nobile, Marco. “Beziehung zwischen Ezek 32,17–32 und der Gog-Perikope (Ezek 38–39) im Licht der Endredaktion.” Pages 255–259 in Ezekiel and his Book. Textual and Literary Criticism and their Interrelation. Edited by Johan Lust. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensum 74. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1986. Pohlmann, Karl-Friedrich. Ezechiel. Der Stand der theologischen Diskussion. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2008. Pohlmann, Karl-Friedrich. Der Prophet Hesekiel / ​Ezechiel. Kapitel 1–19. Das Alte Testament Deutsch 22.1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. Pohlmann, Karl-Friedrich. Der Prophet Hesekiel / ​Ezechiel. Kapitel 20–48, mit einem Beitrag von Thilo Alexander Rudnig. Das Alte Testament Deutsch 22.2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001. Sedlmeier, Franz. “‘Wie Füchse in den Ruinen …’. Falsche Prophetie und Krisenzeit nach Ezek 13.” Pages 293–321 in Gottes Wege suchend: Beiträge zum Verständnis der Bibel und ihrer Botschaft: Festschrift für Rudolf Mosis zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by Franz Sedlmeier. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 2003. Tuell, Stephen S. “Ezekiel 40–42 as Verbal Icon.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 58 (1996): 649–664. Westermann, Claus. Genesis 1–11. Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament I/1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1983. Zimmerli, Walther. Ezechiel 1–24. 1. Teilband. Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament XIII/1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1979. Zimmerli, Walther. Ezechiel 24–48. 2. Teilband. Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament XIII/1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1979.

Ezekiel 6.1–7 and 36.1–15: The Idea of the Mountains in the Book of Ezekiel Anja Klein

1. Introduction “What has happened to traditional Zion theology in the preaching of Ezekiel?”1 The renowned Ezekiel scholar Daniel Block asks this question in one of his recent publications. Here, he comes to the conclusion that the theological crisis prior to the fall of Jerusalem led the biblical prophet to break with the pillars, onto which official orthodoxy constructed its notions of eternal security  – among them traditional Zion theology.2 To my mind, however, there is more to the question than just breaking with official orthodoxy. Rather, I would like to demonstrate that Zion theology has undergone a decisive change in the Book of Ezekiel and is actually a driving force behind the concept of the mountains of Israel. This idea figures prominently both in the judgement prophecies and in the salvation prophecies of the book. The following argument will concentrate on the two main texts in the Book of Ezekiel that deal with the mountains of Israel. In the first part of the book, the judgement oracle against the mountains of Israel in Ezek 6.1–7 threatens the mountains with a sword judgement. This oracle of doom has a counterpart in the salvation oracle Ezek 36.1–15 in the third part of the book, where the mountains are the recipients of divine blessings.3 After analysing each of them separately, a short comparison of the two oracles and a discussion as to where they belong in the literary history of the book will conclude the textual observations in 2. In the third part, I want to widen the scope and ask where in the book the idea of the mountains can be found. Here, it will be demonstrated that the motif is 1 Daniel I. Block, “Zion Theology in the Book of Ezekiel,” chap. in Beyond the River Chebar: Studies in Kingship and Eschatology in the Book of Ezekiel (Cambridge: James Clarke, 2014), 6. 2 Cf. Block, “Zion Theology,” 7 f. 3 The first one to remark on the relatedness of the two oracles has been Gustav Hölscher, Hesekiel: Der Dichter und das Buch: Eine literarkritische Untersuchung, BZAW 39 (Gießen: Töpelmann, 1924), 173: “Die Weissagung an die Berge Israels, bezw. an die Berge und Hügel, Rinnsale und Täler 36.1–2.4abα, 6bβ, 7 ff. ist als Gegenstück zu Kap. 6 geschrieben.” (“The prophecy addressed to the mountains of Israel and the mountains, hills, ravines and valleys respectively 36.1–2.4abα, 6bβ, 7 ff. has been composed as a counterpart to chap. 6”).

Ezekiel 6.1–7 and 36.1–15

55

linked closely to a second group of texts that focus on the idea of the one and holy mountain, and which also show the influence of Zion theology. Finally, the summarising remarks in the fourth part allow for some thoughts on the role that the mountains of Israel play in the Book of Ezekiel.

2. Textual Observations 2.1 Judgement for the Mountains of Israel: Ezekiel 6.1–7 The mountains of Israel make their first appearance in the judgement oracle Ezek 6.1–7 in the first part of the book. Following the opening word reception formula in 6.1, the prophet is commanded to turn his face against the mountains of Israel (6.2: ‫)בן אדם שים פניך אל הרי ישראל‬, and to prophesy doom: “You mountains of Israel, hear the word of Yhwh” (6.3: ‫)הרי ישראל שמעו דבר אדני יהוה‬. This commission is followed by another summons to speak before the messenger formula introduces the actual prophesy of doom in 6.3 ff. The addressees are now further described as mountains, hills, ravines and valleys, and Yhwh announces that he will order a sword to invade them and that he will destroy their heights (6.3: ‫)במותיכם‬. In the following verses, the judgement turns to the people, whose cult items shall be destroyed (6.4a), while verse 6 provides the devastation of their cities in addition to the destruction of their cult objects. Furthermore, the threat that the dead will fall to the earth is mentioned four times in 6.4b, 5a, 5b and 6.7a. Finally, the recognition formula in 6.7b concludes the oracle in 6.1–7. The change of addressees from the personified mountains in 6.1–3 to the people who dwell on the mountains in 6.4–6 is clear evidence for a history of literary growth.4 It can be suggested that the address to the personified mountains in 6.1–3 forms the original core together with 6.7, while 6.4–5b and 6.5a form later literary supplementations.5 To sum up, the original oracle spells out doom for the mountains of Israel (6.1 f.), who are threatened with a sword judgement that will lead to the destruction of their heights (6.3) and the death of their people (6.7). The feature that attracts attention throughout the prophetic word is the personified way in which the mountains are dealt with. They are addressed continuously in the second person plural, and it is their fate that is in the foreground. They 4 There is, though, no consensus on the demarcation of the original oracle: While Hölscher, Hesekiel, 66, suggests a literary core in Ezek 6.1–4, 5b; George A. Cooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel, ICC (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1951), 68, argues for 6.1–4; Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel Chapters 1–24, Hermeneia (Philapdelphia: Fortress Press),183, makes a case for 6.1–4.5b.7b, while KarlFriedrich Pohlmann, Der Prophet Hesekiel (Ezechiel): Kapitel 1–19, ATD 22/1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 104, comes up with 6.1–3, 6aβ, 7. 5 On this analysis, see Anja Klein, Schriftauslegung im Ezechielbuch: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Ez 34–39, BZAW 391 (Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2008), 324–26.

56

Anja Klein

are not only the place at which the judgement for the people will take place, but they are also agents in their own right and recipients of Yhwh’s wrath. However, this judgement is not the last word on the fate of the mountains of Israel, since the oracle in Ezek 6.1–7* has a counterpart in the word of salvation in 36.1–15, which will be discussed in the following. 2.2 Salvation for the Mountains of Israel: Ezekiel 36.1–15 The salvation oracle in Ezek 36.1–15 follows directly the oracle of judgement against the mountains of Seir in 35.1–15. Thus, these two prophetic words follow the pattern “judgement against the foreign nation – salvation for Israel.” The announcement of salvation for the mountains of Israel opens in 36.1 with the address of the prophet, who is commissioned with a prophecy for the mountains of Israel (36.1: ‫)ואתה בן אדם הנבא אל הרי ישראל‬. The actual message starts from a hateful quotation of the nameless foe, who boasts himself with having triumphed over the mountains of Israel: “Because the enemy says to you: ‘Ha! The ancient high places are ours to possess. To us it is’” (36.2: ‫האה ובמות עולם למורשה היתה‬ ‫)לנו‬.6 This quotation gives reason to expect a subsequent statement that proves the enemy to be mistaken. However, there are actually six sentences statements in the following, each introduced by the particle ‫ לכן‬and the messenger formula (36.3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 14), and each of these is a possible reaction towards the enemy’s cheek.7 The literary knot can be untangled as follows: Out of the six possibilities, the first four statements in 36.3–6 can be ruled out as original continuations, as they do not take the appropriate action towards the foe’s claim. Rather, these verses provide further details on the insolence of the enemy and the fate of the addressees. The statement that is best qualified as the original continuation of 36.1–2 is the divine oracle in 36.7–8a, in which Yhwh pledges that the nations will have to put up with humiliation (36.7: ‫לכן כה אמר אדני יהוה אני נשאתי את ידי‬ ‫)אם לא הגוים אשר לכם מסביב המה כלמתם ישאו‬, while he holds out the promise of blessings for the mountains of Israel (36.8a: ‫)ואתם הרי ישראל‬. They are presented with the prospect of shooting forth branches and bearing fruit again for the 6 The reading ‫ ובמות‬in 36.2 is not undisputed. The Septuagint (with Pap. 967) reads ἔρημα, which is, by reference to Ezek 35.9 (MT: ‫ שממות עולם‬/ ​LXX: ἐρημίαν αἰώνιον), occasionally explained as going back to an original reading ‫‘( שממות‬desolation’); cf. Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, Chapters 25–48, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), 227; Pohlmann, Der Prophet Hesekiel (Ezechiel): Kapitel 20–48, ATD 22/2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001), 472. However, it is more likely to explain the LXX-variant as a harmonisation with 35.9, while the MT in 36.2 should be given preference as being the lectio difficilior (cf. Leslie C. Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, WBC 29 (Dallas: Waco, 1990) 168; Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 22A (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 717; Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 324, and Klein, Schriftauslegung, 305). 7 Similarly Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 233.

Ezekiel 6.1–7 and 36.1–15

57

people of Yhwh (36.8a). The original explanation for this turn of salvation is the sovereignty of Yhwh, who will turn again to the mountains, which shall be tilled and sown (36.9). Yet a later continuation in 36.8b supplements the notion of the exile by making the restoration of the mountains a prerequisite for the imminent return of the people.8 In the further course, both verses 36.10 and 36.11 describe the proliferation of the people in identical words (‫)והרביתי עליכם אדם‬. However, whereas in 36.10 the multiplying of the people is required for the resettlement of the cities and their rebuilding, in 36.11, the proliferation aims at a resettlement of the mountains, which shall restore their previous state. It can be assumed that only one of these verses is part of the original oracle. In comparison, preference should be given to the promise addressed to the mountains in 36.11, which corresponds to their introductory appellation in 36.1. Hence 36.10 has to be seen as a later continuation that makes allowances for the cities’ resettlement and their restoration,9 while the original oracle ends in 36.11 with the promise that Yhwh will put human beings and cattle alike on the formerly desolate mountains. A recognition formula in 36.11b forms the close. To sum up, the original oracle in 36.1–11* comprises the verses 36.1–2, 7–8a, 9, 1110 and promises restoration to the mountains of Israel. The turn for the better is solely due to Yhwh’s resolution, who turns again towards the mountains of Israel. Their impending salvation proves the nameless foe wrong, who erroneously thinks that the desolate mountains are his to possess. It can be assumed that this prophetic word had its place following the original collection of oracles against the foreign nations in 25.1–26.6.11 Once the foreign nations are dealt with, salvation for the mountains of Israel can begin. However, this original connection is lost when the judgment oracle against the mountains of Seir in 35.1–15* is placed in front of the promise of salvation for the mountains of Israel.12 Now, it is no longer the foreign nations that act as a dark foil for salvation, but the mountains of Seir, which are condemned to be depopulated and to lay waste while the mountains of Israel prosper.

  8 Cf. Klein, Schriftauslegung, 307; cf. Previously Georg Fohrer, Ezechiel: Mit einem Beitrag von K. Galling, HAT 1/13 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1955), 201 (“erläuternde Glosse”).   9 The secondary character of Ezek 36.10 is widely acknowledged; cf. e. g. Hölscher, Hesekiel, 173 n. 1; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 233; Pohlmann, Hesekiel: Kapitel 20–48, 477. 10 On this textual analysis cf. Klein, Schriftauslegung, 305–309. Similarly Hölscher, Hesekiel, 173 with n. 1; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 232 f.; Pohlmann, Hesekiel: Kapitel 20–48, 477. Differently, Block, Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, 314 f., assumes literary unity. 11 Cf. Klein, Schriftauslegung, 309–14. 12 Cf. Klein, Schriftauslegung, 310 f. On the priority of Ezek 36.1–11* in comparison with Ezek 35.1–15* cf. furthermore Hölscher, Hesekiel, 172; Johannes Hermann, Ezechielstudien, BWANT 2 (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1908), 172, and detailed Horacio Simian, Die theologische Nachgeschichte der Prophetie Ezechiels: Form‑ und traditionskritische Untersuchung zu Ez 6; 35; 36, FzB 14 (Würzburg: Echter, 1974), esp. 351 f.

58

Anja Klein

2.3 The Literary Relationship The decisive question is how to assess the literary relationship between the two counterparts in Ezek 6.1–7* and 36.1–11*. It is a well-known fact that the two mountain oracles share not only the same topic, but they show also a number of links.13 First of all, these are the only two texts in the book in which the mountains of Israel are addressed and summoned to hear the divine message (6.3/36.1: ‫)הרי ישראל שמעו דבר [אדני] יהוה‬.14 The two texts stand out clearly, as the mountains of Israel are not simply the landscape setting onto which Yhwh will perform his salvation acts, but they are addressed throughout with the second person plural. For example, the divine judgement is directed at “your” heights (6.3: ‫)במותיכם‬, while salvation restores “you” to Yhwh’s presence (36.9: ‫כי הנני‬ ‫)אליכם‬. This form of personified address15 characterises them as agents in their own right, who are recipients of both judgement and salvation. Thus, the mountains are not to be identified simply with the people that dwell on them. Rather, they have a twofold relationship both to the people and to Yhwh. While they act as an intermediator for the people, who participate directly in both judgement and salvation, they also relate to Yhwh, from whom they experience judgement and salvation alike.16 Thus, the mountains of Israel are a colourful character in the book that show traits of being a landscape designation, while at the same time being representatives for the people living on them. They can stand for both land and people, without, however, being identical with one of these figures. This shows that the fate of the mountains cannot be separated from the fate of their inhabitants. The restoration of the homeland is a prerequisite for the multiplying and the well-being of the people, while the restoration of the mountains remains deficient without anyone living on them. Besides the personified address, the two texts Ezek 6 and 36 are connected by a number of lexical links. It has already been pointed out that the summons to listen takes identical wording in both texts (6.3, 36.1). Moreover, both texts speak of the heights that shall be destroyed according to 6.3 (‫)ואבדתי במותיכם‬, while the 13 Cf. Simian, Nachgeschichte, esp. 351–58; Bernard Gosse, “Ézéchiel 35–36,1–15 et Ézéchiel 6: La désolation de la montagne de Séir et le renouveau des montagnes d’Israël,” Revue Biblique 96 (1989): 511–17, and Pohlmann, Hesekiel: Kapitel 20–48, 104 f. 14 However, the same phenomenon can be observed with regard to Ezek 35.1–15, in which the mountains of Seir are addressed in the same way (35.3: ‫)הנני אליך הר שעיר‬. 15 Personification here and in the following is understood as a literary device, cf. the definition in the Encyclopedia Britannica: a “figure of speech in which human characteristics are attributed to an abstract quality, animal, or inanimate object” (Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, s. v. “Personification,” accessed January 22, 2016, http://www.britannica.com/art/personification). 16 A similar twofold relationship to the people and to Yhwh characterises the personification of the city Jerusalem in terms of “Daughter Zion” in a number of prophetic texts; cf. Odil H. Steck, “Zion als Gelände und als Gestalt,” chap. in Gottesknecht und Zion: Gesammelte Aufsätze zu Deuterojesaja, FAT 4 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992), 133–35, 145, and the following argument in chap 3.1.

Ezekiel 6.1–7 and 36.1–15

59

enemy boasts himself in 36.2 of having taken the heights into possession (‫ובמות‬ ‫)עולם למורשה היתה לנו‬. Finally, the two texts correspond to each other with regard to their content. They are two sides of the same coin by promising judgement on the mountains of Israel and their salvation accordingly. Thus, it seems safe to suggest that they go back to the same author and have been composed to form a compositional arch in the book.17 In these two texts, judgement and salvation are contrasted, while the repopulation of the mountains makes up for the death of the population by the sword. In the following, I want to widen the scope and question the significance of the motif of the mountains in the prophetic book as a whole. It will be demonstrated that there are actually two different concepts that are central: the personified mountains of Israel and the one and holy mountain.

3. The Mountains and the One Mountain 3.1 The Mountains of Israel There are forty-seven occurrences of the Hebrew term ‫ ​הרים‬/ ‫ הר‬in the prophetic book, of which sixteen speak decidedly of the “mountains of Israel” (‫)הרי ישראל‬. The oracles in Ezek 6 and 36 that feature the personified address of the mountains have already been dealt with. Besides these two oracles, there is another group of five texts, in which the mountains of Israel are used in terms of a landscape designation. Firstly, in the elegy of the lion cubs in Ezek 19.1–9, the fate of the princes of Judah is dealt with (19.1). While the lioness’ first cub falls prey to Egypt, the next one is brought captive to the king of Babylon and his voice “shall be heard no more on the mountains of Israel” (19.9: ‫למען לא ישמע קולו עול אל‬ ‫)הרי ישראל‬. Here, the motif clearly figures as a topographic term. The same use can be observed with regard to the judgement prophecy in 33.28, in which Yhwh announces that the mountains of Israel shall lay waste and desolate (‫ושממו הרי‬ ‫)ישראל‬. Thirdly, the mountains are the goal when the divine shepherd leads his flock home in order to shepherd them onto the mountains of Israel (34.13: ‫)ורעיתים אל הרי ישראל‬. In the salvation words of Ezek 37, the mountains make their appearance in a secondary addition that defines the land more closely in terms of the mountains of Israel (37.22: ‫)בהרי ישראל‬,18 where Yhwh will make his people one nation. Finally, in the Gog chapters 38–39, the mountains are the setting where the mighty enemy will be destroyed (39.2, 4: ‫)על הרי ישראל‬, and where Yhwh will set a sacrificial feast with the foe’s bones (39.17). With regard 17 Cf. Klein, Schriftauslegung, 327; see further Simian, Nachgeschichte, 255; Pohlmann, Hesekiel: Kapitel 20–48, 104 f., 377, and Joyce, Ezekiel, 202. 18 On the secondary character cf. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 269; Stefan Ohnesorge, Jahwe gestaltet sein Volk neu: Zur Sicht der Zukunft Israels nach Ez 11,14–21; 20,1–44; 36,16–38; 37,1–15.15–28, FzB 64 (Würzburg: Echter, 1991), 344, and Klein, Schriftauslegung 214.

60

Anja Klein

to the mountains of Israel, the evidence can be summarised as follows. First of all, the concept can be established safely as a motif of salvation, as its use prevails in the third part of the prophetic book. Furthermore, the widespread opinion that the mountains of Israel represent an alternative designation of the land can be substantiated,19 though this is not the only way in which the motif is applied. Rather, particular attention should be paid to the personified use of the motif in the oracles addressed to the mountains of Israel in 6.1–7* and 36.1–11*. We have already observed that this use allows for a twofold relation of the mountains both to Yhwh and the people. With this feature, the concept recalls the personification of Zion in terms of “Daughter Zion” that can be found in several prophetic books.20 Here, Zion is represented in favourable light as a queen (Isa 49.22 f.; 52.1–2; 60), as the bride of Yhwh (Isa 50.1, 54.4–8; Jer 2.2), and as a mother with many children (Isa 49.18–21; 54.1–3; 66.10–14). In a negative way, she is portrayed as an adulteress (Jer 2.20–25; 3.1–5; Ezek 16; 23; Hos 2.4–17), as a desolate woman (Isa 54.1–8), and as barren, without children (Isa 49.20 f.; 54.1; Lam 1.1–6). In comparison with the idea of the personified mountains of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel, the concept of Daughter Zion seems to be more elaborate. However, both concepts feature the same twofold relation to Yhwh and to his people. Both the mountains and Zion cannot be simply identified with the people, but they are agents in their own right that act as intermediaries for Yhwh’s judgement and salvation. Yet there is one decisive difference: while the idea of Daughter Zion refers to Jerusalem and is consequently city-oriented, the concept of the mountains of Israel can be described as land-oriented. As both concepts share the same feature of personified speech, it can be assumed that the idea of the mountains of Israel is a conceptual continuation of the idea of Daughter Zion. A text like Ps 133.3 shows that the mountains can be seen as dependences of Mount Zion that exudes onto the surrounding land. Furthermore, the prophetic word in Isa 14.25 attests to the idea that the whole land will be affected by Yhwh’s presence on Zion by speaking of the land in terms of “my mountains” (‫)הרי‬. In the light of this tradition-historical background, it can be suggested that the personified mountains in the Book of Ezekiel serve as a rhetorical and theological device to debate the fate of their inhabitants, the people of Israel. The mountains 19 See Fohrer, Ezechiel, 37; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 185; Leslie C. Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, WBC 28 (Dallas: Word, 1994), 86; Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 22 (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 130; Karl-Friedrich Pohlmann, Der Prophet Hesekiel (Ezechiel): Kapitel 1–19, ATD 22/1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 103 f., and Paul M. Joyce, Ezekiel: A Commentary, LHBOTS 482 (New York and London: T & T Clark, 2007), 202. 20 Cf. Klein, Schriftauslegung, 332 f. On the concept of “Daughter Zion” cf. the programmatic article by Steck, “Zion,” 261–81, and the monograph by Marc Wischnowsky, Tochter Zion: Aufnahme und Überwindung der Stadtklage in den Prophetenschriften des Alten Testaments, WMANT 89 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2001).

Ezekiel 6.1–7 and 36.1–15

61

are used in a manner comparable to the idea of Daughter Zion with the decisive difference that the concept is land-oriented rather than referring to the city of Jerusalem. To sum up, we have to distinguish between two different ideas with regard to the mountains in the Book of Ezekiel. While we find the personified use in the original oracles of chap 6 and 36 that can be traced back to the idea of Daughter Zion, we have also a number of texts which use the idea as a mere topographic designation for the land. We come across this topographic use mainly in later supplementations and, in general, younger texts of the book. However, before drawing any conclusions, our last group of texts that deal with the single and holy mountain deserves attention. 3.2 The One and Holy Mountain The idea of the one mountain firstly occurs in Ezek 17, which comprises an original allegory of the cedar tree in 17.1–21 that has been supplemented secondarily with a salvation oracle in 17.22–29.21 In this oracle, Yhwh announces that a new beginning shall take place on the high and lofty mountain (17.22: ‫על הר גבה‬ ‫)ותלול‬, that is described further as being the high mountain of Israel (17.23: ‫בהר‬ ‫)מרום ישראל‬. The high mountain makes another appearance at the end of the historical review in Ezek 20 in the literary expansion in 20.39–44.22 This small oracle describes the cult pleasing to Yhwh, once the people have returned to their homeland. Then, the cult shall take place on Yhwh’s holy mountain that is further described as the high mountain of Israel (20.40: ‫)בהר קדשי בהר מרום ישראל‬. In the second part of the prophetic book, in the context of the oracles against foreign nations, the holy mountain of God is the setting, where the downfall of the king of Tyre will take place (28.14: ‫)בהר קדש אלהים‬. The king had his rightful place there, but because of his sinful ways, he is cast off from the mountain of God (28.16: ‫)מהר אלהים‬, and he is dispelled subsequently. Finally, in the context of the salvation prophecies, there is a single allusion only to the one mountain in the short insertion in 34.14a that locates the new pasture of Yhwh’s flock on the mountain of Israel (‫)בהר מרום ישראל‬.23 However, there are two more occurrences 21 On the secondary character of 17.22–24 cf. Hölscher, Hesekiel, 102; Cooke, Ezekiel, 190 f.; Fohrer, Ezechiel, 97; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 359; Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 255; Pohlmann, Hesekiel: Kapitel 1–19, 254–56. Differently, Block, Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24, 549 f., assumes that 17.22–24 are part of the original allegory. 22 Cf. Klein, Schriftauslegung, 154 f. Several exegetes distinguish between an original review of history in the main body of chap. 20 and a secondary outlook on salvation at the end; cf. Siegfried Hermann, Die prophetischen Heilserwartungen im Alten Testament. Ursprung und Gestaltwandel, BWANT 5 (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer Verlag: 1965), 264 f.; Fohrer, Ezechiel, 71; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 413 f. Differently Hölscher, Hesekiel, 101; Cooke, Ezekiel, 213, and Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 376–88, argue for the literary unity of the chapter. 23 Actually, the MT attests to the plural reading ‫בהרי מרום ישראל‬, while two Hebrew manuscripts, Septuagint and Targum read the singular. As the plural reading can be explained as an assimilation to the context (cf. the plural forms of ‫ הר‬in 34.13, 14b), the singular variant

62

Anja Klein

of the mountains in Ezekiel’s final vision of the new temple (Ezek 40–48). The vision opens in 40.1–2 with the first person account of how the prophet is relocated by Yhwh upon a very high mountain (40.2: ‫ )אל הר גבה‬so that he can envision the new temple and the return of the glory of Yhwh. Concerning the sanctuary, Yhwh gives the instruction in 43.12 that the area on top of the mountain (‫על ראש‬ ‫ )ההר‬shall be most holy. Finally, the end of the first temple vision Ezek 8–11 mentions that the departing glory of Yhwh stood on the mountain, which is on the east side of the city (11.23: ‫)ויעמד על ההר אשר מקדם לעיר‬. However, as it seems safe to assume that this mountain cannot be identified with Mount Zion,24 the reference can be disregarded for the further argument. To sum up, several texts in the book describe a single mountain, which is exclusively associated with Yhwh (20.40; 28.16), and to which is attributed the characteristics of being high (17.22, 23; 20.40; 40.2) and holy (20.40; 28.14; 43.12). Concerning the literary-historical placement of these texts, it has been demonstrated already that 17.22–24 form a late continuation of the original allegory in chap 17, a classification that also applies to the salvation outlook at the end of the historical review in 20.39–44. Likewise, the mention of the mountain in 34.14a is a secondary addition, while the word against the king of Tyre in Ezek 28 does not belong to the oldest collection of oracles against the foreign nations.25 Finally, both the location of the prophet at the beginning of the temple vision in 40.2 and the provisions for the most holy sanctuary in 43.10–12 go back to later literary reworkings of the temple vision.26 Thus, it can be assumed that the idea of the high and holy mountain does not belong to the original prophecies in the book, but appears in later literary layers only. There remains the question of how this later emergence of a different concept of the mountain can be explained. Even though the name “Zion” is not mentioned explicitly, there is good evidence to suggest that the idea of the one and holy mountain has its roots firmly in Zion theology.27 It is especially the Psalms that speak of a holy mountain, ‫הר קדש‬,28 that in Psa 2.6 is explicitly identified with Zion (‫)ציון הר קדשי‬.29 According to Isa 2.3 and Psa 48.3, Mount Zion surmounts all other mountains and assumes reading should be given preference as lectio difficilior; cf. Thilo A. Rudnig, Heilig und Profan: Redaktionskritische Studien zu Ez 40–48, BZAW 287 (Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2000), 61; Klein, Schriftauslegung, 28. Differently Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 207 f., and Block, Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, 287, give preference to the MT plural reading. 24 Cf. Klein, Schriftauslegung, 334; both Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 166, and Block, Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24, 358, identify the mountain in 11.23 with the Mount of Olives. 25 On this cf. the literature review by Pohlmann, Hesekiel: Kapitel 20–48, 364–68, and the thoughts by Klein, Schriftauslegung, 312–14. 26 Cf. Rudnig, Heilig, 332–34. 27 Cf. Klein, Schriftauslegung, 334 f. 28 Cf. Psa 2.6; 3.5; 15.1; 43.3; 48.2; 87.1; 99.9; see further Isa 11.9; 56.7; 57.13; 65.11, 25; 66.20; Jer 27.13; 31.23. 29 Cf. Hermann Spieckermann, Heilsgegenwart: Eine Theologie der Psalmen, FRLANT 148 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982), 186–96, and Corinna Körting, Zion in den

Ezekiel 6.1–7 and 36.1–15

63

mythical features, so that this would be the natural choice for identification with the one and holy mountain in the Book of Ezekiel. Furthermore, the placement of the new sanctuary on top of the high mountain in Ezekiel’s temple vision 43.12 points clearly towards this identification. It is only on Zion that the temple of Yhwh can find its appropriate place.

4. Theological Implications It is time to assess the theological implications of the evidence. I hope to have demonstrated that there are two concepts of the mountain(s) in the Book of Ezekiel. First of all, the personified mountains of Israel appear in the older texts of the book, acting as mediators and representatives of the people and land alike. This use features prominently in Ezek 6 and 36. However, during the further literary growth of the book, this notion changes and the mountains become a mere topographic designation for the land of Israel. As the concept of the mountains can be traced back to Zion theology, its use can be described as a transfer of characteristics formerly attributed to Mount Zion onto the land of Israel. It is not Mount Zion anymore that is the recipient of both judgement and salvation, but the land as a whole in the guise of the mountains of Israel. Here, it is especially the idea of the personified Daughter Zion that has left its traces, when the mountains become the recipients of divine blessings and curses alike. However, in a number of later texts, this personified use is superseded by the idea of the one high and holy mountain that especially draws on Zion theology in the Book of Psalms. This mountain is the place of a new beginning after the loss of the kingship (17.22–24), it is the place of the new divine worship after the return of the people (20.40; cf. 34.14), and it is the place of the new sanctuary (40.2; 43.12). Thus, a theological-historical development can be traced, in which the attributes of Mount Zion are firstly transferred onto the land in terms of the mountains of Israel, while in later literary layers, the one and holy mountain and the city of God take centre stage. It can thus be assumed that this development bears witness to a gradual shift from a land-orientation towards a city-orientation in the book. It is most likely that this shift can be explained with the continuing elaboration of the final temple vision in Ezek 40–48 that bears witness to the increasing importance of temple and city for the prophetic book. Therefore, the mountains of Israel fade into the background, while the one and holy mountain takes centre stage. If one wants to speculate about the background, it seems safe to suggest that the transfer of Zion theology onto the land points to a time when Jerusalem lay waste and people struggled with the crisis of Zion theology in Psalmen, FAT 48 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), esp. 169 f. In her monograph, Körting has submitted a comprehensive study of the texts dealing with Zion in the Book of Psalms.

64

Anja Klein

postexilic times. However, the later introduction of the one and holy mountain into the book points clearly to a time when new hopes were sparked about the restoration of temple and city alike. To give an answer to our opening question, I would reply to Daniel Block that traditional Zion theology has not simply disappeared in the prophetic book of Ezekiel. Rather, it comes in the disguise of the idea of the mountains of Israel, before the one and holy mountain is put back into the focus in later texts of the book.

Bibliography Allen, Leslie C. Ezekiel 1–19. Word Biblical Commentary 28. Dallas: Word, 1994. –. Ezekiel 20–48. Word Biblical Commentary 29. Dallas: Word, 1990. Block, Daniel I. The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. –. The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. –. “Zion Theology in the Book of Ezekiel.” Chapter in Beyond the River Chebar: Studies in Kingship and Eschatology in the Book of Ezekiel, 1–9. Cambridge: James Clarke, 2014. Cooke, George A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1951. Encyclopaedia Britannica Online. “Personification.” Accessed January 22, 2016. http:// www.britannica.com/art/personification. Fohrer, Georg. Ezechiel: Mit einem Beitrag von K. Galling. Handbuch zum Alten Testament 1/13. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1955. Gosse, Bernard. “Ézéchiel 35–36,1–15 et Ézéchiel 6: La désolation de la montagne de Séir et le renouveau des montagnes d’Israël.” Revue Biblique 96 (1989): 511–517. Greenberg. Moshe. Ezekiel 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 22. New York: Doubleday, 1997. –. Ezekiel 21–37: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 22A. New York: Doubleday, 1997. Hermann, Johannes. Ezechielstudien. Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament 2. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1908. Herrmann, Siegfried. Die prophetischen Heilserwartungen im Alten Testament. Ursprung und Gestaltwandel. Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament 5. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer Verlag: 1965. Hölscher, Gustav. Hesekiel: Der Dichter und das Buch: Eine literarkritische Untersuchung. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 39. Giessen: Töpelmann, 1924. Joyce, Paul M. Ezekiel: A Commentary. Library of Hebrew Bible / ​Old Testament Studies 482. New York and London: T & T Clark, 2007. Klein, Anja. Schriftauslegung im Ezechielbuch: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Ez 34–39. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 391. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2008. Körting, Corinna. Zion in den Psalmen. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 48. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006.

Ezekiel 6.1–7 and 36.1–15

65

Ohnesorge, Stefan. Jahwe gestaltet sein Volk neu: Zur Sicht der Zukunft Israels nach Ez 11,14–21; 20,1–44; 36,16–38; 37,1–15.15–28. Forschung zur Bibel 64. Würzburg: Echter, 1991. Pohlmann, Karl-Friedrich. Der Prophet Hesekiel (Ezechiel): Kapitel 1–19. Das Alte Testament Deutsch 22/1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. –. Der Prophet Hesekiel (Ezechiel): Kapitel 20–48. Das Alte Testament Deutsch 22/2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001. Rudnig, Thilo A. Heilig und Profan: Redaktionskritische Studien zu Ez 40–48. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 287. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2000. Simian, Horacio. Die theologische Nachgeschichte der Prophetie Ezechiels: Form‑ und traditionskritische Untersuchung zu Ez 6; 35; 36. Forschung zur Bibel 14. Würzburg: Echter, 1974. Spieckermann, Hermann. Heilsgegenwart: Eine Theologie der Psalmen. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 148. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982. Steck, Odil H. “Zion als Gelände und als Gestalt.” Chapter in Gottesknecht und Zion: Gesammelte Aufsätze zu Deuterojesaja, 261–81. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 4. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992. Wischnowsky, Marc. Tochter Zion: Aufnahme und Überwindung der Stadtklage in den Prophetenschriften des Alten Testaments. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 89. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2001. Zimmerli, Walther. Ezekiel 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, Chapters 1–24. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979. –. Ezekiel 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, Chapters 25–48. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983.

The Book of Ezekiel as a Work In Progress: Indications from the Lament Over the King of Tyre (28.11–19) Steven S. Tuell Given the power of human creativity on the one hand, and the uncertainty posed by human mortality on the other, it is little wonder that one finds in art and in scholarship so many examples of works in progress, either abandoned prior to completion or left unfinished when their creators died. Franz Schubert’s Symphony No. 8, popularly known as his “Unfinished Symphony,” and Charles Dickens’ The Mystery of Edwin Drood are but two of the more famous examples of this phenomenon. Our own sub-discipline has its share of works left in progress. John Calvin’s unfinished commentary on Ezekiel, dealing only with its first twenty chapters, was drawn from his last lectures, delivered between 1563 and the onset of his final illness in 1564.1 So too Moshe Greenberg (of blessed memory) was unable to complete his landmark commentary.2 The book of Ezekiel itself, on the other hand, conveys a strong impression of completeness. The tight structure and unity of vision in Ezekiel prompted Rudolph Smend to write “man könnte kein Stück herausnehmen, ohne die ganze Ensemble zu zerstören.”3 With reference to Ezek 2.8–3.3, Ellen Davis observes that God’s word “comes to Ezekiel already as a text,”4 while Robert Wilson argues that “Ezekiel was a written composition from the beginning.”5 But even 1 John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, vol. 11, Jeremiah 48–52, Lamentations, Ezekiel 1–12 and vol. 12, Ezekiel 13–20, Daniel 1–6, trans. Thomas Meyers (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979). David L. Puckett argues that Calvin’s commentaries are important expressions of his thought: “since the commentaries are mostly the product of the last decade of his life, they reflect his method after it has fully developed, and they reflect his mature thoughts on the subjects he addresses” (David L. Puckett, John Calvin’s Exegesis of the Old Testament, Columbia Series in Reformed Theology [Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995], 149–50). 2 Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, AB 22 (Garden City: Doubleday, 1983) and Ezekiel 21–37, AB 22A (Garden City: Doubleday, 1997). The final volume is now under preparation by Stephen Cook. 3 “[O]ne cannot remove any part without disrupting the entire ensemble”: Rudolf Smend, Der Prophet Ezechiel, KEH 8 (Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1880), xxi. 4 Ellen F. Davies, Swallowing the Scroll: Textuality and the Dynamics of Discourse in Ezekiel’s Prophecy, JSOTSup 78 (Sheffield: Almond Press, 1989), 65–66; emphasis hers. 5 Robert R. Wilson, “Ezekiel,” in Harper’s Bible Commentary, ed. James L. Mays (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), 652–694 (657).

The Book of Ezekiel as a Work In Progress

67

though Ezekiel is so tightly structured and organized – particularly in contrast with Jeremiah – as to argue for treating this text as a book in something like our modern sense (with Ezekiel as its author6), there are indications that it too was left unfinished by its author, as a work in progress. Indeed, Ronald E. Clements proposes an analogy between the book of Ezekiel and “a great person’s collected papers – including notes and diary entries – that have been edited after their author’s death.”7 For example, we find two versions of the sword oracle in Ezek 21, one in prose (21.7–12 [1–7]), the other in poetry (21.13–22 [8–17]), and two versions of the parable of the two sisters (23.1–35 and 36–49). An unfinished poetic lament on Pharaoh as the World Tree in 31.1–9 is followed by prose reflections on the poem (31.10–14 and 15–18) that appear to be notes for its completion.8 The oracles against the nations (25–32) were expanded from six brief oracles culminating in a seventh concerning Israel (25.1–26.6; 28.20–26) to eight full chapters by the insertion of collections concerning Tyre (26.7–28.19) and Egypt (29–32), and while their placement may be ascribed to Ezekiel’s editors, the content of these collections seems to derive mostly from the prophet himself. Of course, the text of Ezekiel also shows clear signs of expansion by other hands, after the prophet’s death. Ezekiel’s final vision report in 40–48 was expanded into a law code (43.10–46.24) with a narrative prologue (40.1–43.9) and epilogue (47–48), likely in the Persian period.9 Certainly, 36.23c–32 was a late addition to the text of Ezekiel: both the LXX and the MT of this section clash with the remainder of the book,10 and indeed, both Papyrus 967 (Pap967), the best   6 With Hermann Gunkel, “Die israelitische Literatur,” in Die orientalischen Literaturen, ed. P. Hinnenberg, Die Kultur der Gegenwart 1/7 (Berlin: Teubner, 1906), 82. Those who read Ezekiel in its final form as a literary unit may instead regard Ezekiel as a character within a narrative: e. g., Corrine L. Patton, “Prophet, Priest and Exile: Ezekiel as a Literary Construct,” in Ezekiel’s Hierarchical World: Wrestling with a Tiered Reality, ed. Stephen L. Cook and Corrine L. Patton; SBLSS 31 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004), 73–89; and Matthijs J. de Jong, “Ezekiel as a Literary Figure and the Quest for the Historical Prophet,” in The Book of Ezekiel and Its Influence, eds. Henk Jan de Jonge and Johannes Tromp (Burlington, VT and Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007), 1–16. For a critical assessment of these positions, see this author’s review of The Book of Ezekiel and Its Influence in CBQ 71 (2009): 212–13, and “Contemporary Studies of Ezekiel: A New Tide Rising,” in Ezekiel’s Hierarchical World, ed. Cook and Patton, 241–254.   7 Ronald E. Clements, Ezekiel, WBC (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), 6.   8 Cf. Steven Tuell, Ezekiel, Understanding the Bible Commentary Series (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012), 213–14.   9 Steven Tuell, The Law of the Temple in Ezekiel 40–48, HSM 49 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), 20–22; Michael Konkel, Architektonik des Heiligen: Studien zur zweiten Tempelvision Ezechiels (Ez 40–48), BBB 129 (Bodenheim: Philo, 2001), 24. Cf. also Moshe Greenberg, “The Design and Themes of Ezekiel’s Program of Restoration,” Int 38 (1984): 181–208 (189–90); and Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48; NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 498, though Block and Greenberg assign the law code to the prophet rather than his redactors. 10 So Henry St. John Thackeray, The Septuagint and Jewish Worship: A Study in Origins, 2nd ed., The Schweich Lectures 1920 (London: Oxford University Press, 1923), 124–26; cf. Johan Lust, “The Use of Textual Witness for the Establishment of the Text: The Shorter and Longer

68

Steven S. Tuell

witness to the OG of Ezek,11 and Codex Wirceburgensis (OLW), one of the oldest and best witnesses to the OL,12 lack this passage. The apparent use of 36.23c–32 in 38–39 (compare 39.7 and 36.20, 22), then, suggests that the Gog apocalypse is the latest part of the book.13 Still, since Walther Zimmerli’s magisterial work, many students of Ezekiel have agreed that the book of Ezekiel was redacted within the confines of a school.14 This means that, in contrast to the fairly chaotic process evident in the transmisTexts of Ezekiel – An Example: Ez 7,” in Ezekiel and His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and their Interrelation, ed. Johan Lust, BETL 74 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1986), 7–20 (13). Of particular note is the rendering of ‫ אדוני יהוה‬as αδωναι κυριος in 36.33 and 37 (compare elsewhere in the book, where this expression is rendered either κυριος or κυριος κυριος). Thackeray proposed that 36.23c–32 was inserted from another translation, likely a lectionary, “in the manner of the Asiatic school, Theodotion in particular” (The Septuagint and Jewish Worship, 125). The MT of 36.23b–38 combines quotes and allusions from elsewhere in the book (e. g., compare 36.26 with 11.19 and 18.31) with vocabulary found nowhere else: e. g., ‫ מים טהורים‬in 36.25; ‫ צאן אדם‬in 36.37–38. Further, the text seems disjointed, as even those who argue authorial unity for 36.16–32 recognize (cf. Michaël N. van der Meer, “A New Spirit in an Old Corpus? Text-Critical, Literary-Critical and Linguistic Observations regarding Ezekiel 36.16–38,” in The New Things: Eschatology in Old Testament Prophecy: Festschrift for Henk Leene, ed. Ferenc Postma, Klaas Spronk, and Eep Talstra, Amsterdamse Cahiers voor Exegese van de Bijbel en zijn Tradities S 3 [Maastricht: Utigeverij Shaker, 2002], 147–158 [147, 157]; Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 733–34). 11 Johan Lust, “Ezekiel 36–40 in the Oldest Greek Manuscript,” CBQ 43 (1981): 517–533 (517); see also Lust, “Shorter and Longer Texts,” 12–13. A Coptic-Sahidic lectionary lists 36.16–23a as a unit, ending the passage at the same point as Pap967 (van der Meer, “New Spirit,” 148), though van der Meer argues that text-critical conclusions cannot be drawn from this, since the manuscript “is not a complete Bible text, but a lectionary.” 12 In OLW, all of chap 36 is lost (Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, trans. James D. Martin, Hermeneia [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983], 242); however, reconstruction of the codex from the folios that remain makes it likely that 36.23b–32 was never part of the complete codex (PierreMaurice Bogaert, “Témoignage de la Vetus Latina dans l’étude de la tradition des Septante Ézéchiel et Daniel dans le Papyrus 967,” Bib 59 [1978]: 384–395 [390–91]). 13 In Pap967, 38–39 precede chap 37, which is then followed immediately by 40–48 (see Lust, “Shorter and Longer Texts,” 14, and “Ezekiel 36–40,” 518). Similarly, OLW has chap 37 immediately followed by chap 40. A single folio of the Codex bearing 38.8–20 survives, but its proper placement is uncertain. The standard edition of the Codex places this page (and therefore these chapters) after the folio bearing 42.5–18, and before chap 45 (as Zimmerli reports; Ezekiel 2, 24). However, Bogaert argues that, as no clear reason is given for that particular order (“Témoignage,” 387), chaps 38–39 likely came before chap 37 in OLW as in Pap967. In any event, the differing placement of these chapters in the MT and in the old Greek tradition suggests that 38–39 did not originally follow chap 37 and may be a later addition to the book. The Hebrew fragments of Ezekiel from Masada (cf. Shemaryahu Talmon, with contributions from Carol Newsom and Yigael Yadin, “Hebrew Fragments from Masada,” in Masada VI. The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965: Final Report, ed. J. Aviram, G. Foerster, E. Netzer [Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Hebrew University Press, 1999], 5–149 [59–75]) and Rev 20.7–10 demonstrate that both 36.23b–32 and 38–39 were incorporated into the book of Ezekiel by the first century CE. 14 Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, trans. Ronald E. Clements, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), and Ezekiel 2.

The Book of Ezekiel as a Work In Progress

69

sion and composition of many biblical books, Ezekiel has been carefully and deliberately preserved and expanded. As Clements writes: Not only was this school of prophetic disciples responsible for the preservation and literary shaping of the original material, but such disciples had also undertaken a specific type of developmental exegesis in which they added to the body of prophetic sayings to form more extensive structured units.15

Since the book was brought to completion after Ezekiel’s death by disciples with their own particular axes to grind, we can expect to find in their expansions not only continuity with Ezekiel’s ideas, but also discontinuity from them. The reworking of 28.11–19 from a sharp critique of the high priest to a lament over “the king of Tyre” vividly demonstrates how the prophet’s disciples reworked Ezekiel’s thought for their new context.

1. The Lament Over the King of Tyre (28.11–19) We can easily understand why Ezekiel would have issued enough oracles against Egypt to fill a collection (Ezek 29–32), but it is remarkable that Tyre should also have been so distinguished. What about this Phoenician merchant city could have so exercised this prophet? If Tyre joined its neighbors in the rebellion against Babylon, yet remained strong and successful as Jerusalem declined, envy may be the reason. The evidence for Tyre’s rebellion against Babylon, though, is not persuasive. Herodotus (History, 2.161) records an assault on Tyre and Sidon by Pharaoh Apries  – difficult to explain, if Egypt and Tyre were allies against Babylon. Nor do we need to posit a rebellion by Tyre to account for Nebuchadnezzar’s siege: Tyre’s wealth and control of the sea trade are enough to explain Babylon’s assault on this city.16 H. Jacob Katzenstein therefore argues that Tyre’s rulers remained neutral in this conflict.17 The use of religious language and imagery in Ezekiel’s Tyre oracles suggests that the prophet’s difficulty with Tyre involved more than politics or economics. John Strong has proposed that the successful resistance Tyre posed to Babylon created a theological problem for Ezekiel: might Tyre’s apparent inviolability, and Zion’s obvious vulnerability, suggest that “Tyre, not Jerusalem, was the throne of

15 Ronald E. Clements, “The Chronology of Redaction in Ezekiel 1–24,” in Ezekiel and His Book, ed. Lust, 283–294 (283). 16 John Strong, “Tyre’s Isolationist Policies in the Early Sixth Century BCE: Evidence from the Prophets,” VT 47 (1997): 207–219 (216). 17 H. Jacob Katzenstein, The History of Tyre; from the beginning of the Second Millenium, B. C. E. until the fall of the Neo-Babylonian Empire in 538 B. C. E. (Jerusalem: Schocken Institute for Jewish Research, 1973), 319.

70

Steven S. Tuell

the Great King?”18 Ezekiel’s negative attitude toward Zion19 and its temple (cf. 8–11), however, makes it unlikely that concern for the Zion theology prompted his oracles against Tyre. Indeed, the prophet’s utter condemnation of Jerusalem suggests another possibility. According to Scripture (cf. 1 Kgs 5; 1 Chr 22.4; 2 Chr 2.13–15; 4.11–18), Tyre played a huge role in the construction of the Jerusalem temple, providing both materials and skilled labor. As Tyre had been complicit in Jerusalem’s idolatry, then, it must also share in Jerusalem’s fate. The Tyre collection (26.1–29.19) can be broadly described as an oracle (26.1–​ 21)20 and a lament (27.1–36) concerning Tyre, and an oracle (28.1–10) and a lament (28.11–19) concerning Tyre’s ruler. The lament over the king of Tyre is introduced by the divine word formula (28.11)21 and the address to the prophet as ‫“( בן־אדם‬Mortal,” 28.12)22 typical of this book. As in the lament over Tyre (27.1–36), the prophet is instructed ‫“( שא קינה‬raise a lamentation,” 28.12; cf. 27.1, and compare 19.1; 32.2), though not over Tyre, but over its ruler. Already, however, the title used for this figure is intriguing: the ruler of Tyre is addressed, not as ‫“( נגיד‬prince,” the unusual term for Tyre’s ruler used in 28.2),23 but more conventionally as ‫“( מלך‬king”). Parallels with the lament against Tyre are readily apparent. In each passage, the lament is introduced by the messenger formula (27.3; 28.12). Like his city, the king of Tyre is initially praised as ‫“( כליל יפי‬per18 Strong,

“Tyre’s Isolationist Policies,” 217. ‫יהוה‬, the divine title associated most closely with Zion. Cf. Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, The Dethronement of Sabaoth: Studies in the Shem and Kabod Theologies, trans. F. H. Cryer, ConBOT 18 (Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1982), 11, 109–13. 20 Rather than a single, unified oracle, 26.1–21 is a collection of four brief, interconnected oracles of judgment (26.1–6, 7–14, 15–18, 19–21), in each of which God’s judgment is introduced with the messenger formula (26.3, 7, 15, 19). These oracles are formally diverse; some written in poetry, some in prose; in the final form of the text, however, they constitute the statement of God’s judgment upon Tyre, leading into the lament over the city. 21 The expression ‫ ויהי דבר־יהוה אלי‬occurs 41 times in Ezekiel; alternate forms appear in 1.3 (‫ ;)היה דבר־יהוה את־יחזקאל‬24.20 (‫)היה דבר־יהוה אלי‬, and 26.1; 29.1; 30.20; 31.1; and 32.1, 17 (‫היה‬ ‫)דבר־יהוה אלי‬. The divine word formula is such a characteristic feature of the book of Ezekiel that William Irwin used it to determine which passages were original to the book (The Problem of Ezekiel: An Inductive Study [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1943], 269). 22 Unless otherwise indicated, all English Scripture quotations are from the NRSV. The address ‫ בן־אדם‬is used 94 times in Ezek. In Psa 49.2 and 62.9, ‫ בן־אדם‬designates the common person. This is contrasted with ‫ בני־אישׁ‬for the nobility. Likely, in Ezek as well, the address ‫בן־‬ ‫ אדם‬emphasizes the prophet’s humble status in contrast to the power and majesty of God. Cf. Walter Wink, The Human Being: Jesus and the Enigma of the Son of Man (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002), 31–34. 23 ‫ נגיד‬occurs only here in Ezek. Apart from Ezek 28.2, ‫ נגיד‬refers to a foreign ruler in 2 Chr 32.21, Psa 76.12 (where ‫ נגיד‬appears in parallel with ‫)מלך‬, and Dan 9.26. In the prophets, this word appears only here, Isa 55.4, and Jer 20.1. DtrH uses ‫ נגיד‬for kings of Israel, particularly David (cf. 2 Sam 7.8//1 Chr 17.7); similarly, ‫ נגיד‬in Isa 55.4 refers to the Davidic covenant. Elsewhere, the term is used more generally for royal officials (e. g., 1 Chr 13.1; 2 Chr 28.7; Job 29.10; Prov 28.16), or for noble qualities (Prov 8.6). In the Chronicler’s history, where this term appears more than anywhere else, ‫ נגיד‬often refers to temple leadership, whether among the priests or the Levites (e. g., 1 Chr 9.11, 20; 2 Chr 31.12–13; Neh 11.11); Jer 20.1 also uses the term in this way. 19 Ezekiel never uses either “Zion” or ‫צבאות‬

The Book of Ezekiel as a Work In Progress

71

fect in beauty,” 28.12; cf. 27.3–4, 11 and Lam 2.15). Particularly striking are the conclusions to these laments: to both Tyre and its king, it is said ‫בלהות היית ואינך‬ ‫“( עד־עולם‬you have come to a dreadful end and shall be no more forever,” 27.36 and 28.19; note that the consonantal texts are identical!). Yet the lament over the king of Tyre is strikingly distinctive in its content, standing out from the rest of the Tyre collection. 1.1 The King of Tyre as the Primal Human It has often been proposed that 28.11–19 builds on images from the creation stories of Israel and the ancient Near East.24 For example, Dexter Callender argues that the expression ‫ חותם תכנית‬in 28.12 refers to the king of Tyre as “a seal, a likeness,” reflecting the notion in Genesis 1.26 that the first human was created in God’s image and likeness.25 By this reading, the fall of the king of Tyre is compared to the fall of the primal human or king. Such an interpretation certainly appears convincing. After all, the lament declares, “You were in Eden, the garden of God” (28.13). The list of precious stones in 28.13 brings to mind the wealth associated with the rivers of Eden in Genesis 2.10–14. Further, the lament goes on to describe the expulsion of its protagonist from the garden for the sin of pride, and specifically, for desiring forbidden wisdom (28.17; cf. Gen 2.17; 3.1–6). In both stories, a cherub enforces the sentence of expulsion (28.14, 16; cf. Gen 3.24) with fiery judgment (28.18; cf. Gen 3.24). In an intriguing twist on this reading, Abraham Winitzer proposes that the king of Tyre is identified with King Gilgamesh, and that Tyre is identified with the paradisial island to which Gilgamesh journeys in his quest for immortality.26 He argues that the list of precious stones relates to the miraculous gemstone trees of that garden,27 while the depictions of the king of Tyre as a 24 E. g., Margaret Odell, Ezekiel, Smyth and Helwys Bible Commentary (Macon, GA: Smyth and Helwys, 2005), 359, 362–64. 25 Dexter Callender, “The Primal Human in Ezekiel and the Image of God,” in The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives, ed. Margaret S. Odell and John T. Strong, SBLSS 9 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000), 175–193 (189). The MT points ‫ חותם‬as a Qal active participle, but it is commonly amended, following the LXX αποσφραγισμα, to the noun meaning “seal” or “signet.” The word ‫ תכנית‬appears only here and in 43.10. From context, it evidently has to do with perfection of form and measurement. Most English translations render the phrase as “signet of perfection” (NRSV), “seal of perfection” (JPSV), or the like, though the meaning of that expression remains unclear. Callender, noting that ‫“( תבנית‬pattern, model”) is almost identical in appearance to ‫תכנית‬, amends the text accordingly. 26 Abraham Winitzer, “Assyriology and Jewish Studies in Tel Aviv: Ezekiel among the Babylonian literati,” in Encounters by the Rivers of Babylon: Scholarly Conversations between Jews, Iranians, and Babylonians in Antiquity, ed. Uri Gabbay and Shai Secunda, TSAJ 160 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 19–50. Citations are from the paper as presented at the November 2012 SBL Annual Meeting in Chicago, IL. 27 Tablet IX. 172 ff. Winitzer, “Ezekiel,” 16, 20.

72

Steven S. Tuell

god (28.2),28 “full of wisdom and perfect in beauty” (28.12), call to mind the descriptions of Gilgamesh. Other features of these stories, however, do not fit the narrative in Ezek 28 quite so well. The protagonist in our lament is expelled from Eden, not simply for hubris or seeking forbidden wisdom, but for unjust trade practices (28.16, 18) and violence (28.16). The precious stones in 28.13 are described as bedecking not the garden, but the protagonist: “every precious stone was your covering” (‫)מסכתך‬. Further, it is difficult by these readings to account for the ‫אבני־אש‬ (“stones of fire,” 28.14, 16): what could this mean in a creation / ​paradise context? The cherub’s role is also not so straightforward as at first appears. The MT of 28.14 has ‫את־כרוב‬: “you were a cherub.” So too, the MT of 28.16 reads ‫ואבדך‬ ‫“( כרוב הסכך‬and I destroyed you, shielding cherub”), identifying the protagonist in the story not as the first human, but as a heavenly being (cf. KJV, NIV, JPSV). 1.2 The King of Tyre as a Cherub Marvin Pope famously proposed that this poem was referring to the fall of the Canaanite god El, displaced by the vigorous storm god Baal – a story not told outright in the Ugaritic sources, but reconstructed indirectly.29 The Canaanite myth of Athtar, an astral figure who claimed Baal’s throne for a brief time before being expelled from the heavens for hubris, is a more convincing example of this theme.30 Similarly, in Isa 14.3–23, a taunt song directed against the king of Babylon alludes to the fall of ‫“( הילל בן־שחר‬Day Star, son of Dawn,” Isa 14.12) from heaven, and so might be cited as a parallel to the cherub’s “fall” in Ezek 28.11–19. Traditional Christian interpretation has read both passages as referring to the fall of Satan (the name “Lucifer,” or light-bearer, is derived from Isa 14.12).31 So Tertullian cited Ezek 28 as proof that Satan was created good, and became corrupt through his own choices (Adversus Marcionem 2.10), while Theodoret of Cyrus wrote, “Forcing the text, someone might apply these things even to the historical prince of Tyre, but the text truly and properly corresponds to that demon which produces sinfulness” (Comm. Ezek 28). By this reading, the ‫“( אבני־אש‬stones of fire”) in 28.14, 16 may be a reference to stars,32 though this seems a bit forced. 28 With Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 578, Winitzer views 28.11–19 as a “mythologized recasting” of the oracle in 28.1–11, and so reads them together (Winitzer, “Ezekiel,” 21–22). 29 Marvin Pope, El in the Ugaritic Texts (Leiden: Brill, 1955), 97–103. 30 KTU 1.6 i. So W. G. E. Watson, “Helel,” in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, ed. Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst, 2nd ed. (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 393, and Stephen Cook, “Cosmos, Kabod, and Cherub: Ontological and Epistemological Hierarchy in Ezekiel,” in Ezekiel’s Hierarchical World, ed. Cook and Patton, 179–197 (192–93). 31 Cf. Hector M. Patmore, “Adam or Satan? The Identity of the King of Tyre in Late Antiquity,” in After Ezekiel: Essays on the Reception of a Difficult Prophet, eds. Paul Joyce and Andrew Mein; LHBOTS 535, (London: T & T Clark, 2011), 59–70. 32 Cook, “Cosmos, Kabod, and Cherub,” 191; Cook proposes that the precious stones in 28.13 may also represent stars.

The Book of Ezekiel as a Work In Progress

73

But there are difficulties with the “fall from heaven” interpretation as well. The LXX μετα του χερουβ presupposes not ‫־כּרוּב‬ ְ ‫“( ַא ְתּ‬you were a cherub”) but ‫ֶאת‬ (“with a cherub”), a reading also found in the Syriac; the NRSV reads accordingly: “With an anointed cherub as guardian I placed you.” In support of this reading, it must be noted that ‫ ַא ְּת‬is the feminine form of the pronoun, while both the king of Tyre and the noun ‫ כרוב‬are masculine.33 Similarly, in 28.16, the LXX και ηγαγεν σε apparently reads ‫ ואבדך‬not (with MT) as Piel preterite 1cs, but as Piel perfect 3ms, with the cherub as the subject, not the object, of the verb (followed by the NRSV: “the guardian cherub drove you out”). In support of this reading, the absence of the definite object marker is suggestive.34 The LXX and MT are of course different traditions, each readable in its own light. But as the consonantal text permits both the Masoretic and the LXX interpretation (with different pointing), one can legitimately ask which reading best explains the other. Here, the LXX arguably represents a more natural reading than the MT, which requires an anomalous use of the feminine pronoun. Probably, then, the cherub is a supporting character in this drama after all, rather than the lead; as we will see, however, this need not mean that the cherub in 28.11–19 and the cherub in Gen 3 play the same role. 1.3 “The King of Tyre”? Another set of problems in this difficult poem relates to its referent: does this lament really concern the king of Tyre? After the heading in 28.2, the protagonist of this poem is not identified as “the king of Tyre” again; indeed, there is no more mention of Tyre. Some aspects of the lament do seem appropriate to Tyre’s ruler: the condemnation of his pride (28.17; cf. 28.2), the references to his wisdom (28.17; cf. 28.3–4),35 and the reference to dishonest trade practices (28.16, 18; cf. 28.4–5) all fit that figure. Yet as we have seen, while the oracle concerning Tyre’s ruler calls him ‫( נגיד‬28.2), the lament uses the far more common expression ‫מלך‬ (28.12). This suggests the possibility that the oracle and the lament have different histories. Further, the sea, the waters, or Tyre’s location on an island feature prominently in every other passage concerning Tyre in 26.7–28.19. But no such mention is found in 28.11–19,36 raising further questions about the original set33 Greenberg (Ezekiel 21–37, 583) notes that ‫ ַא ְּת‬is used for a masculine subject in Num 11.15 and Deut 5.24, and so might have that meaning here as well. 34 While of course the definite object marker, like other prose particles, is more sparsely represented in poetry, and indeed does not appear anywhere else in 28.11–19, it is found in poetry elsewhere in Ezek, including the Tyre oracles (26.4, 11; 27.5, 26; 28.6). 35 Greek historians Dius and Menander of Ephesus both relate a story concerning Abdemon, a wise man from Tyre who not only solved riddles posed by Solomon himself, but also crafted riddles that Solomon could not solve (cited by Josephus, C. Ap. 1.114–120). 36 Cf. Carol A. Newsom, “A Maker of Metaphors: Ezekiel’s Oracles Against Tyre,” Int 38 (1984): 151–164 (160).

74

Steven S. Tuell

ting of the lament. The language used for the expulsion of the “king of Tyre” is also intriguing. God declares, ‫( ואחללך מהר אלהים‬28.16), which the NRSV renders, “I will cast you as a profane thing from the mountain of God”.37 But the root I ‫ חלל‬in the Piel, which appears predominantly in Ezekiel (23×) and in Leviticus (14×, all in the Holiness Code), is used elsewhere (e. g., Lev 21.12; Ezek 7.21) for the profanation or desacralizing of a person or thing, not merely for expulsion. A better rendering of 28.16, then, would be “I will deconsecrate you” – language more appropriate for the defrocking of a priest than for the removal of a king from power. Indeed, among the accusations raised against the “king of Tyre” is ‫חללת מקדשיך‬: “you profaned your sanctuaries” (28.18). What could this possibly mean, if applied to the foreign king of a foreign city? 1.4 Ezek 28.13 and the High Priestly Breastplate A clue to the true referent of 28.11–19 is the list of precious stones in 28.13. Unlike Gen 2.10–14, this list seems too specific for a general depiction of the wealth of Eden. Nine gemstones are worn by the protagonist. Though the modern identification of these stones is unclear,38 these particular gems, in this particular arrangement, call to mind an important item in the high priest’s vestments: the ‫“( חשן משפט‬breastpiece of judgment,” Exod 28.15). There are two descriptions of the high-priestly breastplate in Torah: Exod 28.15–20, Moses’ vision of the object, and Exod 39.8–13, which depicts the finished item. The breastplate was a complicated piece of jewelry, set with twelve gemstones in four rows of three. Three of the stones mentioned in Exodus do not appear in the MT of Ezek 28.13;39 however, all nine of the stones listed in Ezekiel appear in both Exodus passages. The order in which the stones appear is particularly intriguing. In Ezekiel as in Exodus, the stones are arranged in groups of three: so, the last three stones in the Exodus lists correspond to the second three in Ezekiel. Ezekiel’s remaining six stones are arranged differently, but comparison to the Exodus lists shows that a broken threefold order, relating to the Exodus sequence, prevails here as well. The first three stones in the Exodus list appear in Ezekiel in the same order; however, the first two stones open Ezekiel’s list, while the third closes it. The second three stones in the Exodus lists appear in Ezekiel in reverse order, moving backward from the list’s end with, once more, a gap between the second and third stone, into which, in proper sequence, fit the final three stones from the Exodus list. 37 The LXX uses the verb τραυματιζω (“wound”) in 28.16, assuming a different Hebrew root: II ‫חלל‬, meaning “pierce” (cf. 28.8–9, where this root is used). While the oracle against the ‫ נגיד‬of Tyre in 28.1–10 also uses I ‫( חלל‬cf. 28.7), that oracle accuses the ‫ נגיד‬of claiming divinity (28.2, 9). These claims are disproved by his descent into the underworld. 38 E. g., ‫ספיר‬, often rendered “sapphire” (cf. NRSV, JPSV, NIV), may instead refer to lapis lazuli, while ‫ יהלם‬is identified as “moonstone” in the NRSV, “amethyst” in the JPSV, and “emerald” in the NIV. 39 Missing are ‫לשם‬, ‫שבו‬, and ‫( אחלמה‬in the NRSV, jacinth, agate and amethyst, respectively).

The Book of Ezekiel as a Work In Progress

75

The following chart will help us to visualize this complex arrangement.40 The first column shows the order from the Exodus lists, while the second shows the order in Ezek 28.13, with the Exodus order showing in parentheses: ‫אדם‬

‫( אדם‬1)2

‫פטדה‬

‫( פטדה‬2)

‫ברקת‬

‫( יהלם‬6)

‫נפך‬

‫( תרשׁישׁ‬10)

‫ספיר‬

‫( שׁהם‬11)

‫יהלם‬

‫( ישׁפה‬12)

‫תרשׁישׁ‬

‫( ספיר‬5)

‫שׁהם‬

‫( נפך‬4)

‫ישׁפה‬

‫( ברקת‬3)

As the third row of three gems from the Exodus lists (gems seven, eight and nine in order) does not appear in Ezekiel, the numbering jumps from six to ten. Ezek 28.13 is unlikely to be a memory variant of the Exodus lists41; one would then expect either a more random reordering of the original list or the substitution of some stone names for similar appearing or sounding ones. Rather, this reads like a deliberate rearrangement – indeed, disarrangement – of the source text. The LXX of 28.13, recognizing this connection, lists all twelve stones from the high priestly breastplate, in the order in which they appear in Exodus.42 Given the general literalness of the LXX translation of Ezekiel, this could suggest that the original text of 28.13 had all twelve stones as well. Yet it is difficult to imagine that the intricately interwoven sequence in the MT is the result of scribal error. Likewise, to propose that a later editor has inserted this list as a gloss43 compels one to ask why anyone would have done so. Since, as Robert Wilson observes, the list can only refer to the high-priestly breastplate, “the purpose of the list 40 Modified from Tuell, Ezekiel, 196. There is a similar chart in Winitzer, “Ezekiel,” 34, although he offers no explanation of the variations in the order. Winitzer concludes from this correspondence that “at some level an equation was drawn between the primordial man of Ezek 28 and the High Priest of Israel’s Tabernacle, as if to suggest that the former was perceived by Ezekiel as an archetype of the latter” (“Ezekiel,” 34). For Winitzer, the stones of the high priest’s breastplate are an indication of the link between the tabernacle and creation (“Ezekiel,” 35–36). This is evocative, but fails to explain why such associations should be made with the king of Tyre. 41 David M. Carr describes such variants as “characterized by word-order changes, word substitutions not affecting meaning, and other ‘insignificant variants’ that point to a process of oral-written transmission” (Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005], 282; cf. also The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011], 13–101). 42 Though the LXX, oddly, inserts αργυριον και χρυσιον (“silver and gold”) at the middle of the list. 43 With, e. g., Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 82.

76

Steven S. Tuell

must be to identify the figure in the garden as the Israelite high priest.”44 The artful disarrangement of the list in 28.13 could derive from Ezekiel himself, playing creatively with his source text in Exodus, but it is difficult to imagine why he should have done so. It is more likely that this pattern is the work of an editor, at once preserving the connection between the list of gemstones and the high-priestly breastplate for a careful reader, and obscuring that connection, so as to keep the focus of the poem on the “king of Tyre” rather than on its original referent, the high priest.45

2. The High Priest as the Original Referent of 28.11–19 Once the referent of the lament has been identified as the high priest rather than the “king of Tyre,” solutions to numerous difficulties in this passage fall into place. The use of I ‫ חלל‬in the Piel (“profane”) for the “expulsion” of this figure makes far better sense if the passage describes the defrocking of a priest rather than the deposition of a king. It also makes perfect sense for priests to be castigated for defiling their sanctuaries; indeed, Ezekiel elsewhere implicates them in this very offense (for priestly defilement, see 22.26; for the defilement of the sanctuary, see 23.38–39; 24.21; 25.23).46 Although the precise term used for trade in 28.16, 18 (‫ )רכלה‬is unique to Ezekiel’s oracles concerning Tyre (Ezek 26.12; 28.5, 16, 18), it is surely not unrelated to ‫רכל‬, the far more common term for a trader or vendor; its use in the lament need not require an original association with Tyre’s ruler. Priestly involvement in dishonest trade is certainly no surprise: after all, temples were economic as well as religious institutions in the ancient world.47 44 Robert R. Wilson, “The Death of the King of Tyre: The Editorial History of Ezekiel 28,” in Love and Death in the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of Marvin Pope, ed. John Marks and Robert Good (Guilford, CT: Four Quarters, 1987), 211–218 (214); cf. Newsom, “Maker of Metaphors,” 162. 45 In his article “Between Imitation and Interpretation: Reuse of Scripture and Composition in Hodayot (1QHa) 11.6–19,” DSD 18 (2011): 54–73, William A. Tooman identifies a similar compositional technique in this psalm from Qumran, which borrows words and phrases concerning death, birth, and the sea from Psa 77.16–17; 107.23–27; Isa 66.7; Jer 10.13; Job 36.16–17; Job 41.23; and particularly Jon 2.3–7, but breaks up and reorders them. The poet does this, Tooman proposes, to mask his sources, so as “to mimic biblical idiom or style without explicitly or implicitly offering an interpretation of the source texts from which the language was drawn” (Tooman, “Imitation and Interpretation,” 71). 46 Cf. Wilson, “Death of the King of Tyre,” 215. 47 The economic forces binding the citizen, the community, and the temple together, particularly through land ownership, are the base of Joel Weinberg’s “Bürger-Tempel-Gemeinde” hypothesis (e. g., Joel Weinberg, “Das beit ‘abot im 6.–4. Jh. v.u.Z.,” VT 23 [1973]: 400–414 (408–409); idem, “The Postexilic Citizen-Temple Community: Theory and Reality,” in The Citizen-Temple Community, trans. Daniel L. Smith-Christopher, JSOTSupp 151 [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992], 127–38). Although Weinberg’s interest is focused on the Persian and Hellenistic periods, the temple certainly played an economic role in the Monarchy

The Book of Ezekiel as a Work In Progress

77

As Wilson notes, even the term ‫“( חתם‬seal”) used in 28.12, while uncommon in most of the Hebrew Bible, is found “a number of times in the description of the high priest’s vestments” (cf. Exod 28.11, 21, 36; 39.6, 14, 30).48 2.1 Eden as Zion But, what could it mean to say to the high priest, “You were in Eden, the garden of God” (28.13)? The allusions called to mind by reference to Eden are not restricted to the creation story. The lament also identifies its setting as ‫“( בהר קדש אלהים‬on the holy mountain of God,” 28.14, 16; cf. 20.40): that is, Zion, site of the Jerusalem temple. The rabbis refer to Zion as the navel of the world, for just as a child in the womb grows from the navel outward, so the Lord created the world from Zion outward.49 Talmud records the teaching of Rabbi Eliezar the Great that creation began with Zion (b.Yoma 54b). Within the Hebrew Bible, the identification of Eden with Zion is certainly implied in Isaiah’s famous “peaceable kingdom” texts, which imagine the mountain of God as an Edenic paradise (compare Isa 11.6–9; 65.17–25 with Gen 1.29–30). Consider, too, that just as Eden is a source of rivers (see Gen 2.10–14), so too is Zion (Psa 46.4; Isa 8.6; Joel 3.18; Zech 13.1; 14.8) – an idea of particular importance in Ezek 47.1–12. In short, Eden is Zion.50 2.2 The Cherub A temple context also clarifies the role of the cherub in this lament. Cherubim featured significantly in the iconography of divine presence in ancient Israel. Images of cherubim were molded into the golden lid of the ark (Exod 25.17–22), so that their outstretched wings formed a throne, like the cherub thrones portrayed in ancient Near Eastern art.51 Above this golden seat, Yhwh was believed to be invisibly present-as the divine title “the Lord, who is enthroned on the cherubim” indicates (1 Sam 4.4; 2 Sam 6.2//1 Chr 13.6; Psa 80.1). The ark itself thus served as Yhwh’s footstool: the intersection of divine and human worlds, and the place as well. As Marty Stevens observes, “Tantalizing hints in the biblical texts suggest that the Jerusalem temple engaged in regional trade, assumed fiduciary responsibility for deposits, made loans of surpluses, and was concerned for the welfare of the needy in ways similar to Mesopotamian temples” (Temple, Tithes and Taxes: The Temple and the Economic Life of Israel [Peabody: Hendrickson, 2006], 172), For biblical texts critiquing the temple and its personnel for economic injustice, cf. Mal 1.6–8, and in the NT, Matt 21.12–13; Mk 11.15–17; Lk 19.45–46; Jn 2.14–22. 48 Wilson, “King of Tyre,” p. 215. 49 Midrash Hassem Behokmâ Yasad ‘Ares, cited by Jon D. Levenson, Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible (Chicago: Winston, 1985), 117–118. 50 So Steven Tuell, “The Rivers of Paradise: Ezek 47.1–12 and Gen 2.10–14,” in God Who Creates: Essays in Honor of W. Sibley Towner, ed. S. Dean McBride, Jr. and William Brown (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 171–189. 51 For a depiction of Ahiram, king of Byblos, seated on a cherub throne from the National Museum, Beirut, cf. James B. Pritchard (ed.), The Ancient Near East: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1958), plate 126.

78

Steven S. Tuell

of Yhwh’s special presence. In Solomon’s temple, the Most Holy Place held a massive cherub throne (1 Kgs 6.19–28//2 Chr 3.8–13). Two gilded olivewood cherubim stood side by side facing the main chamber of the temple, with their inner wings touching, overshadowing the ark, and their outer wings extending toward the chamber walls. For Ezekiel, Yhwh’s presence was disassociated from the ark, and indeed from the temple itself; however, the cherubim still fulfilled an iconic function (cf. 1.4–28; 10.1–22; 43.7a). Stephen Cook observes that the cherubim in Ezekiel’s visions are liminal figures, positioned beneath God’s chariot throne and above the wheelwork and the coals of fire associated with it. The cherubim both guard and mediate access to the ‫כבוד יהוה‬.52 This, it seems, is also the function of the cherub in 28.11–19. The reference to only one cherub in 28.14 and 16, rather than two (as associated with the ark, or the cherub throne in Solomon’s temple) or four (as in Ezekiel’s visions of the Glory of Yhwh), is not a problem with this interpretation. In fact, as Wilson observes, “Ezekiel elsewhere speaks of a single cherub when he describes his visions of the Jerusalem temple” (cf. 9.3; 10.2, 4, 7, 14).53 Consider too that while the NRSV translates the Qal participle of ‫סכך‬, used in 28.14 and 16 to describe the cherub’s role, as “guardian,” this term is never used for a guardian anywhere else in the Hebrew Bible. It is used, however, for the cherub’s wings overshadowing the ark (Exod 25.32; 37.9; 1 Kgs 8.7; and especially 1 Chron 28.18 where, as in Ezek 28.14 and 16, the participial form of ‫ סכך‬describes the cherubim). Hence, the JPSV speaks rather of the “shielding” cherub, while the KJV reads “covering.” Both translations depict the iconic function of the cherubim in the temple, rather than the guard duty performed by the cherub in Gen 2. 2.3 The Stones of Fire Finally, a temple setting provides the best explanation for the ‫“( אבני־אש‬stones of fire,” 28.14, 16). While difficult to understand in either a primordial or heavenly setting, in a temple context, the referent for this phrase is clear: these are the coals of the altar.54 As Cook observes, the “normal functions” of the Jerusalem priesthood involved “manipulating the temple’s altar coals, burning incense and sacrifices to God.”55 To walk “among the stones of fire” (28.14), then, is to serve God on the altar as priest; to be driven out from among the stones of fire would be to lose that status; to be deprived of the right to offer sacrifices. Fire also plays a central role in the punishment of the poem’s protagonist. Yhwh not only defrocks the formerly holy priest (‫ואחללך‬, 28.16), but also declares: “Cosmos, Kabod, and Cherub,” 184–85. “Death of the King of Tyre,” 216. 54 With Wilson, “Death of the King of Tyre,” 216. 55 Cook, “Cosmos, Kabod, and Cherub,” 185. 52 Cook,

53 Wilson,

The Book of Ezekiel as a Work In Progress

79

I brought out fire from within you; it consumed you, and I turned you to ashes on the earth in the sight of all who saw you. (Ezek 28.18)

This is strongly reminiscent of the destruction of Korah’s followers in Num 16.35 and the destruction of Nadab and Abihu in Lev 10.2 – both priestly stories about judgment upon unworthy pretenders to the priesthood.56 It also calls to mind Ezekiel’s vision of the destruction of Jerusalem, set ablaze with burning coals taken from “the wheelwork underneath the cherubim” (10.2, 6). As Cook states, the cherubim “channel the fiery power out to humanity, for purposes that may involve either salvation or judgment.”57 Both the fiery stones and the fiery judgment in 28.11–19, then, are priestly images. 2.4 Again, “the King of Tyre”? Given the extensive use of priestly language and imagery in this lament, what are we to make of it being directed against the king of Tyre? One might ask, with William Tooman, if “the writer(s) simply had no personal knowledge of the king of Tyre (his trappings, garb, iconography, etc.),” and so “adopted language from the most elevated position with which they were familiar: the high priesthood.”58 This is the position of Carol Newsom, who regards the priestly imagery as a metaphor applied to the Tyre’s ruler.59 The king of Tyre might perhaps be described metaphorically as the high priest so far as the power and prestige of that figure goes, and perhaps even his gemstone trappings could be explained in that way. But would either Ezekiel or his priestly editors condemn a foreign king for “profaning his sanctuaries,” as though the appurtenances of a foreign god were not already profane? John Strong understands the close parallels to Jerusalem’s temple traditions in this lament as a sharp rebuke to Tyre for mimicking ideas and ideals proper to Zion.60 But Ezekiel, as we have seen, shows little positive regard either for the temple or for Zion. Finally, these arguments fail to deal adequately with the unmistakable identification Ezekiel makes of the lament’s protagonist. Despite its heading, this poem is not about the “king of Tyre” at all. It is about the Jerusalemite high priest. Robert Wilson describes 28.11–19 as an “oblique oracle”: that is, “a dirge which was ostensibly concerned with the king of Tyre, but which in fact was so laced with allusions to the Israelite high priest that the real thrust of the dirge could not possibly be missed by Ezekiel’s audience.”61 56 The

verbs ‫ יצא‬and ‫ אכל‬and the noun ‫ אש‬are used in all three contexts. “Cosmos, Kabod, and Cherub,” 184. 58 William Tooman, personal communication. 59 Newsom, “Maker of Metaphors,” 162. 60 John T. Strong, “Ezekiel’s Oracles Against the Nations Within the Context of His Message,” PhD diss., Union Theological Seminary, Virginia, 1993, 175–76. 61 Wilson, “Death of the King of Tyre,” 217. 57 Cook,

80

Steven S. Tuell

This interpretation is far more apt, but still seems overly subtle. The best explanation of the text before us, I would argue, is that Ezekiel’s priestly editors, unhappy with his condemnation of the high priest, have redirected the lament: first, by adding a new heading identifying its referent as the king of Tyre; second, by artfully disarranging the list of stones in the high-priestly breastplate, and third, by adjusting the language of the lament to more closely resemble Ezekiel’s lament over Tyre. Still, despite this misdirection, the original intent of 28.11–19 remains clear. Because of their greed and corruption, the priests of Jerusalem, and in particular the high priest, will be expelled from the temple and destroyed.

3. Priesthood for Ezekiel and for His Editors The reading of 28.11–19 here proposed is consistent with what we can glean from the remainder of the book concerning both Ezekiel’s attitude toward the priesthood and the contrasting attitude of his editors. Although ‫“( כהן‬priest”) appears 24 times in Ezekiel, one reference is in the editorial superscription (1.3), and 20 occur in 40–48, in material likely added by Ezekiel’s priestly editors. Only 7.26, 22.26, and 40.45–46 derive certainly from the prophet himself. The paucity of references to the priesthood by a prophet who was himself a priest is surely suspect.62 Further, two out of those three references are condemnations; only 40.45–46 is a neutral description of priestly responsibilities, set in the context of the prophet’s last great vision. Granted, the first 33 chapters of Ezekiel are given over to judgment and rebuke, but there are some positive words about some groups in Israel (9.4), and at least some among the community of exiles (11.16–20). Yet there is not one positive statement about the priests in the original text of Ezekiel. Surely, in a book written by a priest and shot through with priestly language and ideals, this is unexpected, and reveals that Ezekiel held a negative view of the Jerusalem priesthood.

62 Contra Iain Duguid (Ezekiel and the Leaders of Israel, VTSup 56 [Leiden: Brill, 1994], 133), who argues that it is because the priests come in for comparatively little criticism in the body of the book that they are rewarded with significant roles in the utopian program presented in chapters 40–48. Of the two references to priests prior to 40–48, Duguid regards as 7.26 as neutral, while 22.26 involves a general critique aimed at all of the leaders of Israel, adapted from Zeph 3.1–4. The priests, then, emerge as comparatively righteous, and so are given greater honor in Ezekiel’s utopian scheme. Surely, though, for Ezekiel the priest to refer to priests so rarely, and never positively (contrary to Duguid’s claims, 7.26 is certainly not neutral, but condemns the priests for failing in one of their fundamental tasks), suggests that his attitude toward his peers in Jerusalem is negative, not positive.

The Book of Ezekiel as a Work In Progress

81

3.1 Ezekiel 7.26 The first explicit reference to priests in Ezekiel comes in 7.26–27, which condemns all of Israel’s leaders, including its priests, for their failure to act: they shall keep seeking a vision from the prophet; instruction shall perish from the priest, and counsel from the elders. The king shall mourn, the prince shall be wrapped in despair, and the hands of the people of the land shall tremble.

This condemnation calls to mind Jer 18.18, where, as in Ezek 7.26, elder, prophet, and priest all fail to deliver Jerusalem.63 To this number, Ezekiel adds the king, the prince, and the landed gentry. But a careful comparison of this chapter with Hos 4 is also in order.64 Like Ezek 7.10–27, Hos 4.1–19 is directed against all the people. However, the priests are particularly condemned for failing in their charge to teach Torah (Hos 4.6; cf. 4.1–2, where the people’s ignorance leads them to violate the Decalogue), just as they are in 7.26 (cf. also 22.26–28). The teaching obligation of the priests is found throughout Scripture (e. g., Lev 10.10–11; Deut 33.8–10; 2 Kgs 17.27–28; Ezek 44.23–24; 2 Chr 15.3). To know, observe, and teach Torah is their primary responsibility, apart from the liturgy. The critique in 7.26, then, is scathing – Ezekiel accuses his fellow priests of failing in one of their most fundamental tasks. The broader context of this verse is also significant, although this chapter is beset with textual and interpretive problems.65 The MT of Ezek 7 falls into three parts, each concluding with the recognition formula: 7.1–4, 5–9, 10–27.66 However, as the first two parts are closely related both in form and content, one could, with John Wevers, better describe the chapter as a two-part poem declaring Jerusalem’s end (7.1–9), and an “oracle expanding in detail the theme set forth in the Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 212. Hos 4.12 and Ezek 7.10, both of which mention a rod. 65 In the LXX, 7.6–9 come between vv. 2 and 3, and the messenger formula (all that the LXX has from vv. 5–6) introduces v. 10. As a result, many interpreters believe that this chapter was assembled out of parts, with 1–4 and 5–9 as alternate versions of the same oracle: e. g., George A. Cooke, Ezekiel, ICC (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1936), 75; John W. Wevers, Ezekiel, NCB (Greenwood: Attic, 1969), 62. Indeed, for much of this chapter, the LXX is shorter than the MT. Zimmerli holds that the LXX of Ezekiel 7 is a witness to the original text, which has undergone considerable expansion and revision in the MT (Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 193–94). However, the LXX text is not necessarily better than the MT (so Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 146–47). Ezekiel is characteristically wordy and convoluted, and the LXX of Ezek demonstrates a consistent tendency to clean up the prophet’s repetitive style. But in 7.1–9, that repetition is powerful and effective, driving home the theme of the approaching end. Walther Eichrodt describes this text as “a fugue, a piece of music circling round in mighty sweeps, and again and again returning to the one theme” (Ezekiel, trans. Cosslett Quin; OTL [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970], 101). 66 With Ronald M. Hals, Ezekiel, FOTL 19 (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1989), 41–42. 63 So

64 Compare

82

Steven S. Tuell

introductory poem” (7.10–27).67 Throughout the poem (7.3–4, 8–9), it is made clear that the end has come because of ‫תועבה‬ – a term that Ezekiel uses specifically for idolatry.68 It is not surprising, then, that Ezekiel alludes in this chapter to the story of the golden calf (compare 7.7 with Exod 32.17–18; and 7.20 with Exod 32.2–4) – a story highly critical of Aaron, the first high priest. A pivotal verse in this chapter is 7.10, which is also, unfortunately, quite obscure.69 Indeed, even where the meaning of the Hebrew seems clear, its interpretation is not: though ‫“( פרח הזדון‬pride has budded”) appears fairly straightforward (Israel’s arrogance has brought on the end lamented in 7.1–9), what could it mean to say ‫“( צץ המטה‬The rod has blossomed”)? The rabbis generally understood the rod to refer here to the punishment inflicted on Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, since in Jeremiah 50.31 ‫“( זדון‬arrogant one”) is a cryptonym for Babylon.70 Similarly, Assyria is called “the rod (Hebrew ‫ )המטה‬of my anger” in Isaiah 10.5.71 But as George Cooke wrote, in Ezek 7.10 “it is Israel’s arrogance which has reached the climax,” not Babylon’s.72 Most contemporary scholars therefore amend the text of 7.10 to read ‫“( ֻמ ֶּטה‬injustice;” see Ezek 9.9).73 Emendation is unnecessary, however. The phrase ‫ צץ המטה‬is perfectly meaningful as an allusion to Num 17.1–11, a famous text dealing with the establish67

 John Wevers, Ezekiel, 62; see also Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 157.

68 ‫ תועבה‬is a common term in Ezek, where it appears 43 times; only Prov (22 times) and Deut

(17 times) use this expression as frequently. Broadly speaking, ‫ תועבה‬refers to something disgusting or reprehensible; so, in Gen and Exod, the term describes the Egyptian attitude toward the Israelites, whose language (Gen 43.32) and customs (Gen 46.34; Exod 8.26) the Egyptians find repulsive. This, indeed, reflects the use of the term in Prov, where God finds the ways of the wicked and proud detestable (see Prov 3.32; 6.16–19). ‫ תועבה‬appears only six times in Lev, specifically in the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26; ‫ תועבה‬appears in 18.22, 26–27, 29–30; 20.13), where the term refers to specific acts that bring about ritual defilement. We might expect Ezekiel’s usage of this term to mirror its use in priestly material. However, the closest parallels to Ezekiel’s usage come from Deut (e. g., Deut 7.25–26; 18.9–12; 27.15) and DtrH (1 Kgs 14.24; 2 Kgs 16.3; 21.2, 11; 23.13), where ‫ תועבה‬refers to idol worship and detestable cult practices (Risa Levitt Kohn, “‘With a Mighty Hand and an Outstretched Arm’: The Prophet and the Torah in Ezekiel 20,” in Ezekiel’s Hierarchical World, ed. Cook and Patton, 159–168 [162 n. 19]). In Ezek as well, ‫ תועבה‬refers to idolatry and the corrupt worship of Jerusalem’s defiled temple and priesthood. 69 The NRSV reading “Your doom has gone out” is, frankly, a best guess at ‫ ;יצאה הצפרה‬this entire phrase is absent in the LXX, suggesting that the Greek translators didn’t know what to do with it, either! The term ‫ צפרה‬in Ezekiel 7.7 and 10 is rendered by Daniel Block as “leash” (The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24. NICOT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997], 251, 254). Johan Lust proposes a parallel to Isa 28.5, where ‫ צפרה‬appears to mean “crown,” and suggests that “the term in Ez 7 must refer to the threat of a coming king” (“The Shorter and Longer Texts of Ezekiel,” 18). He argues that this term was not deleted in the LXX, but rather was added to the MT by Ezekiel’s editors. In particular, Lust finds here a late, cryptic allusion to the Greeks, since in Daniel 8.5 Alexander is called a he-goat (Hebrew ‫)צפיר‬ – an interesting, though highly speculative, proposal. 70 Cooke, Ezekiel, 79. 71 Joseph Blenkinsopp, Ezekiel, Interpretation (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1990), 47. 72 Cooke , Ezekiel, 79. 73 E. g., Wevers, Ezekiel, 63; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 196; Blenkinsopp, Ezekiel, 47.

The Book of Ezekiel as a Work In Progress

83

ment of Aaron’s priestly authority, and the only other place in the Hebrew Bible where a rod blossoms (Num 17.8). In Ezek 7.10, however, the blooming rod is used negatively, suggesting (particularly in light of 7.26), that a criticism of the priesthood is intended here. The arrogance of the priests has corrupted and perverted worship, to the point that the temple has become a spiritual chamber of horrors, rather than the house of God (cf. 8.1–18; particularly vv. 16–18). Even when not explicitly named, then, the priests are Ezekiel’s intended target. Another indirect reference to priesthood appears in 7.14: “They have blown the horn and made everything ready; but no one goes to battle, for my wrath is upon all their multitude.” While all Jerusalem is condemned here, blowing the trumpet was a priestly duty. In Num 31.6, Aaron’s grandson Phineas is given responsibility for the war trumpet, while in Josh 6.9, 13, it is the priests who blow the trumpets at Jericho. In 2 Chr 13.12, victory is assured once the priests have blown the battle trumpets (similarly, in 1 Chr 15.24 and 16.6, blowing the trumpets before the ark of God is a priestly obligation). Likely, then, Ezekiel once more addresses the city in general, but the priests in particular, who fail in yet another of their assigned responsibilities. 3.2 Ezekiel 22.26 In 22.25–29 the leaders of Israel, both secular and sacred, are condemned in a critique based on Zeph 3.1–4.74 Ezekiel’s initial condemnation of the priests, who “have done violence to my teaching and have profaned my holy things” (22.26), is taken directly from Zeph 3.4. But, Ezekiel goes substantially beyond his source text: “they have made no distinction between the holy and the common, neither have they taught the difference between the unclean and the clean” (22.26). The holy, the common, the clean and the unclean mark the borders of the priestly world view. Strict care must be taken that the holy and the common do not mix (in 42.20, the wall around the temple complex is meant “to make a separation between the holy and the common”); the story of Uzzah, who touched the Ark and was struck dead (2 Sam 6.7//1 Chr 13.10), provides a grim reminder of the dangerous power of the holy. Contact with unclean things communicates defilement, which must be purged by ritual and sacrifice. A critical responsibility of the priesthood was to know and observe these distinctions, and to teach them to the people (Lev 10.10–11; cf. the discussion of Ezek 7.26 above). But Ezekiel claims that Jerusalem’s priests have perverted this teaching role, bringing defilement upon themselves and the people. Further, “they have disregarded my sabbaths, so that I am profaned among them” (22.26). In 20.12–15, 20–23, failure to observe the Sabbath was a major reason for expulsion from the land. The priests, then, are particularly responsible for the faithlessness that led Jerusalem to destruction. 74 As

Iain Duguid has shown; see Ezekiel and the Leaders of Israel, 72–75.

84

Steven S. Tuell

3.3 Ezekiel 40.44–46 As part of Ezekiel’s great temple vision, 40.44–46 designates two chambers in the temple’s inner court for the use of the priests: a south-facing chamber ‫לכהנים‬ ‫“( שמרי משמרת הבית‬for the priests who have charge of the temple”), and a northfacing chamber ‫“( לכהנים שמרי משמרת המזבח‬for the priests who have charge of the altar”). These latter priests are further defined: ‫המה בני־צדוק הקרבים מבני־לוי‬ ‫“( אל־יהוה לשרתו‬these are the descendants of Zadok, who alone among the descendants of Levi may come near to the LORD to minister to him,” Ezek 40.46b). Apparently, the two-stage priesthood depicted here was still the norm in Ezekiel’s time.75 The two priestly classes are treated nearly the same. Zadokite altar clergy and (presumably) Levite temple clergy are both called ‫כהנים‬, and their tasks are described identically. While 40.46b gives the altar clergy particular distinction, it does not in any way belittle the temple clergy – in contrast, as we shall see, to Ezekiel’s editors in 40–48, who exalt the Zadokites and deny the title ‫ כהן‬to the Levite temple clergy.76 3.4 Ezekiel 44.1–14 and the Priestly Editing of Chapters 40–48 Viewed against the background of Ezekiel’s generally critical perspective toward the priesthood, the pro-priestly bias of his editors stands out, particularly in 75 Wolf W. G. Baudissen, “Priests and Levites,” in A Dictionary of the Bible, Dealing with its Language, Literature and Contents Including the Biblical Theology, ed. James Hastings (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1911), 4:67–97 (78), proposed “that the distinction of ‫ כהנים‬of two grades was familiar to Ezekiel from already existing relations.” 76 Gustav Hölscher (Hesekiel: der Dichter und das Buch, BZAW 39 [Giessen: Alfred Töpelmann, 1924], 192) and Cooke (Ezekiel, 439–40), who deem v. 46b secondary for this very reason, and Eichrodt (Ezekiel, 545), Hartmut Gese (Der Verfassungsentwurf des Ezechiel (Kap. 40–48) traditionsgeschichtlich untersucht, BHT 25 [Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1957], 32), and Zimmerli (Ezekiel 2, 368), consider 40.44–46a secondary, with v. 46b coming later still, based on a presumed polemic. Rodney Duke (“Punishment or Restoration? Another Look at the Levites of Ezekiel 44.6–16,” JSOT 40 [1988]: 61–81 [74–75]) argues that no twofold priesthood is in view here. The temple clergy could not be Levites, he claims, as Levites were not permitted in the inner court. Rather, the designation in v. 46b is to be taken as applying to both groups, Num 18.5 having given responsibility for temple and altar service to the sons of Aaron (see also Block, Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, 537–538, although he denies that any kind of cultic service is in view, and regards the priests described here as temple guards). This reading of 40.44–46 seems strained, however. The most natural referent for the phrase in v. 46b is the altar clergy described in v. 46a, especially given the reference to sacrificial service. Moreover, by stating that the Levites could not enter the inner court, Duke assumes what he sets out to prove: that the Levites were not regarded as priests. Finally, the use of the Num 18 reference indicates a facile and unwarranted identification of the Zadokites and the Aaronids. While Aaron’s line is divided in two (through Ithamar and Eliezar), Zadok’s is clearly singular. Geographically, the Aaronids are associated with the pastorage of greater Judah, while Zadok is always and everywhere associated solely with Jerusalem. With Frank Moore Cross, I would argue that while the Zadokites are Aaronids (Frank M. Cross, “The Priestly Houses of Early Israel,” in Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973], 195–215 [210–212]), not all Aaronids are Zadokites.

The Book of Ezekiel as a Work In Progress

85

40–48. Programmatic for this perspective is the judgment oracle in 44.1–14, which rejects the priesthood of the Levites and acclaims the Zadokites as the sole possessors of priestly dignity. Many scholars, it must be said, reject this reading.77 Rather than a judgment on the Levites, they argue, 44.1–14 is a judgment on the people, who because of their idolatries are no longer permitted to kill their own sacrifices. In 44.11, that task is given to the Levites, who are otherwise restored to the responsibilities of service and guard duty they had earlier given to “foreigners” (‫ ;בני־נכר‬cf. 44.7–8). For example, Rodney Duke, who rejects the notion that the Levites are judged here, argues that 44.13, which states that the Levites are to bear their guilt and shame, reflects a common Ezekielian motif (16.53–63; 20.39–44; 36.31–32; 39.25–29; 43.10–11).78 Therefore, there is no particular degradation of the Levites in 44.13–14, which like Num 18.3, merely restates Levitical duties. I find this argument unconvincing. While Num 18 requires the Levites to remain at a distance from the holy things, it nowhere states that they are not to serve as priests; this is assumed in the context. By contrast, Ezek 44.13 does stipulate this: “They shall not come near me, to serve me as priest.” Former priestly service by the Levites is presupposed in 44.7, which states that ‫ בני־נכר‬have been present in the sanctuary “when you [i. e., the Levites] offer me my food, the fat and the blood.” While the people as well are condemned, the Levites are held responsible for the people’s sin (cf. 3.16–21; 33.1–9, where the prophet is held accountable for the people’s sin if he does not speak). That the Levites kill the sacrifices for the people (44.11) is not a punishment, but a simple statement of cult practice in the early Persian period context of Ezekiel’s priestly editors (cf.

77 Jacob Milgrom, Studies in Levitical Terminology 1: The Encroacher and the Levite: The Term ‘Aboda, UCPNES 14 (Berkeley: University of California, 1970), 83–85; Michael Fishbane Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985), 140, Rodney Duke, “Punishment or Restoration?,” 67–70; Leslie Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, WBC 29 (Dallas: Word, 1990), 261 (though Allen acknowledges that “the punishment of Israel becomes overshadowed by that of the Levites”). Michael Fishbane holds that the punishment of Israel is a pretext; the “primary issue” in this passage is “the exclusive elevation of the Zadokites to the priesthood.” Block, on the other hand, rejects reading this passage as a judgment oracle at all, arguing instead that 44.4–31 is “a series of directives issued by Yahweh regulating admission to the sacred precinct, analogous to Deut. 23.2–4” (Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, 617). Similarly, Stephen Cook holds that 44.1–14 does not reflect a historical conflict concerning priesthood, but rather “the group’s experience of the narrative world of P” – specifically, the story of the Korah rebellion in Num 16–18 (“Innerbiblical Interpretation in Ezekiel 44 and the History of Israel’s Priesthood,” JBL 114/2 [1995]: 193–208 [196–97]). 78 Duke, “Punishment,” 67–70. On the role of shame in Ezekiel, see Margaret Odell, “The Inversion of Shame and Forgiveness in Ezekiel 16.59–62,” JSOT 56 (1992): 101–112, and Jaqueline E. Lapsley, “Shame and Self-Knowledge: The Positive Role of Shame in Ezekiel’s View of the Moral Self,” in The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives, ed. Margaret S. Odell and John T. Strong, 143–174.

86

Steven S. Tuell

2 Chr 30.17; 35.5–6, 11; Ezr 6.20).79 It is the Levites who are punished, by losing the right to serve as priests – a right affirmed implicitly in 40.44–46. The exclusive right of the Zadokites to priesthood claimed in 44.1–14 is consistently asserted by the redactors of Ezekiel’s temple vision. In an expansion to the temple description at 42.13–14, no mention of or provision for the temple clergy is made; the text speaks only of the altar clergy who may draw near [‫]קרב‬ to Yhwh. The altar dedication at 43.19 directs that the sacrifice to consecrate the altar be performed by ‫“( הכהנים הלוים אשר הם מזרע צדוק הקרבים אלי‬the Levitical priests of Zadok’s lineage, who may draw near to me”). Similarly, the description of the temple kitchens (46.19–24) distinguishes between ‫( כהנים‬v. 20) and ‫“( משרתי הבית‬those who serve in the temple,” or “temple servants,” v. 24; contrast 40.45). Finally, in the land division text (47.13–48.29), the land given the priests is distinguished from the land given the Levites, a distinction clarified in 48.11 by a recollection of the judgment oracle at 44.1–14: “The sacred preserve shall be for the priests, the Zadokites who kept my charge and did not go astray, like the Levites, when the people of Israel did.” In all of these citations (and unlike 40.44–46), the title ‫ כהן‬is reserved exclusively for the Zadokite altar clergy, and denied the Levite temple clergy. It seems appropriate, then, to stipulate a Zadokite redactional expansion to Ezekiel’s temple vision, for which the judgment oracle in 44.1–14 is programmatic.80 The pro-priestly bias evident in the editing and expansion of 40–48 supports our proposal regarding the editing and expansion of 28.11–19.

79 See Steven Tuell, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Interpretation (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 220, 239. In 2 Chr 30.17, Levitical slaughter is presented as a concession, necessitated by the number of persons participating in Hezekiah’s passover who were ritually unclean and so could not kill their own sacrifices. However, in the description of Josiah’s passover, Levitical slaughter is presupposed; indeed, in 2 Chr 35.5, a particular division of Levites is given responsibility for each of the “ancestral houses of your kindred the people” – that is, for the laity (so Sara Japhet, I & II Chronicles, OTL [Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1993], 1049; see Ezr 6.20). Apparently, then, Levitical slaughter of the sacrifices was the customary practice in the Chronicler’s own community. 80 Gese (Verfassungsentwurf, esp. 110–12) in particular argued for a Zadokite redaction of this material; similarly Konkel (Architektonik des Heiligen, 349–50) identifies two levels of redaction, tied to two different perceptions of the priesthood in two different periods. Such approaches, however, do not account for the impression of unity in the final form of the text. My own work presumes that the text of Ezek 40–48 in its final form served as the polity of the Judean Restoration under the Zadokite hierocracy. For a more fully developed statement of this thesis, cf. S. Dean McBride, Jr. “The ‘Law of the Temple’ and the Pentateuchal Torah,” an invited paper presented to the Chicago Society of Biblical Research, Chicago, IN, April 1981; and idem, “The Polity of Ezekiel 40–48,” an invited paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, San Francisco, CA, December 1983, and Tuell, Law of the Temple, esp. chapters 2 and 5, and Ezekiel, 276–81. The original vision consisted of 40.1–43.7a (with minor insertions at 40.5 and 42.13–14); 44.1–2; 47.1–12; and 48.30–35.

The Book of Ezekiel as a Work In Progress

87

4. Conclusion Like all biblical books, the book of Ezekiel has a history. In this case, the vivid, unmistakable style of Ezekiel and the power of his vision result in an extraordinarily unified work. Still, cracks are evident, enabling us to perceive places where that vision was not fully realized. Moreover, we can discern the intent of Ezekiel’s priestly editors – an intent which, while largely consonant with the prophet’s vision, also departs from it significantly. In the lament over the “king of Tyre,” we find both this continuity and this discontinuity illustrated. Faced on the one hand with a scathing critique of the high priest with which they could not agree, and on the other with a startlingly original poetic depiction of divine judgment from the hand of their master, these editors have found a way to preserve the latter and to redirect the former, from the high priest to the “king of Tyre.” The form that redirection has taken, however, is itself suggestive. Much as, in Gen 6–9, redactors have preserved and conflated alternate accounts of the flood rather than supplanting one for the other, so the priestly redactors of Ezekiel have preserved this lament, reworking it, but in such a way that close, careful readers can still discern the prophet’s intention. Placing 28.11–19 into a collection of oracles against Tyre and redefining its referent as Tyre’s king obscures the poem’s critique of the high priest, but does not efface it.

Bibliography Allen, Leslie C. Ezekiel 20–48. Word Biblical Commentary 29. Dallas: Word, 1990. Baudissen, Wolf W. G. “Priests and Levites.” In A Dictionary of the Bible, Dealing with its Language, Literature and Contents Including the Biblical Theology. Edited by James Hastings, 4:67–97. 5 vols. New York: C. Scribner, 1911. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Ezekiel. Interpretation. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1990. Block, Daniel I. The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. –. The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice. “Témoignage de la Vetus Latina dans l’étude de la tradition des Septante Ézéchiel et Daniel dans le Papyrus 967.” Biblica 59 (1978): 384–395. Callender, Dexter. “The Primal Human in Ezekiel and the Image of God.” In The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives. Edited by Margaret S. Odell and John T. Strong, 175–193. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 9. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000. Calvin, John. Calvin’s Commentaries. Vol. 11, Jeremiah 48–52, Lamentations, Ezekiel 1–12 and vol. 12, Ezekiel 13–20, Daniel 1–6. Translated by Thomas Meyers. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979. Carr, David M. The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.

88

Steven S. Tuell

–. Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Clements, Ronald E. “The Chronology of Redaction in Ezekiel 1–24.” In Ezekiel and His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and their Interrelation. Edited by Johan Lust, 283–294. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 74. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1986. –. Ezekiel. Westminster Bible Companion. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996. Cook, Stephen L. “Cosmos, Kabod, and Cherub: Ontological and Epistemological Hierarchy in Ezekiel.” In Ezekiel’s Hierarchical World: Wrestling with a Tiered Reality. Edited by Stephen L. Cook and Corrine L. Patton, 179–197. Society for Biblical Literature Symposium Series 31. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004. –. “Innerbiblical Interpretation in Ezekiel 44 and the History of Israel’s Priesthood.” Journal of Biblical Literature 114/2 (1995): 193–208. Cooke, George A. Ezekiel. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1936. Cross, Frank M. “The Priestly Houses of Early Israel.” In Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel, 195–215. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973. Davies, Ellen F. Swallowing the Scroll: Textuality and the Dynamics of Discourse in Ezekiel’s Prophecy. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 78. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1989. de Jong, Matthijs J. “Ezekiel as a Literary Figure and the Quest for the Historical Prophet.” In The Book of Ezekiel and Its Influence. Edited by Henk Jan de Jonge and Johannes Tromp, 1–16. Burlington, VT and Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007. Duguid, Iain. Ezekiel and the Leaders of Israel. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 56. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Duke, Rodney. “Punishment or Restoration? Another Look at the Levites of Ezekiel 44.6–16.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 40 (1988): 61–81. Eichrodt, Walter. Ezekiel. Translated by Cosslett Quin. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970. Fishbane, Michael. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1985. Gese, Hartmut. Der Verfassungsentwurf des Ezechiel (Kap. 40–48) traditionsgeschichtlich untersucht. Beiträge zur historischen Theologie 25. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1957. Greenberg, Moshe. “The Design and Themes of Ezekiel’s Program of Restoration.” Interpretation 38 (1984): 181–208. –. Ezekiel 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 22. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983. –. Ezekiel 21–37: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 22A. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1997. Gunkel, Hermann. “Die israelitische Literatur.” In Die orientalischen Literaturen. Edited by P. Hinnenberg, 53–112. Die Kultur der Gegenwart 1/7. Berlin: Teubner, 1906. Hals, Ronald M. Ezekiel. Forms of Old Testament Literature 19. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1989. Hölscher, Gustav. Hesekiel: der Dichter und das Buch. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 39. Giessen: Alfred Töpelmann, 1924. Irwin, William. The Problem of Ezekiel: An Inductive Study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1943.

The Book of Ezekiel as a Work In Progress

89

Japhet, Sara. I & II Chronicles. Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1993. Katzenstein, H. Jacob. The History of Tyre; from the Beginning of the Second Millenium, B. C. E. until the Fall of the Neo-Babylonian Empire in 538 B. C. E. Jerusalem: Schocken Institute for Jewish Research, 1973. Kohn, Risa Levitt. “‘With a Mighty Hand and an Outstretched Arm’: The Prophet and the Torah in Ezekiel 20.” In Ezekiel’s Hierarchical World: Wrestling with a Tiered Reality. Edited by Stephen L. Cook and Corrine L. Patton, 159–168. Society for Biblical Literature Symposium Series 31. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004. Konkel, Michael. Architektonik des Heiligen: Studien zur zweiten Tempelvision Ezechiels (Ez 40–48). Bonner Biblische Beiträge 129. Bodenheim: Philo, 2001. Lapsley, Jacqueline. “Shame and Self-Knowledge: The Positive Role of Shame in Ezekiel’s View of the Moral Self.” In The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives. Edited by Margaret S. Odell and John T. Strong, 143–174. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 9. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000. Levenson, Jon D. Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible. Chicago: Winston, 1985. Lust, Johan. “Ezekiel 36–40 in the Oldest Greek Manuscript.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 43 (1981): 517–533. –. “The Use of Textual Witness for the Establishment of the Text: The Shorter and Longer Texts of Ezekiel – An Example: Ez 7.” In Ezekiel and His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and their Interrelation. Edited by Johan Lust, 7–20. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 74. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1986. McBride, S. Dean, Jr. “The ‘Law of the Temple’ and the Pentateuchal Torah.” Paper presented to the Chicago Society of Biblical Research, Chicago, IN, April 1981. –. “The Polity of Ezekiel 40–48.” Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, San Francisco, CA, December 1983. Mettinger, Tryggve N. D. The Dethronement of Sabaoth: Studies in the Shem and Kabod Theologies. Translated by F. H. Cryer. Coniectanea Biblica, Old Testament Series 18. Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1982. Milgrom, Jacob. Studies in Levitical Terminology 1: The Encroacher and the Levite: The Term ʿAboda. University of California Publications, Near Eastern Studies 14. Berkeley: University of California, 1970. Newsom, Carol A. “A Maker of Metaphors: Ezekiel’s Oracles Against Tyre.” Interpretation 38 (1984): 151–164. Odell, Margaret. Ezekiel. Smyth and Helwys Bible Commentary. Macon, GA: Smyth and Helwys, 2005. –. “The Inversion of Shame and Forgiveness in Ezekiel 16.59–62.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 56 (1992): 101–12. Patmore, Hector M. “Adam or Satan? The Identity of the King of Tyre in Late Antiquity.” In After Ezekiel: Essays on the Reception of a Difficult Prophet. Edited by Paul Joyce and Andrew Mein, 59–70. Library of Hebrew Bible / ​Old Testament Studies 535. London: T & T Clark, 2011. Patton, Corrine L. “Prophet, Priest and Exile: Ezekiel as a Literary Construct.” In Ezekiel’s Hierarchical World: Wrestling with a Tiered Reality. Edited by Stephen L. Cook and Corrine L. Patton, 73–89. Society for Biblical Literature Symposium Series 31. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004. Pope, Marvin H. El in the Ugaritic Texts. Leiden: Brill, 1955.

90

Steven S. Tuell

Pritchard, James B., ed. The Ancient Near East: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1958. Puckett, David L. John Calvin’s Exegesis of the Old Testament. Columbia Series in Reformed Theology. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995. Smend, Rudolf. Der Prophet Ezechiel. Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament 8. Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1880. Stevens, Marty. Temple, Tithes and Taxes: The Temple and the Economic Life of Israel. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2006. Strong, John T. “Ezekiel’s Oracles Against the Nations Within the Context of His Message,” PhD diss., Union Theological Seminary, Virginia, 1993. –. “Tyre’s Isolationist Policies in the Early Sixth Century BCE: Evidence from the Prophets.” Vetus Testamentum 47 (1997): 207–219. Talmon, Shemaryahu, with contributions by Carol Newsom and Yigael Yadin. “Hebrew Fragments from Masada.” In Masada VI. The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965: Final Report. Edited by J. Aviram, G. Foerster, E. Netzer, 5–149. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Hebrew University Press, 1999. Thackeray, Henry St. John. The Septuagint and Jewish Worship: A Study in Origins. 2nd ed. The Schweich Lectures 1920. London: Oxford University Press, 1923. Tooman, William A. “Between Imitation and Interpretation: Reuse of Scripture and Composition in Hodayot (1QHa) 11.6–19.” Dead Sea Discoveries 18 (2011): 54–73. Tuell, Steven. “Contemporary Studies of Ezekiel: A New Tide Rising.” In Ezekiel’s Hierarchical World: Wrestling with a Tiered Reality. Edited by Stephen L. Cook and Corrine L. Patton, 241–254. Society for Biblical Literature Symposium Series 31. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004. –. Ezekiel. Understanding the Bible Commentary Series. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012. First published in the New International Biblical Commentary Series 16. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009. –. The Law of the Temple in Ezekiel 40–48. Harvard Semitic Monographs 49. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. –. 1 and 2 Chronicles. Interpretation. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001. –. Review of The Book of Ezekiel and Its Influence. Edited by Henk Jan de Jonge and Johannes Tromp. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 71 (2009): 212–13. –. “The Rivers of Paradise: Ezek 47.1–12 and Gen 2.10–14.” In God Who Creates: Essays in Honor of W. Sibley Towner. Edited by S. Dean McBride, Jr. and William Brown, 171–189. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. van der Meer, Michaël N. “A New Spirit in an Old Corpus? Text-Critical, LiteraryCritical and Linguistic Observations regarding Ezekiel 36.16–38.” In The New Things: Eschatology in Old Testament Prophecy: Festschrift for Henk Leene. Edited by Ferenc Postma, Klaas Spronk, and Eep Talstra, 147–158. Amsterdamse Cahiers voor Exegese van de Bijbel en zijn Tradities S 3. Maastricht: Utigeverij Shaker, 2002. Watson, W. G. E. “Helel.” In Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Edited by Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst, 392–394. 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Weinberg, Joel. “Das beit ‘abot im 6.–4. Jh. v.u.Z.” Vetus Testamentum 23 (1973): 400–414. –. “The Postexilic Citizen-Temple Community: Theory and Reality.” In The Citizen-Temple Community, 127–138. Translated by Daniel L. Smith-Christopher. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 151. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992.

The Book of Ezekiel as a Work In Progress

91

Wevers, John W. Ezekiel. New Century Bible. Greenwood: Attic, 1969. Wilson, Robert R. “The Death of the King of Tyre: The Editorial History of Ezekiel 28.” In Love and Death in the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of Marvin Pope. Edited by John Marks and Robert Good, 211–218. Guilford, CT: Four Quarters, 1987. –. “Ezekiel.” In Harper’s Bible Commentary. Edited by James L. Mays, 652–694. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988. Winitzer, Abraham. “Assyriology and Jewish Studies in Tel Aviv: Ezekiel among the Babylonian literati.” In Encounters by the Rivers of Babylon: Scholarly Conversations between Jews, Iranians, and Babylonians in Antiquity. Edited by Uri Gabbay and Shai Secunda, 19–50. Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 160. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Wink, Walter. The Human Being: Jesus and the Enigma of the Son of Man. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002. Zimmerli, Walther. Ezekiel 1. Translated by Ronald E. Clements. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. –. Ezekiel 2. Translated by James D. Martin. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983.

The Figure of David and His Importance in Ezekiel 34–37 Franz Sedlmeier

1. Introduction The book of Ezekiel addresses repeatedly, in the context of pronouncements of judgment, the failure of the kings who originate from the house of David.1 One need only think of of Ezek 12.8–16 and 17.11–19, the dirge in chap. 19, or the enigmatic saying in 21.30–32. At the same time, the Book of Ezekiel is aware of a new hope for salvation linked to the Davidic dynasty. Take, for example, 17.22–24 as well as chaps 34 and 37. The peculiarity of the proclamation of salvation in Ezek 34.23–24 and 37.24– 25 is that David is explicitly mentioned, whereas other prophetic texts speak of the Davidic line pictorially: employing terms like ‫( חטר‬cf. Isa 11.1a), ‫( נצר‬Isa 11.1b) and ‫( צמח‬Jer 23.5; Zech 3.8; 6.12). Outside the Book of Ezekiel, David is mentioned by name as a future salvation figure only in two places: Hos 3.5 and Jer 30.9. How precisely is the figure of David now to be understood within Ezek 34 and 37? What role and what values are assigned to him?

2. The Figure of David in Ezekiel 34.23–24 The given verses are a part of the Shepherd-Chapter Ezek 34.1–31, the historical development of which cannot be traced here. In the final form of the text there is a certain tension between a theocentric view of the coming salvation (vv. 11–16) and a messianic-oriented conception (vv. 23–24). Although it is accepted that there has been some editorial work in the text, the chapter is altogether well thought out and designed in a flowing manner: after the opening in v. 1 there is a double movement along the path of “scolding” (vv. 2–6 and 17–19), through “threat” (vv. 7–10 and 20–22), culminating in “salvation” (vv. 11–16, 23–24 and 25–30). 1 I thank my colleague Dr. (habil.) Ignatius M. C. Obinwa for translation and review of this paper.

The Figure of David and His Importance in Ezekiel 34–37

Opening Scolding Threat Salvation Conclusion

1 2–6 [7–8]2 [7–8] 9–10 11–15 [16] 31

93

17–19 20–22 23–24 + 25–30

Verse 23 has no clear text signal for a new beginning, but introduces a new topic: David as the future shepherd of God’s people. Due to these unclear findings, some exegetes add vv. 23–24 to the preceding context (e. g. Walther Zimmerli, Frank-Lothar Hossfeld, Moshe Greenberg), while others do so to the following context (Walther Eichrodt, Daniel I. Block). Verse 24 marks a final break with the verbal word of God formula ‫אני יהוה דברתי‬.3 It can be taken that verses 23–24 belong to the preceding context. This creates in vv. 17–24, as in vv. 1–15, a sequence of “scolding – judgement – salvation.” 2.1 The Text of Ezekiel 34.23–24 I shall set over them one shepherd, who will feed them, my servant David. He is the one who will feed them, and He is the one who will become their shepherd. 24 And I myself, Yhwh, will become their God, while my servant David will be prince in their midst. I, Yhwh, have spoken. 23

‫והקמתי עליהם רעה אחד‬ ‫ורעה אתהן‬ ‫את עבדי דויד‬ ‫הוא ירעה אתם‬ ‫והוא־יהיה להן לרעה׃‬ ‫ואני יהוה אהיה להם לאלהים‬ ‫ועבדי דוד נשיא בתוכם‬

23

24

‫אני יהוה דברתי׃‬

2.2 The Narrative Context of Ezekiel 34.17–24 Verses 23–24 continue the text-section vv. 17–22, which is structured by the triple use of the verb ‫שפט‬: a) in v. 17 in the participial phrase: ‫“( הנני שפט בין־שה לשה לאילים ולעתודים‬Behold, I shall be judging between sheep and sheep, the rams and he-goats”). 2 Verses

7–8 serve double-duty, as part of the scold and the threat. description of ‫ ברית שלום‬in vv. 25–30 leaves off the theme of shepherd and paints the pictures of a messianic time in paradisiacal form. However, the LXX differs from the MT in that it sees the covenant of peace offered by Yhwh as made not “with them” (‫)להם‬, but rather with David (τῷ Δαυιδ). The LXX thereby continues Davidic-messianic perspective. But that would form another theme altogether. Verse 31 closes the chapter and clearly brings the theme of shepherd back: The two expressions ‫ צאן‬and ‫ אדם‬are combined in an unusual manner. They occur again in Ezek 36.37–38 and help to structure the context of Ezek 34–37. For details on this see Johan Lust, “Edom – Adam in Ezekiel, in the MT and LXX,” in Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, and the Septuagint: Presented to Eugene Ulrich, ed. Peter W. Flint, Emanuel Tov, and James C. VanderKam (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 387–401. 3 The

94

Franz Sedlmeier

b) in v. 20 in the transition to the judgment pronouncement, in a prominent speech of God: ‫“( הנני־אני ושפטתי בין־שה בריה ובין שה רזה‬Behold, I am here, I shall judge between fat sheep and the lean sheep”). c) and in the final v. 22: ‫“( ושפטתי בין שה לשה‬I shall judge between sheep and sheep”).

Gerhard Liedke has made it clear in a study of the Old Testament legal pronouncements that the divine ‫שפט‬-action in our context serves the purpose of re-establishing the violated order.4 This can be accomplished by achieving an internal balance, according to Liedke, but in extreme cases it can lead to a separation judgement or a divorce oracle, as Ezek 20.32–39 describes it. In the present text, separation judgement is not expressly mentioned. The decisive factor is the juridical quality of the expression. The enforcement of divine justice is continued in v. 22–24a in the saving action of Yhwh, expressed with ‫( ישע‬Hiphil) + ‫ ל‬in the phrase ‫והושעתי לצאני ולא־תהיינה‬ ‫“( עוד לבז‬And I shall save my flock, so that it will no longer be prey”). Even the divine ‫ישע‬-action expressed with ‫( ישע‬Hiphil) + ‫ ל‬refers to the juridical sphere, as is evident from the Book of Deuteronomy and from the Psalms. Deuteronomy 22.27 presents the case of the rape of a girl: “He has met her in the open field, the betrothed girl may have cried for help, but there was no helper for her (‫ואין מושיע‬ ‫)לה‬.” Among the curses / ​threats in the case of one breaking the covenant, Deut 28.31 states inter alia: “Your ass shall be snatched from you, and shall not be restored; your sheep shall be given to your enemies, and there shall be no helper for you” (‫)צאנך נתנות לאיביך ואין לך מושיע‬. Psalm 72.4 speaks of the establishment of justice by the coming Messiah and combines ‫( ישע‬Hiphil) + ‫ ל‬with ‫שפט‬: “He will defend the oppressed among the people (‫)ישפט עניי־עם‬. He will bring help to the children of the poor (‫ ;)יושיע לבני אביון‬he will crush the oppressor” (‫)וידכא עושק‬. The verses immediately preceding vv. 23–24 qualify the action of Yhwh using ‫[ שפט‬3×] and ‫( ישע‬Hiphil), such that by this action, the distorted order will be restored. This is due to the decisive intervention of Yhwh, which is further unfolded in vv. 23–24.

4 Gerhard Liedke, Gestalt und Bezeichnung alttestamentlicher Rechtssätze. Eine formgeschichtlich-terminologische Studie, WMANT 39 (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1971), 65: “Zwei Menschen oder zwei Gruppen …, deren Verhältnis zueinander nicht in Ordnung ist, sollen durch das ‫ שפט‬eines dritten … wieder in Ordnung zueinander kommen. Das geschieht, indem der dritte die Ursache des Streites durch sein ‫ שפט‬beseitigt.” Based on this statement, Frank-Lothar Hossfeld speaks of a restoration of the disturbed order: “Wiederherstellung der gestörten Ordnung” (Untersuchungen zu Komposition und Theologie des Ezechielbuches, FB 20 [Würzburg: Echter, 1977], 266).

The Figure of David and His Importance in Ezekiel 34–37

95

2.3 Verses 23–24 as a Continuation of Verses 17–22 The divine action restoring order (and expressed in legal terminology) is continued in vv. 23–24. These verses give coherence to both textual sections.5 This is exemplified in two statements: (1) the appointment of the shepherd and (2) the covenant formula. 2.3.1 On the Appointment of the Shepherd (‫)והקמתי עליהם רעה אחד‬. The verb ‫קום‬ (Hiphil) with Yhwh as the subject often refers to a new establishment of divine salvation, especially in the priestly tradition, as, for example, in the establishment of a covenant (Gen 9.9–11, 17.7–8, Exod 6.4–7; Ezek 16.60, 62). If a person to whom a task is assigned is the object of ‫( קום‬Hiphil), then this is usually a legal process. The sovereign act of establishment of an office emphasizes the authority of Yhwh. It is he who assigns somebody a specific task or establishes him or her for a service. At the same time, the importance of the person put into the service comes into focus, since he has now a special relationship with Yhwh. To be mentioned in this context are the vocation of prophets (e. g., Deut 18.15,18; Jer 29.15; Amos 2.11), the appointment of judges (Judg 2.16,18), of delivers (Judg 3.9,16), of priests (1 Sam 2.35), and of kings (1 Kgs 14.14; Jer 30.9), as well as the appointment of shepherds (Jer 23.4,5; Ezek 34.23, Zech 11.16). To fully understand Ezek 34.23 f, we must note that even though the newly introduced figure of ‫ רעה‬lends a distinctly different accent to the explicitly theocentric message of vv. 11–16, there is no contradiction.6 Firstly, the juridical nature of the language continues. Secondly, Yhwh’s sovereignty is not reduced. On the contrary, it is strengthened: he himself is the one who appoints the coming shepherd on his own authority. Finally, the evidences from Jer 30.9 and Hos 3.5 also show that the coexistence of Yhwh and the shepherd appointed by him is not unknown, although both texts are talking about a king, not a shepherd. ‫ועבדו את יהוה אלהיהם ואת דוד מלכם אשר אקים להם׃‬ But they shall serve Yhwh, their God, and David, their king, whom I will raise up for them. (Jer 30.9) ‫אחר ישבו בני ישראל ובקשו את־יהוה אלהיהם ואת דוד מלכם‬ ‫ופחדו אל־יהוה ואל־טובו באחרית הימים׃‬

5 Hossfeld has correctly noted “[dass] die juristische Terminologie durchgehend den Text prägt. Darüber hinaus existiert zwischen den Themen von VV. 17–22 und VV. 23 f keine Kluft, sondern sie fließen ineinander über; die gemeinsame Basis bildet die Ankündigung Jahwes, die gestörte Ordnung wieder herzustellen” (Untersuchungen, 273). 6 Cf. the views of Hans Ferdinand Fuhs, Ezechiel II 25–48, Die Neue Echter Bibel, Altes Testament 22 (Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1988), 194, and Karl-Friedrich Pohlmann, Der Prophet Hesekiel / ​Ezechiel. Kapitel 20–48, mit einem Beitrag von Thilo Alexander Rudnig, ATD 22/2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001), 467.

96

Franz Sedlmeier

Afterward the children of Israel shall return and seek Yhwh their God, and David their king; and they shall come to Yhwh trembling, and to his goodness in the final days. (Hos 3.5)

2.3.2 On the Covenant Formula. The covenant formula is also legal in connotation. It falls into the context of a covenant event and was probably part of a public rite. The covenant formula thus evokes a public process producing appropriate legal effects.7 It is found in v. 23–24, though in a modified form. It is clearly visible in v. 24aα: ‫ואני יהוה אהיה להם לאלהים‬. In this context, it is striking that the prefixed stressed personal pronoun has received more weight through the Tetragrammaton that stands in apposition. From the sentence construction, v. 23bβ may likely belong to the covenant formula. The modified covenant formula would then read as follows: ‫והוא־יהיה להן לרעה׃‬ ‫ואני יהוה אהיה להם לאלהים‬

So, both Yhwh and the shepherd have their own particular relationship to the people. The “servant David” will become their shepherd while Yhwh presents himself as God to them. In his study of the covenant event in Deut 26.17–19, Lohfink has drawn attention to the relationship between covenant rite and covenant formula.8 He argues that the investiture of a Davidic king provides the starting point for the relationship between covenant rite and covenant formula. In fact, he is able to cite several biblical references that suggest a combination of covenant formula and the new king. To this end, Lohfink mentions 2 Sam 7.24 (regulating the Davidic succession) and 1 Sam 12.22 (the transition of the reign of Samuel to Saul). Lohfink also points to three prophetic future promises, in which the coming mediator is directly connected with the covenant formula: Jer 30.22; Ezek 34.24; and Ezek 37.23, 27. On these texts (Jer 30.21 f; Ezek 34.23 f and Ezek 37.23, 27), N. Lohfink says: Finally, we have three prophetic future promises, in which the motif of the new prince, the new king, the new David is connected directly with the ‘covenant formula’… It can7 Besides Ezek 34.24, the covenant formula occurs again in 34.30, though in a variant form. It thereby forms a framework around the section 34.23–30, which has the “covenant of peace” as its central theme. 8 Dtn 26.17–19: “You have declared this day concerning the LORD that he is your God, and that you will walk in his ways, and keep his statutes and his commandments and his ordinances, and will obey his voice; (18) and the LORD has declared this day concerning you that you are a people for his own possession, as he has promised you, and that you are to keep all his commandments, (19) that he will set you high above all nations that he has made, in praise and in fame and in honor, and that you shall be a people holy to the LORD your God, as he has spoken” (RSV).

The Figure of David and His Importance in Ezekiel 34–37

97

not be ruled out that this motif-connection is new and that the three texts are related. But it is equally possible that perhaps in the future announcement here, the old context of the past shows up again, namely: When a new king comes, the relationship between God and the people is also made new.9

2.4 On the Structure of vv. 23–24 The structure of the two verses is relatively complex, a fact which can perhaps be explained by the genesis of the text. Perhaps also the relationships between the individual statements are deliberately kept open. Based on the use of the root ‫רעה‬, Schwagmeier has proposed the following concentric structure for v. 23:10 v. 23aα1:  ‫והקמתי עליהם רעה אחד‬   v. 23aα2:  ‫ורעה אתהן‬    v. 23aβ:  ‫את עבדי דויד‬   v. 23bα:  ‫הוא ירעה אתם‬ v. 23bβ:  ‫והוא־יהיה להן לרעה‬

The participles ‫ רעה‬and ‫ לרעה‬form the external frame, just as the verbal uses of the same root in its weqatal ‫ ורעה‬and yiqtol ‫ ירעה‬forms provide the internal one. Located in the centre of the statement is v. 23aβ: ‫את עבדי דויד‬. Syntactically, this object-phrase is appositional to ‫רעה אחד‬, but it is detached by the appearance of the verbal clause ‫ורעה אתהן‬. Alternatively, ‫ את עבדי דויד‬can be explained as the object of ‫והקמתי עליהם‬. Then the object is delayed, separated from its verb, to serve a heightening function, which is confirmed by the concretizing expression ‫את עבדי דויד‬. This delay is more prominent in the Masoretic text through the zaqef qaton in ‫אתהן‬, and through the atnach in the name ‫דויד‬. Since the accusative particle ‫את‬ can also exercise an underlining, emphasising function, the statement of v. 23aβ is highlighted further still.11   9 Norbert Lohfink, “Dtn 26,17–19 und die ‘Bundesformel’,” in Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur I, Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbände 8 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1990), 211–261 (260): “Schließlich haben wir drei prophetische Zukunftsverheißungen, in denen sich das Motiv des neuen Fürsten, neuen Königs, neuen Davids unmittelbar mit der ‚Bundesformel‘ verbindet … Es ist nicht ausschließbar, dass diese Motivverbindung neu ist und dass die drei Stellen zusammenhängen. Aber es ist ebensogut möglich, dass hier in der Zukunftsansage vielleicht der alte Zusammenhang der Vergangenheit wieder aufscheint: wenn ein neuer König kommt, wird auch das Gott-Volk-Verhältnis neu.” 10 Peter Schwagmeier, “Untersuchungen zu Textgeschichte und Entstehung des Ezechielbuches in masoretischer und griechischer Überlieferung” (Dr.Theol. diss., Universität Zürich, 2004), 302. 11 On this possibility, see grammars such as Rudolf Meyer, Hebräische Grammatik 3: Satzlehre, 3rd ed. (Berlin, New York: de Gruyter, 1972), § 90,2 f (It says “that a subject can be highlighted through the particle ‫את‬, ‑‫את‬, which was not originally joined to a specific part of a sentence, but merely serves an emphatic purpose”); Wilhelm Gesenius and Emil Kautzsch, Wilhelm Gesenius’ Hebräische Grammatik völlig umgearbeitet von E. Kautzsch, 28th ed. (Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag, 1985), § 117i; and Paul Joüon and Takamitsu Muraoka, A Grammar of

98

Franz Sedlmeier

The multi-highlighted object ‫ עבדי דויד‬serves as the main point of the first unit of the statement, and at the same time serves as the logical subject of the two following sentences. These particularly highlight, through the emphatic prefixed personal pronoun, the role of ‫דויד עבד‬: “He it is who shall feed them;” “He is the one who is to shepherd them.” The sentence structure of v. 23bβ corresponds to the that in v. 24aα, thus the covenant formula: v. 23bβ: ‫והוא־יהיה להן לרעה‬ v. 24aα: ‫ואני יהוה אהיה להם לאלהים‬

In this way, the two verses are not only formally intertwined, but also from the actual content, David is involved as a shepherd of the flock in the covenant relationship. In addition, different roles are highlighted by the opposition of the personal pronouns ‫ והוא‬and ‫ואני‬: the role of the shepherd and the role of Yhwh. The Tetragrammaton, inserted in apposition to the personal pronoun ‫ואני‬, modifies the covenant formula and underscores the diversity of the subjects and their functions, as well as clearly distinguishing the two from one another. The second occurrence of “my servant David” in v. 24bβ strikes again in the centre of the concentric statement of the preceding verse, thereby qualifying David again in his relation to God (‫ )עבדי‬and in his relation to the flock: ‫נשיא‬ ‫בתוכם‬. This message-strengthening formula indicates a slight break and ends the section. 2.5 Key Messages of the Figure of David in Ezekiel 34.23–24 2.5.1 Renewal and Stabilization of Order. Linking up with vv. 17–22, which focus on Yhwh’s acts of justice for the community, vv. 23–24 go further with the aspect of renewal and stabilization of order through the designation of a shepherd. The shepherd is to be appointed by Yhwh himself, as expressed by ‫( קום‬Hiphil). As mentioned above, it will be a legally binding process that, first and foremost, makes the sovereignty of Yhwh visible. In this, there is no contradiction to the theocentric statement of vv. 11–16, although significantly divergent accents might be an indication of work by a complementary hand. That power will be delegated to the shepherd appointed by Yhwh is brought out clearly by the prepositional phrase ‫והקמתי עליהם רעה אחד‬. 2.5.2 One Shepherd. Ezekiel promises ‫רעה אחד‬, one shepherd. In this, he differs from Jer 23.4, where several shepherds are mentioned. LXX speaks of “another shepherd”; it has read ‫“ אחד‬one” as ‫“ אחר‬another”: ἕτερον. Probably this reading is original. It presents the many shepherds who have failed (vv. 1–10), against Biblical Hebrew, Part Three: Syntax, Subsidia Biblica 14/2 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1991), § 125i.

The Figure of David and His Importance in Ezekiel 34–37

99

the ἕτερον, the qualitative “another.”12 The MT reading, ‫רעה אחד‬, is probably influenced by Ezek 37.15–28, where ‫ אחד‬is one of the defining keywords. With the use of the keyword ‫ אחד‬the two passages from Ezekiel (34 and 37) are even more related. 2.5.3 David. The identification of the shepherd can be considered the main point of the phrase in v. 23: “my servant David” (‫)את עבדי דויד‬. This precise naming is grounded in the prophetic tradition of Israel, which on several occasions presents the descendant of David in connection with the salvific future of Israel. Jeremiah 23.5 talks of a “righteous branch” (‫)צמח צדיק‬, Amos 9.11 speaks of ‫סכת‬ ‫“ דויד הנפלת‬the fallen tent of David” that is to be raised up again (‫)הקים‬, Isa 9.5 f talks of the child “on the throne of David” (‫)על־כסא דוד‬. Isa 11.1 mentions ‫חטר‬ ‫“( מגזע ישי‬the sapling from the stump of Jesse”). The only two places outside the Book of Ezekiel where David is expressly mentioned are Hos 3.5 and Jer 30.9: ‫אחר ישבו בני ישראל ובקשו את־יהוה אלהיהם ואת דוד מלכם‬ ‫ופחדו אל־יהוה ואל־טובו באחרית הימים׃‬ Afterward the children of Israel shall return and seek Yhwh their God, and David their king; and they shall come in fear to Yhwh and to his goodness in the latter days (Hos 3.5) ‫ועבדו את יהוה אלהיהם ואת דוד מלכם אשר אקים להם׃‬ But they shall serve Yhwh their God and David their king, whom I will raise up for them (Jer 30.9)

It is not a revival of the historical David that is described but a figure of the quality of David from the house of David, who will be a constitutive embodiment of the coming salvation. 2.5.4 My Servant. David is twice described as ‫“( עבדי‬my servant”) in Ezek 34.23– 24. In it, his unmistakable relationship with God is expressed: his subordination under Yhwh as ‫“( אדון‬Lord”) and at the same time, his honourable position before him. The subordination under Yhwh is surely formulated with regard to the failure of the bad shepherds (vv. 1–10). At the same time the title ‫ עבד יהוה‬is to be understood as an honorary title. It is in the same sense that Daniel Block says: Moreover, in the Old Testament ‫ … עבד יהוה‬also functioned as an honorific title for those who stood in an official relationship to God, often with the implication of a special election to a task. … David’s own standing is expressed most clearly by Yahweh himself, who identifies him as ‘David my servant, whom I have chosen’ (1 Kgs 11:34).13 12 It is also possible that ‫“ אחר‬another” refers to the shepherd Yhwh (vv. 11–16). Yhwh would then make use of another shepherd beside his office as the shepherd. Moshe Greenberg, Ezechiel 21–37, HThKAT (Freiburg: Herder, 2005), 407, entertains such a thought. 13 Daniel I. Block, “Bringing Back David: Ezekiel’s Messianic Hope,” in The Lord’s Anointed: Interpretation of Old Testament Messianic Texts, ed. Philip E. Satterthwaite, Richard S. Hess, and Gordon J. Wenham (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1995), 167–188, esp. 175.

100

Franz Sedlmeier

2.5.5 Prince. Finally, David is described in v. 24aβ as ‫“( נשיא בתוכם‬prince in their midst”). While Hos 3.5 and Jer 30.9 employ the title ‫ מלך‬for the upcoming David, Ezekiel uses the archaic name ‫“( נשיא‬prince”). This expression shows the relativized position of the “prince.” At the same time, his integration within the people of Yhwh is underlined by the preposition ‫בתוך‬, so that the prince is seen as primus inter pares.14 2.6 Intermediate Results: Characteristics of the Coming David in 34.23–24 2.6.1 ‫“( עבדי דויד‬my servant David”) is, according to Ezek 34, a constitutive embodiment of the coming salvation. The juridical connotation of the formulation emphasizes the constitutive character of this figure. But at the same time, the announced David is not a saviour. Yhwh alone causes and brings the coming salvation. However, part of this divine saving action is the appointment of the shepherd David, who plays the role of the servant of Yhwh. 2.6.2 Syntactically, the statement in v. 24aβ (‫ )ועבדי דוד נשיא בתוכם‬is formulated as a nominal sentence, so it is temporally neutral. The immediately preceding covenant formula in v. 24aα (‫ )ואני יהוה אהיה להם לאלהים‬is indicating the reference to time. Once Yhwh in his authority (note the emphatic ‫ )יהוה אני‬is God for Israel (‫)אהיה להם לאלהים‬, only then (and dependent on it), will David also realize his being “prince” in the midst of the people. Schwagmeier has rightly emphasized: “with that is the rule of David also on the formulation level concomitant with Yhwh’s rule.”15 2.6.3 The replacement of the usual formulation ‫“( נשיא להם‬prince for them;” 37.25) with the unusual preposition ‫“( נשיא בתוכם‬prince among them”) underlines the involvement of Prince David in the relational space of the people. At the same time, this formulation evokes further texts in the Book of Ezekiel and in the Priestly literature in which the statement “I want to dwell among them / ​my sanctuary will dwell among them” is connected with the covenant formula (e. g., Ezek 37.23–24, 25–27). This would mean that the mediator figure David belongs to God’s people in a salvific future, whose centre is the presence of God. His role “in your midst” is thus transparent to Yhwh and also to the people. The centre of the salvific future certainly remains the presence of God among his people, as the second relevant passage on our subject (Ezek 37) shows.

14 The absence of the preposition ‫ עליהם‬can be explained as follows: ‫ מלך‬is constructed with ‫על‬, while on the other hand ‫ נשיא‬is in construct state or with ‫ל‬. More striking is the use of the preposition ‫בתוכם‬. 15 Schwagmeier, Untersuchungen, 302: “damit wird die David-Herrschaft auch auf der Formulierungsebene zum Begleitumstand der JHWH-Herrschaft.”

The Figure of David and His Importance in Ezekiel 34–37

101

3. The Figure of David according to Ezekiel 37.24–25 3.1 Structure and Context of the Statements about David The salvation oracle in Ezek 37.15–28 opens with the prophetic word formula in v. 15 and ends with an extended recognition formula in v. 28: “Then the nations will know that I am Yhwh who sanctifies Israel when my sanctuary is in their midst (‫ )בהיות מקדשי בתוכם‬forever (‫)לעולם‬.” The pericope consists of two sections, a symbolic action (vv. 15–19) and its explanation (vv. 20–28). The latter is itself subdivided into two sections, vv. 20–24a and vv. 24b–28, which are characterized by the use of the covenant formula (v. 23, 27) and by the key terms ‫“( אחד‬one”) and ‫“( עולם‬forever”). The two statements about David belong to the two parts of the explanation. They are therefore to be understood by the sign of “unity” (‫אחד‬, v. 24a) and permanent validity “forever” (‫עולם‬, v. 25b). 3.2 David and the Unity of God’s People 3.2.1. The Context of vv. 20–23, 24a. The opening of v. 20 refers back to the preceding sign act. Verse 21 formulates the saving action of Yhwh to the people with the three terms ‫ לקח‬+ ‫מן‬, “take out”; ‫( קבץ‬Piel), “gather”; and ‫( בוא‬Hiphil) + ‫אל‬, “bring to.” The same sequence of verbs already appeared in Ezek 36.24 and, similarly, in Ezek 34.13 where the triad is slightly modified and the first expression ‫ לקח‬+ ‫“( מן‬take out”) is replaced by ‫( יצא‬Hiphil): ‫והוצאתים מן־העמים‬. This variable triad serves the purpose of characterizing the future saving action of God as a new Exodus. With the new Exodus, Yhwh as king and shepherd works out firstly an ethnic and territorial renewal. Verse 22 announces a political overhaul and redesign with the keyword ‫אחד‬, which has the unity of all God’s people under one leadership as the goal. This unity is the work of Yhwh: ‫“( ועשיתי אתם לגוי אחד‬I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel”). The people so united would need a guide: ‫ומלך אחד יהיה לכלם למלך‬. The action of this one king is geared towards the unity of God’s people. Not the monarchy as such, but the unity of the people of God is at the centre. David is not the point here. He is introduced from v. 24. No act of installation is mentioned (unlike in Ezek 34.23). So one may question whether it is not originally the kingdom of Yhwh that is in view in v. 22. By uniting the people, he proves to be the sole king and the focal point of the unity. Joyce interprets the text in this way: The primary concern here seems to be the renewed unity of the people … rather than the renewal of monarchy as an end in itself. Moreover, it is at least possible (as we shall see later) that v. 22 refers to God as the one king ruling over the reunited nation rather than to any human king.16 16 Paul

M. Joyce, “King and Messiah in Ezekiel,” in King and Messiah in Israel and the An-

102

Franz Sedlmeier

The aim of this divine action – the unification of the nation under one leader – is to strengthen national unity and to permanently exclude a continuing internal political and ethnic schism. Verse 23 furthers the theme of unity and presents its spiritual dimension: the inner healing of God’s people. The liberation from idolatry and the ability to reject it are part of the spiritual renewal, as is the forgiveness of sin. All this is part of a future salvific era. It comes out in the expression ‫“( והושעתי אתם‬I will save them”) as a divine rescue action (cf. Ezek 34.22) and as a process of cleansing ‫“( וטהרתי אותם‬and I will cleanse them”). The announcement of the future unity and the renewal of God’s people have their first climax and destination point in the covenant formula of v. 23b: ‫והיו־לי‬ ‫לעם ואני אהיה להם לאלהים‬.17 The transformation of Yhwh’s people is sealed by a new affiliation of Israel to its God and by a new way of God’s presence in the covenant. 3.2.2 Verse 24a: David and the Unity of God’s People. Verse 24a goes beyond the covenant formula formally. Therefore, v. 24a is often assigned to the following section. On the other hand, this half verse illustrates and substantiates the content of the covenant formula. Verse 24a presents Yhwh’s servant David as the one shepherd and so connects the covenant formula explicitly with the issue of unity that characterises the whole section, vv. 20–24a. At the same time, David as God’s servant receives his special service function for the unity among God’s people: ‫ועבדי דוד מלך עליהם ורועה אחד יהיה לכלם‬. As mentioned in 34.24, it is to be asked if the nominal phrase in 37.24aα is not to be taken as a circumstantial clause, which joins up with the preceding covenant formula and formulates a concomitant of the covenant reality. The reasoning could be paraphrased as follows: “You shall be my people, and I: I will be to them the Godhead – while my servant David will be king over them; he being one shepherd for them all.” The profile of David is first of all determined again by his relationship with God. As ‫“( עבדי‬my servant”) he is especially related to God within the covenant

cient Near East. Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar, ed. John Day, JSOTSupp 270 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 323–337 (328). Cf. also Anja Klein, Schriftauslegung im Ezechielbuch. Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Ez 34–39, BZAW 391 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008), 361 relating to Ezek 37.20–23*: “Unter dieser Voraussetzung legt es sich nahe, in dem einzigen König, der nach 37,20–23* die Einheit des Volkes garantieren soll, eine Referenz auf den Hirten Jhwh in 34,11–15* zu sehen.” 17 It is striking that, unlike in Ezek 34.24a, the Tetragrammaton is not added as apposition for the strengthening of the divine “I”. However through the personal pronoun in the second part of the covenant formula the “I” of Yhwh is emphasized: “They will be my people, and I, myself, I shall be their God.”

The Figure of David and His Importance in Ezekiel 34–37

103

event. As ‫ מלך עליהם‬he has a political leadership function for the people.18 The final formulation ‫ ורועה אחד יהיה לכלם‬emphasizes the unity of God’s people in two ways: through the “one shepherd” (‫ )ורועה אחד‬and by referring to the people of God “in its entirety” (‫)לכלם‬. The history of the once-separated kingdoms comes to its end and will be replaced by the future unity of the people of God. 3.2.3 David as a Lasting Gift from God: v. 25b. The section vv. 24b–28 is characterized by keyword ‫ עולם‬and shows a three-part structure:19 (1) the renewed people of God (vv. 24b–25); (2) covenant of peace and presence of God (vv. 26–27); and (3) God’s testimony of renewed Israel (v. 28). David is mentioned only in the first part, vv. 24b–25. He forms an integral component of the renewed people of God. The section begins in v. 24b with a reference to Israel’s new obedience, which will wipe the past failed history (cf. Ezek 20). This new obedience is a constitutive part of the coming salvation, for it shows the effectiveness of antecedent divine saving action for his people: ‫ובמשפטי ילכו וחקתי ישמרו ועשו אותם‬. Verse 25 combines this new obedience with a new occupancy of the land. That life according to the Torah and life in the land objectively belong together was already underlined by the flashback history, Ezek 20. If the land transfer in v. 25a with ‫“( לעבדי ליעקב‬to my servant, to Jacob”) is connected, this may be due to the fact that Jacob is considered as a representative of the exiles,20 who identify themselves with him, while the inhabitants of the land relate to Abraham accordingly (cf. Ezek 33.24). Since Jacob also stands for the Israel living in the Diaspora (cf. 18 Referring back to v. 22 the question comes up again whether the reference to David was not only subsequently added from v. 24a to v. 22 and so comes secondarily in place of the divine king. See once again Joyce, King and Messiah in Ezekiel, 335: “I have noted that renewed Davidic rule is explicitly promised in vv. 24–25. However, it is conceivable that in the earlier reference in this passage rule by God as king is intended. The verse in question is v. 22: ‘I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel, and one king shall be king over them all’ (such an interpretation is perhaps the more possible in the light of the words of the following verse, 23, ‘Then they shall be my people, and I will be their God’). If the divine king is intended here at v. 22, this passage would in this respect resemble the ‘two-decker’ pattern of chap. 34, presenting divine and human royal figures in parallel, with of course the human figure subordinate to the divine, like a viceroy. However, on balance, the natural reading of 37.22 is probably as a reference to a human king.” 19 See Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 415–422; Franz Sedlmeier, “‘Ich schließe für sie einen Bund des Friedens’ (Ez 34,25; 37,26). Visionen des Heils im Ezechielbuch,” in Inquire pacem. Beiträge zu einer Theologie des Friedens: Festschrift für Bischof Viktor Josef Dammertz OSB, zum 75. Geburtstag, ed. Franz Sedlmeier and Thomas Hausmanninger (Augsburg: Sankt Ulrich Verlag, 2004), 42–71 (62– 67); Franz Sedlmeier, Das Buch Ezechiel. Kapitel 25–48, Neuer Stuttgarter Kommentar 21/2 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2013), 231–236. 20 The expression “to my servant, Jacob” refers to Ezek 28.25 f. The description of Jacob as “my servant” is used in Deutero-Isaiah (Isa 44.1, 2, 8; 45.4; 48.20); in Jeremiah (Jer 30.10; 46.27,28). It highlights the protective action that exists between Yhwh and his servant. At the same time, Jacob represents the collective Israel (cf. Isa 43.10), such that the expression of God’s faithfulness and his protection of his people comes out clearly.

104

Franz Sedlmeier

Isa 43.10), the promise of the land that is linked with Jacob and his descendants for three generations is to be understood in its permanent validity. In this context of consistently valid promises of salvation (cf. the keyword ‫ )עולם‬is “my servant David” mentioned again in v. 25bβ: ‫ודוד עבדי נשיא להם לעולם‬ (LXX: καὶ Δαυιδ ὁ δοῦλός μου ἄρχων αὐτῶν ἔσται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα). This statement probably looks back to such texts as 2 Sam 7.5, 8 where Yhwh calls David “my servant” twice. Even David describes himself in the prayer ten times as “your servant.” Moreover the term ‫ עולם‬occurs eight times in 2 Sam 7.21 In contrast to v. 24a the role of David is not described with the title “king”, but with ‫“( נשיא‬prince”). In addition to his subordination to Yahweh as the true king of Israel, his connection with the people is expressed again. Presumably this title, which occurs as a standard statement especially in Ezek 40–48, signals a critical distance from the behaviour of the real kings of Israel. Also, this messianic ruler figure coming from the house of David is assured of permanent existence: ‫נשיא‬ ‫להם לעולם‬. The following two sections on “Yhwh’s abiding presence” (vv. 26–27) and “Israel’s witness to God” (v. 28) say nothing more of David. This silence about David confirms once more that he is not the main character. The main character is Yhwh. And yet, David is a part of the renewed Israel, which has found its full form.

4. Conclusions and Summary As part of the symbolic action of the two rods Ezek 37.24–25 announces “one shepherd,” “my [Yhwh’s] servant David,” who – as king and as the “one” shepherd – is the guarantee of the future unity of the people of God. The combination of the terms “king,” ”one shepherd,” “my servant David,” and “prince” makes it clear that this “messianic” figure is, on the one hand, an expression of the unity of God’s people and, on the other hand, remains clearly related and subordinate to Yhwh. The announced king is given a service function in regard to Yhwh’s plans of salvation, which are aimed at the unity of the people of God. Ezekiel 34.23–24 probably has in view not only Jer 23.5–6, but also Ezek 37.24–25 and 34.11–16 as background texts. With their being taken over and being integrated into the covenant formula, the statements of Ezek 37.24–25 are further made relative: “He [David] becomes for them a prince, and I myself, Yhwh, will be for them Godhead, while my servant David is prince among them” (v. 24a). David is therefore totally involved in the covenant action between Yhwh and his people. 21 For the everlasting nature of the covenant made with David, see 1 Chr 28.4, 7, 8, 9 and Ps 89.4–5, 29–38.

The Figure of David and His Importance in Ezekiel 34–37

105

The mentioned relativizing of David gives, at the same time, a certain profile to the figure of David: a) David is not the first prince “over them” or “for them,” but “prince among them.” b) The royal title from Ezekiel 37 is not used in 34.23–24, but only the appellation ‫נשׁיא‬, a title from ancient times, which emphasizes the subordinate position in relation to Yhwh. c) The phrase “my servant” is certainly a term of respect, but also it makes explicit his employment relationship to Yhwh and his attachment to him. d) The exclusive use of the title ‫“ רעה‬shepherd” rather than a royal title in Ezek 34.23–24 prevents a one-sided political misunderstanding of the future ruler.

Finally, all statements and titles in Ezek 34.23–24 and in Ezek 37.24–25 testify that the future descendant of David, whom Ezekiel and his disciples or some later editors expect, is entirely related to Yhwh. Not he, but Yhwh himself will bring forth the salutary future. The “messianic” figure introduced here is also entirely involved in the people, as the special design of the covenant formula shows. It belongs to the renewed people of God in its full form. The promised David is thus characterized by two relationships: towards Yhwh and towards the people of Yhwh.

Bibliography Block, Daniel I. The Book of Ezekiel, Chapters 25–48. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. –. “Bringing Back David: Ezekiel’s Messianic Hope.” In The Lord’s Anointed: Interpretation of Old Testament Messianic Texts, edited by Philip E. Satterthwaite, Richard S. Hess, and Gordon J. Wenham, 167–188. Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1995. Eichrodt, Walther. Der Prophet Hesekiel. Das Alte Testament Deutesch 22/1–2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965–66. Fuhs, Hans Ferdinand. Ezechiel II 25–48. Die Neue Echter Bibel, Altes Testament 22. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1988. Gesenius, Wilhelm and Emil Kautzsch. Wilhelm Gesenius’ Hebräische Grammatik völlig umgearbeitet von E. Kautzsch. 28th ed. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag, 1985. Greenberg, Moshe. Ezechiel 21–37. Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament. Freiburg: Herder, 2005. Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar. Untersuchungen zu Komposition und Theologie des Ezechiel­ buches. Forschung zur Bibel 20. Würzburg: Echter, 1977. Joyce, Paul M. “King and Messiah in Ezekiel.” In King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar, edited by John Day, 323–337. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 270. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Joüon, Paul and Takamitsu Muraoka. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, Part Three: Syntax. Subsidia Biblica 14/2. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1991.

106

Franz Sedlmeier

Klein, Anja. Schriftauslegung im Ezechielbuch. Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Ez 34–39. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 391. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008. Liedke, Gerhard. Gestalt und Bezeichnung alttestamentlicher Rechtssätze. Eine formgeschichtlich-terminologische Studie. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 39. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1971. Lohfink, Norbert. “Dtn 26,17–19 und die ‘Bundesformel’.” In Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur I, 211–261. Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbände 8. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1990. Originally published in Zeitschrift für Katholische Theologie 91 (1969): 517–553. Lust, Johan. “Edom – Adam in Ezekiel, in the MT and LXX.” In Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, and the Septuagint: Presented to Eugene Ulrich, edited by Peter W. Flint, Emanuel Tov, and James C. VanderKam, 387–401. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Meyer, Rudolf. Hebräische Grammatik 3: Satzlehre. 3rd ed. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter, 1972. Pohlmann, Karl-Friedrich. Der Prophet Hesekiel / ​Ezechiel. Kapitel 20–48, mit einem Beitrag von Thilo Alexander Rudnig. Das Alte Testament Deutsch 22/2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001. Schwagmeier, Peter. “Untersuchungen zu Textgeschichte und Entstehung des Ezechielbuches in masoretischer und griechischer Überlieferung.” Dr.Theol. diss., Universität Zürich, 2004. Sedlmeier, Franz. “‘Ich schließe für sie einen Bund des Friedens’ (Ez 34,25; 37,26). Visionen des Heils im Ezechielbuch.” In Inquire pacem. Beiträge zu einer Theologie des Friedens: Festschrift für Bischof Viktor Josef Dammertz OSB, zum 75. Geburtstag, edited by Franz Sedlmeier and Thomas Hausmanninger, 42–71. Augsburg: Sankt Ulrich Verlag, 2004. –. Das Buch Ezechiel. Kapitel 25–48. Neuer Stuttgarter Kommentar 21/2. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2013. Zimmerli, Walther. Ezechiel 1–24. 1. Teilband. Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament XIII/1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1979. Zimmerli, Walther. Ezechiel 24–48. 2. Teilband. Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament XIII/1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1979.

The Vision of the Dry Bones (Ezek 37.1–14): Resurrection, Restoration or What? Michael Konkel The vision of the dry bones (Ezek 37.1–14) is not only probably the most famous text from the book of Ezekiel, but also meets truly the criteria of being “bizarre”. The deeper one digs into the story, the more bizarre and difficult to comprehend it becomes. So the question I would like to ask is: What does this text talk about? At first glance, this question seems trivial. However, a closer look at the text reveals that there is no easy way to give a satisfying answer to this basic question. Does it speak of the resurrection of the dead, or of the restoration of Israel in Exile, or maybe of something different that has not yet been described properly? I am going to focus on this question about the contents of Ezek 37.1–14, as it is impossible to give a detailed analysis of the fourteen verses. In addition, I am going to elaborate on some diachronic issues: I hold the view that Ezek 37.1–14 underwent a redactional process, in spite of its formal unity. Finally, I am going to specify some points which set the path for future research in where to place the Vision of the Dry Bones within the redactional process of the Book of Ezekiel.

1. The Relationship between the Vision (vv. 1–10) and its Interpretation (vv. 11–14) Ezek 37.1–14 is clearly divided into two parts: the vision proper in v. 1–10 and its interpretation in v. 11–14. In his analysis of the rhetoric of Ezek 37.1–14, M. V. Fox estimates the complex relationship between these two parts: Thus within the vision proper (I), Ezekiel does not predict the national resurrection, he sees it imaged in a present event. The future tense comes in with God´s words in part II, where God changes his role from magician to teacher and explains (with some didactic repetitiveness) the meaning of what Ezekiel saw. Part II is future tense, part I is present tense. Part II is argumentation, part I is demonstration. Part II is abstract and cognitive, part I is concrete and sensual. Part II puts the absurdity of part I into a rational framework. It asserts that the (previously) irrational hidden reality of the vision will be turned into a future manifest reality. Part II takes the emotions churned up by bizarre and shocking imagery of part I and shapes them toward a new belief. It is as if there were

108

Michael Konkel

present in the people a certain amount of “belief energy,” which is currently infusing their despair but which, once released by the detonation of their deepest assumptions and attitudes, can be deflected undiminished into new convictions.1

Even though the two parts show an overall unity, one has to reckon with the possibility that this complex relationship is due to a redactional process. On one hand, the two parts are closely related. On the other hand, it is striking that the interpretation, beginning in v. 11, does not refer to the vision. The vision proper draws the picture of bones scattered on a plain; the interpretation takes a quotation from the people as a starting point. This quotation in turn uses a metaphor different from the one of the vision proper. It works with the picture of dead people in graves. The text is comprehensible without problems as a unity, but the tension between vision and interpretation calls for an explanation, as this is unique within the Book of Ezekiel. Regarding this tension between vision (v. 1–10) and interpretation (v. 11–14) there are two general options in terms of literary criticism: (1) The vision (v. 1–10*) forms the core, while the disputation (v. 11–14*) was added secondarily. As far as I know, F.-L. Hossfeld was the first to publish this model in 1977.2 He thinks that the basic layer consists of v. 1–11a* (without ‫המה‬ in v. 11a). Verses 11b–13a (and the pronoun ‫ המה‬in v. 11a) were added later. Finally, this disputation underwent Fortschreibung itself by v. 13b–14.3 A. Klein has recently revived this model.4 She proposes Ezek 37.1a*, 3–4bα, 5aα, 6b as basic stratum. A first major expansion comprises vv. 2bβ, 4bβ, 11–13a, which add the disputation and link it to the vision proper. The disputation is expanded again by vv.  13b–14. Additionally, Klein suggests v.  2abα, 7–10 as Fortschreibung of Maccabean times.5 Assessing the basic strata proposed by Hossfeld and Klein, it is obvious that Klein diminishes it significantly to vv. 1–6*. Hossfeld keeps some interpretation of the vision in his basic layer, as v. 10a identifies the bones with “the whole house of Israel”. By contrast, Klein’s basic layer does not contain any interpretation of the visionary elements; it also cuts off the lines reporting the execution of the commands given to the prophet. 1 Michael V. Fox, “The Rhetoric of Ezekiel’s Vision of the Valley of the Bones,” HUCA 51 (1980): 13–14; emphases his. 2 Frank-Lothar Hossfeld, Untersuchungen zu Komposition und Theologie des Ezechielbuches, 2nd ed., FB 20 (Würzburg: Echter, 1983), 341–401. 3 Ibid. Hossfeld reckons with some minor expansions within v. 1–11, which can be set aside for the purpose of this paper. 4 Anja Klein, Schriftauslegung im Ezechielbuch: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Ez 34–39, BZAW 391 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008), 270–300. 5 See also Peter Höffken, “Beobachtungen zu Ezechiel XXXVII 1–10,” VT 31 (1981): 305– 317; Rüdiger Bartelmus, “Textkritik, Literarkritik und Syntax: Anmerkungen zur neueren Diskussion um Ez, 47,11,” BN 25 (1984): 55–64; Rüdiger Bartelmus, “Ez 37,1–14, die Verbform weqatal und die Anfänge der Auferstehungshoffnung,” ZAW 97 (1985): 366–389.

The Vision of the Dry Bones (Ezek 37.1–14)

109

Setting aside the differences in details, both models agree to see the core of the text in the visionary part. However, this reveals the problem of this model: the interpretation of the things seen in the vision is not obvious. To the contrary, this vision needs interpretation. This is why Hossfeld does not eradicate interpretation completely from the core, even as it only consists of the identification of the bones with the “whole house of Israel”. If the text once ended with v. 10a, this would leave the question what original readers should have gained from it. The text would have promised new life to the “whole house of Israel”, without any explanation what “new life” might be. This holds true also for the core as reconstructed by Klein. If the text once ended in v. 6, it neither would tell about the revivification of the bones nor identify the bones. It is by all means not obvious that bones, scattered on the Babylonian plains, are to be identified with Israelites. Whoever reduces the core of Ezek 37.1–14 to the visionary part, ignores the text’s differentia specifica. While texts such as the Abominations in the Temple (Ezek  8) or the Vision of the New Temple (Ezek  40–42) are evident without further explanation, this is not the case with the Vision of the Dry Bones. The vision shows things so outrageous that they necessitate interpretation. In other words, it is impossible to reconstruct a basic layer containing only (parts of) the vision. Any reconstruction in this way remains a torso, regardless how the core is reconstructed in detail. (2) The second option is the one proposed by K.-F. Pohlmann.6 He solves the problem of literary criticism the other way round. The core of the text consisted of the disputation, v. 11–14*, and the vision was added secondarily. This does not pose the issue of the disputation needing a vision: The quotation from the people uses a metaphor that the disputation explains. Verses 11–14* are evident without further additions. The drawback is that this text lacks a beginning. According to Pohlmann, Ezek 37.11–14* once formed the conclusion of an “Older Book of Ezekiel” he proposes.7 The text preceding the Vision of the Dry Bones in this “Older Book of Ezekiel” would have been Ezek 36.1–11*.8 A. Klein has shown that it is impossible to link Ezek 37.11–14 directly to Ezek 36.11.9 Accordingly, within Pohlmann’s model, it would be necessary to assume that the original introduction to the disputation in the “Older Book of Ezekiel” was lost when the text was linked to the vision – a very keen proposition that cannot be demonstrated sufficiently. 6 Karl-Friedrich Pohlmann, Ezechielstudien: Zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Buches und zur Frage nach den ältesten Texten, BZAW 180 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992), 112–19; Karl-Friedrich Pohlmann, Der Prophet Hesekiel / ​Ezechiel: Kapitel 20–48, ATD 22,2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001), 494–97. 7 Karl-Friedrich Pohlmann, Der Prophet Hesekiel / ​Ezechiel: Kapitel 1–19, ATD 22,1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 33–39. 8 Pohlmann, Ezechiel 20–48, 472; 492; 496–97. 9 Klein, Schriftauslegung, 275–76.

110

Michael Konkel

Overall, the vision apart from any interpretation does not yield a complete text, and vice versa. The disposition, when isolated from the vision, lacks an introduction. It is impossible to separate vision and interpretation by way of literary criticism.

2. Ezek 37.1–14 – Proof Text for the General Resurrection of the Dead? It is beyond doubt that Ezek 37.1–14 is immensely important for the development of the belief in the resurrection of the dead. The text has been understood as related to this topic as early as in Qumran (cp. 4QPsEzek).10 At the same time, M. V. Fox states in his analysis of Ezek  37.1–14: “Somewhat surprisingly the rabbis did not use Ezek. 37 as a major proof text for their resurrection belief.”11 Before I try to answer the question why the rabbis did not do so, I would like to give an overview of recent research.12 Studies by two scholars, P. Höffken and R. Bartelmus, renewed the idea to read Ezek  37.1–14 as ‘resurrection text’.13 Both hold the view that the visionary part underwent an apocalyptic redaction that reinterpreted the text in terms of a Raising from the Dead. Their literary criticism focuses on the two-staged arrangement of the recreation of the bones in v. 5–10. According to Höffken, this recreation cannot be explained against the backdrop of the Hebrew anthropology of the creation of humankind.14 Bartelmus seizes Höffken’s results, but he bases his literary criticism on an argument from the history of Biblical Hebrew. His point of departure is the change from forms of wayyiqtol to weqatál within Ezek  37.1–10. Bartelmus reckons the forms of weqatál belonging to Mishnaic Hebrew. He concludes that v. 7b, 8b–10a were added during the Maccabean era. The older text would have interpreted the vision as metaphor for the restoration of Israel after the exile. The redacted text reinterprets the vision in terms of a Raising from the Dead in the turmoil of Maccabean times.15 However, taking a closer view raises doubts whether this historical-linguistic argument is as solid as it pretends to be. Höffken and Bartelmus eliminate 10 Michael Konkel, “‫‏יחזקאל‬‎,” in ThWQ, ed. Ulrich Dahmen and Heinz-Josef Fabry (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2013), 2:132–33. 11 Fox, “Rhetoric,” 12 n. 15. 12 For a detailed history of research regarding Ezek 37.1–17 cf. now Johannes Schnocks, Rettung und Neuschöpfung: Studien zur alttestamentlichen Grundlegung einer gesamtbiblischen Theologie der Auferstehung, BBB 158 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009), 168–86. 13 Höffken, “Beobachtungen”; Bartelmus, “Textkritik”; Bartelmus, “Verbform.” 14 Höffken, “Beobachtungen,” 131. 15 This proposal has been widely adopted in German research. See, e. g., Stefan Ohnesorge, Jahwe gestaltet sein Volk neu: Zur Sicht der Zukunft Israels nach Ez 11,14–21; 20,1–44; 36,16–38; 37,1–14.15–28, FB 64 (Würzburg: Echter, 1991), 283–338; Pohlmann, Ezechiel 20–48, 497; Klein, Schriftauslegung, 276–85.

The Vision of the Dry Bones (Ezek 37.1–14)

111

v. 7b, 8b.–10a for being secondary. On the other hand, the first form of weqatál appears already in v. 2a, where it cannot be eliminated from the basic layer. Bartelmus explains this verse as iterative use of weqatál,16 but there is no hint in the text to that interpretation. But there are two other arguments against this proposal: (1) There is evidence for the change from wayyiqtol to weqatál elsewhere in the Book of Ezekiel, too; namely, within the prophet’s guided tour through the New Temple in the Second Vision of the Temple, Ezek 40–42. Those forms of weqatál are by no means secondary to the forms of wayyiqtol within Ezek 40–42.17 (2) H. Spieckermann investigated the phenomenon in detail in his analysis of 2 Kgs 23 already in 1982.18 He concludes that the change between or mixture of forms of wayyiqtol and weqatál is a common phenomenon, which (a) neither is evidence for dating a text late, (b) nor could be used as criterion for literary criticism. The change of conjugations is attested yet in the ostracon of Mezad Hasavyahu–that is, in the epigraphy of the late 7th century BCE, as Spieckermann underlines.19 Thus, the change between wayyiqtol and weqatál is not a valid criterion for the identification of redactional work. This raises the question whether it is possible to read Ezek 37.1–14 as a text about the Raising of the Dead at all. To answer this question, it is worthwhile to have a look in the Talmud (b. Sanhedrin 92b): For it has been taught on Tannaite authority: R. Eliezer says, “The dead whom Ezekiel resurrected stood on their feet, recited a song, and they died.”   “What song did they recite?”   “‘The Lord kills in righteousness and revives in mercy’ (1Sa. 2.6).” R. Joshua says, “They recited this song, ‘The Lord kills and makes live, he brings down to the grave and brings up’ (1Sa. 2.6).” R. Judah says, “It was truly a parable.” Said to him R. Nehemiah, “If it was true, then why a parable? And if a parable, why true? But in truth it was a parable.” R. Eliezer, son of R. Yosé the Galilean, says, “The dead whom Ezekiel resurrected went up to the Land of Israel and got married and produced sons and daughters.” R. Judah b. Betera stood up and said, “I am one of their grandsons, and these are the phylacteries that father’s father left me from them.”20

16 Bartelmus,

“Verbform,” 374 n. 43. 40.24, 35; 41.3a, 8a, 13a, 15; 42.15; cf. Michael Konkel, Architektonik des Heiligen: Studien zur zweiten Tempelvision Ezechiels (Ez 40–48), BBB 129 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001), 39–41. 18 Hermann Spieckermann, Juda unter Assur in der Sargonidenzeit, FRLANT 129 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982), 120–30; cf. Schnocks, Rettung, 172–74. 19 Spieckermann, Juda, 129. 20 Jacob Neusner, The Babylonian Talmud: A Translation and Commentary Vol 16: Tractate Sanhedrin (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 2005), 490–91. 17 Ezek

112

Michael Konkel

I cannot go into the details of this passage, but I would like to focus one point: The rabbis do not relate Ezek 37 to the expectation of a general resurrection of the dead at the end of time. By contrast, the word of R. Eliezer seems important: They “stood on their feet, recited a song, and they died.” This fits in with the statement of R. Eliezer, son of R. Yosé the Galilean, according to whom the resurrected returned to Israel as their home country, begot children and, obviously, died within the land. The dead bodies, whose Raising from the Dead Ezekiel witnessed, were not raised to eternal life. They were a small group of slain ones, were raised, lived for a while, and then died again. Within the further argument of tractate Sanhedrin 92, the story is linked to the tradition of a battle in the Valley of Dura, inspired by Dan 3. Ezekiel witnessed the slain ones of this battle, who fell because they refused idolatry. The key to understand the Talmudic discussion is that Ezek 37 is read literally: Unlike the Vision of the Chariot (cp. Ezek 1.1), the First Temple Vision (cp. Ezek 8.3) and the Second Temple Vision (cp. Ezek 40.2), Ezek 37.1–10 is not labelled ‫מראות אלהים‬. That is, the text itself does not claim to be a vision. The “Vision of the Dry Bones” is not a vision at all! The rabbis understood the text just that way: Ezekiel did not see ‫מראות אלהים‬, but real bones, scattered on the plain, called to life again. This is a specific resurrection just as described in texts like 1 Kgs 17.17–24 (the Resurrection of the Widow’s Son by Elijah), and 2 Kgs 4.8–37 (the Resurrection of the Son of the Shunamite Woman by Elisha). In conclusion, the Talmudic discussion calls into question what is commonly accepted in modern research, namely, to understand Ezek 37.1–10 as a vision. In other words, Ezek 37 can only be read as resurrection text if it is not read as vision. And irrespective of whether one reads v. 1–10 as vision or not, it is impossible to relate Ezek 37 to a general resurrection of the dead to eternal life.21

3. Ezekiel 37.1–14 – A Text about the Restoration of Israel? After all, it does not come as a surprise that most modern scholars read the vision Ezek 37.1–10 as a metaphor for the restoration of Israel as a nation instead as proof of the general resurrection of the dead.22 This reading takes v. 11–14 as 21 It is noteworthy that the reading of Ezek 37 as a text of resurrection in 4QPsEzek only refers to v. 1–10 and lacks any reference to v. 11–14. Cf. Schnocks, Rettung, 237–43. 22 George A. Cooke, The Book of Ezekiel, 2nd ed., ICC (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1985), 397; Walther Zimmerli, Ezechiel, BKAT 13 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1979), 900; Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, AB 22A (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 741–51; Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 383–87; Margaret S. Odell, Ezekiel, Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary (Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2005), 449–55; Paul M. Joyce, Ezekiel: A Commentary, LHBOTS 482 (London: T & T Clark, 2007), 208–09; Stephen S. Tuell, Ezekiel, NIBCOT (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2009), 250–54.

The Vision of the Dry Bones (Ezek 37.1–14)

113

the starting point of interpretation: The dry bones are a metaphor for Israel in exile, and the resurrection of the dry bones symbolizes Israel’s return from exile. Taking a closer look at vv. 11–14, things get more complicated. At first glance, the verses show a clear structure and seem easy to understand. The identification of the bones with the “whole house of Israel” (v. 11a) is followed by a quotation from the people (v. 11b). An order to the prophet to prophesy starts in v. 12, which is at the same time Yhwh’s answer to the quotation from the people and, indirectly, the interpretation of the vision. Strikingly, the recognition formula appears twice (v. 13a, 14b), and correspondingly, v. 13b is a literal recapitulation of v. 12a, 12b is only partly mirrored by 14aβ, and 14aα has no correspondence at all in vv. 12–13a. Thus, v. 13b–14 do not simply repeat the contents of v. 12–13a, but add a new emphasis instead. The text reads: 12aα Therefore, prophesy and say to them: Thus says the Lord Yhwh: 12aβ Look! I am going to open your graves, and bring you up from your graves, my people, 12b and I will bring you to the soil of Israel. 13a And you will know that I am Yhwh, 13bα when I open your graves, 13bβ and bring you up from your graves, my people. 14aα And I will put my spirit into you, and you will live, 14aβ and I will let you come to rest on your own soil, 14b and you will know that I am Yhwh – I have spoken and I will act – declaration of Yhwh!

Within MT, the recognition formula of v. 13a is not a conclusion to the salvation described in v. 12, but acts as protasis to the salvation mentioned in v. 13b–14. The doubled recognition formula in v. 13a and 14b forms an inclusion. This use of the recognition formula is without parallel within the Book of Ezekiel, because it always introduces the conclusion and is never used as introductory formula as here in v. 13a. The conclusion is clear: Originally, the recognition formula v. 13a closed the text. Its introductory function stems from a Fortschreibung marked as such by the scribes by the literal resumption of v. 12a in v. 13b. The addition of v. 13b–14 comes with a new emphasis regarding the contents. Verse 12 describes Israel’s recognition of God as result of the return from exile. By contrast, according to v. 13, recognition results from Yhwh’s gift of the spirit, not from the salvation by the way of a second Exodus. Additionally, the Fortschreibung dissolves temporal continuity: In v. 12–13a, recognition resulted immediately from the return to the land. In contrast, v. 13b–14 do not explain when the spirit is given. So it is possible to assume that the spirit is given some time after the return and within the land itself. Verse 14a does not state Israel’s arrival in the land but states that “you will rest within the land.” As A. Klein has shown, “resting” can refer to the final establishment of salvation, which consists

114

Michael Konkel

of rest and inner and outer peace.23 The quality of salvation in v. 14 is beyond the scope of what v. 12–13a say. This enables a reading of a two-staged time of salvation in v. 13b–14: The return from the exile does not mark completion of salvation. Salvation is accomplished only by Yhwh’s gift of the spirit and final deliverance of all outer threats. This leads Israel to the recognition of Yhwh. A. Klein puts it this way: Der Autor ist offenbar der Überzeugung, dass das entscheidende Heilsereignis der Geistverleihung nicht außerhalb des Landes vollzogen wird (37,1–6*) oder mit der Rückführung gleichgesetzt werden kann (37,11–13a*), sondern sich erst nach der Rückkehr des Volkes im Land selbst ereignen wird (37,14). Zugleich macht er deutlich, dass eine erneute Exilierung des Volkes ausgeschlossen ist, so dass der Wiederbelebung Unverbrüchlichkeit zukommt.24

In sum, v. 13b–14 seem to be a Fortschreibung of v. 11–13a.25 The former text, once ending in v. 13a, can in fact be labelled as “restoration text”: Here the vision of the dry bones is a metaphor for the Golah’s return from exile and for Israel’s revivification as a nation that results in the people’s recognition of God. However, this straightforward meaning is blurred by the Fortschreibung of v. 13b–14: By emphasizing the gift of the spirit as the precondition for complete salvation, the Fortschreibung goes beyond the scope of a mere political restoration. M. V. Fox puts it this way: “The promised rebirth will not be merely a restoration of the nation to its former condition, but a fundamental restructuring of the national psychology.”26 In fact, this is more than a rebirth – this Israel is a new creation! Verses 13b–14 link Ezek 37 closely to the preceding chapter that sketches out this new creation of Israel in detail. Ezek 36.24–28 read: 24 25 26 27 28

I will take you from the nations, and gather you from all the countries, and bring you onto your soil. I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleanness, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will remove from your body the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. I will put my spirit within you, and make you follow my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances. And you will live in the land that I gave to your ancestors; and you will be my people, and I will be your God.

Once again, there are two stages. First, Israel is gathered from the nations and brought into the land. Only after this has happened is Israel cleansed, and then Schriftauslegung, 281–283. 285. 25 Cf. Hossfeld, Untersuchungen, 386; 400–401; Ohnesorge, Jahwe, 294–298; Klein, Schriftauslegung, 281–283; Schnocks, Rettung, 222–223. 26 Fox, “Rhetoric,” 15. 23 Klein, 24 Idem.,

The Vision of the Dry Bones (Ezek 37.1–14)

115

their heart of stone will be replaced by a new heart, a heart of flesh. The centre of the person is changed and the spirit of the Lord given to the people. This Israel really is a new creation just as the one in Ezek 37.13b–14. The passage Ezek 36.23bβ–38 is missing in Pap967, that is, in the Old Greek, respectively. During the last years, a consensus has settled that Pap967 in this regard represents an edition of the Hebrew book still missing Ezek 36.23bβ–38.27 These verses seem to be a very late addition to the book, and as I have proposed elsewhere, these verses might have been added during the Hasmonean era.28 What does this mean regarding the addition of 37.13b–14? In his careful analysis of Ezek 37.1–14, J. Schnocks pointed out that in the Septuagint v. 13b–14 show some peculiarities.29 Verse 12 LXX translates ‫ קבר‬with μνημα, whereas v. 13b uses the word ταφος. There is no other evidence within the Greek text of Ezekiel for ‫ קבר‬being translated with ταφος. At the same time, wird die zweite Infinitivkonstruktion mit ‫ ב‬nicht wie zuvor mit εν + Infinitiv, sondern im Genitiv als finaler Infinitiv übersetzt. Dabei bleiben ‫ אתכם‬und ein ePP 2. Pers. m. pl. unübersetzt, so dass das etwas sperrige ‫ עמי‬in der Übersetzung τον λαον μου zum alleinigen Akkusativobjekt wird.30

To summarise, the Greek translation of v. 13b–14 differs clearly from the preceding verses. Together with the literary critical arguments Schnocks concludes that v. 13b–14 are in fact later additions within the Greek text.31 If Schnocks is right, there is going to need to be some readjustment in our reconstructions of the redaction history of the Book of Ezekiel. The passages missing in Pap967 do not simply reflect an older edition of the book that was the Vorlage of the Old Greek. There is the possibility that there were passages which found their way into Pap967, but were still missing in the Vorlage of the Old Greek. So it is possible that the late redaction of the book, possibly taking place during the 2nd century BCE, was much more comprehensive than hitherto expected. Ezek 36.23bβ–38 and 37.13b–14 may be assigned to the same late redaction that introduces the topos of a new creation of Israel to the book. The final text of Ezek 37.1–14 is neither proof for the general resurrection of the dead, nor merely about restoration–it is about a new creation. 27 Cf. Johan Lust, “Ezekiel 36–40 in the Oldest Greek Manuscript,” CBQ 43 (1981): 517–533; Peter Schwagmeier, “Untersuchungen zu Textgeschichte und Entstehung des Ezechielbuches in masoretischer und griechischer Überlieferung” (Dissertation, Universität Zürich, 2004); Karl-Friedrich Pohlmann, Ezechiel: Der Stand der theologischen Diskussion (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2008), 127–30. 28 Michael Konkel, “Das Ezechielbuch zwischen Hasmonäern und Zadokiden,” in Juda und Jerusalem in der Seleukidenzeit: Herrschaft – Widerstand – Identität: Festschrift für Heinz-Josef Fabry, ed. Ulrich Dahmen and Johannes Schnocks, 59–78, BBB 159 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010). 29 Schnocks, Rettung, 168. 30 Ibid. 31 Idem., 226–28.

116

Michael Konkel

4. The Resurrection of the Dry Bones in Two Stages (v. 5–10) If it is possible to read v. 13b–14 as a salvation in two stages with the gift of the Lord’s spirit as climax of salvation after the return from the exile, this corresponds to the revivification of the bones in two stages, as v. 5–10 describe it. As mentioned above, P. Höffken, R. Bartelmus, K.-F. Pohlmann, A. Klein and others ascribe the revivification of the bones in two stages to a late redaction. As I have shown, these verses neither can be interpreted as a resurrection of Maccabean martyrs, nor is the change between wayyiqtol and weqatal a sufficient criterion for literary criticism within v. 5–10. Nevertheless the correspondence between the revivification of the bones in two stages and the gift of the spirit after the return to the land in v. 13b–14 is striking. Were v. 13b–14 inspired by the extended creation process of v. 5–10? Alternatively, is the revivification in two stages also owed to a redactional process? I have to admit that I have no definite answer to this question for myself yet, but I would like to draw attention to an observation I made, which has not attracted interest yet, as far as I can see. Ezek 37.5–10 read:   5a   5b   6a

Thus says the Lord Yhwh to these bones: ‘I will cause breath to enter you, and you shall live. I will lay sinews on you, and will cause flesh to come upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and you shall live;   6b and you shall know that I am Yhwh.’   7a And I prophesied as I had been commanded;   7b And there was a noise as I prophesied, and behold, a rattling, and the bones came together, bone to its bone.   8a And I looked, and behold, (there were) sinews on them, and flesh had come upon them, and skin had covered them;   8b but there was no breath in them.   9a   And he said to me, ‘Prophesy to the breath,   9b prophesy, mortal, and say to the breath: Thus says the Lord Yhwh: Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live.’ 10a I prophesied as he commanded me, 10b and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood on their feet, a vast multitude.

There is deliberate variation in the way MT uses the theme-word ‫רוח‬: In v. 5–8 ‫ רוח‬is not determined, whereas in v. 9–10 it is determined throughout. Thus, there is a transition from the use of ‫ רוח‬as a mere principle of life in v. 5–8 to ‫רוח‬ as a specific, almost personal entity, which enters the corpses and calls them to life. This differs in the Septuagint (LXXB):   5a   5b   6a

Τάδε λέγει κύριος τοῖς ὀστέοις τούτοις Ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ φέρω εἰς ὑμᾶς πνεῦμα ζωῆς καὶ δώσω ἐφ᾿ ὑμᾶς νεῦρα καὶ ἀνάξω ἐφ᾿ ὑμᾶς σάρκας καὶ ἐκτενῶ ἐφ᾿ ὑμᾶς δέρμα καὶ δώσω πνεῦμά μου εἰς ὑμᾶς, καὶ ζήσεσθε·

The Vision of the Dry Bones (Ezek 37.1–14)

117

  6b   7a   7b

καὶ γνώσεσθε ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι κύριος. καὶ ἐπροφήτευσα καθὼς ἐνετείλατό μοι. καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ ἐμὲ προφητεῦσαι καὶ ἰδοὺ σεισμός, καὶ προσήγαγε τὰ ὀστᾶ ἑκάτερον πρὸς τὴν ἁρμονίαν αὐτοῦ.   8a καὶ εἶδον καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐπ᾿ αὐτὰ νεῦρα καὶ σάρκες ἐφύοντο, καὶ ἀνέβαινεν ἐπ᾿ αὐτὰ δέρμα ἐπάνω,   8b καὶ πνεῦμα οὐκ ἦν ἐν αὐτοῖς.   9a   καὶ εἶπεν πρός με Προφήτευσον,   9b υἱὲ ἀνθρώπου, προφήτευσον ἐπὶ τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ εἰπὸν τῷ πνεύματι Τάδε λέγει κύριος Ἐκ τῶν τεσσάρων πνευμάτων ἐλθὲ καὶ ἐμφύσησον εἰς τοὺς νεκροὺς τούτους, καὶ ζησάτωσαν. 10a καὶ ἐπροφήτευσα καθότι ἐνετείλατό μοι· 10b καὶ εἰσῆλθεν εἰς αὐτοὺς τὸ πνεῦμα, καὶ ἔζησαν καὶ ἔστησαν ἐπὶ τῶν ποδῶν αὐτῶν, συναγωγὴ πολλὴ σφόδρα.

In v. 5 LXX contracts ‫ רוח וחייתם‬of MT to πνεῦμα ζωῆς. In v. 6a LXX reads πνεῦμά μου instead of the simple ‫ רוח‬of MT. By doing so, LXX links v. 5–10 directly to v. 14. Thus, the transition from the undetermined to the determined use of ‫רוח‬, to be observed in MT, cannot be found in LXX. This is clearly secondary, because LXX levels the tension between the two uses of ‫ רוח‬that is present in MT. The only instance where LXX testifies the undetermined use of ‫ רוח‬is v. 8b, but this is deliberate to stress the issue that no kind of πνευμα can be found within the newly risen corpses. The prehexaplaric Papyrus 967 is in accordance with this, with the exception of v. 10b containing πνευμα undetermined.32 This is neither in line with the concept of MT nor with the concept of LXX. Is it possible that Pap967 has preserved here an older reading? If this were the case, the following scenario could be possible: Verses 5b, 8b– 10a and the article before ‫ רוח‬in v. 10b are later additions to the text. The older text comprised just v. 1–4*, 5a, 6–8a, 10b, 11–13a, without the article before ‫רוח‬ in 10b. In the older text, the coming of the spirit is the natural end of the process of revivification. There is no special emphasis on the gift of the spirit, which is in accordance with v. 11–13a. By contrast, v. 5b, 8b–10a emphasise the giving of the spirit and the climax of a revivification in two stages. In their final form v. 5–10 can be read as an allegory for the promise of salvation of v. 11–14: Without the spirit of the Lord, Israel, though returned from exile, is still as dead as the corpses of the vision, which lack the spirit of life. I am well aware that this reconstruction is very hypothetical, because it relies on a minor tension within MT (the determined and undetermined use of ‫)רוח‬, and on the reading of only one Greek manuscript. It is still possible that the revivification of the bones in two stages is original, and that v. 13b–14 transformed 32 Manuel Fernández-Galiano, “Nuevas páginas del códice del A. T. griego (Ez 28,19– 43,9),” SPap 10 (1971): 3–76 (35). There are two other manuscripts in accordance with this reading.

118

Michael Konkel

these two stages into an allegory. But we have to reckon that redactional work can be almost invisible, hence is only to be assumed and not proved with certainty. Ezekiel 37.1–14 remains obscure and bizarre.

Bibliography Bartelmus, Rüdiger. “Ez 37,1–14, die Verbform weqatal und die Anfänge der Auferstehungshoffnung.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 97 (1985): 366–389. –. “Textkritik, Literarkritik und Syntax: Anmerkungen zur neueren Diskussion um Ez 47,11.” Biblische Notizen 25 (1984): 55–64. Block, Daniel I. The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Cooke, George A. The Book of Ezekiel. 2nd ed. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1985. Fernández-Galiano, Manuel. “Nuevas páginas del códice del A. T. griego (Ez 28,19– 43,9).” Studia papyrologica 10 (1971): 3–76. Fox, Michael V. “The Rhetoric of Ezekiel’s Vision of the Valley of the Bones.” Hebrew Union College Annual 51 (1980): 1–15. Greenberg, Moshe. Ezekiel 21–37. Anchor Bible 22A. New York: Doubleday, 1997. Höffken, Peter. “Beobachtungen zu Ezechiel XXXVII 1–10.” Vetus Testamentum 31 (1981): 305–317. Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar. Untersuchungen zu Komposition und Theologie des Ezechiel­ buches. 2nd ed. Forschung zur Bibel 20. Würzburg: Echter, 1983. Joyce, Paul M. Ezekiel: A Commentary. Library of Hebrew Bible / ​Old Testament Studies 482. London: T & T Clark, 2007. Klein, Anja. Schriftauslegung im Ezechielbuch: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Ez 34–39. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 391. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008. Konkel, Michael. “Das Ezechielbuch zwischen Hasmonäern und Zadokiden.” In Juda und Jerusalem in der Seleukidenzeit: Herrschaft – Widerstand – Identität: Festschrift für Heinz-Josef Fabry, ed. Ulrich Dahmen and Johannes Schnocks, 59–78. Bonner Biblische Beiträge 159. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010. –. “‫יחזקאל‬.” In Theologisches Wörterbuch zu den Qumran-Texten, ed. Ulrich Dahmen and Heinz-Josef Fabry, 2:130–133. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2013. –. Architektonik des Heiligen: Studien zur zweiten Tempelvision Ezechiels (Ez 40–48). Bonner Biblische Beiträge 129. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001. Lust, Johan. “Ezekiel 36–40 in the Oldest Greek Manuscript.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 43 (1981): 517–533. Neusner, Jacob. The Babylonian Talmud: A Translation and Commentary Vol 16: Tractate Sanhedrin. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 2005. Odell, Margaret S. Ezekiel. Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2005. Ohnesorge, Stefan. Jahwe gestaltet sein Volk neu: Zur Sicht der Zukunft Israels nach Ez 11,14–21; 20,1–44; 36,16–38; 37,1–14.15–28. Forschung zur Bibel 64. Würzburg: Echter, 1991.

The Vision of the Dry Bones (Ezek 37.1–14)

119

Pohlmann, Karl-Friedrich. Der Prophet Hesekiel / ​Ezechiel: Kapitel 1–19. Das Alte Testament Deutsch 22,1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. –. Der Prophet Hesekiel / ​Ezechiel: Kapitel 20–48. Das Alte Testament Deutsch 22,2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001. –. Ezechiel: Der Stand der theologischen Diskussion. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2008. –. Ezechielstudien: Zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Buches und zur Frage nach den ältesten Texten. BZAW 180. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992. Schnocks, Johannes. Rettung und Neuschöpfung: Studien zur alttestamentlichen Grundlegung einer gesamtbiblischen Theologie der Auferstehung. Bonner Biblische Beiträge 158. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009. Schwagmeier, Peter. “Untersuchungen zu Textgeschichte und Entstehung des Ezechielbuches in masoretischer und griechischer Überlieferung.” DTh. diss., Universität Zürich, 2004. Spieckermann, Hermann. Juda unter Assur in der Sargonidenzeit. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 129. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982. Tuell, Stephen S. Ezekiel. New International Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2009. Zimmerli, Walther. Ezechiel. Biblische Kommentar Altes Testament 13. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener, 1979.

The Reuse of Ezekiel 20 in the Composition of Ezekiel 36.16–321 Penelope Barter That Ezek 36 shares material with Ezek 20 is not new information. However, when this reuse is examined specifically in light of the complex compositional backgrounds of each text, it becomes clear that the pattern of reuse between Ezek 20 and 36.16–32 has important ramifications for the composition history of the book, as well as deepening our understanding of the development of descriptions of the restoration, since it is not the case that the authors simply use the same language to refer to the same events. Rather, the authors of the supplements to Ezek 20 and 36 reappropriate terminology in order to develop and even correct the trajectory of the book. For our purposes, there are three key reasons for analysing Ezek 36.16–32, as opposed to 36.16–38. Firstly, and most importantly, we will see that the reuse of Ezek 20 falls very clearly within 36.16–32, with no clear indication of material shared with Ezek 20 after Ezek 36.32. Secondly, a new literary unit begins at Ezek 36.33, as indicated by the messenger formula (Botenformel), ‫כה אמר (אדני) יי‬. Although this should not take precedence over any compositional matters in a study such as this, it is nonetheless the case that the received form of this section of Ezekiel guides the reader towards seeing a division between Ezek 36.32 and 36.33. Finally, although the compositional unit may extend from Ezek 36.23bβ to 36.38 – I am personally as yet undecided – Zimmerli and Klein (amongst others) have suggested that Ezek 36.33–36 and 36.37–38 (which correspond to the final two subsidiary literary units) are also compositionally secondary to their immediate context.2 Although the repetition of the messenger formula from Ezek 36.22 in 36.33 and 36.36 is what indicates that these verses are individual literary 1 I am most grateful to Prof. John T. Strong and Dr. William Tooman for their feedback on an earlier version of this chapter. 2 See Anja Klein, “Prophecy Continued: Reflections on Innerbiblical Exegesis in the Book of Ezekiel,” VT 60 (2010): 578–9; Walter Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel Chapters 25–48, trans. James D. Martin, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), 246; cf. Leslie C. Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, WBC 29 (Dallas: Word, 1990), 176–178; Anja Klein, Schriftauslegung im Ezechielbuch: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Ez 34–39, BZAW 391 (Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 2008), 84–85. Zimmerli notes the unusual (partly Jeremian?) language of 36.23bβ–38 and later adds “Also linguistically vv. 16–32 are particularly closely associated with the late components in the book of Ezekiel” (Ezekiel 2, 246).

The Reuse of Ezekiel 20 in the Composition of Ezekiel 36.16–32

121

units, the repeated structural marker is also one of the clues to their potentially secondary nature. We turn our attention first to a brief description of these literary and compositional units before identifying and describing the material shared between Ezek 20 and Ezek 36.16–32. We will then offer some preliminary observations on, and questions about, the purpose and pattern of this reuse.

1. Units in Ezekiel 36 The literary structure of Ezek 36 is not particularly straightforward. Ezek 36.1–15 belongs with the previous material in a literary unit that begins with the prophetic word formula or (‫“ ;ויהי דבר־יי אלי לאמר‬and the word of Yhwh came to me, saying”) in Ezek 35.1. The next prophetic word formula (PWF), in Ezek 36.15, begins a literary unit which stretches to Ezek 37.14, though there are smaller units within.3 Our focus will be on the latter half of Ezek 36, since this is where the reuse of Ezek 20 comes into force. The PWF marks the start of a new oracle, with the messenger formula or Botenformel (‫“ ;כה אמר יי‬thus says Yhwh”) in Ezek 36.22, 33, and 36 marking the start of smaller, subsidiary literary units within the oracle.4 3 The book of Ezekiel is a playground for those interested in composition history and / ​or literary structure, since the book in its current form is not only the product of multiple complex layers, but also one of the most tightly structured in the Hebrew Bible (see Tyler Mayfield, Literary Structure and Setting in Ezekiel, FAT II/43 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010], 119–121, for a summative breakdown of the first‑ and second-level macro-structure of the book). Left to its own devices, Ezekiel falls into thirteen literary units of disparate lengths, each beginning with a chronological formula, which are given at the top of your handout. The first twelve units each begin with a narrative section – again of varying lengths – before each oracle within the unit is introduced using the PWF. This is most commonly phrased as ‫“( ויהי דבר־יי אלי לאמר‬and the word of Yhwh came to me, saying”), though there are some notable exceptions: Ezek 12.8 reads ‫ ;ויהי דבר־יי אלי בבקר לאמר‬Ezek 14.1 is, strictly speaking, either part of the preceding oracle (Ezek 13.1–23) or a unique narrative preamble to an oracle without an immediately-preceding chronological formula; and there are seven instances in the middle of the book where the chronological formula and PWF are combined (Ezek 24.1; 26.1; 29.1; 29.17; 30.20; 31.1; 32.1). The sole exception to this overall pattern is Ezek 40–48. Yet the structure more commonly associated with the book is the tripartite structure roughly based on compositional considerations: the artificial division of the book into oracles of judgement (Ezek 1–24); oracles against the nations (OAN; Ezek 25–32); and oracles of consolation (Ezek 33–48), though there are of course many further layers within these large units. Ronald M. Hals, for example, rightly notes that “this otherwise neat division is contradicted by the presence of several sections of consolation within chs. 1–24, e. g., 11:14–21, 16:53–63, and 20:40–44” (Ezekiel, FOTL XIX [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989], 3). Although this threefold structure loosely matches the thematic content, it is at best an overly simplistic compositional structure, which does not give due attention to either the literary structure or the complexity of the book’s composition history. For these reasons, this study will adopt Mayfield’s literary structure. 4 Note that Mayfield considers the messenger formula to be one of five formulae in Ezekiel that “do not contribute to the first or second level structure of the whole book,” but which

122

Penelope Barter

I consider there to be another literary break at Ezek 37.1, with the hand of Yhwh revelatory formula or Hand Yahwes Offenbarungsformel ‫“ ;)היתה עלי יד־יי‬the hand of Yhwh was upon me”), meaning that the final unit for consideration today ends where our chapter does.5 This relatively neat literary structure, however, is immediately problematised by the compositional structure of Ezek 36.16–38. There are two key issues: the evidence from Greek papyrus codex 967 (P967) and the relative composition date of the two small units ending Ezek 36. P967, an uncial from the third-century CE, offers the earliest substantial witness to a book of Ezekiel, predating Origen’s Hexapla and Codex Vaticanus by nearly a century. As such, the manuscript has obvious historical appeal, and the witness of P967 is particularly relevant for our purposes, since it famously preserves a unique transposition of Ezek 37 and 38–39, as well as minuses of significant length, including, importantly, Ezek 36.23bβ–38.6 This reading is supported by the sixth-century Old Latin Codex Wirceburgensis (which also omits these verses and shares the chapter order, yet is not directly dependent on the tradition of P967), though some caution is still due, since Wirceburgensis preserves only fragments of the prophetic texts.7 Still, P967 has cast valid aspersions as to the originality of 36.23bβ–38 to its present context. The manuscript finds from Masada, while sadly fragmentary, preserve “certainly should not be ignored in an attempt to structure smaller units of texts,” such as – I propose – Ezek 36.22–38 (see Mayfield, Literary Structure, 81–82). 5 This formula appears with some minor variations in Ezekiel: see also Ezek 1.3; 3.14, 22; 8.1; 33.22; and 40.1. As with the messenger formula (see note 4 above, cf. Literary Structure, 83), Mayfield rightly does not consider this formula to affect the surface-level literary structure of the book, observing that its apparent restriction to visionary material (with the possible exception of the retrospective Ezek 33.22) does not enable this formula to function as a structural marker at book-level – that is, for Mayfield, the larger literary unit runs from Ezek 36.16 to 37.14. However, I believe there to be good reasons for allowing ‫ היתה עלי יד־יי‬to stand as a mid-level structural division in Ezek 37.1 (by “mid-level,” I simply mean that it functions in this example as a more significant division than ‫ כה אמר יי‬in Ezek 36.22, 33, 36, but is not as significant as the PWF in dividing oracle from oracle). 6 For a detailed examination of the text-critical evidence from P967, and a history of the interpretation of this evidence, see Ingrid E. Lilly, Two Books of Ezekiel: Papyrus 967 and the Masoretic Text as Variant Literary Editions, VTSup 150 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 28–52. For a succinct explanation of the primary reasons for considering the P967 reading original (or at least not the result of parablepsis), see Johann Lust, “Major Divergences between LXX and MT in Ezekiel,” in The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible: The Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered, ed. Adrian Schenker, SBLSCS 52 (Atlanta: SBL, 2003), 89–90. 7 For arguments in support of the evidence from Codex Wirceburgensis, see Johan Lust, “Ezekiel 36–40 in the Oldest Greek Manuscript,” CBQ 43/4 (1981): 518; Emanuel Tov, “Recensional Differences between the Masoretic Text and Septuagint of Ezekiel,” ETL 62 (1986), 100– 101, Ashley S. Crane, Israel’s Restoration: A Textual-Comparative Exploration of Ezekiel 36–39, VTSup 122 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 208; but, for criticism of over-reliance on Wirceburgensis, particularly on the grounds of its incompleteness, see Hector M. Patmore, Adam, Satan, and the King of Tyre: The Interpretation of Ezekiel 28:11–19 in Late Antiquity, Jewish and Christian Perspectives 20 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 144–145.

The Reuse of Ezekiel 20 in the Composition of Ezekiel 36.16–32

123

a version of Ezek 35.11–38.14, demonstrating that a reading close to MT existed by at least the second half of the first century BCE.8 Secondly, as we have already seen, there are good reasons to call into question the relative date of the subsidiary literary units Ezek 36.33–36, 37–38, although this proposal has not met with overwhelming support.

2. Material Shared Between Ezekiel 20 and 36 For the sake of clarity, we will look at the locutions shared between Ezek 20 and 36 in the order of their appearance in Ezek 36. Of course, this means that the most convincing examples of reuse do not necessarily come first in our analysis. It also means that we cannot give due attention to which locution (or locutions) “trigger” the readers’ awareness of the particular source text, and which are supporting connections, which may be slightly more common words or phrases.9 Few of the following examples of reuse are utterly convincing when taken alone, so as well as judging each case individually, we must pay due attention to their cumulative effect and the contextual congruence of the shared material. 2.1 Their / ​your ways and deeds – Ezek 36.17, 19, 31 // Ezek 20.43, 44 The phrase “ways and deeds” using ‫ דרך‬and ‫ עלילה‬is particularly Ezekelian, occurring only once outside the book, namely in Psa 103.7, where the two words function as synonymous parallels in a bicolon, rather than as the pair found in Ezekiel. Within Ezekiel, the expression can be found twice in Ezek 14, twice in 8 For helpful discussions of the manuscript evidence from Qumran and Masada, see Johann Lust, “Ezekiel Manuscripts at Qumran: Preliminary Evidence of 4Q Ez a and b,” in Ezekiel and His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and Their Relationship, ed. J. Lust, BETL 74 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996), 90–100; Lilly, Two Books of Ezekiel, 18–25; Crane, Israel’s Restoration, 7–9; Eibert Tigchelaar, “Notes on the Ezekiel Scroll from Masada (MasEzek),” RQ 52 (2005): 269–275; Shemaryahu Talmon, “Fragments of an Ezekiel scroll from Masada 1043–2220 (Ezekiel 35:11–38:14)” [in Hebrew], in Tehillah le-Moshe: Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Moshe Greenberg, ed. Mordechai Cogan, Barry L. Eichler, and Jeffrey H. Tigay (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 53–70 (though see 318 for an abstract in English); and Hector Patmore, “The Shorter and Longer Texts of Ezekiel: The Implications of the Manuscript Finds from Masada and Qumran,” JSOT 32/2 (2007): 231–238 (though note carefully Lilly’s critique of, and factual corrections to, Patmore’s work in Lilly, Two Books of Ezekiel, 24–25). This evidence is key in discussions of (and arguments against) the priority of the P967 reading of Ezek 36–39: see, for example, Paul Joyce, who notes that “much can be said in defence of the integrity of the Hebrew on literary and theological grounds” but ultimately concludes his discussion of the various textual witnesses of Ezekiel by saying that “there is no getting away from the fact that there seem to have been two early divergent textual traditions … Each must be acknowledged as important without rejecting the significance of the other” (Ezekiel: A Commentary, LHBOTS 482 [New York: T & T Clark, 2007], 48). 9 For more on this distinction, see Ziva Ben-Porat, “The Poetics of Literary Allusion,” PTL 1(1976): 105–128.

124

Penelope Barter

Ezek 20, once in Ezek 24, and twice in Ezek 36.10 Where it appears twice in a chapter, it always does so in quick succession, though this may be simple coincidence – we do not yet have reason to suggest otherwise. One further occurrence uses the Jeremianic ‫​מעלל‬11 rather than the normal Ezekelian term ‫עלילה‬, namely Ezek 36.31a: ‫“( וזכרתם את־דרכיכם הרעים ומעלליכם אשר לא־טובים‬you will remember your evil ways and your deeds that were not good”). Since this verse not only uses this unusual term but also juxtaposes multiple borrowed locutions, we shall return to it later for further discussion. 2.2 To pour out wrath – Ezek 36.18 // Ezek 20.8, 13, 21, 33, 34 Although the phrase “to pour out wrath” (‫ חמה‬+ ‫ )שפך‬occurs seventeen times in the Hebrew Bible (HB), eleven of those occurrences are in Ezekiel, where it has particular association with Ezek 20, since it features five times in that chapter.12 The locution is always used of Yhwh’s wrath, though Yhwh is not necessarily always the pourer (see Jer 6.11). Ezekiel 20.5–29 explains that, throughout the history of Israel, Yhwh repeatedly vowed to pour out his wrath, but ultimately decided against destructive action. Then, in Ezek 20.33–34, the author has Yhwh promise that he will rule with “wrath poured out”. Ezek 36.18 provides the missing step, stating that Yhwh did pour out his wrath on Israel – in Rendtorff ’s words, “Israel lives under the proclamation of judgement but this is not yet implemented. It is only in 36.18 that we then read in the same words: “So I poured out my wrath upon them”.”13 2.3 To scatter among the nations and disperse throughout the lands – Ezek 36.19 // Ezek 20.23 The locution “to scatter (‫ )פוץ‬among the goyim and disperse (‫ )זרה‬throughout the lands (‫ ”)ארצות‬is only used in Ezekiel, four times of the Israelites,14 and three times of the Egyptians.15 This expression may originate in Lev 26.33, in the short but distinctive form “but you I will disperse among the nations” (‫ואתכם אזרה‬ ‫)בגוים‬, then split and recombined to create the expanded locution found in Eze10 Ezek.

14.22, 23; 20.43, 44; 24.14; 36.17, 19. 2.19; Jer 4.18; 7.3, 5; 17.10; 18.11; 23.22; 25.5; 26.3, 13; 32.19; 35.15; Hos 4.9; 12.3; Zech 1.4, 6. See Walter Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel Chapters 1–24, trans. Ronald E. Clements, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), 316 on ‫מעלל‬. 12 Psa 79.6; Isa 42.25; Jer 6.11; 10.25; Lam 2.4; 4.11; Ezek 7.8; 9.8; 14.19; 20.8, 13, 21, 33, 34; 22.22; 30.15; 36.18. Ezek 16.38 is not included, since it does not appear therein as a phrase. 13 Rolf Rendtorff, “Ezekiel 20 and 36.16 ff. in the Framework of the Composition of the Book” in Canon and Theology: Overtures to an Old Testament Theology: Overtures to an Old Testament Theology, trans. Margaret Kohl, Overtures to Biblical Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 192. 14 Ezek 12.15; 20.23; 22.15; 36.19. 15 Ezek 29.12; 30.23, 26. 11 Jdg

The Reuse of Ezekiel 20 in the Composition of Ezekiel 36.16–32

125

kiel, though there is also a close match in Psa 44.12: “You give us as a flock for food and have dispersed us among the nations”.16 This is the only time in Ezekiel that this phrase is used of the past – elsewhere it is always looking to the future. 2.4 To profane my holy name – Ezek 36.20, 21, 22, 23a // Ezek 20.3917 As is common with Ezekelian locutions, the phrase “to profane my holy name” is also distinctive of the Holiness Code, notably Leviticus 20.3; 22.2, 32, with similar expressions in Lev 18.21; 19.12; 21.6; Jer 34.16 and particularly Amos 2.7. However, while in Leviticus the locution is used in warnings not to profane Yhwh’s holy name, Ezek 20 and 36 share the claim that Israel has profaned the name. Within the book, the phrase is particularly distinctive of Ezek 20 and 36, though it also features in Ezek 39.7aβ, where Yhwh prophesies against Gog with the promise that he will no longer allow the profanation of his holy name (‫ולא־‬ ‫)אחל את־שם־קדשי עוד‬. Concern for the name in general is common in Ezek 20, yet despite the repeated motif of Yhwh threatening to pour our his wrath, he inevitably changes his mind and acts for the sake of his name, lest his reputation suffer. This quick repetition of the phrase in Ezek 36 – four times in as many verses – may mean one of two things in terms of reuse: this may be what we may informally term an “expansive” use, picking up this distinctive locution and using it over and over again so that the reader is sure to notice the connection. Alternatively, it could be the case that the author of the base oracle in Ezek 36.16–38 used the phrase multiple times, making it a particular feature of that oracle. Other passages, when using the phrase, only need do so once to make the intended connection clear, since it is so firmly associated with the earlier oracle.18 2.5 I will sanctify myself among you in their sight / ​in the sight of the nations – Ezek 36.23bβ // Ezek 20.41 Ezekiel 20.41–42 and 36.23 share the claim that Yhwh will “sanctify himself” or “show himself holy” – using a first person Niphal form of ‫קדש‬, read as reflexive – 16 See also Ezek 6.8: “However, I will leave a remnant to be for you  – the ones who have escaped the sword – among the nations when you are scattered among the lands”. For further discussion of this splitting and recombination in Ezek 20.23, see Michael A. Lyons, From Law to Prophecy: Ezekiel’s Use of the Holiness Code, LHBOTS 507 (New York: T & T Clark, 2009), 84 n. 18, 92, 101, 183; cf. Benjamin D. Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40–66 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998), 68–69 (on the “split-up pattern” in Deutero-Isaiah). 17 Of course, the concept of the profanation of Yhwh’s name is present throughout the chapter, which repeatedly argues that Yhwh has acted in such a way as to avoid or circumvent the profanation of his name in the sight of the nations (Ezek 20.9, 13, 14, 22). Ezek 20.39 is specified here because it is the one time in the chapter that it is made explicit that Israel has profaned the name – “my holy name you will not profane again” (‫)ואת־שם קדשי לא תחללו־עוד‬. 18 For a more detailed discussion of volume of use as a criterion for establishing the direction of dependence, see William A. Tooman, Gog of Magog: Reuse of Scripture and Compositional Technique in Ezekiel 38–39, FAT II/52 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 32–33.

126

Penelope Barter

in the sight of the nations with the purpose of making himself known to Israel and the nations respectively. The phrase occurs eleven times in HB, including six times in Ezekiel: Ezek 20.41; 28.22, 25; 36.23; 38.16; and 39.27.19 All but Ezek 28.22 have Yhwh sanctify himself “in the sight of the nations”; all but Ezek 28.25 say that this is for the purpose of making Yhwh known – a key theme in Ezekiel.20 2.6 I will gather you from (all) the lands – Ezek 36.24 // Ezek 20.34, 41 The expression “to gather from the lands” is another particularly Ezekelian locution, featuring six times in the book, three times in our key texts and notably also in Ezek 39.27, which also includes the aforementioned locution “sanctify myself (through you) in the sight of (many) nations” (‫)נקדשתי בם לעיני הגוים רבים‬. Outside Ezekiel, the phrase can be found in Psa 107.3, and a similar sentiment is expressed slightly differently in Isa 11 and three times in Jeremiah.21 In Ezek 20, where it appears twice, it refers specifically to a gathering from the lands “in which you are scattered”; Ezek 36 is unique in mentioning that the House of Israel will be gathered from all the lands. 2.7 Not good – Ezek 36.31 // Ezek 20.25 The significance and meaning of the claim that “I gave to them statutes that were not good” in Ezek 20.25 has enjoyed a great deal of scholarly attention.22 Since more ink has been spilt than we may paddle through here, suffice it to say that the phrase ‫“( לא טובים‬not good” with a plural referent) occurs only in these two verses in HB,23 though similar expressions can be found in Ezek 18.18 and seventeen more times in HB, most notably in Proverbs (seven times). The fact that 19 Examples of the self-sanctification of Yhwh using reflexive forms of ‫ קדש‬are more common in HB (particularly in Chronicles, where the term appears eleven times), but it is more unusual to combine this with “in the sight of the nations” (‫ )לעיני הגוים‬or an abbreviation thereof. See Tooman, Gog of Magog, 43–44. 20 It is perhaps unsurprising that some slight variants in usage occur in the OAN. 21 Jer 23.3; 31.18; 32.37. 22 For an excellent summary of the history of interpretation of Ezek 20.25–26, see Lyons, From Law to Prophecy, 104–7. 23 It is worthwhile to note that in each case, the meaning of ‫ לא טוב‬is clearly not any kind of moral or philosophical declaration, but rather means “not good for you” – Friebel aptly notes that “the people’s misconstruing of [the laws] resulted in the complete subversion of their intended life-giving effects” (Kelvin G. Friebel, “The Decrees of Yahweh That Are “Not Good”: Ezekiel 20:25–26” in Seeking Out the Wisdom of the Ancients: Essays Offered to Honor Michael V. Fox on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. Ronald L. Troxel, Kelvin G. Friebel, and Dennis R. Magary (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 24). In light of this, it seems very likely that Ezek 20.25 does not pass judgement on the quality of the statutes, but simply comments on what the exilic audience already knows: the statutes given did not benefit the recipients, but resulted in idolatry. I am indebted to Michael Lyons for his personal correspondence on the matter, which led to this reading.

The Reuse of Ezekiel 20 in the Composition of Ezekiel 36.16–32

127

this plural referent is the same in each case – namely, “ways and deeds”24 – makes it hard to ignore the clear linguistic and conceptual connections between Ezek 20.25 and 36.31. 2.8 You will loathe yourselves in your own sight – Ezek 36.31 // Ezek 20.43 The phrase ‫“( ונקטתם בפניכם‬and you will loathe yourselves in your own sight”) only occurs in Ezek 20.43 and 36.31 in HB, though Ezek 6.9bα contains the similar third-person version “they will loathe themselves in their sight for the evils which they have done” (‫)ונקטו בפניהם אל־הרעות אשר עשו‬. The verbal root ‫ קו''ט‬also appears in Job 8.14; 10.1; Psa 95.10; 119.158; and 139.21; but the closest we have to any comparable self-loathing is Job saying he loathes his ‫( נפש‬Job 10.1). Ezek 20.43 and 36.31 both envisage this loathing arising from Israel’s remembrance of its unprofitable ways and deeds, though, as mentioned earlier, the word for “deeds” is 36.31 is not the usual Ezekelian term ‫עלילה‬, but rather the Jeremianic ‫מעלל‬. 2.9 General Observations This leads us neatly to some brief general observations on this reuse. Although most of the specified locutions can be found individually elsewhere in HB, many are particularly distinctive of Ezek 20 and / ​or 36 and no other passage contains all the locutions, giving them significant cumulative weight. Moreover, since both Ezek 20 and 36 discuss the past sin and scattering and future restoration of the House of Israel, they have undeniable contextual congruence, further strengthening the ties between the passages.

3. How does Ezekiel 36.16–23bα Reuse Ezekiel 20? We move now to the analysis of this data and, given our compositional concerns, we will examine the use of Ezek 20 in Ezek 36.16–23bα and in 36.23bβ–32 separately. Our first consideration, then, is how the base layer of the oracle (Ezek 36.16–23bα) reuses Ezek 20. Informally speaking, this oracle serves as a sequel to Ezek 20, incorporating its language to further summarise the transgressions of the House of Israel and the subsequent divine response(s). Ezekiel 20.23 reports that Yhwh promised – or rather, threatened – scattering and dispersion to the second generation in the wilderness; Ezek 36.19 makes explicit that this term referred to the exile, and that the pouring-out has taken place (interestingly, the 24 Though note the difference in Hebrew, with Ezek 36.31a employing ‫ מעלל‬rather than ‫עלילה‬, which is used throughout Ezek 20. See 2.1. Their / ​your ways and deeds – Ezek 36.17, 19 // Ezek 20.43, 44 above for more detail.

128

Penelope Barter

only time in Ezekiel that this phrase is used of the past). Similarly, where Ezek 20 explains a near-comical number of times that Yhwh has acted for the sake of his name, and that the House of Israel will no longer profane the name (thereby implying an earlier continued profanation), Ezek 36.20–23 reminds the reader four times in quick succession that Israel profaned the name among the nations.25 There are, however, two exceptions to this pattern. First, there is some discrepancy regarding the pouring-out of Yhwh’s wrath. In Ezek 20, the outpouring is a threatened non-event throughout history before being re-envisaged in Ezek 20.33–34 as a key part of Yhwh’s future rule: “with a strong hand and an outstretched arm and with wrath poured out, I will reign over you” (‫ביד חזקה ובזרוע‬ ‫ ;נטויה ובחמה שפוכה אמלוך עליכם‬Ezek 20.33).26 Ezek 36, however, does something quite different, re-imagining the pouring-out of wrath as an act associated with the time just before, or simultaneous with, the exile: ‫) בן־אדם בית ישראל ישבים על־אדמתם ויטמאו אותה בדרכם ובעלילותם כטמאת הנדה היתה‬17( ‫  דרכם לפני׃‬ ‫) ואשפך חמתי עליהם על־הדם אשר־שפכו על־הארץ ובגלוליהם טמאוה׃‬18( Son of man, when the House of Israel was living in their land, they defiled it with their ways and with their deeds; like the uncleanness of (menstrual) impurity was their way before me. (18) So I poured out my wrath upon them for the blood which they had shed upon the land, and for their idols [with which] they had defiled it. (17)

Of course, these verses have been further influenced by Ezek 20, and perhaps Ezek 22.4, in the identification of bloodshed and idolatry as the primary transgressions of the House of Israel in the land, interpreting Ezek 36.17’s “uncleanness of (menstrual) impurity” (‫ )טמאת הנדה‬as an indication of bloodshed.27 The second exception is the role of the people’s ways and deeds in their restoration, a discussion of which also occurs in Ezek 14 and 24. Whereas in Ezek 20 Yhwh states he will deal with Israel for the sake of his name and not according to their ways and deeds (20.43–44), in Ezek 36.19 we learn that the House of Israel was judged according to their ways and their deeds. 25 See

Rendtorff, “Ezekiel 20 and 36.16 ff.,” 192. however, that it is likely that only one of the two occurrences of this phrase in Ezek 20.33–34 is original to the base oracle in Ezek 20, since the repeated phrase functions as Wiederaufnahme, encasing the supplementary Ezek 20.34a, which was “inserted to widen the horizon of the original exilic oracle” – see William A. Tooman, “Covenant and Presence in the Composition and Theology of Ezekiel,” in Divine Presence and Absence in Persian Period Judaism, ed. Nathan MacDonald and Izaak J. de Hulster, FAT II/61 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 163. The quotation of Ezek 20.33 above is not intended as an argument for its priority over the same phrase in 20.34, though it is probable that ‫“( שפוכה אמלוך עליכם‬I will reign over you”) is also original, since without this phrase and the addition of 20.34a, it is difficult to procure a sensical reading of Ezek 20.33a. 27 See Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 246; Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 22A (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 728. 26 Note,

The Reuse of Ezekiel 20 in the Composition of Ezekiel 36.16–32

129

There is, however, no insurmountable inconsistency here, since Ezek 36.19 is referring to the judgement in the space between the Israelites leaving “their own land” which they had defiled (Ezek 36.17) and coming to the nations among which they went; while Ezek 20.43–44 is looking to a future time, in which Yhwh will restore the people to the land irrespective of their ways and deeds. It is likely that the author of the supplementary Ezek 20.40–44 saw in 36.17–19 a risk: in asserting so fully that Yhwh formerly acted on a judgement influenced by the House of Israel’s ways and deeds, the book may inadvertently imply that any future action of Yhwh will also be according to the ways and deeds of the people, a notion unacceptable to the latest redactors of Ezekiel.28 Of course, Ezek 36.22 28  Here, I have assumed (a) that Ezek 20.40–44 is a supplement to a base oracle in Ezek 20*, and (b) that the addition of this supplement postdates the composition of Ezek 36.16–23bα. On the first count, it is now widely accepted that the oracles of deliverance are supplementary to the earliest edition(s) of the book, though this view is not unanimous: on the unity of Ezek 20 specifically, see, for example, Allen, Ezekiel, 5; Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel, Chapters 1–24, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 612–613; and, ultimately, Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 22 (New York: Doubleday, 1983), 377–388, though note that he notes that “it must be admitted that there is disjointedness in the oracle that throws doubt on its unity (377). Debate also remains as to whether this supplement includes Ezek 20.39, or is limited to 20.40–44. The primary reason for considering these verses later than the base oracle is that they clearly concern the diaspora communities, widening the view in Ezek 20.40 to a third-person, all-encompassing House of Israel, who will serve not in exile, but in the land: “there all the House of Israel will serve me – all of them – in the land” (‫)שם יעבדני כל־בית ישראל כלה בארץ‬. The emphasis here is on the entirety of the House of Israel – although, as Tooman demonstrates, it is true that “all the House of Israel” (‫ישראל‬ ‫ )כל־בית‬does sometimes indicate the Judahites prior to 587 BCE (Ezek 12.10), the phrase most commonly indicates the entire diaspora (Ezek 5.4; 20.40; 36.10; 37.11, 16; 39.25; 45.6, 17 – see Gog of Magog, 251 n. 132). This pattern of updating texts to expand the horizon beyond the original exilic audience to the diaspora communities is common throughout the book of Ezekiel. For further examples, with detailed discussion, see Tooman, “Covenant and Presence,” 151–179. Similarly, as Zimmerli explains, Ezek 20.40–44 represents “a stage on the way to the concrete expectation of a new temple” (Ezekiel 1, 414), presupposing a post-587 BCE audience. Since Zimmerli accepts Ezek 40.1’s date as genuine, he proffers a terminus ad quem of 573/572 BCE and sees “no compelling ground for denying to the prophet Ezekiel this well-defined, and in part quite unique, oracle” (Ezekiel 1, 414); we, however, may extend the range as far as the end of the neo-Babylonian period. Finally, the literary form of the supplement and the chapter are also telling. As Sedlmeier has observed, Ezek 20.32–38 provides clear parallel to the historical review of Ezek 20.5–26 (he considers 20.27–29 to be secondary also): “Da der Abschnitt 32–38 parallel zum Geschichtsrückblick (v. 5–26) aufgebaut ist, und v. 27–29 sich bereits als späterer Zusatz erwiesen hat, wird man v. 39*.40–44 als sekundär abzutrennen haben” (Franz Sedlmeier, Studien zu Komposition und Theologie von Ezechiel 20, SBB 21 [Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1990], 107). It is the supplement itself that draws Hals’ compositional attention, leading him to suggest that in light of “the extreme brevity within vv. 40–44 in which such crucial matters appear as the new worship – in a new temple? – and the return to the land of Israel, it seems far more likely that we have here an updating of an initial message of judgement in the light of the subsequent message of promise now known more fully from chs. 33–48” (Hals, Ezekiel, 140). Since Ezek 20.39 remains text-critically controversial, and – at least to my eye – bears no clear indicators of a later date in its own right, I am as yet unconvinced of its inclusion in the supplement of Ezek 20.40–44.

130

Penelope Barter

goes some way to refute this in the claim that Yhwh is about to act for the sake of his holy name, rather than for the sake of the people,29 but, as Thomas Krüger has demonstrated, their claims are not entirely synonymous: the opposite of “for my name’s sake” in the two statements quoted is on the one hand “for your sake” (36:22) and on the other hand “according to your evil ways and corrupt deeds” (20:44). In the first instance Yahweh insists that he will not restore Israel because of feeling sympathy towards the people; in the second instance he points out that he will not punish and destroy Israel but restore it.30

To loosely paraphrase the texts, then, in Ezek 36.22 Yhwh states he will not act for the benefit or protection of the people, but rather for the benefit and protection of his oft-profaned name, whatever that act may be – the best clue we have in the original form of the text is the rather vague “I will sanctify my great name” (Ezek 36.23).31 Taken out of context, this leaves open the possibility that Yhwh will, for example, begin again with a new people who will sanctify the name appropriately. On the second count, namely, that the addition of Ezek 20.40–44 postdates the composition of Ezek 36.16–23bα, we may note most importantly that the scanty indication of a coming restoration in Ezek 36.22–23bα shows no awareness of the lengthier and more developed picture in 20.40–44. Although it promises forthcoming action on the part of Yhwh, Ezek 36.22–23bα offers no more than as vague promise of vindication of Yhwh’s name, and the spotlight is on the nations, not Israel. These components are both present in Ezek 20.40–44, but the image is broader and sharper, offering concrete expectations of the servitude of the restored Israel, the possession of the land, and the self-loathing that comes about as a result of restoration (which is later taken up in Ezek 36.31). For further argumentation for the priority of Ezek 36.16–22aβ, see Sedlmeier, Studien, 124–125 (though note that his concern here is the evidence for Ezek 20.39b being considered part of the compositional unit including Ezek 20.40–44, since, he argues, Ezek 20.39b exhibits the influence of Ezek 36.16 ff.). Perhaps a more pressing question is this: what happens to the interpretation of our specific data set if, in fact, Ezek 36.16–23bα knows a version of Ezek 20 which contains all or part of Ezek 20.40–44? As it happens, very little. The main problem arising would be the explanation of the differing accounts of the importance of the “ways and deeds” of the people. If Ezek 20.40–44 predates 36.16–23bα, then we must argue that, despite the insistence Ezek 20.44 that the “evil ways and corrupt deeds” of the people will not impact the inevitability of the restoration. Note, importantly, that some German-language scholarship offers an alternative relative dating of Ezek 20 and 36. See, for example, Thomas Krüger, who argues that, despite the appearance of the development of the argument from Ezek 20 to 36 in the received form of the book, it is by no means clear that this corresponds to the composition of the texts – “rather, Ezek 36.16 ff. appears, in its basic components, to represent an earlier stage of conceptual development of the restoration prophecy of Ezekiel than ch. 20” (“Vielmehr scheint Ez 36,16 ff in seinem Grundbestand ein früheres Stadium der konzeptionellen Entwicklung der Restitutionsprophezeiung Ezechiels zu repräsentieren als Kap. 20”; Geschichtskonzepte im Ezechielbuch, BZAW 180 [Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989], 442, but see 441–449). See also Klein, Schriftauslegung, 382. 29 See Thomas Krüger, “Transformation of History in Ezekiel 20” in Transforming Visions: Transformations of Text, Tradition, and Theology in Ezekiel, ed. William A. Tooman and Michael A. Lyons, PTMS 127 (Eugene: Pickwick, 2010), 170. 30 Krüger, “Transformation of History,” 179. 31 Speaking conceptually, rather than textually, this seems to work in a similar way to the protection of the land in Lev 26 – Yhwh is prepared to do whatever he must to the people in order to protect the element associated with his identity (Lev 26: land; Ezek 20, 36: name).

The Reuse of Ezekiel 20 in the Composition of Ezekiel 36.16–32

131

Ezek 20.43–44, however, explains that the people will be restored in spite of their ways and deeds, albeit for the benefit and protection of the name. This debated connection between the exiles’ actions and Yhwh’s restoration is perhaps the key to understanding the relationship between the base layers of Ezek 20 and 36, as well as the dialogic nature of the supplementation which followed.32 It is vital for the author of Ezek 20.40–44 to make clear to the reader that restoration is Yhwh’s choice, not obligation, and that the people’s recognition of their faulty ways and deeds comes about as the result of the restoration and not as a precursor to it.33

4. How does Ezekiel 36.23bβ–32 Reuse Ezekiel 20? Turning to the reuse of Ezek 20 in the major supplement to Ezek 36,34 we can observe that the author of Ezek 36.23bβ–32 frames their insertion with two clusters of locutions borrowed from Ezek 20. The supplement’s very first locution is shared with Ezek 20.41: “when I sanctify myself among you in their [the nations’] sight” (‫)בהקדשי בכם לעיניהם‬. However, while Ezek 20.42 has this sanctification lead to the House of Israel’s renewed knowledge of Yhwh, Ezek 36.23bβ–24 inverts and supplements the borrowed locution to provide a double emphasis on the nations’ knowledge of Yhwh: ‫בהוציאי אתכם מן־העמים וקבצתי אתכם מן־הארצות אשר נפצתם בם ונקדשתי בכם לעיני הגוים׃‬ … when I bring you out from the peoples and I gather you from the lands in which you have been scattered, and I will sanctify myself among you in the sight of the nations (Ezek 20.41) 32 I do not, however, propose that this interaction between the texts is the sole (or primary) prompt for the addition of Ezek 36.23bβ–32  – rather, in its adoption of the new heart / ​new spirit motif in particular, this relatively small text strengthened connections across the book and highlighted the restoration-focused vision of Ezek 37.1–14. See Tooman, “Covenant and Presence,” 157–58. 33 See also Ezek 6.9; 16.61, 63. For more on the role of the people and their repentance in Ezekiel’s view of the restoration, see Baruch Schwartz, “Ezekiel’s Dim View of Israel’s Restoration,” in The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives, ed. Margaret S. Odell and John T. Strong, SBLSymS 9 (Atlanta: SBL, 2000), 43–67; Andrew Mein, Ezekiel and the Ethics of Exile, OTM (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 239–240; Paul Joyce, Divine Initiative and Human Response in Ezekiel, JSOTSup 51 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), 89–105; ibid, “Ezekiel and Moral Transformation,” in Transforming Visions: Transformations of Text, Tradition, and Theology in Ezekiel, ed. William A. Tooman and Michael A. Lyons, PTMS 127 (Eugene: Pickwick, 2010), 148–150 (and the subsequent critiques of Joyce’s position in Jacqueline Lapsley, Can these Bones Live? The Problem of the Moral Self in the Book of Ezekiel, BZAW 301 [Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000], 28–31; and Casey Strine, “The Role of Repentance in the Book of Ezekiel: A Second Chance for the Second Generation,” JTS 63/2 [2012]: 467–91). 34 I use the term “major supplement” here in deference to those who view Ezek 36.33–36, 37–38 as further supplementation to 36.23bβ–32 – see note 2 above.

132

Penelope Barter

‫ ולקחתי אתכם מן־הגוים וקבצתי אתכם מכל־הארצות והבאתי אתכם‬24 ‫בהקדשי בכם לעיניהם׃‬ ‫אל־אדמתכם׃‬ … when I sanctify myself among you in their sight. 24 For I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the lands and bring you to your land (Ezek 36.23bβ–24)

This supplementation of this locution may have been influenced by Ezek 20.34a (“I will bring you out from the peoples and gather you from the lands in which you are scattered”), exchanging “peoples” (‫ )עמים‬for the more useful “nations” (‫)גוים‬. The end of this literary (and perhaps compositional) unit returns to a focus on Ezek 20 – and on the nature of the people – in describing how, after receiving a new heart and spirit and being restored to the land, they will remember their “deeds that were not good” and “will loathe [themselves] in [their] own sight” (Ezek 36.31). The purpose of this reuse is twofold. First, as the sheer amount of scholarship on the matter has demonstrated, the claim in Ezek 20.25 that Yhwh gave statutes that were “not good” (‫ )לא טוב‬has proven rather theologically problematic for some.35 By inserting this relatively rare phrase from Ezek 20.25 into the longer locution from 20.43 (replacing “with which you defiled yourselves”) to describe the actions of Israel, rather than Yhwh, the author of Ezek 36.23bβ–32 has solved the problem by demonstrating that the statutes can be described as “not good” because they led to “not good” deeds on the part of Israel, rather than carrying an ontologically “not good” status of their own. Second, the reuse of Ezek 20.43 in this new context fills a perceived lacuna in the presentation of the people’s restoration in Ezek 20. The implication in Ezek 20.40–44 is that being presented with that which they do not deserve is, or will be, sufficient to shock the people into both knowledge of Yhwh and realisation of their sin. As we know, for the author of Ezek 36.23bβ–32, this realisation necessitates a fundamental moral change in the people, brought about by the insertion of a new heart and new spirit, which is absent from the shorter, younger, and understandably less nuanced deliverance oracle of Ezek 20.40–44. As we have already seen, this focused reuse neatly frames the literary unit, but also impacts on the compositional question of whether the subsidiary literary units Ezek 36.33–36, 37–38 are tertiary additions to the base oracle. It is significant that this new compositional unit begins with a clear and relatively lengthy shared locution, since it marks a trend towards reusing material from Ezek 20.40–44 especially and specifically.36 Indeed, if one author is responsible 35 See

note 23 above. good example of this is the locution “you will loathe yourselves to your faces” – this is only found in these two chapters and Ezek 6.9. Note, however, that Ezek 6.9 is not only textually disrupted (see Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 180) but also most likely a later interpolation (so Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 185; John W. Wevers, Ezekiel, NCBC [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982], 68). 36 A

The Reuse of Ezekiel 20 in the Composition of Ezekiel 36.16–32

133

for all of Ezek 36.23bβ–38 (rather than to v. 32), we must also be able to account for the reuse of Ezek 20 ending at Ezek 36.32.37 The most probable reason for this focus on Ezek 20.40–44 is a perceived gap in the use of Ezek 20 in the earliest layer of the oracle in Ezek 36.16–23bα. My suspicion is that the author(s) of Ezek 36.23bβff. saw that Ezek 20 (to use the labels anachronistically) was being used in the earlier Ezek 36* oracle and continued and developed this using Ezek 20.40–44, since the theme of restoration using key Ezekelian terminology was particularly useful for their purposes. The earliest layer of what is now Ezek 36.16–38 shares Ezek 20’s focus on Israel’s past transgressions, with only a brief nod to the events about to take place. As noted above, before the inclusion of Ezek 36.23bβ–32 (or 38), the description of the coming restoration is quite sparse: ‫ לכן אמר לבית־ישראל כה אמר אדני יי לא למענכם אני עשה בית ישראל כי אם־לשם־קדשי‬22 ‫ וקדשתי את־שמי הגדול המחלל בגוים אשר חללתם‬23 ‫אשר חללתם בגוים אשר־באתם שם׃‬ ‫בתוכם וידעו הגוים כי־אני יי נאם אדני יי‬ Therefore say to the House of Israel, “Thus says Adonai Yhwh, ‘It is not for your sake that I am acting, House of Israel, but for my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations in which you went.38 23 I will sanctify my great name which has been profaned among the nations, which you have profaned in their midst.’ Then the nations will know that I am Yhwh!” – utterance of Adonai Yhwh. (Ezek 36.22–23bβ) 22

The expansion of this view of restoration transforms it from an abrupt and vague prophecy of Yhwh’s forthcoming action into extravagant promises to Israel. Given that Ezek 20.40–44 serve a remarkably similar purpose in transforming the base oracle in Ezek 20, it is perhaps unsurprising that our supplementing author should look to these verses for inspiration. It is also interesting to consider whether the author of Ezek 36.23bβ and following was aware that Ezek 20.40–44 was an addition to Ezek 20 (to use the terms somewhat inappropriately). If the author of Ezek 36.23bβ–32 (or 38) was aware that Ezek 20.40–44 was secondary to its context, we might ask – simply as playful speculation – whether this reuse may have had a secondary purpose of better integrating Ezek 20.40–44 into the book as a whole. Whether intended or not, this is certainly the effect. It is true that the restoration twist on the base oracle in Ezek 20 is not horrifically disjunctive in the received book, and it has connections with texts across Ezekiel, but there certainly was a time at which it was radically transformative. 37 This can, of course, be done quite easily since the literary unit ends at Ezek 36.32, but the hypothesis has fascinating implications, since it would demonstrate, almost without question, that the supplementing author understands how the literary structure is functioning across more or less the entire book. Given the late date of the major supplement, this is by no means impossible. 38 Hebrew ‫“( שם‬there”) not clearly present in translation – full phrase reads ‫אשר־באתם שם‬ (lit. “in which you went there”).

134

Penelope Barter

5. Conclusions For the most part, Ezek 20 presents an ordered history of Israel, with a focus on the repetition of particular transgressions throughout the generations  – most notably, idolatry and profanation of the name and the Sabbath.39 Despite these incessant failings, Yhwh does not carry out his repeated threats  – yet!  – but acts for the sake of his name, an ideal which is carried through into visions of Israel’s future, in which Yhwh will explicitly not act for the benefit of the people, even though the restoration will ostensibly be of benefit to them. When Ezek 36.16–23bα returns the reader to the language employed to describe this history, it appears to do so largely to corroborate past events, though the locutions are not always used entirely consistently between the two texts. This process is complicated, however, by the supplementary salvation oracle in Ezek 20.40–44, which takes care to explain that, despite what Ezek 36.19 claims has happened in the past, Yhwh’s future action will not be dictated or defined by the people’s actions. The concepts in Ezek 20 evolve further still in Ezek 36.23bβ–32, where the author uses material from Ezek 20 to frame the literary (and perhaps compositional) unit. The choice of material betrays a special interest in Ezek 20.40–44, filling in and filling out the promise of restoration in both Ezek 20 and Ezek 36, which in turn gives additional emphasis to what was originally quite a meagre message of salvation in Ezek 20. In sum, the author of Ezek 36.23bβ–32 continued the tradition started in 36.16–23bα of reusing locutions from Ezek 20, creating one of Ezekiel’s most developed salvation oracles. Even aside from the benefits of investigating the patterns of reuse in individual compositional units in Ezek 36, this brief study has demonstrated the enduring importance of Ezek 20 as the various authors and redactors of Ezekiel pieced together the past, present, and future of the House of Israel.

Bibliography Allen, Leslie C. Ezekiel 20–48. Word Biblical Commentary 29. Dallas: Word, 1990. Ben-Porat, Ziva. “The Poetics of Literary Allusion.” PTL: A Journal for Descriptive Poetics and Theory of Literature 1 (1976): 105–128. Block, Daniel I. The Book of Ezekiel, Chapters 1–24. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. 39 Note that Sabbath is sometimes considered a redactional concern: see G. A. Cooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel, ICC (Edinburgh, T & T Clark, 1936), 217; and especially Walther Eichrodt, “Der Sabbat bei Hesekiel: Ein Beitrag zur Nachgeschichte des Prophetentextes” in Lex Tua Veritas: Festschrift für Hubert Junker, ed. H. Gross and F. Mussner, (Trier: Paulinus Verlag, 1961), 65–74. For arguments for the originality of Sabbath to Ezek 20, see Sedlmeier, Studien, 126–136.

The Reuse of Ezekiel 20 in the Composition of Ezekiel 36.16–32

135

Cooke G. A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1936. Crane, Ashley S. Israel’s Restoration: A Textual-Comparative Exploration of Ezekiel 36–39. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 122. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Eichrodt, Walther. “Der Sabbat bei Hesekiel: Ein Beitrag zur Nachgeschichte des Prophetentextes.” In Lex Tua Veritas: Festschrift für Hubert Junker, edited by H. Gross and F. Mussner, 65–74. Trier: Paulinus Verlag, 1961. Friebel, Kelvin G. “The Decrees of Yahweh That Are “Not Good”: Ezekiel 20:25–26.” In Seeking Out the Wisdom of the Ancients: Essays Offered to Honor Michael V. Fox on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, edited by Ronald L. Troxel, Kelvin G. Friebel, and Dennis R. Magary, 21–36. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2005. Greenberg, Moshe. Ezekiel 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 22A. New York: Doubleday, 1997. –. Ezekiel 21–37: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 22. New York: Doubleday, 1983. Hals, Ronald M. Ezekiel. The Forms of the Old Testament Literature 19. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989. Joyce, Paul M. Divine Initiative and Human Response in Ezekiel. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 51. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989. –. Ezekiel: A Commentary. Library of Hebrew Bible / ​Old Testament Studies 482. New York: T & T Clark, 2007. Joyce, Paul M. “Ezekiel and Moral Transformation.” In Transforming Visions: Transformations of Text, Tradition, and Theology in Ezekiel, edited by William A. Tooman and Michael A. Lyons, 139–158. Princeton Theological Monographs Series 127. Eugene: Pickwick, 2010. Klein, Anja. “Prophecy Continued: Reflections on Innerbiblical Exegesis in the Book of Ezekiel.” Vetus Testamentum 60 (2010): 571–582. Klein, Anja. Schriftauslegung im Ezechielbuch: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Ez 34–39. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 391. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008. Krüger, Thomas. Geschichtskonzepte im Ezechielbuch. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 180. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989. –. “Transformation of History in Ezekiel 20.” In Transforming Visions: Transformations of Text, Tradition, and Theology in Ezekiel, edited by William A. Tooman and Michael A. Lyons, 159–186. Princeton Theological Monograph Series 127. Eugene: Pickwick, 2010. Lapsley, Jacqueline. Can these Bones Live? The Problem of the Moral Self in the Book of Ezekiel. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 301. Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 2000. Lilly, Ingrid E. Two Books of Ezekiel: Papyrus 967 and the Masoretic Text as Variant Literary Editions. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 150. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Lust, Johan. “Ezekiel 36–40 in the Oldest Greek Manuscript.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 43/4 (1981): 517–533. –. “Ezekiel Manuscripts at Qumran: Preliminary Evidence of 4Q Ez a and b.” In Ezekiel and His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and Their Relationship, edited by J. Lust, 90–100. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 74. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996.

136

Penelope Barter

–. “Major Divergences between LXX and MT in Ezekiel.” In The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible: The Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered, edited by Adrian Schenker, 83–92. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 52. Atlanta: SBL, 2003. Lyons, Michael A. From Law to Prophecy: Ezekiel’s Use of the Holiness Code. Library of Hebrew Bible / ​Old Testament Studies 507. New York: T & T Clark, 2009. Mayfield, Tyler D. Literary Structure and Setting in Ezekiel. Forschungen zum Alten Testament II/43. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Mein, Andrew. Ezekiel and the Ethics of Exile. Oxford Theological Monographs. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Patmore, Hector M. Adam, Satan, and the King of Tyre: The Interpretation of Ezekiel 28:11–19 in Late Antiquity. Jewish and Christian Perspectives 20. Leiden: Brill, 2012. –. “The Shorter and Longer Texts of Ezekiel: The Implications of the Manuscript Finds from Masada and Qumran.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 32/2 (2007): 231–242. Pohlmann, Karl-Friedrich. Ezechielstudien: Zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Buches und zur Frage nach den ältesten Texten. Beiheifte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 180. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992. Rendtorff, Rolf. “Ezekiel 20 and 36.16 ff. in the Framework of the Composition of the Book.” In Canon and Theology: Overtures to an Old Testament Theology, 190–195. Translated by Margaret Kohl. Overtures to Biblical Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Originally published as “Ez 20 und 36,16 ff im Rahmen der Komposition des Buches Ezechiel” in Kanon und Theologie. Vorarbeiten zu einer Theologie des Alten Testaments (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1991), 180–184. Schwartz, Baruch. “Ezekiel’s Dim View of Israel’s Restoration.” In The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives, edited by Margaret S. Odell and John T. Strong, 43–67. SBL Symposium Series 9. Atlanta: SBL, 2000 Sedlmeier, Franz. Studien zu Komposition und Theologie von Ezechiel 20. Stuttgarter Biblische Beiträge 21. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1990. Sommer, Benjamin D. A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40–66. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998. Strine, C. A. “The Role of Repentance in the Book of Ezekiel: A Second Chance for the Second Generation.” Journal of Theological Studies 63/2 (2012): 467–91. Talmon, Shemaryahu. “Fragments of an Ezekiel scroll from Masada 1043–2220 (Ezekiel 35:11–38:14)” [in Hebrew]. In Tehillah le-Moshe: Biblical and Judiac Studies in Honor of Moshe Greenberg, edited by Mordechai Cogan, Barry L. Eichler, and Jeffrey H. Tigay, 53–70. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1997. Tigchelaar, Eibert. “Notes on the Ezekiel Scroll from Masada (MasEzek).” Revue de Qumrân 52 (2005): 269–275. Tooman, William A. “Covenant and Presence in the Composition and Theology of Ezekiel.” In Divine Presence and Absence in Persian Period Judaism, edited by Nathan MacDonald and Izaak J. de Hulster, 151–182. Forschungen zum Alten Testament II/61. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. –. Gog of Magog: Reuse of Scripture and Compositional Technique in Ezekiel 38–39. Forschungen zum Alten Testament II/52. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Tov, Emanuel. “Recensional Differences between the Masoretic Text and Septuagint of Ezekiel.” Ephemerides Theologicae Louvanienses 62 (1986): 89–101.

The Reuse of Ezekiel 20 in the Composition of Ezekiel 36.16–32

137

Wevers, John W. Ezekiel. New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982. Zimmerli, Walter. Ezekiel 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel Chapters 1–24. Hermeneia. Translated by Ronald E. Clements. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979. Originally published as Ezechiel 1, I. Teilband. Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament XIII/1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969. –. Ezekiel 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel Chapters 25–48. Hermeneia. Translated by James D. Martin. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983. Originally published as Ezechiel 2, II. Teilband. Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament XIII/2. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969.

Extension and Allusion: The Composition of Ezekiel 34 Michael A. Lyons

1. Introduction Ezekiel 34 shares locutions with Leviticus 26, the final section of the so-called “Holiness Code” (H). The frequency, distribution, and use of these locutions (which are a subset of a larger number of shared locutions between Ezekiel and H) indicate that this is not a case of coincidence, but of literary dependence. But what is the direction of literary dependence? Some have argued that Lev 26 is part of a late post-exilic redactional layer in the Pentateuch and that it is borrowing these shared locutions from Ezekiel.1 For example, it has been claimed that “the literary relationship between Lev 26 and Ezekiel makes more sense if the author of H has the various oracles in Ezekiel before his eyes; the contrary assumption that the prophet (or his disciples) would have scattered their source throughout the book … is difficult to admit.”2 It seems to me, however, that this would be

1 Those who argue for the priority of Ezek 34 for Lev 26 include Reinhard Müller, “A Prophetic View of the Exile in the Holiness Code: Literary Growth and Tradition History in Leviticus 26,” in The Concept of Exile in Ancient Israel and its Historical Context, BZAW 404, ed. Ehud Ben Zvi and Christoph Levin, 207–28 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010), 208–10; Christophe Nihan, From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch. A Study in the Composition of the Book of Leviticus, FAT 2/25 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 543–45; idem, “The Holiness Code between D and P: Some Comments on the Function and Significance of Leviticus 17–26 in the Composition of the Torah,” in Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und Deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk, FRLANT 206, ed. Eckart Otto and Reinhard Achenbach, 81–122 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), 109–11; Eckart Otto, “Innerbiblische Exegese im Heiligkeitsgesetz Levitikus 17–26,” in Levitikus als Buch, BBB 119, ed. Heinz-Josef Fabry and Hans-Winfried Jüngling, 125–96 (Berlin: Philo, 1999), 180–82; Klaus Grünwaldt, Das Heiligkeitsgesetz Leviticus 17–26: Ursprüngliche Gestalt, Tradition und Theologie, BZAW 271 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999), 349–51, 365–66; Christoph Levin, Die Verheißung des neuen Bundes in ihrem theologiegeschichtlichem Zusammenhang ausgelegt, FRLANT 137 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985), 222–28. See also Bruno Baentsch, Das Heiligkeits-Gesetz Lev. XVII–XXVI: Eine historisch-kritische Untersuchung (Erfurt: Hugo Güther, 1893), 120–28; Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel, trans. J. Sutherland Black and Allan Menzies (Edinburgh: A. & C. Black, 1885; repr. New York: Meridian Books, 1957), 379–84. 2 Nihan, Priestly Torah, 543.

Extension and Allusion

139

no more difficult to admit than to claim that the author of John’s Apocalypse has scattered references to Ezekiel throughout his book.3 Nevertheless, it is a legitimate question to ask why, if in fact Ezekiel is using H, locutions from Lev 26 are “scattered throughout Ezekiel.” Furthermore, there are locutions from elsewhere in the book of Ezekiel and from other prophetic literature present in Ezek 34 that must also be accounted for. In this essay I will argue that Ezek 34 is the borrowing text, not the source text; and that the author is not merely “scattering references,” but is referencing other texts in accordance with a consistent literary strategy of extension, modification and coordination.4 However one dates Lev 26, one cannot simply assume that Ezek 34 is earlier, for as Anja Klein has recently argued, Ezek 34 has its own complex compositional history.5

2. The Contents of Ezekiel 34 The contents and compositional history of Ezek 34 can be outlined as follows: it contains two oracles, each introduced with the messenger formula (vv. 2 and 17). The first oracle (Ezek 34.2–10) is directed against the “shepherds of Israel,” who have been harming the flock. The second oracle (Ezek 34.17–22) is directed against the strong rams and goats, who have been harming the weak members of the flock; this oracle is marked by the repetition of the verb ‫“ שפט‬judge” (vv. 17, 20, 22). The problems addressed in these denunciations are resolved in each case by a description of the action that God will take to remedy the situation. The first 3 See Beate Kowalski, Die Rezeption des Propheten Ezechiel in der Offenbarung des Johannes, SBB 52 (Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2004). 4 Those who argue for the priority of Lev 26 for Ezek 34 include Michael A. Lyons, From Law to Prophecy: Ezekiel’s Use of the Holiness Code, LHBOTS 507 (New York: T&T Clark, 2009), 61–67, 124–27; Anja Klein, Schriftauslegung im Ezechielbuch: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Ez 34–39, BZAW 391 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008), 185–89, 346–47; Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, AB 3B (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 2348–52; Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel, Chapters 25–48, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 276, 303–306; Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 22A (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 705, 707; Leslie Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, WBC (Dallas: Word, 1990), 163; Ronald M. Hals, Ezekiel, FOTL 19 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 252–53; Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, trans. James D. Martin; Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 220; Frank-Lothar Hossfeld, Untersuchungen zu Komposition und Theologie des Ezechielbuches (Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1977), 274–76, 283; G. A. Cooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1936), 378–79; A. Klostermann, “Ezechiel und das Heiligkeitsgesetz,” in Der Pentateuch: Beiträge zu seinem Verständnis und seiner Entstehungsgeschichte, 368–418 (Leipzig: G. Böhme, 1893), 400. 5 Klein identifies five literary layers in Ezek 34 (Schriftauslegung, 67–77), as well as a number of smaller additions (pp. 38, 56). These five layers are part of a more comprehensive eight layers of redactional activity she isolates in Ezek 34–39 (pp. 350–73, 409). While my stratification of these chapters differs from Klein’s in several respects, her careful and insightful work was invaluable for clarifying my ideas on Ezek 34.

140

Michael A. Lyons

oracle clearly comprises the basic layer of material in this chapter.6 But what is the origin of this oracle? On the one hand, it is difficult to accept Klein’s suggestion that vv. 1–10 are a post-exilic addition to the book critiquing Israel’s Persian overlords.7 The text argues that Israel was “scattered” (‫פוץ‬, vv. 5, 6) because the shepherds failed to do their duty, and if this “scattering” is a metaphorical reference to exile (cf. Ezek 11.16–17; 12.15; 20.23; etc.), then one could hardly accuse Persian rulers for failing to prevent this. Pohlmann’s suggestion that these are post-exilic Israelite leaders faces the same problem.8 On the other hand, Klein is quite correct to point out the difficulties involved in taking these verses as a pre-587 oral proclamation against the political and religious elites of Jerusalem. The current location of vv. 1–10 seems incongruous, placed as they are after the report of the city’s destruction in ch. 33.9 And the destruction of Jerusalem’s elites in 587 BCE is not really an appropriate fit for YHWH’s claim that he will “demand my sheep from their hand” (Ezek 34.10). A possible solution to these difficulties would be to understand vv. 1–10 as a purely literary oracle composed for the book, rather than as an oral oracle that had been textualized or as a later redactional insertion to the book. These verses are addressing a group that does not exist in the present in order to deal with the current effects of poor leadership in the past, and to claim that YHWH will provide an alternative to such leadership.10 This oracle has been placed here to solve a problem that has been raised earlier (cf. accusations of bad leaders in Ezek 8.11–12; 11.1–3; 13.1–7; 17.1–21; 21.30–31; 22.6, 25–28), but has not yet been given a solution. The somewhat artificial feel of this oracle in its current context may also be due to the fact that it is a reworking of the oracle against the bad shepherds in Jer 23.1–2.11 It is unclear whether the second oracle (vv. 17–22) originated from the prophet Ezekiel, or whether it is a redactional extension of vv. 2–10.12 Whatever the case, Zech 10.2–3 provides a terminus ad quem for the combination of Ezek 34.2–10,   6 Klein,

Schriftauslegung, 38.

  7 Klein, Schriftauslegung, 40–42; “Prophecy Continued: Reflections on Innerbiblical Exege-

sis in the Book of Ezekiel,” VT 60 (2010): 571–82, pp. 575–76.   8 K.-F. Pohlmann, Das Buch des Propheten Hesekiel (Ezechiel) Kapitel 20–48, ATD 22/2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 464.   9 Klein, “Prophecy Continued,” 576: “bad shepherds can hardly be threatened with a judgement that has already taken place.” 10 See Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 216. 11 See Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 275–76. For a recent discussion of the shared locutions and relationship between Jeremiah and Ezekiel, see Dalit Rom-Shiloni, “Ezekiel and Jeremiah: What Might Stand Behind the Silence?,” HEBAI 2.1 (2012): 203–30. 12 Zimmerli (Ezekiel 2, 222) and Allen (Ezekiel 20–48, 159) treat both vv. 2–10 and 17–22 as oracles of the prophet himself; Klein (Schriftauslegung, 57–58, 77, 366) and Greenberg (Ezekiel 21–37, 707) treat vv. 17–22 as a later Fortschreibung built off of the flock image (though for Klein even vv. 2–10 are redactional). Klein (p. 77) points out the lack of connections between vv. 17–22 and other texts in Ezek 35–39 and suggests that this implies that vv. 17–22 are the latest redactional layer. However, vv. 11–16 may depend on vv. 17–22 as well as on vv. 2–10; note the use of ‫“ הנני אני‬Here I am!” (v. 11, from v. 20; attested only in Ezekiel, and with a following perfect

Extension and Allusion

141

17–22.13 Zech 10.2–3 takes vocabulary from Ezekiel (‫“ עתודים‬goats,” Ezek 34.17 // Zech 10.3; ‫“ רעים‬shepherds,” Ezek 34.2 ff // Zech 10.3; cf. ‫“ אין רעה‬lack of a shepherd,” Ezek 34.8 // Zech 10.2; ‫“ צאן‬flock,” Ezek 34.2, 17, etc. // Zech 10.2; see also the reference to Ezek 34.4 in Zech 11.16) and brings it into the alreadyexisting “flock” metaphor (cf. Zech 9.16; 11.3 ff). The reference to “goats” in Zech 10.3 is awkward in context, and makes sense only as a reference to Ezek 34.14 The remainder of the material in Ezek 34 consists of three units (vv. 11–16, 23–24, 25–31) which are literary developments (Fortschreibungen) of the basic layer. These do not stand on their own but presume the basic layer. The numerous repetitions, differences in outlook, and extension of ideas in these units point to a process of literary development.15 Of course, there are different ways to explain this literary process: some would attribute most (if not all) of the material in ch. 34 to the prophet Ezekiel,16 while others would see a series of redactional expansions that build on a (possibly Ezekielian) core.17 In this essay, I want to explore the possibility of a model that includes redactional expansion. In the first oracle (Ezek 34.1–10), the problem raised in vv. 2–6 (the shepherds have eaten and neglected the flock) is apparently solved in vv. 7–10: the shepherds will be removed from their position, and God will deliver his sheep from them. But the first redactional unit (vv. 11–16, which are introduced with a new messenger formula) develops vv. 2–10 by focusing on two issues that have not been addressed: the fact that the flock has been “scattered” (v. 6), and the question of who is to be their shepherd now that the previous shepherds have been removed. According to vv. 11–16, God himself will seek out the “scattered” (v. 12) sheep, and he will be their shepherd. These verses repeat the wording of the earlier oracle: v. 4 is repeated almost in entirety in v. 16; “scattered” (‫ )פוץ‬from vv. 5–6 is repeated in v. 12; “seek” (‫ )דרשתי‬and “deliver” (‫ )הצלתי‬from v. 10 are repeated in vv. 11–12, “search” (‫ )בקשתי‬from v. 6 is repeated in v. 16, and “feed the flock” from vv. 2, 3 is repeated in vv. 13–15. Finally, the scope of the redacverb form only in these two places), and ‫“ מרעה טוב‬good pasture” (v. 14, from v. 18; redundant, since ‫“ מרעה שמן‬lush pasture” is already in v. 14). 13 See Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 709. 14 David Petersen also argues for a connection to Ezekiel, but suggests that Zech 10.3a is a later expansion based on the shift from the singular “shepherd” in v. 2 to the plural “shepherds” in v. 3; see Petersen, Zechariah 9–14 and Malachi, OTL (Louisville: WJKP, 1995), 73. However, if one removes v. 3a, the following material in v. 3b is not a plausible continuation of v. 2. It seems better to understand v. 3a not as a later interpolation, but as an authorial reference to Ezekiel that creates a lack of cohesion in context. 15 Klein, Schriftauslegung, 32. 16 So e. g. Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 270–71, 273–75; Paul M. Joyce, Ezekiel: A Commentary, LHBOTS 482 (New York: T&T Clark, 2009), 195–98. 17 So e. g. Cooke, Ezekiel, 373 and Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 707 (who see vv. 17–31 as a later addition); Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 158–61 (who sees vv. 23–24, 25–30, 31 as later additions). Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 212–13, 220, 222, suggests that Ezekiel the prophet is both the source and the editor of the units in vv. 1–24, with vv. 25–30, 31 deriving from Ezekiel’s disciples.

142

Michael A. Lyons

tional unit vv. 11–16 addresses concerns of the wider diaspora, not just the exiles in Babylon: the wording “seek my flock from their hand … and deliver my flock from their mouth” in v. 10 has been widened to “seek … and deliver them from all the places where they were scattered” in vv. 11–12.18 Moreover, this statement is temporally situated by means of the last clause in v. 12, “on a day of cloud and thick darkness” (‫)ביום ענן וערפל‬. This unexpectedly ominous language (borrowed from Zeph 1.15) situates the deliverance of Ezek 34.11–16 after a judgment that is global in scope (cf. Zeph 1.18; note also how this locution is used in Joel 2.2).19 The second redactional unit is vv. 23–24, which is clearly set off from the preceding unit (vv. 17–22) by the inclusio “I will judge between one sheep and another” in vv. 17 and 22. Verses 23–24 develop the earlier claim of vv. 11–16 that God would act as the shepherd by stating that God will appoint David as the “shepherd” (v. 23, from v. 12) to “feed” (v. 23, from vv. 13–15) the flock. The comment that God will appoint “one shepherd” (v. 23) – a thought that remains unexplained and undeveloped in this chapter – is an indication that vv. 23–24 do not flow out of the preceding context, but are a later addition to it.20 And the 3mp reference in v. 23 (“I will raise up over them”) lacks an antecedent in vv. 17–22, indicating that it was placed here with reference to another text-segment. The clear connection between vv. 23–24 and Ezek 37.24–25 suggests that vv. 23–24 were intended to coordinate the restoration described in ch. 34 with the restoration described in ch. 37, and perhaps also with material in Jer 23.4–5 (though these verses are also compositionally complex).21 The third redactional unit is vv. 25–30(31).22 How is the function of this unit in context to be explained? As Zimmerli notes, the “flock” imagery has almost 18 This widening of the scope of restoration can be seen elsewhere in the book; compare e. g. Ezek 11.14–21 (which promises restoration for Ezekiel’s community) with e. g. Ezek 20.40 (“the entire house of Israel, all of it”); 39.25 (“the whole house of Israel”); note the plus in MT Ezek 39.28 (“I will not leave any of them behind there”). On the distinction between a “gola-oriented redaction” and a later “diaspora-oriented redaction” in the book, see K.-F. Pohlmann, Das Buch des Propheten Hesekiel (Ezechiel) Kapitel 1–19, ATD 22/1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 27–32; though see also the concerns of Rainer Albertz, Israel in Exile: The History and Literature of the Sixth Century, trans. David Green (Atlanta: SBL, 2003), 349–50. 19 Zimmerli (Ezekiel 2, 216) on the one hand fails to account for the scope of the judgment envisioned here. Klein (Schriftauslegung, 34) on the other hand takes v. 12 as an interpolation in the redactional layer vv. 11–16 because of the “Day of YHWH” reference. But it seems to me that v. 12 is not foreign to the outlook of vv. 11–16, and should be located within this layer. 20 Cf. Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 702 (“the idea is elaborated in 37.15–22, 24 and is out of context here”). 21 The two passages share the phrases “one shepherd” and “my servant David” (Ezek 34.23; 37.24), and the description of David as “prince” (34.24; 37.25; though in 37.24 he is called “king”). For Klein’s reconstruction of these passages, including their relationship with Jer 23, see Schriftauslegung, 362–64. 22 Most take v. 31 as a separate redactional note; cf. Klein, Schriftauslegung, 37–38, 58–59; Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 159; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 221–22. It is possible that it could be included with vv. 25–30 as an attempt to coordinate these verses with the preceding units, restating the

Extension and Allusion

143

entirely vanished in vv. 25 ff.23 While it is possible that these verses were an independent oracle of the prophet, there are good reasons for understanding them as a redactional extension of the previous material and as another attempt to coordinate ch. 34 with other passages.24 First, we do in fact see the repetition of the words “rescue” (v. 27, from vv. 10) and “prey” (v. 28, from vv. 8, 22). Here, however, the referent of the word “prey” is extended to describe an external foreign threat, not simply an internal one as in the verses above. Second, the description of security and fertility in vv. 25–30 presumes and builds upon the return to the land described in v. 13. Third, the sudden use of covenant terminology signals a shift in topic. The phrase “covenant of peace” (v. 25) and the covenant formula (v. 30) align the description of restoration with the argument of Ezek 37.26, 27.25 The phrase “disgrace of the nations” (v. 29) picks up the argument of Ezek 36.6, 15 and aligns it with the description of restoration here in Ezek 34. Moreover, it is possible that the coupling of safety from wild animals and security in the forests (v. 25) is drawing on and reversing of Hos 2.14 (though stating this in the language of Lev 26.6).26 Finally, it is this unit in which locutions from Lev 26 are heavily clustered, and, as Klein argues, it is the use of the “flock” imagery in the preceding verses of Ezek 34 that dictates the nature of the material (images of security and fertility) that is borrowed from Lev 26.27 Ezek 34.25 ff therefore stands at some distance from the preceding material, which (as argued above) contains a redactional extension in vv. 11–16 displaying the concerns of a lateexilic or post-exilic situation.28 combined covenant and assurance formulas of v. 30 (cf. Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 704) in the now-familiar terminology of the earlier pastoral imagery. 23 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 220–21. 24 Cf. Klein, Schriftauslegung, 364; Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 159; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 222; Hossfeld, Untersuchungen, 283, 285–86. It is worth noting that even Greenberg  – whose “holistic” approach is not typically marked by an impulse to distinguish levels of redactional activity – argues that vv. 17–24 and vv. 25–31 are a later supplement to the preceding verses; see Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 707. 25 See Levin, Verheißung, 218: “Bevor dies geschehen ist, hat die Verheißung aus Ez 37,26–27 in Ez 34,25–31, dem Anhang des großen Hirtenkapitels Ez 34, eine weitere Ausgestaltung erfahren.” 26 On the relationship of Hos 2.20 to Ezek 34.25, see Klein, Schriftauslegung, 183, 204–10. 27 Klein, Schriftauslegung, 189; cf. Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 159: “The second amplification, in vv. 25–30, reflects in turn on the motif of the covenant implicit in vv. 2–22 and explicit in v. 24, and defines it in a series of promises based on Lev 26:4–13.” Klein and Allen provide a more nuanced perspective on the relation of vv. 25 ff to the preceding material than Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 220–21. 28 According to Klein, Ezek 34.25–30 is a redactional extension of 34.23–24 (Schriftauslegung, 364), which is itself a redactional extension of the diaspora-oriented layer 34.11–15 (p. 360, 362). See also Hossfeld: “Im Unterschied zu ihrer Vorgängerin orientiert sie sich sprachlich und theologisch zum priesterlichen Schrifttum hin, insbesondere zur Priestergrundschrift und zum Heiligkeitsgesetz” (Untersuchungen, 527); “Die fünfte Bearbeitungsschicht zeigt ihren späten Standort noch dadurch an, daß in ihr ein editorisches Bemühen greifbar wird; sie versucht, sowohl den eigenen Makrotext abzurunden, als auch im Hinblick auf die benachbar-

144

Michael A. Lyons

If the plausibility of the model outlined above is granted, then we have a situation in which a post-exilic dating of Lev 26 cannot be determinative for the direction of dependence.29 Ezek 34 has its own complex history that must be accounted for. To determine the direction of dependence, we must look at the function of the shared locutions themselves in their respective contexts.

3. The Direction of Dependence Before discussing the function of Ezek 34.25 ff in context, we need to establish its relationship to the Holiness Code.30 It must be noted at the outset that not every individual locution shared by these texts can be used to determine the direction of dependence.31 The two clearest examples of directionality can be found in Ezek 34.4 (which occurs in the earliest layer of this chapter’s material) and Ezek 34.26 (which is one of the editorial extensions to the basic layer). The locution “rule with harshness” (‫ )רדה בפרך‬occurs a total of four times in only two contexts: in Lev 25.43, 46, 53 and in Ezek 34.4. The word “harshness” (‫ )פרך‬itself is rare, occurring a total of six times; other than the four instances already mentioned, it appears elsewhere only in the locution “serve with harshness” (‫ )עבד בפרך‬in Exod 1.13, 14. As Klostermann pointed out over a century ago, when the author of Ezek 34.4 employs the locution “rule with harshness,” he glosses the rare word “harshness” with the more common word “strength,” resulting in the syntactically awkward but semantically comprehensible statement “with strength you ruled them and with harshness” (‫)בחזקה רדיתם אתם ובפרך‬.32 This interpretive technique demonstrates the direction of literary dependence because it betrays an awareness of and interaction with its source text.33 Ezekiel 34.4 is therefore the borrowing text. ten Texte auszugleichen und dortige Ansagen mit der eigenen Bearbeitung zu harmonisieren” (Untersuchungen, 528). 29 See e. g. Grünwaldt, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 379–81. 30 While the Holiness Code is composite, and while it undoubtedly underwent editorial activity after its composition, I do not see any evidence that the passages I am examining here belong to different strata. 31 This is also acknowledged by Nihan, though of course from the perspective of his own model in which Lev 26 is dependent on Ezek 34: “the dependence of Lev 26 on Jeremiah and Ezekiel cannot be consistently demonstrated for each of these parallels taken individually”; Nihan, Priestly Torah, 544. 32 Klostermann, “Heiligkeitsgesetz,” 400; cf. Cooke, Ezekiel, 374; Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2227–28. Zimmerli (Ezekiel 2, 205) prefers LXX’s “the strong you subdued with hardship” (καὶ τὸ ἰσχυρὸν κατειργάσασθε μόχθῳ), but this makes little sense in light of the preceding clauses of v. 4. It seems more likely that LXX has misread MT’s gloss as an adjective (“the strong,” cf. v. 16) rather than as a noun (“strength”) and omits ‫ אתם‬because the verb no longer requires an object pronoun (understanding ‫ רדה ב‬as “rule over”). 33 On interpretive expansion as evidence for the direction of literary dependence, see Richard L. Schultz, The Search for Quotation: Verbal Parallels in the Prophets, JSOTSup 180 (Sheffield:

Extension and Allusion

145

The locution “rain in its time” (‫ גשם‬+ ‫ )בעתו‬occurs only three times: in Lev 26.4; Jer 5.24 (though here in an expanded form);34 and Ezek 34.26.35 But the occurrence in Ezek 34.26 displays a syntactic incongruity, shifting from singular to plural: “I will send down the rain in its time; they will be rains of blessing.” How do we explain this sudden incongruity? It seems likely that the shift in number reflects an awareness of Lev 26.4, which uses the plural form: “I will give your rains in their time” (‫)ונתתי גשמיכם בעתם‬. Lev 26.4 can be explained without reference to Ezek 34.26, but the passage in Ezekiel requires an explanation – one that can be supplied if it is alluding to Lev 26. This is only one of several instances of incongruity in the book that demonstrate that Ezekiel is the borrowing text.36

4. The Use of Lev 26.3–13 in Ezek 34.25–30 Now that I have made a plausible argument that Ezek 34 is borrowing from the Holiness Code in these instances, it remains to identify the other shared locutions and determine whether they display modifications that can be explained by a consistent strategy of literary reworking. Ezek 34.25–30 contains nine locutions found in Lev 26.3–13:

Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 224–27; David Carr, “Method in Determination of Direction of Dependence: An Empirical Test of Criteria Applied to Exodus 34,11–26 and its Parallels,” in Gottes Volk am Sinai. Untersuchungen zu Ex 32–34 und Dtn 9–10, ed. Matthias Köckert and Erhard Blum, 107–140 (Gütersloh: Chr. Kaiser, Gütersloher Verlaghaus, 2001), 119–21. 34 Jer 5.24, “Rain, early and late, in its time” (‫)גשם יורה ומלקוש בעתו‬. 35 For v. 26b, MT has ‫והורדתי הגשם בעתו‬, while LXX has καὶ δώσω τὸν ὑετὸν ὑμῖν. Neither of these can be derived from the other. For further discussion of the problem, see Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 210, and Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 294 (“No solution so far proposed is convincing”). 36 Klein (Schriftauslegung, 188) notes the following example: the word “dwelling” (‫ )משכן‬as a reference to God’s habitation appears in Ezekiel only in Ezek 37.27 (it appears as a reference to a human habitation in 25.4). Ezekiel’s preferred term (31x total) is “sanctuary” (‫)מקדש‬, which he actually uses in Ezek 37.26, 28. Why would Ezekiel suddenly refer to God’s habitation with a word he never uses elsewhere for this purpose, and in immediate proximity to the word he usually uses? The likely explanation is that Ezekiel is borrowing the locution “I will put my dwelling in your midst” (‫ )ונתתי משכני בתוככם‬from Lev 26.11 and reworking it into two statements: “I will put my sanctuary in their midst forever” (‫ )ונתתי את־מקדשי בתוכם לעולם‬in Ezek 37.26, and “my dwelling will be with them” (‫ )והיה משכני עליהם‬in 37.27. Note that this borrowed material is juxtaposed with a borrowing of the covenant formula from the same context (Lev 26.12) in Ezek 37.27. Another example is found in Ezek 6.3–7; this oracle is directed against the “mountains of Israel,” but its incongruous mention of “your bones” (v. 5b) and “your dwelling places” (v. 6) presume the human addressees of Lev 26. The shared locutions in this oracle include “high places” (Lev 26.30 > Ezek 6.6), “incense stands” (Lev 26.30 > Ezek 6.4, 6), “cities a waste” (Lev 26.31 > Ezek 6.6), and “desolate” (Lev 26.31 > Ezek 6.4, 6). MT Ezek 6.5a adds an additional locution (“I will put corpses … idols”) taken from Lev 26.30. For other examples, see Lyons, Law to Prophecy, 62–64.

146

Michael A. Lyons

v. 25 “I will finish off wild animals from the land” (from Lev 26.6);37 v. 25 “live securely” (from Lev 26.5), also in modified form in Ezek 34.28;38 v. 26 “rain in its time” (from Lev 26.4);39 v. 27 “the tree of the field will yield its fruit” and “the land will yield its produce” (in inverted form, from Lev 26.4);40 v. 27 “break the bars of their yoke” and “to serve” (from Lev 26.13);41 v. 28 “there will be no one who terrifies” (from Lev 26.6);42 v. 30 “I, YHWH, am their God, and they are my people” (from Lev 26.12), though the MT of Ezek 34.30 has inserted the reassurance formula.43

We can explain these shared locutions as borrowings by the author of Ezek 34.25–30 in the following way: his strategy is to take up and extend the pastoral imagery of the earlier units in Ezek 34, enriching this imagery with H’s language of security and plenty.44 Moreover, the presence of covenant blessing language from Lev 26.3–13 in Ezek 34 functions as a reversal of H’s covenant punishment language (Lev 26.14–39) that has been used throughout the book of Ezekiel. Finally, the use of material from Lev 26.3–13 in this section was likely motivated by its use elsewhere in the book: for example, Lev 26.9 is used in Ezek 36.9–11, and Lev 26.11–12 is used in Ezek 37.26–27. The use of Lev 26 in this redactional layer of Ezek 34 therefore stands in continuity with the use of the Holiness Code elsewhere in Ezekiel, both in the original material and in later additions.45 37 ‫ שבת‬+ ‫ חיה‬Hi. “finish off ” + “animal”: only in Lev 26.6; Ezek 34.25 (both ‫השבתי חיה רעה‬ ‫מן הארץ‬, “I will finish off wild animals from the land”). 38 ‫ ישב‬+ ‫“ בטח‬live” + “security”: only in Lev 25.18 (‫)ישבתם על הארץ לבטח‬, 19 (‫ישבתם לבטח‬ ‫ ;)עליה‬26.5 (‫ ;)ישבתם לבטח בארצכם‬Deut 12.10; Judg 18.7; 1 Sam 12.11; 1 Kgs 5.5; Isa 47.8; Jer 32.37; 49.31; Ezek 28.26 [2x]; 34.25 (‫)ישבו במדבר לבטח‬, 28 (‫ ;)ישבו לבטח‬38.8, 11, 14; 39.6, 26; Zeph 2.15; Zech 14.11; Ps 4.9; Prov 3.29. Cf. Ezek 34.27 (‫)והיו על אדמתם לבטח‬. The word “securely” was omitted as redundant in the OG of Ezek 34.25, either under the influence of the word’s occurrences in vv. 27, 28 (so Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 210), or because after the LXX’s Vorlage introduced a reference to David in the first clause of v. 25, the translator took the subject of “dwell … and sleep” to refer to “wild animals.” 39 ‫“ גשם בעתו‬rain in its time”: only in Lev 26.4; Jer 5.24 (‫ ;)גשם יורה ומלקוש בעתו‬Ezek 34.26. 40 ‫“ ונתנה הארץ יבולה ועץ השדה יתן פריו‬the land will give its produce, and the tree of the field will give its fruit”: together only in Lev 26.4, 20 (negated); Ezek 34.27 (inverted). See similar expressions in Lev 25.19 (“land will give its fruit”); Deut 11.17 (“earth will not give its produce”); Ezek 36.30 (“I will multiply the fruit of the tree and the produce of the field”); Zech 8.12 (“the vine will give its fruit, and the land will give its produce”); Ps 67.7 (“land will give its produce”); 85.13 (“land will give its produce”). 41 ‫“ שבר מטות על‬break bars of a yoke”: only in Lev 26.13; Ezek 34.27. See also ‫ שבר מוטה‬/ ‫מוט‬ “break a bar”: Jer 28.10, 12, 13; Ezek 30.18; Nah 1.13; ‫“ שבר על‬break a yoke”: Jer 2.20; 5.5; 28.2, 4, 11; 30.8. This locution is accompanied by forms of the verb ‫“ עבד‬to serve” in both contexts: ‫( מהית להם עבדים‬Lev 26.13); ‫( והצלתים מיד העבדים בהם‬Ezek 34.27). 42 ‫“ אין מחריד‬none who terrifies”: Lev 26.6; Deut 28.26; Isa 17.2; Jer 7.33; 30.10; 46.27; Ezek 34.28; 39.26; Micah 4.4; Nahum 2.12; Zeph 3.13; Job 11.19. 43 Lev 26.12 (‫ ;)והייתי לכם לאלהים ואתם תהיו לי לאם‬Ezek 34.30 (MT ‫אני יהוה אלהיהם אתם והמה‬ ‫ ;עמי בית ישראל‬LXX lacks “with them”). The covenant formula is widely attested elsewhere. 44 See Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2348–49; Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 303–305. 45 For a fuller description, see Lyons, Law to Prophecy, 110–45.

Extension and Allusion

147

In addition to this strategy of enrichment by intertextual allusion, the author employs two other literary strategies. First, the author changes H’s conditional covenant blessings (‫אם‬, Lev 26.3) to unconditional blessings.46 This is in keeping with the outlook found throughout the book of Ezekiel: extreme pessimism about Israel’s capacity for repentance, and an emphasis on YHWH’s initiative and exclusive action in the restoration process.47 If in the future Israel will be empowered (Ezek 11.19–20) – or even forced (Ezek 36.27) – to obey, covenant blessings can be reconceptualized as unconditional guarantees. Second, the author heightens H’s covenant blessings to create the glorious description of restoration in vv. 25–30. For example, in v. 25, he combines H’s “I will put peace in the land” (Lev 26.6) and “I will maintain my covenant with you” (Lev 26.9) into “I will make for them a covenant of peace” (Ezek 34.25). As Klein points out, in Lev 26 “peace” is merely one of the blessings of the covenant, whereas in Ezekiel the covenant itself is characterized by peace.48 Indeed, the description of the covenant in Ezek 34 lacks any of the punishments found in Lev 26 or other Pentateuchal covenant texts. The author also heightens H’s “you will live securely in the land” (Lev 26.5) into “they will live securely in the wilderness” (Ezek 34.25). Whereas in H security was envisioned as “lying down” (‫שכב‬, Lev 26.6), Ezek 34.25 envisions an even greater security, with the ability to “sleep in the forests” (‫)ישנו ביערים‬. In v. 26, the author moves from the issue of internal security to the issue of fertility. He not only borrows H’s promise of fertility (“I will give your rains in their time,” Lev 26.4), but heightens it by interpreting the rains as blessings that God will bring down upon the people (“they will be rains of blessing,” Ezek 34.26). In v. 27, the author moves from the issue of fertility to the issue of security from external powers. He borrows from H the imagery of liberation from Egypt (“brought you out  … from being slaves  … broke the bars of your yoke,” Lev 26.13) and uses it to describe future liberation from those who might enslave Israel.49 He also transforms H’s self-introduction formula (“I am YHWH,” Lev 26.13) into a self-revelation formula (“They will know that I am YHWH,” Ezek 34.27) and temporally attaches it to the imagery of liberation (“They will know that I am YHWH when I break the bars of their yoke and rescue them from the hand of those who enslave them,” Ezek 34.27). Ezekiel 2, 220. Thomas M. Raitt, A Theology of Exile: Judgment / ​Deliverance in Jeremiah and Ezekiel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 106–108; Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 303; Baruch Schwartz, “Ezekiel’s Dim View of Israel’s Restoration,” in The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives, ed. Margaret S. Odell and John T. Strong, 43–67 (Atlanta: SBL, 2000), 45–47. 48 Klein, Schriftauslegung, 188. 49 That the people could hope for liberation from slavery in the Persian period can be seen in Ezra 9.8, 9; Neh 9.36. The idea of “being in exile” and the hope for restoration can be seen in even later texts such as 4Q385 2.3, 9; 4Q386 1.ii.2–3. 46 Zimmerli, 47 See

148

Michael A. Lyons

In v. 28 the author continues dealing with the problem of security. He picks up the word “prey” from the preceding sections (Ezek 34.8, 22), where it was used to describe the exploitation of the people by their leaders and by the upper class, and uses it here in a wider fashion to describe exploitation by foreign powers (“they will no longer be prey for the nations,” Ezek 34.28a).50 Because he is now discussing external threats, he repeats here again the promise of security from Lev 26.5 that he had used above (v. 25) to describe security from internal threats. It seems to me that it is more likely that Ezek 34.25–30 has borrowed from Lev 26 than that Lev 26 has borrowed from Ezekiel, because the locutions described above have been subjected in Ezekiel to a consistent strategy of modification.51 It is noteworthy, then, that some accept the kind of redactional model I have outlined here, but argue that the additions to Ezek 34 – which they date to the late Persian period – are being used by Lev 26.52 One reason given for this conclusion is that Lev 26 contains parallels with Amos 4.6–11, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Deuteronomy. It is claimed that these parallels indicate a literary dependence that is only possible if Lev 26 is part of a very late layer of material in the Pentateuch.53 Nevertheless, I remain doubtful about this line of argumentation. To be sure, there are verbal parallels between Amos 4 and Lev 26, including shared words (“bread,” “rain,” “sword”) and clauses (“not be satisfied,” “I will strike you,” “I will send pestilence”). But the conclusion that these parallels indicate literary dependence – or that H is the borrowing text and that it must be dated after the exile – has yet to be established.54 The direction of dependence between the material in Lev 26 and Ezek 34 can only be determined by a comparison of their shared locutions in context. However, I do think it likely that H continued 50 Why mention here that “the animals of the land will not eat them” (v. 28b) if the matter at hand is security from enemies abroad, and if safety from animals is already mentioned in v. 25? Perhaps the author is reversing the theme of wild animals that become numerous after depopulation (cf. Exod 23.29; Deut 7.22; Isa 7.23–24). 51 I agree with Grünwaldt (Heiligkeitsgesetz, 350) that one way to identify the direction of literary dependence is to find modifications that can be correlated with an editorial strategy: “Um einer Lösung näher zu kommen, müßte man nachweisen können, daß entweder Lev 26,4–6.13 oder Ez 34,25–30 sicher redaktionelle Tendenzen enthält, von woher sich eine Bearbeitungsintention aufzeigen ließe.” The difficulty lies in determining which text is a departure from and response to the other. 52 So Nihan, “Holiness Code,” 115; see also Levin, Verheißung, 222–25; Grünwaldt, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 351. 53 Nihan, Priestly Torah, 543: “It is generally acknowledged that Lev 26 depends on Ez 34. Several details support this indeed, in particular the fact that other central prophecies in Ezekiel are combined in Lev 26:3–13 with the reception of Ez 34. In the section on threats, the plagues described in v. 18–33 do not only have parallels in Am 4:6–11 (a passage generally recognized as a late addition to Amos) and in Deut 28, but also in Jeremiah and Ezekiel.” So already Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 381–82; see also Otto, “Innerbiblische Exegese,” 180–82. 54 For example, Hans Walther Wolff, Joel and Amos, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 212–14, also notes the similarity between Amos 4:6–11 and Lev 26; he too argues that Amos 4:6–11 in its present form is later than the earliest material in Amos, but does not conclude that Lev 26 is post-exilic.

Extension and Allusion

149

to be supplemented and modified even after its use in the book of Ezekiel, before reaching the form in which we now have it.55

5. Conclusion To sum up: in this essay I have argued that Ezek 34 is a composite text consisting of two oracles that have been extended by redactional additions coordinating the basic material with other passages in Ezekiel and with other prophetic books. I have furthermore argued that the locutions present in both Lev 26 and Ezek 34 should be explained as a literary strategy in which material in Ezekiel is being enriched with imagery taken from the covenant blessings of Lev 26, which is in turn modified to fit the outlook of Ezekiel. The production of prophetic books out of earlier prophetic traditions seems to have been motivated largely by attempts to discern YHWH’s continuing involvement in history after the trauma of invasion and exile.56 But as is now widely recognized, the books now making up the prophetic corpus were further edited in light of each other. Specifically, prophetic descriptions of restoration after judgment in the prophetic corpus have been redactionally coordinated with each other.57 This was likely due to the development of a prophetic theology of history (including a dissatisfaction with current religious and political conditions in light of the hope for restoration expressed in prophetic texts) and the development of an idea of Scripture and the resulting growth of a Scripture collection. 55 Lev 26.44 is a post-exilic retrospective addition, and the differences between v. 42 and v. 45 may also point to editorial activity. 56 On the formation of prophetic literature, see Ronald E. Clements, “The Prophet and His Editors,” in Old Testament Prophecy: From Oracles to Canon (Louisville: WJKP, 1996), 217–29; Odil Hannes Steck, The Prophetic Books and Their Theological Witness, trans. James D. Nogalski (St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2000), 133–41; Michael H. Floyd, “The Production of Prophetic Books in the Early Second Temple Period,” in Prophets, Prophecy, and Prophetic Texts in Second Temple Judaism, ed. Michael H. Floyd and Robert D. Haak, 276–97 (New York: T&T Clark, 2006), esp. 285–92. 57 See e. g. Ronald E. Clements, “Patterns in the Prophetic Canon,” in Old Testament Prophecy, 191–202; Odil Hannes Steck, Der Abschluß der Prophetie im Alten Testament: Ein Versuch zur Frage der Vorgeschichte des Kanons (Neukirchener-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1991); idem, Prophetic Books, 106, 127–33, 141–44; Konrad Schmid and Odil Hannes Steck, “Restoration Expectations in the Prophetic Tradition of the Old Testament,” in Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives, ed. James M. Scott, 41–81 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), esp. 67–81; Joseph Blenkinsopp, “The Formation of the Hebrew Bible Canon: Isaiah as a Test Case,” in The Canon Debate, ed. Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders, 53–67 (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002), 65–66; Jakob Wöhrle, “So Many Cross-References! Methodological Reflections on the Problem of Intertextual Relationships and their Significance for Redaction Critical Analysis,” in Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations, Redactional Processes, Historical Insights, BZAW 433, ed. Jakob Wöhrle, James Nogalski, and Rainer Albertz, 3–20 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012); Konrad Schmid, The Old Testament: A Literary History, trans. Linda M. Maloney (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 205–208.

150

Michael A. Lyons

This process of redactional coordination is quite noticeable in Ezekiel. It occurs not only here in Ezek 34, but elsewhere as well, and is particularly prominent in Ezek 38–39.58 Moreover, this coordination continues even in the subsequent textual transmission of the book.59 As Klein notes, “prophecy in the Book of Ezekiel is to a high degree prophecy continued: Existing prophetic texts are referred to and interpreted in the course of the book. … the book as a whole seems to be designed as an ideal compendium of prophetic tradition. As such, it both fulfils and concludes Old Testament prophecy.”60

Bibliography Albertz, Rainer. Israel in Exile: The History and Literature of the Sixth Century. Translated by David Green. Atlanta: SBL, 2003. Allen, Leslie. Ezekiel 20–48. WBC. Dallas: Word, 1990. Baentsch, Bruno. Das Heiligkeits-Gesetz Lev. XVII–XXVI: Eine historisch-kritische Untersuchung. Erfurt: Hugo Güther, 1893. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. “The Formation of the Hebrew Bible Canon: Isaiah as a Test Case.” Pages 53–67 in The Canon Debate. Edited by Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002. Block, Daniel I. The Book of Ezekiel, Chapters 25–48. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Carr, David. “Method in Determination of Direction of Dependence: An Empirical Test of Criteria Applied to Exodus 34,11–26 and its Parallels.” Pages 107–140 in Gottes Volk am Sinai. Untersuchungen zu Ex 32–34 und Dtn 9–10. Edited by Matthias Köckert and Erhard Blum. Gütersloh: Chr. Kaiser, Gütersloher Verlaghaus, 2001. Clements, Ronald E. “Patterns in the Prophetic Canon.” Pages 191–202 in Old Testament Prophecy: From Oracles to Canon. Louisville: WJKP, 1996. –. “The Prophet and His Editors.” Pages 217–29 in Old Testament Prophecy: From Oracles to Canon. Louisville: WJKP, 1996. Cooke, G. A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1936. Floyd, Michael H. “The Production of Prophetic Books in the Early Second Temple Period.” Pages 276–97 in Prophets, Prophecy, and Prophetic Texts in Second Temple Judaism. Edited by Michael H. Floyd and Robert D. Haak. New York: T&T Clark, 2006. Greenberg, Moshe. Ezekiel 21–37: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 22A. New York: Doubleday, 1997. Grünwaldt, Klaus. Das Heiligkeitsgesetz Leviticus 17–26: Ursprüngliche Gestalt, Tradition und Theologie. BZAW 271. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999. 58 For a description of the extensive redactional coordination in Ezek 38–39, see in particular William A. Tooman, Gog of Magog: Reuse of Scripture and Compositional Technique in Ezekiel 38–39, FAT 2/52 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011). 59 For example, MT Ezek 7.19 draws on Zeph 1.18 to coordinate Ezekiel’s description of judgment with that of Zephaniah. See further Jake Stromberg, “Observations on Inner-Scriptural Scribal Expansions in MT Ezekiel,” VT 58 (2008): 68–86. 60 Anja Klein, “Prophecy Continued,” 581–82.

Extension and Allusion

151

Hals, Ronald M. Ezekiel. FOTL 19. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989. Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar. Untersuchungen zu Komposition und Theologie des Ezechielbuches. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1977. Joyce, Paul M. Ezekiel: A Commentary. LHBOTS 482. New York: T&T Clark, 2009. Klein, Anja. “Prophecy Continued: Reflections on Innerbiblical Exegesis in the Book of Ezekiel.” VT 60 (2010): 571–82. –. Schriftauslegung im Ezechielbuch: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Ez 34–39. BZAW 391. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008. Klostermann, A. “Ezechiel und das Heiligkeitsgesetz.” Pages 368–418 in Der Pentateuch: Beiträge zu seinem Verständnis und seiner Entstehungsgeschichte. Leipzig: G. Böhme, 1893. Repr. from “Beiträge zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Pentateuchs.” ZLThK 38 (1877): 401–45. Kowalski, Beate. Die Rezeption des Propheten Ezechiel in der Offenbarung des Johannes. SBB 52. Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2004. Levin, Christoph. Die Verheißung des neuen Bundes in ihrem theologiegeschichtlichem Zusammenhang ausgelegt. FRLANT 137. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985. Lyons, Michael A. From Law to Prophecy: Ezekiel’s Use of the Holiness Code. LHBOTS 507. New York: T&T Clark, 2009. Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 23–27. AB 3B. New York: Doubleday, 2001. Müller, Reinhard. “A Prophetic View of the Exile in the Holiness Code: Literary Growth and Tradition History in Leviticus 26.” Pages 207–28 in The Concept of Exile in Ancient Israel and its Historical Context. Edited by Ehud Ben Zvi and Christoph Levin. BZAW 404. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010. Nihan, Christophe. From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch. A Study in the Composition of the Book of Leviticus. FAT 2/25. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. –. “The Holiness Code between D and P: Some Comments on the Function and Significance of Leviticus 17–26 in the Composition of the Torah.” Pages 81–122 in Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und Deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk. Edited by Eckart Otto and Reinhard Achenbach. FRLANT 206. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004. Otto, Eckart. “Innerbiblische Exegese im Heiligkeitsgesetz Levitikus 17–26.” Pages 125– 96 in Levitikus als Buch. Edited by Heinz-Josef Fabry and Hans-Winfried Jüngling. BBB 119. Berlin: Philo, 1999. Petersen, David L. Zechariah 9–14 and Malachi. OTL. Louisville: WJKP, 1995. Pohlmann, Karl-Friedrich. Das Buch des Propheten Hesekiel (Ezechiel) Kapitel 1–19. ATD 22/1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. Pohlmann, Karl-Friedrich. Das Buch des Propheten Hesekiel (Ezechiel) Kapitel 20–48. ATD 22/2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. Raitt, Thomas M. A Theology of Exile: Judgment / ​Deliverance in Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977. Rom-Shiloni, Dalit. “Ezekiel and Jeremiah: What Might Stand Behind the Silence?” HEBAI 2.1 (2012): 203–30. Schmid, Konrad. The Old Testament: A Literary History. Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012. Schmid, Konrad and Odil Hannes Steck. “Restoration Expectations in the Prophetic Tradition of the Old Testament.” Pages 41–81 in Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives. Edited by James M. Scott. Leiden: Brill, 2001.

152

Michael A. Lyons

Schultz, Richard L. The Search for Quotation: Verbal Parallels in the Prophets. JSOTSup 180. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Schwartz, Baruch. “Ezekiel’s Dim View of Israel’s Restoration.” Pages 43–67 in The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives. Edited by Margaret S. Odell and John T. Strong. Atlanta: SBL, 2000. Steck, Odil Hannes. Der Abschluß der Prophetie im Alten Testament: Ein Versuch zur Frage der Vorgeschichte des Kanons. Neukirchener-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1991. –. The Prophetic Books and Their Theological Witness. Translated by James D. Nogalski. St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2000. Stromberg, Jake. “Observations on Inner-Scriptural Scribal Expansions in MT Ezekiel.” VT 58 (2008): 68–86. Tooman, William A. Gog of Magog: Reuse of Scripture and Compositional Technique in Ezekiel 38–39. FAT 2/52. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Wellhausen, Julius. Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel. New York: Meridian Books, 1957. Reprint of Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel. Translated by J. Sutherland Black and Allan Menzies. Edinburgh: A. & C. Black, 1885. Translation of Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels. 2nd ed. Berlin: Reimer, 1883. Wöhrle, Jakob. “So Many Cross-References! Methodological Reflections on the Problem of Intertextual Relationships and their Significance for Redaction Critical Analysis.” Pages 3–20 in Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations, Redactional Processes, Historical Insights. Edited by Jakob Wöhrle, James Nogalski, and Rainer Albertz. BZAW 433. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012. Wolff, Hans Walther. Joel and Amos. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977. Zimmerli, Walther. Ezekiel 2. Translated by James D. Martin. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983.

Ezekiel 34–37 and Leviticus 26: A Reevaluation Christophe L. Nihan

1. Ezekiel 34–37 and Leviticus 26: Introducing the Issue The relationship of the book of Ezekiel to the Priestly traditions of the Pentateuch in general, and the Holiness legislation (H) of Lev 17–26 in particular, has long been a matter of significant scholarly disagreement.1 While it is commonly agreed that Ezekiel evinces a broad range of significant parallels with Priestly materials, arguably more so than any other prophetic book, there is still considerable debate as regards the interpretation of these parallels as well as their significance for the composition of Ezekiel and / ​or the Pentateuch. In keeping with the general topic of the conference, the essay that follows purports to revisit this issue by examining the relation between Ezek 34–37 and Lev 26, the conclusion to H.2 More specifically, it will do so by focusing on two passages of Ezek 34–37, namely, Ezek 34.23–31 and 37.24–28. Both passages are generally considered to evince significant parallels with the first part of Lev 26, vv. 3–13, which describes the various rewards promised to Israel in case of covenantal loyalty.3 In addition, both Ezek 34.23–31 and 37.24–28 are key passages within Ezek 34–37. They conclude chaps. 34 and 37 respectively with a series of divine promises relating 1 For a comprehensive and helpful survey of past scholarship on this topic, see M. A. Lyons, From Law to Prophecy. Ezekiel’s Use of the Holiness Code, LHB.OTS 507 (New York / ​London: T & T Clark, 2009), 15–46, esp. 35–46, who reviews the main models for evaluating the relationship between H and Ezekiel that were advanced during the 19th and 20th centuries. Pohlmann, Ezechielforschung, provides a detailed overview of the various theories on the composition of the book, which also touches upon the question of the relationship between Ezekiel and P / ​H. 2 The present essay represents a significantly revised and expanded version of the paper given at the SBL / ​EABS meeting in Vienna, July 2014, during a session specifically devoted to Ezek 34–37. I thank my colleague Bill Tooman for inviting me to this session. 3 While Lev 26 is clearly modeled after ancient Near Eastern treaties, the conventional designation of the promises and threats comprised in v. 3–13 and 14–45 as “blessings” and “curses” respectively fails to do justice to the distinctive formulation of this chapter, which – contrary to the parallel passage in Deut 28 – is phrased as a divine oracle. See on this the comments by H. U. Steymans, H. U. “Verheißung und Drohung: Lev 26,” in Levitikus als Buch, ed. H.-J. Fabry, BBB 119 (Berlin: Philo, 1999), 273–274, and compare also Müller, “Prophetic View,” 207–208. One may note, in addition, that the language of “blessing” (with the root ‫ )ברך‬is significantly absent from Lev 26.

154

Christophe L. Nihan

to Israel’s future inside the land. They also share a number of phraseological and topical features such as, e. g., the reference to a ‫ברית שׁלום‬, a “covenant of peace,” or the recurrent mention of “David” as the new ruler of the post-catastrophe era. The connections between the divine promises concluding Ezek 34 and 37 and the first part of Lev 26 have often been noted, and have been the subject of a number of studies.4 A dominant trend in these studies has been to interpret these parallels either as supporting the chronological priority of Lev 26 over Ezek 34–37 or, conversely, as indicators of the priority of Ezek 34–37 over Lev 26.5 It remains to be seen, however, whether the material shared by Lev 26 and Ezek 34–37 lends itself to this sort of straightforward interpretation, or whether the evidence at hand does not call for more complex models for construing the relationship between Ezek 34–37 and H. In the following essay, I will begin by discussing the case of Ezek 37.24–28, before turning to the more difficult text of Ezek 34.23–31. As we will see, the findings regarding these two texts and their parallels with Lev 26 call for a reexamination of the relationship between Ezek 34 and 37 within the composition of the book, which is addressed in a further section of this essay. In a final section, a brief conclusion will lay out some broader implications of the present study, especially as regards the relationship between Ezekiel, the Holiness legislation and the Pentateuch.

4 See already the detailed discussion of these parallels by B. Baentsch, Das HeiligkeitsGesetz, Lev. XVII–XXVI: eine historisch-kritische Untersuchung (Erfurt, 1893), 121–124; more recently, see in particular C. Levin, C. Die Verheißung des neuen Bundes in ihrem theologieschichtlichen Zusammenhang auslgelegt, FRLANT 137 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985), 222–226; J. Milgrom, “Leviticus 26 and Ezekiel,” in The Quest for Context and Meaning: Studies in Biblical Intertextuality in Honor of James A. Sanders, BIS 28 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 57–62; E. Otto, “Innerbiblische Exegese im Heiligkeitsgesetz Levitikus 17–26” in Levitikus als Buch. ed. H.-J. Fabry, BBB 119 (Berlin: Philo, 1999), 176–182; Grünwaldt, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 349–351 and 352–353; A. Klein, Schriftauslegung im Ezechielbuch. Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Ez 34–39, BZAW 391 (Berlin / ​New York: de Gruyter, 2008), esp. 184–203 and 208–210; Müller, “Prophetic View,” 209–212; Lyons, From Law to Prophecy, 74–75, 123–127 and passim. 5 For the chronological priority of Lev 26, see especially Milgrom, “Leviticus 26”; compare also Lyons, From Law to Prophecy. For the opposite view, ascribing the chronological priority to Ezek 34 and 37 over Lev 26, see, e. g., Grünwaldt, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 349–351 and 352–353; Müller, “Prophetic View,” 209–212. Compare also my earlier (and very short) discussion in C. Nihan, From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch: A Study in the Composition of the Book of Leviticus, FAT 2/25 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 543–545. It is fair to say that, in general, scholars who argue for the priority of Lev 26 tend to ascribe a preexilic or early exilic dating to this text, whereas scholars arguing for the priority of Ezek 34 and 37 usually date Lev 26 after the exile. However, the situation is somewhat more fluid and complex. For instance, Klein, Schriftauslegung, 179–210, argues for the anteriority of Lev 26, but would nonetheless date both H and Ezekiel in the postexlic period.

Ezekiel 34–37 and Leviticus 26

155

2. Ezekiel 37.24–28 and Leviticus 26 Chapter 37 consists of two main parts. The vision of the dry bones and its explanation (37.1–10, 11–14) is followed by divine promises foretelling the reunion of Ephraim / ​Israel and Judah into a single kingdom (37.15–19) and the gathering of the people by Yhwh (37.20–23). The chapter aptly concludes in v. 24–28 with a series of statements describing Israel’s utopian future within the land; while this point is disputed, it is preferable in my opinion to take v. 24 together with v. 25–28 rather than with v. 20–23.6 Below, I provide my own translation of the Hebrew text preserved by MT, along with a brief discussion of the main variants found in the Greek versions (G).7 Issues pertaining to the compositional unity of this passage are addressed in the course of the discussion that follows; as it will become clear, I regard Ezek 37.24–28 as a coherent piece, except for MT’s pluses in v. 25 and 26 (see below).

6 Some authors regard v. 25 as the beginning of a new unit, compare, e. g., Klein, Schriftauslegung, 75 and passim; K.-F. Pohlmann, Das Buch des Propheten Hesekiel (Ezechiel). Kapitel 20–48, ATD (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001), 503–505. However, the division between v. 24 and 25 looks artificial. There is no indication for the beginning of a new unit in v. 25; instead, the reference to the people as the subject of the action described in v. 25a continues the formulation of v. 24b, and the two half-verses appear to be complementary (namely, the people will obey the divine laws and consequently settle permanently in the land of their ancestors). For this reason, a number of scholars propose to take v. 24b with 25–28; compare, e. g., W. Zimmerli, Ezechiel. 2. Teilband: Ezechiel 25–48, BKAT 13/2 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969), 907, 913; D. I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel. Chapters 25–48, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 408–409; F. Sedlmeier, Das Buch Ezechiel. Kapitel 25–48, NSK.AT (Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2013), 231–233. This solution is admittedly possible. The main reason why I hesitate to adopt it is because it does not account for the presence of the covenant formula at the end of v. 23 (“They will be my people and I will be their god”), which is best viewed as signaling the end of this unit. Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 414–415, proposes to understand v. 24a as an “expansion” of the covenant formula found in v. 23, but I do not find this solution very convincing. The division between v. 24a and 24b is largely based on the observation that the wording of v. 24a identifies David with the “one king” (‫ )מלך אחד‬already announced in v. 22. This is certainly correct, but it does not automatically imply that v. 24a belongs together with v. 20–23. It can equally be understood in the sense that v. 24a begins a new unit by taking over and developing a key motif from the previous unit in v. 20–23. Moreover, the observation that v. 24a and 25bβ comprise together the parallel to Ezek 34.23–24 likewise militates against the separation of v. 24a from 24b–25. On balance, the division between v. 24a and 24b seems questionable, and it is arguably better to regard all of v. 24–28 as forming a distinct subsection within Ezek 37. On the internal structure and coherence of this subsection, see the comments below. 7 For the edition of the Greek text of Ezek 37.24–28, see J. Ziegler, Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum. Vol. 16/1: Ezechiel, 2nd, revised ed., with a complement by D. Fraenkel (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977), 271–272. A. S. Crane, Israel’s Restoration. A Textual-Comparative Exploration of Ezekiel 36–39, VTSup 122 (Leiden / ​Boston: Brill, 2008), 129–135, provides a discussion of the variants between G and MT for these verses.

156

Christophe L. Nihan

‫ ועבדי דוד מלך עליהם ורועה אחד יהיה לכלם ובמשפטי ילכו וחקתי ישמרו ועשו אותם‬24 ‫ וישבו על הארץ אשר נתתי לעבדי ליעקב אשר ישבו בה אבותיכם‬25 ‫וישבו עליה המה ובניהם ובני בניהם עד עולם ודוד עבדי נשיא להם לעולם‬ ‫ וכרתי להם ברית שלום ברית עולם יהוה אותם ונתתים והרביתי אותם ונתתי את מקדשי‬26 ‫בתוכם לעולם‬ ‫ והיה משכני עליהם והייתי להם לאלהים והמה יהיו לי לעם‬27 ‫ וידעו הגוים כי אני יהוה מקדש את ישראל בהיות מקדשי בתוכם לעולם‬28 24. My servant David will be king over them,8 and there will be one shepherd for all of them. They will follow my laws and observe my decrees, and put them into practice. 25. They will inhabit the land9 that I gave to my servant, Jacob, which your ancestors10 inhabited: they will inhabit it, they, their sons, and the sons of their sons, forever;11 and David, my servant, will be their prince, forever.

  8 The main witnesses to the Old Greek (Pap967, LXXA and LXXB) read here ἄρχων ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῶν, “a prince in their midst.” Because the term ἄρχων normally renders the Hebrew ‫נשיא‬ in the Greek text of Ezek 1–39, it is often assumed that the Greek translation was based on a Hebrew Vorlage that read ‫ נשיא‬instead of MT’s ‫מלך‬. Furthermore, a number of authors have also assumed that the reading ‫ נשיא‬would be original here, whereas ‫ מלך‬would reflect a change introduced by a later edition. For a detailed justification of this model, see J. Lust, “Messianism in LXX-Ezekiel: Toward a Synthesis,” in The Septuagint and Messianism. ed. by M. A. Knibb, BETL 195 (Leuven: University Press, 2006), 417–30; Crane, Israel’s Restoration, 119–126 and 250–263. However, as I have argued in detail elsewhere, this reconstruction is not necessarily compelling and there are reasons to retain MT’s ‫ מלך‬as original in 37.24; see C. Nihan, “The nāśî’ and the Future of Royalty in Ezekiel” in History, Memory, Hebrew Scriptures: A Festschrift for Ehud Ben Zvi, eds. I. D. Wilson and D. Edelman (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2015), 232–234. First, it is not clear that ἄρχων in the Greek text of Ezekiel must necessarily render the Hebrew ‫נשיא‬, as already pointed by some critics: see, e. g., A. van der Kooij, “The Septuagint of Ezekiel and Hasmonaean Leadership,” in Interpreting Translation, Studies on the LXX and Ezekiel in Honour of Johan Lust, eds. F. García Martínez and M. Vervenne, BEThL 192 (Leuven: Leuven University Press and Peeters, 2005), 441. Second, the argument of Lust and Crane rests upon some problematic assumptions, such as the idea that the term ‫ מלך‬would have more military overtones than ‫( נשיא‬Crane, Israel’s Restoration, 126, 255), or that the order of chaps. 36–40 would point to the greater implication of David in the upcoming battle against Gog. Third, and lastly, the use of the term ‫ מלך‬in the MT is consistent with a dominant theme in the oracle of 37.15–28, which refers to the recreation of a Davidic kingdom including Judah and Samaria (Ephraim). For these reasons, the wording of the OG in Ezek 37.24a is unlikely to be original, and presumably reflects an alignment with the concept of Davidic leadership stated in Ezek 34.23–24.   9 LXX reads here ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς αὐτῶν, “on their land,” thereby highlighting the point already made in MT that the land legitimately belongs to the Israelites because it was given to Jacob. 10 LXX reads “their fathers / ​ancestors” (οἱ πατέρες αὐτῶν), thus harmonizing the syntactic tension occasioned by the sudden use of the direct address (2nd person pl.) in MT. 11 The end of the sentence, “their sons, and the sons of their sons, forever,” is missing in Pap967 and LXXB. Some commentators have assumed that its absence in the OG is accidental (e. g., Zimmerli, Ezechiel 2, 906), but the mechanics for this omission are unclear and it is more likely to be a later plus in MT. See the discussion by Crane, Israel’s Restoration, 131–132.

Ezekiel 34–37 and Leviticus 26

157

26. I will make for them a covenant of peace;12 it will be an everlasting covenant with them.13 I will establish them and multiply them.14 I will place my sanctuary in their midst forever. 27. My dwelling-presence will be over them,15 and I will be their god and they will be my people. 28. Then the nations will know that I am Yhwh who sanctifies Israel, when my sanctuary is in their midst forever.

Overall, the final statements comprised in 37.24–28 form a fairly complex, but nonetheless coherent, subsection within Ezek 37. This subsection is structured by the repetition of the phrase ‫לעולם‬, in particular, and appears to consist of three parts: v. 24–25, 26–27 and 28.16 V. 24–25 describe the basic features of the social and political order characterizing the restoration era. They open and end with the reference to a Davidic ruler, alternatively designated as ‫מלך‬, “king” (v. 24a) and ‫נשיא‬, “prince” (v. 25bβ) in the MT. This twofold reference to the Davidic ruler frames two statements referring to the people’s observance of the divine laws (v. 24b) and their permanent settlement in the land of their ancestors (v. 25a). The conditions for this restored political order are then explicated in the next part, v. 26–27, which are framed for their part by references to covenantal ideology. V. 26a opens with a reference to a “covenant of peace” (‌‫ )ברית םשלו‬which is simultaneously explained as an “everlasting covenant” (‫ ;)ברית עולם‬v. 27aβ, b, for its part, logically concludes with the standard covenant formula (“I will be their god and they will be my people”). In the MT, the reference to the everlasting covenant in v. 26a is followed, in 26bα, by a brief mention of the people being “established” (‫ )נתן‬and “multiplied” (‫ רבה‬Hiphil) by Yhwh.17 These references to 12 G reads here: καὶ διαθήσοµαι τῷ Δαυιδ διαθήκην εἰρήνης, “I will conclude a covenant of peace with David.” This reading is reflected in the main witnesses to the Greek text of Ezek 34, compare Ziegler, Ezechiel, 257. 13 As noted by several commentators, ‫ אותם‬in the MT is syntactically difficult; compare, e. g., the comments by Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 408 n. 84. Like Block and others, I follow in my translation the reading preserved by LXXA and LXXB, both of which have µετ᾽ αὐτῶν, arguably an indication that their Hebrew Vorlage read ‫’ אתם‬ittām instead of MT’s ‫אותם‬. However, Block aptly notes that this use of ‫ אותם‬occurs in a similar context in 16.60 already, which he suggests may point to a “dialectical variant.” 14 The whole sentence ‫ ונתתים והרביתי אותם‬is missing from all the main witnesses to the OG of Ezekiel, including LXXA. See below for a detailed discussion of this instance. 15 For the translation of ‫ משכן‬by “dwelling-presence,” see the discussion below. Pap967 reads here μέσῳ αὐτῶν, “in their midst,” which may represent an attempt to align this conception with the one found in Lev 26.11. 16 For a similar subdivision of 37.24–28, see Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 417–422. However, Block opts for separating v. 24a from 24b–25, which I find unconvincing for the reasons argued above (see note 6). 17 Some commentators interpret the final mem on ‫ נתתים‬as a datival suffix implicitly referring to the gift of the land: “I will give them (the land of Israel)”; thus Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 408 with n. 85 and 86. While grammatically possible, this solution is unnecessary in my view and it is easier to understand the final mem as an accusative referring to the Israelites themselves: “I will establish them.”

158

Christophe L. Nihan

the covenant frame this time two central statements foretelling the reestablishment of the sanctuary and the divine presence in Israel with the terms ‫מקדש‬ (v. 26b) and ‫( משכן‬v. 27aα). These two statements, in particular, raise a number of interpretive issues, to which I will return later. Finally, the third and last part, v. 28, addresses the implications of the reestablishment of the sanctuary and the restitution of the divine presence in Israel with regard to Yhwh’s knowledge among the nations. Several scholars have argued that the formulation of Ezek 37.24–28 shows parallels with Lev 26.3–13. In particular, the sequence found in Ezek 37.26–27, involving the conclusion of the covenant (v. 26aα), the multiplication of the people (v. 26aβ), the establishment of Yhwh’s sanctuary (v. 26b, 27aα), and finally the covenantal formula (v. 27aβ, b), is similar to the sequence already found in Lev 26.9–13, except for the fact that the reference to the people’s multiplication is placed somewhat differently since it occurs before the mention of the covenant in Lev 26.9, and after in Ezek 37.26: ‫ ופניתי אליכם והפריתי אתכם והרביתי אתכם והקימתי את בריתי אתכם‬9 ‫ ואכלתם ישן וישן מפני חדש תוציאו‬10 ‫ ונתתי משכני בתוככם ולא תגעל נפשי אתכם‬11 ‫ והתהלכתי בתוככם והייתי לכם לאלהים ואתכם תהיו לי לעם‬12 ‫ אני יהוה אלהיכם אשר הוצאתי אתכם מארץ מצרים מהית להם עבדים‬13 ‫ואשבר מטת עלכם ואולך אתכם קוממיות‬   9. I will turn myself toward you: I will make you bear fruit and multiply you; I will maintain my covenant with you. 10. You will eat very old (grain),18 and you will have to clear out the old (grain) for the new. 11. I will establish my dwelling in your midst,19 and I will not loathe you. 12. I will walk in your midst; I will be your god, and you will be my people. 13. I am Yhwh, your God, who delivered you from the land of Egypt, where you were slaves: I broke the bars of your yoke, and I made you walk erect.

Despite this structural parallel, the lexical connections between the two passages remain limited. The only exact parallel (although the address differs) is the covenantal formula occurring in Ezek 37.27 aβ, b and Lev 26.12b respectively, “I will be their / ​your god and they / ​you will be my people”. The other parallels are more distant. While both texts refer to the conclusion of a covenant, the description of this covenant in Ezek 37 as a “covenant of peace” (‫ )ברית שלום‬and an “everlasting covenant” (‫ )ברית עולם‬is quite distinct from H. The phrase ‫ ברית שלום‬is 18 For the phrase ‫ ישן נושן‬as meaning here “very old,” “long stored” (with reference to the grain), see the discussion by Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2299. 19 LXXA, LXXB as well as a number of minuscules (see J. W. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Leviticus, SBLSCSt 44 [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997], 284) read τὴν διαθήκην µου here, which corresponds to Hebrew ‫בריתי‬. On the significance of this variant reading, which presumably reflects the Old Greek of Lev 26, see below.

Ezekiel 34–37 and Leviticus 26

159

never used in P or H to refer to the covenant between Yhwh and Israel.20 The fact that this covenant is simultaneously designated as an “everlasting covenant” may allude to P’s covenant with Abraham and his offspring (Gen 17.7, 13, 19), although this assumption does not seem necessary either, but certainly not to H’s covenant in Lev 26, since this chapter precisely never describes the covenant as ‫ברית עולם‬.21 In fact, it should be clear that the covenantal phraseology used in Ezek 37.26 fits the context of v. 24–28, and does not require a reference to either P or H in order to be understood.22 The mention of a ‫ ברית עולם‬corresponds to the fact that all the key institutions of the future, utopian order – namely, the land (37.25bα), the Davidic ruler (v. 25bβ), the covenant (v. 26a) and the temple (v. 28b) – are established “forever.” Likewise, the designation of this everlasting as a “covenant of peace” follows logically after the description of v. 24–25, which already refers to the Israelites living peacefully inside the land. Additionally, the sequence formed by v. 25b and 26a clearly suggests a connection between this covenant of peace and the reestablishment of the Davidic dynasty (a point further highlighted in the Greek text of v. 26a); here again, this notion is largely foreign to P and H (both of which have no place for a king), but makes sense in the context of Ezek 37.23 The connection that is established in Ezek 37.26 between the covenant (v. 26a) and the people’s multiplication (v. 26bα) is somewhat more intriguing. As noted 20 The only reference to a ‫ ברית שלום‬in the Priestly literature is in Num 25.12, where it refers to Yhwh’s covenant with Phinehas, not with the Israelites. There are some grounds for thinking that the conception laid out in Num 25 is based on Ezek 37, as argued by several scholars; see the discussion in C. Nihan, “The Priestly Covenant, Its Reinterpretations, and the Composition of ‘P’,” in The Strata of the Priestly Writings, Contemporary Debate and Future Directions, eds. S. Shectman and J. Baden, AThANT 95 (Zürich: TVZ, 2009), 125–126, with further references. However, this issue can be left aside here. 21 Contra, e. g., Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 419, who argues that the notion of a ‫ ברית עולם‬in Ezek 37.26 “stems from Lev 26:4.” Since Lev 26.4 contains neither the term ‫ ברית‬nor the term ‫עולם‬, this suggestion seems particularly unlikely. The fact that Lev 26, contrary to P, never uses the expression ‫ ברית עולם‬is not a coincidence, but corresponds to a basic purpose of this text, which is precisely to revise and reformulate P’s concept of an “everlasting covenant” with Israel. See further my comments in Nihan, “Priestly Covenant”, 104–115; and compare also the helpful and nuanced discussion of this issue by J. Stackert, “Distinguishing Innerbiblical Exegesis from Pentateuchal Redaction: Leviticus 26 as a Test Case,” in The Pentateuch. International Perspectives on Current Research, ed. T. Dozeman et al., FAT 78 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 369–86. 22 Pace Klein, Schriftauslegung, 187–188. She proposes explaining the phrase ‫ ברית שלום‬with the idea that Ezek 37.26 takes up the covenant mentioned in Lev 26.9 and combines it with the term ‫ שלום‬found in 26.6. In my opinion this is more ingenious than convincing. 23 This conception in Ezekiel follows a convention in the ancient Near Eastern discourse on royalty, where the maintenance or the reestablishment of ‫ שלום‬was one of the basic tasks of the king. See, e. g., H. H. Schmid, Šalôm. “Frieden” im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament, SBS 51 (Stuttgart: KBW Verlag, 1971), 30–36. This point is rightly noted by Klein herself (Schriftauslegung, 176), although it makes her assumption that the ‫ ברית שלום‬in Ezek 37.26a would derive from a combination of Lev 26.9 with 26.6 all the more unnecessary.

160

Christophe L. Nihan

above, the same connection is already found in Lev 26.9. As many authors have remarked, this passage follows P’s covenantal phraseology in Gen 9 and 17, and comprises yet another indication that H was composed as a supplement to P.24 On the other hand, the reference to Israel’s multiplication in relation to the divine covenant is less obvious in the context of Ezek 37, especially since this motif is otherwise not clearly attested in the book. At first sight, this finding may support the view that Ezek 37 has reproduced and adapted the sequence of Lev 26.9–12, albeit reversing the order between Yhwh’s covenant and Israel’s multiplication. Yet the evidence is more complex, since the Greek text of Ezek 37.26 does not preserve the phrase ‫ ונתתים והרביתי אותם‬found in MT. It could be that the omission of this phrase in G is an instance of parablepsis due to a homoioteleuton (from ‫ אותם‬to ‫ אותם‬at the beginning of v. 26b).25 In this case, however, it remains surprising that this phrase is absent from all the main witnesses to G including the Alexandrinus, which often tends to follow MT’s pluses. In the Hexapla, the phrase και δωσω αυτους και πλεθυνω αυτους (corresponding to MT ‫ונתתים‬ ‫ )והרביתי אותם‬is marked with an asterisk,26 which is another indication that it was not part of the Greek translation of Ezek 37 originally. Moreover, as already pointed out by A. S. Crane, MT’s plus in Ezek 37.26 is reminiscent of the plus already found in the MT of 36.11, which also refers to Israel’s multiplication with the phrase ‫ורבו ופרו‬, “they will multiply and become prosperous.” This plus is likewise absent from all the witnesses to the OG of Ezekiel,27 and since there is no obvious textual mechanism for this omission in the Greek, commentators are generally agreed that this plus in MT is a late addition, presumably influenced by the Priestly account in Genesis.28 We may similarly infer that MT’s plus refer24 This is clear from the formulation of Lev 26.9 using the verbs ‫ פרה‬and ‫ רבה‬as well as the expression ‫קום ברית‬, all terms referring to P’s account of the twofold covenant with Noah and with Abraham. For the combined use of ‫ פרה‬and ‫רבה‬, see especially Gen 9.1, 7; 17.2, 4–6; further 28.3; 35.11; Exod 1.7. For the use of ‫קום ברית‬, see Gen 9.9, 11, 17; 17:7, 19, 21; further Exod 6.4. That the formulation of Lev 26.9 reflects P’s conception of the covenant has often been remarked see my comments in Nihan, Priestly Torah, 537–538, with further references. 25 Thus, e. g., L. C. Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, WBC 29 (Dallas: Word Books, 1999), 191; Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 408. 26 See Ziegler, Ezekiel, 271. Crane, Israel’s Restoration, 133, makes the insightful observation that, “[I]t seems unusual that LXX would have deliberately left out such a strong ‘priestly’ statement.” 27 Cf. Ziegler, Ezechiel, 262–263, for the manuscript evidence; and for a detailed discussion, Crane, Israel’s Restoration, 52–53. 28 See, especially, the discussion by J. Stromberg, “Observations on Inner-Scriptural Scribal Expansions in MT Ezekiel,” VT 58 (2008), 73–74, as well as Crane, Israel’s Restoration, 52–53; and compare already for this view, e. g., Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 169. This conclusion is all the more likely that the combined use of ‫ פרה‬and ‫ רבה‬is distinctive of P; otherwise, it merely occurs in two passages of Jeremiah, 3.16 and 23.3, which may likewise be based on P. In addition, because P always uses a sequence consisting of ‫ פרה‬followed by ‫רבה‬, it is possible that the sequence found in Ezek 36.11 MT, with ‫ רבה‬followed by ‫פרה‬, represents an instance of Seidel’s law of inverted quotation.

Ezekiel 34–37 and Leviticus 26

161

ring to Israel’s multiplication in Ezek 37.26 is also a late “Priestly” addition to the Hebrew text of Ezekiel, which seeks to align Ezekiel’s covenantal discourse with the conception stated in Lev 26.9.29 As shown by T. P. Mackie in a recent study, Leviticus provides, with Jeremiah, one of the main sources for various scribal expansions which seek to “coordinate” Ezekiel’s prophecy with other scriptural collections, and which are often (albeit not exclusively) preserved in MT’s pluses.30 Accordingly, MT’s phrase ‫ ונתתים והרביתי אותם‬may be regarded as yet another instance of such “coordinating expansions” with Leviticus. Finally, the description in Ezek 37.26bβ, 27aα of Yhwh’s sanctuary is also unlikely to be based on Lev 26. However, the formulation of this passage has often been misunderstood, and therefore deserves a brief discussion. In general, scholars who identify in Ezek 37.26bβ, 27aα a reference to P, or P and H, base their argument on two observations. First, the wording of v. 26bβ, with its reference to the sanctuary (‫ )מקדש‬being established “in the midst” (‫ )בתוך‬of Israel would be reminiscent of the conception stated in Exod 25.8; 29.45–46 and related passages of P. Second, the use in Ezek 37.26bβ and 27aα of ‫ מקדש‬and ‫ משכן‬as synonym terms referring to the sanctuary would be distinctive of P (and H).31 The first argument is possible, although not necessary: the wording of Ezek 37.26bβ has no exact parallel in P and, more importantly, this statement provides an apt summary for the general concept developed in chaps. 40–48, which precisely describe Yhwh’s sanctuary being located “in the midst” (again with ‫ )בתוך‬of Israel’s land (Ezek 48.8–22).32 The connection is even more apparent in the early form of the book preserved by Pap967 and OLw, where Ezek 40–48 follows immediately after chap. 37.33 In short, while it is possible that Ezek 37.26b alludes to P’s conception of the sanctuary (‫ )מקדש‬being placed “in the middle” (‫ )בתוך‬of the Israelite is the conclusion already reached by Crane, Israel’s Restoration, 133–134. Expanding Ezekiel: The Hermeneutics of Scribal Addition in the Ancient Text Witnesses of the Book of Ezekiel, FRLANT 257 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015), 181–205 and 214. I thank my colleague Bill Tooman for drawing my attention to this important study. 31 See, e. g., Levin, Verheißung, 217; similarly T. Rudnig, Heilig und Profan. Redaktionskritische Studien zu Ez 40–48, BZAW 287 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000), 69. But contrast the comments on this point by Klein, Schriftauslegung, 175. 32 Cf. Ezek 48.8, further 48.10, 21. See on this, e. g., Zimmerli, Ezechiel 2, 914, who aptly comments with regard to the formulation of Ezek 37.26b: “das ‫ בתוכם‬wird in der Landverteilung 48 1–29 geradezu geographisch anschaulich gemacht”. Compare similarly the comments by Pohlmann, Ezechiel 20–48, 505. 33 On the alternative edition preserved by Pap967 for chap. 36–40, see now the detailed treatment by I. E. Lilly, Two Books of Ezekiel. Papyrus 967 and the Masoretic Text as Variant Literary Editions, VTSup 150 (Leiden / ​Boston: Brill, 2012). On the presence of the same textual sequence in OLW, see P.-M. Bogaert, “Le témoignage de la Vetus Latina dans l’étude de la tradition des Septante: Ézéchiel et Daniel dans le Papyrus 967,” Biblica 59 (1978): 384–395. See also further the comments by J. Lust, “Ezekiel 36–40 in the Oldest Greek Manuscript,” CBQ 43 (1981): 517–533, on the combined evidence provided by Pap967 and OLW, which suggests that the version of chaps. 36–40 preserved in these manuscripts arguably reflects the Old Greek of Ezekiel. 29 This

30 T. P. Mackie,

162

Christophe L. Nihan

camp, the reference to P is not required in order to understand this statement in the context of Ezek 37.34 The second argument is more problematic, because it ignores the specifics of the formulation of v. 27aα, which asserts that Yhwh’s ‫ משכן‬will be “over” the Israelites, and not “amidst” them: ‫והיה משכני עליהם‬.35 The notion that Yhwh’s ‫ משכן‬will reside “over” the Israelites is unparalleled in P, and somehow even contradicts the Priestly concept of divine presence; this tension may explain why the Greek versions changed the wording of Ezek 37.27aα to align it more closely with P (and with Lev 26.11).36 In the MT, however, the difference between v. 26bβ and 27aα suggests that v. 27aα does not merely repeat 26bβ, but provides additional information with regard to the mode of divine presence associated with Israel’s sanctuary.37 Accordingly, ‫ משכן‬in Ezek 37.27 should be rendered as “dwellingpresence”, and the statement in v. 27aα should be viewed as completing (rather than repeating) the previous statement in v. 26b: Yhwh will establish his sanctuary “in the midst” of Israel (Ezek 37.26b), so that his “dwelling-presence” may reside “over them” (Ezek 37.27aα).38 The vertical dimension introduced by v. 27a is, again, fitting as a summary for the general concept developed in chaps. 40–48. The sanctuary in which Yhwh will dwell (‫ )שכן‬is simultaneously established in the center of the land (Ezek 48.8–22) and on Israel’s “topmost mountain” (Ezek 40.2), from where it overlooks the entire land. 34 See on this especially the comprehensive discussion of this issue by Klein, Schriftauslegung, 194–203. She rightly concludes that the dependence of Ezek 37 on Exod 29, while possible, remains difficult to prove: “Für eine direkte literarische Abhängigkeit gibt es aber mit der Ausnahme des strukturell vergleichbaren Aufbaus von Ex 29,45 f. und Ez 37,25–28* wenig sichere Anhaltspunkte” (202). 35 Some commentators have proposed rendering ‫ עליהם‬as “with them”, or even “among them”, thereby harmonizing the formulation of v. 27a with that of 26b; compare, e. g., Zimmerli, Ezechiel 2, 915 (“bei ihnen”). While this rendering is grammatically possible, it does not do justice to the parallel between v. 27a and 24a, where ‫ עליהם‬clearly means “over them.” 36 GA and GB render MT ‫ עליהם‬with ἐν αὐτοῖς, “in them,” whereas Pap967 has µέσῳ αὐτῶν, “in their midst.” The latter reading, in particular, effectively aligns the description of Ezek 37.27 with Lev 26.11 (and 15.31), as noted, e. g., by Crane, Israel’s Restoration, 134. 37 For this interpretation of ‫ משכן‬in Ezek 37.27, see already the observations by A. Hurvitz, A Linguistic Study of the Relationship between the Priestly Source and the book of Ezekiel: A New Approach to an Old Problem, Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 20 (Paris: Gabalda, 1982), 109–113, and further Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2300, both of whom establish a parallel with the rabbinic notion of šĕkînâ. However, Milgrom is incorrect in my opinion when he defines the ‫ משכן‬as a “spatially unbounded presence.” Rather, the formulation of Ezek 37.26b–27a already implies that the ‫ משכן‬as a manifestation of the divine presence, is closely related to the sanctuary (‫)מקדש‬ mentioned immediately before. This conception is also consistent with the more fully developed description of Ezek 40–48. See further below. 38 For this reason, it is unnecessary to regard v. 27aα as a doublet of 26bβ, as argued by some authors; see Levin, Verheißung, 217; S. Ohnesorge, Jahwe gestaltet sein Volk neu. Zur Sicht der Zukunft Israels nach Ez 1,14–21; 20,1–44; 36,16–38; 37,1–14.15–28, FzB 64 (Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1991), 350; Rudnig, Heilig, 69; but contrast the comments on this point by Klein, Schriftauslegung, 175.

Ezekiel 34–37 and Leviticus 26

163

Significantly enough, a similar usage of ‫ משכן‬appears to be presupposed by Lev 26.11. In P, the term ‫ משכן‬consistently refers to the totality of the tent structure comprising the wilderness sanctuary.39 In Lev 26, however, this meaning hardly fits the context. In 26.11, Yhwh promises that, should the Israelites observe his laws, he will establish (‫ )נתן‬his ‫“ משכן‬in their midst”, yet according to P the ‫משכן‬ was already built by Moses (Exod 40.18–33) and consecrated by Yhwh’s ‫כבוד‬ (Exod 40.34–35).40 The problem created by the use of ‫ משכן‬in Lev 26 was already manifest for the Greek translator of Leviticus, since the OG of Leviticus (represented here by LXXA and LXXB) reads at this place τὴν διαθήκην μου (= ‫)בריתי‬, “my covenant”, presumably as an attempt to alleviate the apparent tension between the statement found in Lev 26.11 and the rest of P’s account. The tension may be satisfactorily accounted for, however, when we understand that ‫ משכן‬in Lev 26 does not merely refer to the physical sanctuary but, rather, to the mode of divine presence associated with the latter.41 This conclusion, in turn, implies that ‫ משכן‬in Lev 26.11 has the same meaning as in Ezek 37.27, and should also be interpreted accordingly as denoting Yhwh’s “dwelling-presence”. In principle, it is possible that this distinct usage of ‫ משכן‬was developed separately in H and Ezekiel. However, the parallel between the structure of Lev 26.9–12 and Ezek 37.26–27, combined with the observation that in both cases the reference to the ‫ משכן‬is followed by the same covenantal formula, may favor the view that one text has borrowed from the other. In this case, it seems more likely that Lev 26 is based on Ezek 37 rather than the other way round. Two observations, in particular, may support this conclusion. First, the distinct usage of ‫ משכן‬as “dwelling-presence” is introduced rather abruptly in Lev 26, since it stands in tension not only with the broader context of the Priestly narrative, as noted above, but also with the previous usage of this term in H itself (Lev 17.4) where ‫ משכן‬obviously refers to the physical sanctuary and not to the divine presence. The fact that the Greek translator of Leviticus changed ‫ משכני‬to ‫( בריתי‬τὴν διαθήκην μου) provides additional evidence that it was difficult for ancient readers to understand the shift to the new meaning of ‫ משכן‬that suddenly takes place in Lev 26. Second, while in both texts the reference to the ‫ משכן‬is followed by the covenantal formula, in Lev 26 two additional statements have been introduced in-between: ‫ולא תגעל נפשי אתכם‬, “my throat will not loathe you” (Lev 26.11b), and ‫והתהלכתי בתוככם‬, “I will walk in your midst” (Lev 26.12a). There is no good reason why the author of Ezek 37.26–27 would have omitted these statements, had he used Lev 26 as his source, and scholars who assume the priority of Lev 26 over Ezek 37 have usually been at pains to find a convincing explanation for this 39 As can be seen, e. g., in the description provided by Exod 35.11: “the ‫משכן‬, its tent and its covering, its clasps and its frames, its bars, its pillars, and its bases”. 40 For this observation, see my comments in Nihan, Priestly Torah, 539–540; further, e. g., Müller, “Prophetic View,” 211–212. 41 For this conclusion, see already Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2229–2300.

164

Christophe L. Nihan

omission.42 If a literary relationship between Lev 26 and Ezek 37 is to be assumed, it is – again – easier to regard Lev 26.11–12 as an expansion and an amplification of Ezek 37.26–27. Overall, the previous discussion indicates that the specifics of the final statements about Israel’s restoration in Ezek 37.24–28 can be adequately accounted when they are read against their immediate context as well as against the context of the description in chapters 40–48, which 37.24–28 serves to introduce in several ways. While Ezek 37 evinces some significant parallels with Lev 26, such as particularly the specialized use of the term ‫ משכן‬to denote a manifestation of the divine presence closely related to the central sanctuary, it is unlikely that the text of Ezek 37 has been influenced by Lev 26. If there is indeed a literary relationship between these two texts, which is possible but not certain, it is more likely that Lev 26 has taken over and adapted some of its materials from Ezek 37, especially in the case of Lev 26.11–12, as the previous discussion has argued. The comparison between the MT and the Greek versions of Ezek 37 indicates, in addition, that the ancient scribes who transmitted these texts were aware of these parallels and that they sought to “coordinate” Ezek 37 more closely with Lev 26, either by (a) introducing new materials, or (b) slightly altering the wording of Ezek 37.24–28. The first instance is documented in MT’s plus ‫ ונתתים והרביתי אותם‬in 37.26a, whereas the second can arguably be identified in the reading µέσῳ αὐτῶν preserved in Pap967’s version of 37.27a. The issue of the relationship between Ezek 37.24–28 and P is somewhat distinct, as it is possible that some of the motifs found in Ezek 37 reflect P’s influence. However, these parallels are quite limited, so that P’s influence over Ezek 37 remains difficult to establish with certainty.43 In any event, if a dependence toward P is indeed to be presumed, the shared motifs identified here have been thoroughly adapted to the context of Ezek 37, so that a reference to P is no longer required in order to understand them.

42 It has sometimes been suggested that the reference to Yhwh walking “in the midst” of Israel would have been omitted in Ezek 37 because of its anthropomorphic connotations (e. g., Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2351), but this explanation is not very satisfactory since other passages in Ezekiel do not refrain from using anthropomorphic features to refer to the deity; compare, e. g., the reference to “the soles of my (i. e., Yhwh’s) feet” in Ezek 43.7a. The omission of the first statement in Ezek 37 is even more difficult to account for, since the reference to Yhwh’s “loathing” the Israelites is already found earlier in Ezekiel (see Ezek 16.5), and scholars who assume the priority of Lev 26 over Ezek 37 have usually been at pains to find a convincing explanation for this omission (cf. Milgrom, “Leviticus 26,” 60; similarly idem., Leviticus 23–27, 2351). 43 The main parallels with P concern the designation of the covenant as a ‫ ברית עולם‬in v. 26a, as well as the reference to the sanctuary (‫ )מקדש‬being “in the midst” (‫ )בתוך‬of the Israelites in v. 26b. However, as discussed above, both expressions can be satisfactorily explained against the background of Ezekiel, and do not require the assumption that the author of Ezek 37 would be referring to P here.

Ezekiel 34–37 and Leviticus 26

165

3. Ezekiel 34.25–30 and Leviticus 26 The situation is arguably different in the case of Ezek 34.23–31, a notoriously difficult passage to which I will now turn. Because the parallels with Lev 26 are concentrated in v. 25–30, my discussion here will be limited to these verses; the case of the remaining verses, especially Ezek 34.23–24, and their relationship to v. 25–30, will be addressed in the next section of this essay.44 Here also, I begin by providing my own translation of the Hebrew, along with some brief comments on that translation as well as on the main variants found in the Greek witnesses.45 ‫ וכרתי להם ברית שלום והשבתי חיה רעה מן הארץ‬25 ‫וישבו במדבר לבטח וישנו ביערים‬ ‫ ונתתי אותם וסביבות גבעתי ברכה‬26 ‫והורדתי הגשם בעתו גשמי ברכה יהוה‬ ‫ ונתן עץ השדה את פריו והארץ תתן יבולה והיו על אדמתם לבטח‬27 ‫וידעו כי אני יהוה בשברי את מטות עלם והצלתים מיד העבדים בהם‬ ‫ ולא יהוה עוד בז לגוים וחית הארץ לא תאכלם‬28 ‫וישבו לבטח ואין מחריד‬ ‫ והקמתי להם מטע שלם‬29 ‫ולא יהוה עוד אספי רעב בארץ ולא ישאו עוד כלמת הגוים‬ ‫ וידעו כי אני יהוה אלהיהם אתם‬30 ‫והמה עמי בית ישראל נאם אדני יהוה‬ 25. I will make a covenant of peace for them;46 I will eliminate evil beasts from the land, so that they may dwell securely47 in the wilderness, and sleep in the forest. 26. I will establish them all around my hill (as a blessing);48 44 As far as I can see, the delineation between 34.23–24, 25–30 and 31 is fairly standard in the commentaries and the main studies, and requires no further justification here. The main debated issue concerns whether v. 23–24, 25–30 and 31 are subsections within a single section comprising v. 23–31 (thus, e. g., Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 159; Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 296), or whether v. 23–24 and 25–30 (31) represent two distinct sections in chapter 34 (e. g., Sedlmeier, Ezechiel 25–48, 162–163). My own preference goes toward interpreting v. 23–31 as comprising a single section; yet this point is not decisive for the following analysis, and can be left open here. 45 For the critical edition of the Greek text, see Ziegler, Ezechiel, 256–257. Klein, Schriftauslegung, 29–31, provides a comprehensive and valuable discussion of the main text-critical issues. 46 As noted above, G refers here to the conclusion of a covenant with David, instead of the people, thereby highlighting the royal dimension of the “covenant of peace” mentioned in Ezek 34 and 37. The fact that v. 25b continues with a 3rd person plural pronoun referring to the Israelites suggests that this reading is not original, but represents a later revision (with Klein, Schriftauslegung, 30 n. 28). 47 The specification “securely” (‫ )לבטח‬is missing from G. Commentators usually assume an omission by the Greek translator (e. g., Zimmerli, Ezechiel 2, 831; Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 158). While this is certainly possible, it could equally be argued that ‫ לבטח‬was introduced later in MT (thus also Fohrer and Galling, Ezechiel, ad loc.). 48 The MT of 34.26a is notoriously difficult. My own reading here is consistent with the reading already offered by Rudnig, Heilig, 61 with n. 47 and 48 (cf. also Klein, Schriftauslegung, 30–31 n. 30). Rudnig notes, in particular, that the waw before ‫ סביבות‬is missing from the ancient versions (G, Vulgate, Peshitta and Targum), and could therefore be secondary. The construct

166

Christophe L. Nihan

I will send down the rain in its season; it will be rains of blessing. 27. The trees of the field will yield their fruit, and the land will yield its produce; then they will be secure on their land. And they will know that I am Yhwh, when I break the bars of their yoke and deliver them from the hand of those who enslave them. 28. They will no longer be a booty for the nations, and the wild beasts will no longer devour them. They will dwell securely, and no one will threaten them. 29. I will establish them as a plantation of peace;49 they will no longer suffer from hunger in the land, or bear the disgrace of the nations.50 30. They will know that I am Yhwh their god (with them),51 and that they are my people, the house of Israel. Declaration of the Lord Yhwh.

The structure of this passage is fairly complex, and would admittedly require a longer discussion than can be provided here. The passage opens in v. 25a with a reference to the ‫ ברית שלום‬concluded by Yhwh with Israel (or David in the Greek tradition), and it ends in v. 30 with a variant of the standard covenant formula, which has been somewhat expanded here. The whole passage is therefore framed with covenantal language. Furthermore, the twofold occurrence of the phrase ‫ וידעו כי אני יהוה‬at the beginning of v. 27b and 30a suggests a division in two parts of approximately equal length, v. 25–27 and 28–30. Closer examination further suggests that the two parts have a somewhat similar structure. Both refer, in the same order, to the elimination of wild beast; a safe dwelling within the land; an abundant produce, implying the absence of famine; and lastly the consisting of ‫ סביבות‬followed by a noun to mean “all around” is attested elsewhere in the HB, compare, e. g., ‫סביבות המחנה‬, “all around the camp,” in Num 11.31, 32, or the phrase ‫סביבות‬ ‫מזבחותיכם‬, “all around your (pl.) altars,” in Ezek 6.5. The reference to the establishment of the Israelites “all around my hill” is best viewed as a reference to the establishment of the Israelites in the vicinity of the central sanctuary; for a cogent defense of this interpretation, see the comments by Klein, Schriftauslegung, 30–31 n. 30. This solution makes unnecessary the various emendations of the Hebrew text that have been proposed in the past (compare, e. g., Zimmerli, Ezechiel 2, 831; Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 158). The problem raised by the mention of the “blessing” (‫)ברכה‬, which is missing from the main witnesses to the Greek text of Ezek 34.26 (cf. also OLW) and is placed under the obelus in the Hexapla, is more difficult to decide. Its presence or absence is presumably related to the subsequent occurrence of this word at the end of v. 26b, but it is unclear whether the mention of ‫ ברכה‬in 26a is original, and later fell through homeoteleuton in G, or whether it was later introduced at the end of 26a under the influence of v. 26b. 49 Thus the reading of G, φυτὸν εἰρήνης, which is also supported by OLW (plantam pacis) and the Peshiṭṭa. With the majority of the commentators (e. g., Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 158; Block, Ezekiel 20–48, 295 n. 128; Klein, Schriftauslegung, 31 n. 31), I consider this reading to be original, whereas MT presumably reflects an instance of metathesis (from ‫ שלם‬to ‫)לשם‬. One ms (62’) adds εις ονοµα after εἰρήνης, presumably as an attempt to harmonize with the textual tradition reflected in MT. 50 Literally, “bear the disgrace of the nations.” My rendering of the Hebrew here follows Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 295. 51 The specification ‫אותם‬, “with them,” is missing from some Hebrew mss, some witnesses to the LXX, as well as from OLW and the Peshiṭṭa. Presumably, it represents a later addition in MT.

167

Ezekiel 34–37 and Leviticus 26

end of foreign oppression.52 In addition, both parts also contain a central statement about the “establishment” (with ‫ נתן‬or ‫ )קום‬of the Israelites by Yhwh in the land: in v. 26a, they are established around “my hill,” presumably a reference to the central sanctuary;53 whereas in v. 29a they are established as a “plantation of peace” (‫מטע שלם‬, with G and other versions).54 Presumably, both statements are complementary, and describe together the status of the Israelites who, after being brought back by Yhwh (Ezek 34.11–16), will live inside the land under a new covenantal regime. Common themes elimination of wild beasts safe dwelling within the land (‫)לבטח‬ establishment of the Israelites in the land abundant produce end of foreign oppression

V. 25–27

V. 28–30

25aβ 25b 26a 27aα 27b

28aβ 28b 29a 29bα 29bβ

Overall, this analysis suggests that Ezek 34.25–30 evinces a sophisticated but nonetheless coherent structure. The comparison between the MT and OG shows that the passage was somewhat revised during its transmission (see above); otherwise, I see no cogent argument for disputing the literary unity of this piece.55 As observed by many commentators, there are several significant parallels between this unit and the first part of Lev 26.3–13, v. 4–6, which likewise describes the life of the Israelites in a land that has been blessed by Yhwh.56 ‫ ונתתי גשםיכם בעתם ונתנה הארץ יבולה ועץ השדה יתן פריו‬4 ‫ והשיג לכם דיש את בציר ובציר ישיג את זרע‬5 ‫ואכלתם לחמכם לשבע וישבתם לבטח בארצכם‬ ‫ ונתתי שלום בארץ ושכבתם ואין מחריד‬6 ‫והשבתי חיה רעה מן הארץ וחרב לא תעבר בארצכם‬ 4. I will give your rains in their seasons; the land will yield its produce, and the trees will yield their fruit. 5. Your threshing will last until the vintage,57 and the vintage will last until the sowing: you will eat your fill of food and dwell securely in the land. 52 This structure is similar to the one already proposed by Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 305. However, my delineation of the elements comprising each of the two parts (vv. 25–27 and 28–30) as well as their description differs in a number of details. 53 See the discussion above, note 48. 54 See the discussion above, note 49. 55 The compositional unity of Ezek 34.25–30 is also accepted by Klein, Schriftauslegung, 37 and passim, in her recent and comprehensive study of the redactional history of Ezek 34–39. 56 Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 304, provides a synopsis of the two texts and their parallels. 57 Or alternatively, “your threshing will overtake the vintage” (thus Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2272), depending on how one interprets the construct ‫ נשג את‬here. Regarding the hapax ‫דיש‬, “threshing,” see Koehler and Baumgartner, HALOT, 221, and compare also Deut 25.4 (‫)בדישו‬.

168

Christophe L. Nihan

6. I will give peace in the land, so that you can lie down, and no one will threaten you: I will eliminate evil beasts from the land; likewise, the sword will not go through your land.

The reference in Ezek 34.25a to the elimination of wild, destructive beasts from the land, ‫והשבתי חיה רעה מן הארץ‬, has a literal equivalent in Lev 26.6b. Ezekiel 34.26b, 27a, for its part, has a close parallel in Lev 26.4. In particular, both passages preserve a similar sequence, albeit with some differences, which involves the giving of “rain” (‫ )גשם‬or “rains” (‫ )גשמי‬at their “appointed time(s)” (‫ בעתו‬or ‫)בעתם‬, followed by the promise that the land and trees will deliver their produce. In Ezek 34.27a, this description is concluded by the promise that the people will reside safely in the land, ‫והיו על אדמתם לבטח‬, which is also reminiscent of the statement found at the end of Lev 26.5b (‫)וישבתם לבטח בארצכם‬. While the verbs used in Ezek 34.27 and Lev 26.5 are different, the phrase ‫ ישב לבטח‬also occurs later in Ezek 34.28b, where it is combined with the expression ‫ואין מחריד‬, “no one will threaten you,” which is also found in Lev 26.6a. Finally, the formulation of Ezek 34.27b, combining the formula of divine self-assertion (‫ )כי אני יהוה‬with a reference to Yhwh’s breaking (‫ )שבר‬of Israel’s “yoke”, is also found at the end of Lev 26.3–13, in v. 13b, these two passages being in addition the only ones in the Hebrew Bible to use the phrase ‫ מטות עול‬in a figurative sense. While none of these parallels is necessarily significant in itself, their combined presence within comparably short textual segments, moreover frequently in the same sequence, may be considered sufficient evidence for substantiating the assumption of a literary relationship between Lev 26 and Ezek 34 – arguably more so than in the case discussed above of the relationship between Lev 26 and Ezek 37.58 Deciding what may be the direction of that borrowing remains admittedly difficult, and a number of the arguments that have been advanced in this regard rest, in my view, upon questionable foundations. In particular, many authors base their conclusions regarding the chronological priority of either text on the notion that one passage would show clear signs of expanding, revising and / ​or reordering the materials found in the other. Yet this argument is problematic, and leads to contradictory results.59 In effect, close examination of Lev 26 and Ezek 34 demonstrates that both texts evince distinct developments of the materials they share. While the text of Ezek 34 contains several motifs that are unparalleled in Lev 26 (compare, e. g., the reference in 34.29 to the establishment of Israel

58 This view appears to be accepted by most commentators of Lev 26 and Ezek 34, although the relationship between these texts remains disputed. For a comprehensive discussion of this issue, see in particular Milgrom, “Leviticus 26,” 57–59; Grünwaldt, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 349–350; as well as Klein, Schriftauslegung, 184–190. 59 Thus, for instance, Milgrom, “Leviticus 26,” 57–59, concludes to the priority of Lev 26 over against Ezek 34, whereas Grünwaldt, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 350–351, uses the same criterion to establish the anteriority of Ezek 34.

Ezekiel 34–37 and Leviticus 26

169

as a “plantation of peace” which will no longer suffer from hunger or bear the disgrace of the nations), there are also, simultaneously, various motifs in Lev 26 that have likewise no equivalent in Ezek 34. For instance, the sequence found in Ezek 34.26b–27a comprising the giving of rain, abundant harvests and secure dwelling in the land is also found in Lev 26.4–5, but is supplemented there in v. 5a with a detailed description of these abundant harvests (‫והשיג לכם דיש את בציר‬ ‫ )ובציר ישיג את זרע‬which has no equivalent in Ezek 34. Likewise, the reference to the elimination of “evil beasts” (‫ )חיה רעה‬from the land which occurs in both passages is followed in Lev 26.6b with a further promise (“the sword will not go through your land”) which is unparalleled in the corresponding passage of Ezek 34.25a or, for that matter, in Ezek 34 in general.60 Overall, these examples that the mere identification in either Lev 26 or Ezek 34 of expansions vis-à-vis the materials they share is not a sufficient criterion for assessing which of these two texts is chronologically prior.61 While this conclusion highlights the methodological difficulties involved in determining the literary relationship between Lev 26 and Ezek 34, some observations appear nonetheless to support the general assumption that Ezek 34 derives from Lev 26 rather than the other way round.62 First, as noted by Milgrom and Lyons, while both Ezek 34.26 and Lev 26.4 contain a similar reference to the sending of rain by Yhwh, Ezek 34 adds over Lev 26 an explicative comment, ‫גשמי‬ ‫( ברכה יהיו‬rendered as ὑετὸν εὐλογίας in the LXX), “they will be rains of blessing.” The presence of this explicative comment is easier to explain if one assumes that the reference to the sending of did not originate in Ezek 34, but was taken from Lev 26, so that the author of Ezek 34 felt the need to explain the meaning of this statement.63 In addition, if one assumes that the term ‫ ברכה‬at the end of v. 26a is original in MT, the author of Ezek 34 also developed the motif found

60 Although the motif of the sword “passing through” the land occurs earlier in Ezekiel, cf. Ezek 14.17. 61 Additionally, from a methodological perspective one further implication that can be inferred from the observation that both Lev 26 and Ezek 34 evince distinct pluses is that the rewriting of one text in the other did not only occur through the expansion of the materials found in the chronologically earlier text but also, simultaneously, the omission of some of these same materials. The only valid alternative would be to assume that both Lev 26 and Ezek 34 have drawn separately from a common source, either oral or written, as was indeed proposed by some older commentators. However, postulating the existence of such a source raises more issues than it solves, and this hypothesis has been rightly abandoned in more recent studies. 62 Here, I must correct my earlier opinion stated in C. Nihan, “Heiligkeitsgesetz und Pentateuch,” where I was still arguing for the possible priority of Ezek 34.25–30. 63 See Milgrom, “Leviticus 26,” 58; Lyons, From Law to Prophecy, 125. The fact that this explicative comment in Ezek 34 uses the plural form, ‫גשמי‬, instead of the singular ‫ גשם‬as in the previous clause, could also be a reference to Lev 26.4 which already uses the plural ‫גשםי‬. The LXX, which uses the singular (ὑετὸν) in both instances, presumably harmonizes the stylistic tension caused by the alternation between singular and plural in MT.

170

Christophe L. Nihan

in Lev 26 by suggesting a connection between the central hill of the sanctuary and the gift of rains through repetition of the term “blessing” at the end of v. 26a and 26b, thereby furthering the mythological connotations of the divine sending of rain.64 Second, both in Ezek 34 and in Lev 26 a connection is made between Yhwh’s breaking of Israel’s yoke and the deliverance from slavery, with the root ‫( עבד‬see Lev 26.13a; Ezek 34.27b). However, the comment ‫והצלתים מיד העבדים‬ ‫בהם‬, “and I will deliver them from the hand of those who enslave them,” is somewhat surprising. In the context of Ezek 34.25–30 it is unclear who are the ‫ע ָֹבדים‬, a term which refers here to the “enslavers” of Israel. The broader context of the chapter suggests that it is a reference to the foreign nations from which the Israelites will be brought back by Yhwh in the future (Ezek 34.10, 11–16). Yet the use of this motif in 34.27b is unique: both the reference to the Israelites as the slaves of the nations and, correspondingly, the comparison of the return from exile as a deliverance from slavery are never found otherwise in Ezekiel, contrary to what is the case for other prophetic books.65 It is apparent that this concept is much more at home in Lev 26.13, where the reference is explicitly to Yhwh delivering Israel from Egypt (cf. ‫אשר הוצאתי אתכם מארץ מצרים מהית‬ ‫להם עבדים‬, v. 13a). Here also, therefore, it seems more logical to infer that the reference to Israel’s deliverance from slavery in Ezek 34 is not original, but has been adapted from Lev 26. Overall, the conclusion reached here is consistent with the general observation that, even though both texts present significant pluses as noted above, the materials shared by the two texts are often used in a more complex and elaborated way in Ezek 34 than in Lev 26. One clear example, in particular, can be found in the reference to the people’s secure dwelling in the land, which is phrased in a much more sophisticated way in Ezek 34 than in Lev 26. While Lev 26.5 merely refers once to the people “dwelling” (‫ )ישב‬securely (‫ )לבטח‬on their land (‫)ארץ‬, this motif is developed through three distinct yet complementary occurrences in Ezek 34 (see v. 25b, 27a and 28b). The first of these occurrences, with its reference to the people dwelling securely in the wilderness (‫ )מדבר‬and sleeping in the forests, is particularly striking. Apparently, the wilderness and the forests refer here to the

64 On the textual problem caused by the omission of this term at the end of v. 26a in the Greek tradition, see the discussion above, note 48. The connection between the cult at the central sanctuary and the sending of rains by Yhwh is a mythological motif attested in other biblical texts from the postexilic period, compare Hag 1.9–11; Mal 3.6–12. 65 In Ezekiel, the singular form of the substantive ‫ עבד‬is used to describe specific Israelite figures as the “servant of Yhwh,” such as Jacob (28.25; 37.25) and David (34.23, 24; 37.24, 25). The plural is also used once to describe the prophets (“my servants the prophets,” Ezek 38.17), but never the Israelites as a whole. The closest analogue to this notion would be in Ezek 20.40, which refers to the Israelites serving Yhwh on his mountain after being brought back into the land. But the description of the Israelites as the “slaves” of the nations is absent outside of Ezek 34.27b.

Ezekiel 34–37 and Leviticus 26

171

liminal areas of the land, which are normally inhabited by the wild beasts.66 In the utopian scenario described by Ezek 34, because Yhwh will eliminate the wild beasts from the land (v. 25a) even those liminal areas will be safe for the Israelites (v. 25b).67 This distinct reinterpretation of the motif of the Israelites’ secure dwelling in the land is then continued in v. 27a, where it is now connected with the deliverance from foreign oppression (v. 27b). Finally, the last occurrence of the motif, in v. 28, combines the two related themes of deliverance from foreign oppression and from wild beasts (see v. 28a), and adds the concluding explicative comment ‫ואין מחריד‬, “and no one will threaten them.” Overall, this example represents a fitting illustration of the way in which a fairly simple motif in Lev 26 has been taken over and significantly developed in Ezek 34.

4. The Relationship between Ezekiel 34 and 37 The previous discussion implies that contrary to a common assumption, the relationship to Lev 26 is in fact distinct in the case of Ezek 34 and 37. This finding raises in turn a question regarding the literary relationship between these two chapters of Ezekiel, to which I will now turn.68 It has long been noted that the two texts share several significant expressions and motifs, especially (but not exclusively) in the passages describing the Davidic ruler in Ezek 34.23–24 and 37.24–25. Ezek 34.23–24 ‫ והקמתי עליהם רעה אחד ורעה אתהן את עבדי דויד הוא ירעה אתם והוא יהיה להן לרעה‬23 ‫ ואני יהוה אהיה להם לאלהים ועבדי דוד נשיא בתוכם אני יהוה דברתי‬24

66 Compare,

e. g., Mal 1.3 for the wilderness, and Isa 56.9 for the forest. some commentators regard the distinct formulation of the motif of the Israelites’ secure dwelling in the land as reflecting an adaptation to the sheep image previously developed in 34.1–22 (e. g., Milgrom, “Leviticus 26,” 58). While this is possible, it is not entirely clear in my view whether the image of the sheep is effectively continued in v. 25–30. Note, in particular, that these verses consistently use the masculine address when referring to the Israelites, and no longer the feminine address that corresponds to this image in the rest of chapter 34; it is only in v. 31 that the image of the sheep is resumed, with a return to the feminine address. 68 In a recent and insightful essay, Tooman (“Covenant and Presence in the Composition and Theology of Ezekiel,” in Divine Presence and Absence in Persian Period Judaism, eds. N. MacDonald and I. J. de Hulster, FAT 2/61, Studies of the Sofja Kovalevskaja Research Group on Early Jewish Monotheism 2 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013], 151–82) rightly observes that the language of Ezek 37.24–28 may be satisfactorily accounted for in light of other passages in the book, and that the assumption of the dependence of this passage on Lev 26 is unnecessary. However, he proposes to explain this by the notion that Ezek 37.24–28 already knew 34.25–30 and therefore did not need to repeat the references to Lev 26. Yet this solution does not account for the evidence suggesting that the two passages do not belong to the same compositional layer in Ezekiel, and that Ezek 34.25–30 is arguably later (and not earlier) than 37.24–28. See below. 67 Additionally,

172

Christophe L. Nihan

23. I will establish one shepherd69 over them, who will tend them, my servant David: (it is he who will tend them)70 and it is he who will be their shepherd. 24. Whereas I, Yhwh, will be their god, (my servant)71 David will be a prince among them: I, Yhwh, have spoken.

The parallels between this passage and Ezek 37.24–25 are obvious. Both Ezek 34.23 and 37.24 combine the motifs of David as ‫“ עבדי‬my servant” and ‫רעה אחד‬ “(the) one shepherd,” albeit in reverse order. In both texts, this reference is then followed in the next verse by a further reference to David as “my shepherd” (at least in MT) combined this time with a reference to David as a ‫נשיא‬, “prince”; compare Ezek 34.24 and 37.25, albeit with a slight change in the word order: ‫נשיא‬ ‫( דוד ועבדי‬34.24), and ‫( דוד עבדי נשׁיא‬37.25). Finally, in both texts the description of David as servant of Yhwh, shepherd and prince is immediately continued with a reference to the conclusion of a ‫ ברית שלום‬with Israel (see Ezek 34.26a and 37.27a). Yet there are also some subtle but nonetheless significant differences in the formulation of the two passages. In particular, as noted by some commentators, the role ascribed to David tends to be less exalted in Ezek 34 than in Ezek 37.72 Whereas Ezek 37 (in the MT) refers to David both as ‫“ נשיא‬prince” and as “king” (‫)מלך‬, Ezek 34 only describes him as “prince” (‫)נשיא‬.73 Additionally, while 37.24 describes him as “king over” the Israelites (‫)מלך עליהם‬, 34.24 mentions instead that he will be prince “in their midst” (‫)נשיא בתוכם‬. The nuance may be subtle, but it points nevertheless to a significant contrast between a more horizontal view of Davidic rule in Ezek 34 and a more vertical one in Ezek 37. Furthermore, we have evidence that the tension between these two views of Davidic rule was apparent to the ancient audience(s) of the book, since the main witnesses to the Greek tradition (Pap967, GA and GB) offer a revised reading of Ezek 37.24a (ἄρχων ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῶν, “a prince in their midst”) which corresponds, 69 Whereas GB and the Sinaiticus read ἕνα, other witnesses like especially Pap967, OLW and GA have ἕτερον (see Ziegler, Ezechiel, 256), which presumably reflects a reading of Hebrew ‫ אחר‬instead of ‫אחד‬. It is difficult to decide whether the alternative reading represents an accident in the transmission of the text (e. g., Zimmerli, Ezechiel 2, 831; Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 294 n. 114) or whether it is a deliberate correction seeking to avoid a possible contradiction with 34.15 and to distinguish more clearly between the roles of Yhwh and David (thus already G. A. Cooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel, ICC (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1936), 381; further, e. g., Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 158). In any event, it is likely that MT preserves the older reading here, as is generally acknowledged (see also Klein, Schriftauslegung, 29 n. 23). 70 This statement is missing from the main witnesses to the Greek text and is placed under the obelus in the Hexapla (cf. Ziegler, Ezechiel, 256–257). It was therefore most certainly absent from the Greek tradition initially, and may well represent a later gloss in the MT. 71 The phrase ‫“ עבדי‬my servant” in MT is missing from the Greek witnesses. It is difficult to decide whether this phrase is a gloss in MT or whether its absence in G is due to the fact that it was omitted in the course of the transmission. 72 See especially Sedlmeier, Ezechiel, 171–172. 73 Regarding the originality of the reading ‫ מלך‬in Ezek 37.24, see the comments above note 8 and further my discussion in Nihan, “Future of Royalty,” 232–234.

Ezekiel 34–37 and Leviticus 26

173

in effect, to the conception previously stated in 34.24.74 In this way, the tension between the descriptions of Davidic leadership that are preserved in Ezek 34 and 37 tends to become attenuated in the Greek tradition, and the conception stated in Ezek 37 is brought more closely in line with the less exalted view of Davidic rule already established in Ezek 34. Despite various attempts to provide complementary readings of these two chapters, the parallels and the tensions observed here between Ezek 34.23–24 and 37.24–25, together with the evidence provided by the Greek tradition for attempts to harmonize these tensions, indicate that the two passages cannot be from the same hand.75 More likely, one text influenced the composition of the other. While this point has been correctly recognized by a number of authors, there is disagreement over the direction of dependence.76 A. Klein, in her recent monograph, provides a detailed and valuable comparison of the two texts, and concludes to the chronological priority of Ezek 34.23–24, 25–30 over 37.24–28.77 Yet the arguments she offers for that conclusion are not very strong in my opinion,78 and most importantly the conclusion itself raises a number of difficulties. In particular, it is difficult to understand why Ezek 34 fails to mention the reestablishment of the sanctuary and the restitution of the divine presence in Israel although these motifs figure prominently at the end of Lev 26.3–13 (see 74 Cf.

Ezek 34.24aβ: ‫ = ועבדי דוד נשיא בתוכם‬καὶ Δαυιδ ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῶν ἄρχων in the Greek. e. g., W. Thiel, W. “Die Rede vom “Bund” in den Prophetenbüchern,” ThV 9 (1977): 21. 76 For instance, Levin, Verheißung, 218–222, as well as Pohlmann, Ezechiel 20–48, 467–468, argue for the priority of Ezek 37, whereas Ohnesorge, Jahwe, 389, holds the opposite view. 77 Klein, Schriftauslegung, 169–179, and especially 177–178 for the argument that Ezek 34.23–30 was the source of 37.24–28. Additionally, she also argues that the sequence formed by 34.23–24 and 25–30* is the result of redactional growth, with v. 25–30* being later supplemented with v. 23–24, although the combination was already known to the author of 37.24–28. On the question of the literary unity of 34.23–30, see below. 78 For instance, Klein argues that the discourse on the ‫ ברית שלום‬is more developed in Ezek 37 than in Ezek 34, especially because of the description of this covenant as an “everlasting” (‫ )עולם‬one in 37.26a. Furthermore, she notes, the absence of a development in 37.25–28 about the fertility of the land as a consequence of the ‫ ברית שלום‬is surprising, and would point to the fact that the author of Ezek 37 already knew the corresponding description in 34.25–30 (see Klein, Schriftauslegung, 177). Yet both arguments are questionable. The notion that the mention of the ‫ ברית שלום‬should necessarily entail a development about the fertility of the land is unwarranted; compare, e. g., the similar mention of a “covenant of peace” in Isa 54.10. In effect, the inclusion of this topic in Ezek 34 represents much more a development over Ezek 37 which, as noted above, was apparently influenced by the description found in Lev 26.4–6. Furthermore, as noted above, the characterization of the covenant as an “everlasting covenant” fits the context of Ezek 37.24–28, where all the key institutions of the future, utopian order – namely, the land, the Davidic ruler, the covenant and the temple – are established “forever” (compare the repetition of ‫ עולם‬or ‫ לעולם‬in v. 25, 26, 27 and 28). By contrast, this phraseology is significantly absent from Ezek 34.25–30 (or, for that matter, Ezek 34 in general). This observation suggests that the mention of an everlasting covenant would have been out of place in the context of Ezek 34, and that the author of 34.25–30 deliberately refrained from using this concept in order to postpone its introduction until Ezek 37.24–28, where it rightly belongs. 75 Contra,

174

Christophe L. Nihan

v. 9–12) which, as argued above, was the source for Ezek 34 (a conclusion which Klein likewise accepts). This observation can be satisfactorily accounted for, on the other hand, if we accept that the scribe who composed 34.23–30 already knew Ezek 37.24–28, where the restitution of the divine presence is expressly mentioned (see vv. 26–28). This conclusion can be further substantiated by various additional observations. (1) First, the fact that fact that Ezek 34 only refers to David as ‫נשיא‬, and avoids the term ‫מלך‬, suggests a concern to harmonize the titles ascribed to David, a phenomenon which, as argued above, seems likewise reflected in the Greek text of Ezek 37.24–25.79 (2) Second, the emphasis on David as the “one shepherd” (‫ )אחד רעה‬makes better sense against the background of Ezek 37, since the theme of Israel’s unity is the leitmotiv of the second half of this chapter (see 37.15–19) and follows well after the reference to “one nation” (‫ )גוי אחד‬and “one king” (‫מלך‬ ‫ )אחד‬in 37.22. This observation appears to support the view that the presentation of David as the “one shepherd” originated in Ezek 37 rather than in Ezek 34.80 (3) Third, the material shared by Ezek 34 and 37 often tends to be preserved in a more expansionist version in the case of Ezek 34. This is clear, for instance, in the case of David’s description as the “one shepherd.” In 34.23a, the title ‫ רעה אחד‬is followed with an explicative comment, absent from Ezek 37: ‫ורעה אתהן‬, “and he will shepherd them”; and in 34.23b, the reference to David as the “one shepherd” is further explained by two more comments (in MT) highlighting the uniqueness of David’s role which have likewise no counterpart in Ezek 37.81 The same point could be made, for example, when the covenantal formula in 34.30 is compared with the shorter formula found in 37.27. In short, there is cumulative evidence corroborating the view that Ezek 34 is a reworking of Ezek 37, and that the material preserved in 37.24–28 was reused when the corresponding passage in 34.23–24, 25–30 was composed. If this conclusion is correct, it also implies that it is unnecessary to ascribe 34.23–24 and 34.25–30 to distinct redactional layers, as it has sometimes been suggested. Since the themes of the (future) Davidic ruler and the “covenant of peace” (‫)ברית שלום‬ a similar view see Sedlmeier, Ezechiel 25–48, 171–172. noted, e. g., by Zimmerli, Ezechiel 2, 841, who remarks in this regard: “Das betonte ‫ אחד‬ist von 37:15 ff. her zu verstehen.” Pace Rudnig, Heilig, 65–68 (cf. similarly Pohlmann, Ezechiel 20–48, 504–505), it is unlikely that v. 24–28 followed immediately after v. 14 originally, and that v. 15–23 as a whole should be viewed as a later interpolation. This reconstruction has little evidence to support it, and it raises some issues, especially since the transition from v. 14, with its direct address in the 2nd person plural, to v. 25, where the Israelites are indirectly addressed (“they”), is awkward. Additionally, the separation between v. 24 and 25 is unwarranted in my opinion. In short, the final statements comprising 37.24–28 presuppose at least some of the previous discourse on Israel’s unification in v. 15–19, 20–23. For a similar conclusion, see also Klein, Schriftauslegung, 172–175 with n. 234. 81 See 34.23b: ‫הוא ירעה אתם והוא יהיה להן לרעה‬, “it is (only) he who will tend them, and it is (only) he who will be their shepherd.” As noted above, the first comment is missing from G and may represent a later gloss. 79 For 80 As

Ezekiel 34–37 and Leviticus 26

175

are already combined in Ezek 37.24–28, it is only to be expected that the same combination occurs in Ezek 34.23–30.82

5. Toward a Model of Mutual Dependence between Ezekiel and the Holiness Legislation In conclusion, the findings of the previous discussion indicate that the relationship between Ezek 34 and 37, on the one hand, and Lev 26, on the other, is more complex and nuanced than it has often been assumed. In the case of Ezek 37.24– 28, a literary relationship with Lev 26 cannot be established with definitive certainty: the parallels between the two texts remain limited (they mainly concern Lev 26.11–12) and, moreover, some of them actually reflect later alignments that took place in the course of the transmission of Ezek 37. While the dependence of one text upon the other is plausible in my view, for the reasons noted above, the possibility that Ezek 37 and Lev 26 developed separately cannot be discarded. In any event, it is unlikely that the composition of Ezek 37.24–28 was influenced by Lev 26. If the parallels between Ezek 37 and Lev 26 are considered to be substantial enough to warrant the assumption of a literary relationship between these texts it is more likely, as we have seen, that Lev 26 was influenced by Ezek 37. On the other hand, Ezek 34.25–30 presents us with a different case. Here, the parallels with Lev 26 (especially 26.4–6 and 26.13) are substantial enough to support the assumption that one text influenced the composition of the other. Moreover, while the assessment of the relation of dependence between these texts is admittedly complicated by the fact that they both preserve significant expansions of the materials they share, several indications point nonetheless to the chronological priority of Lev 26 over Ezek 34. These findings imply, therefore, that the relationship to Lev 26 is different – in effect, even opposed – in the case of Ezek 34 and 37. This conclusion, in turn, corresponds to the observation that Ezek 34 and 37 cannot be from the same hand – as the comparison between the description of the Davidic ruler in 34.23–24 and 37.24–25, in particular, makes clear – and that Ezek 34 apparently represents a rewriting of Ezek 37. Admittedly, much in this analysis must necessarily remain both partial and provisional: further analyses of other passages in Ezekiel that present significant parallels with Lev 26 (such as, e. g., Lev 26.30–33 and Ezek 6.3–8), and even more generally with other passages of the Holiness legislation (H), are required in order to warrant more solid results. Nevertheless, the conclusions already achieved 82 Contra Pohlmann, Ezechiel 20–48, 467–469, who rightly concludes that 34.23–30 derives from Ezek 37, but maintains nonetheless that v. 23–24 are later than v. 25–30. In this case, one has to imagine that the author of Ezek 34 initially left out the motif of the Davidic ruler while rewriting Ezek 37, and that this motif was only reintroduced at a later stage in the transmission of chapter 34. In my view this reconstruction is both unlikely and unnecessary.

176

Christophe L. Nihan

in this essay have some significant implications for the present discussion on the relationship between Ezekiel and H. In particular, while the relationship between these two corpuses has often been addressed in a fairly straightforward way, with scholars concluding either to the chronological priority of H over Ezekiel or, conversely, of Ezekiel over H, the previous discussion indicates that this sort of model is arguably too rigid to account for the textual evidence at hand. Instead, the analysis presented in this essay suggests a relationship of mutual influence and dependence in the development of Ezekiel and H. This conclusion, if it is correct, means in turn that we need to elaborate more complex and (above all) more fluid models in order to adequately describe the relationship between these two corpuses.83 Finally, the present study also highlights the need for models that consider more systematically the evidence provided by the comparison between MT and other ancient versions. The observation that in a passage like Ezek 37.24–28 both the Masoretic and the Greek traditions preserve pluses that reflect separate attempts, within these traditions, to bring the text of Ezek 37 more closely in connection with Lev 26 indicates that the relationship between Ezekiel and H is actually part of a broader scribal process, which continued to develop during the transmission of these collections and which is reflected in various pluses found in the MT and OG of Ezekiel.84 A proper assessment of the dialogue between Ezekiel and H cannot rely on the Masoretic version of these collections only, but needs to consider the textual evidence in all its diversity.

Bibliography Allen, L. C. Ezekiel 20–48. WBC 29; Dallas: Word Books, 1999. Baentsch, B. Das Heiligkeits-Gesetz, Lev. XVII–XXVI: eine historisch-kritische Untersuchung. Erfurt, 1893. Block, D. I., The Book of Ezekiel. Chapters 25–48. NICOT; Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1998. Bogaert, P.-M. “Le témoignage de la Vetus Latina dans l’étude de la tradition des Septante: Ézéchiel et Daniel dans le Papyrus 967.” Biblica 59 (1978): 384–395. 83 In my view, this conclusion similarly applies to the relationship between Ezekiel and other pentateuchal traditions besides H such as, for instance, Deuteronomy. However, elaborating this point would require a separate demonstration, and would go beyond the limits of the present essay. 84 On this phenomenon, see now especially the study by Mackie, Expanding Ezekiel, especially 181–205. Although the evidence in this case is significantly more limited, there are also some indications suggesting that a similar process was at work in the transmission of Lev 17–26, whose text was occasionally brought into closer connection with Ezekiel. One example would be Lev 19.26 LXX, which reads Μὴ ἔσθετε ἐπὶ τῶν ὀρέων, “Do not eat on / ​over the mountains”, instead of MT ‫לא תאכלו על הדם‬. The expression found in Lev 19.26 LXX otherwise occurs exclusively in some passages of Ezekiel (Ezek 18.11, 15; 22.9), and arguably reflects the influence of this prophetic tradition over the Greek version of Leviticus.

Ezekiel 34–37 and Leviticus 26

177

Cooke, G. A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel. ICC. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1936. Crane, A. S. Israel’s Restoration. A Textual-Comparative Exploration of Ezekiel 36–39. VTSup 122. Leiden / ​Boston: Brill, 2008. Fohrer, G. and Galling, K. Ezechiel. HAT 13. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1955. Grünwaldt, K. Das Heiligkeitsgesetz Leviticus 17–26. Ursprüngliche Gestalt, Tradition und Theologie. BZAW 271. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1999. Hurvitz, A. A Linguistic Study of the Relationship between the Priestly Source and the book of Ezekiel: A New Approach to an Old Problem. Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 20. Paris: Gabalda, 1982. Klein, A. Schriftauslegung im Ezechielbuch. Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Ez 34–39. BZAW 391. Berlin / ​New York: de Gruyter, 2008. Levin, C. Die Verheißung des neuen Bundes in ihrem theologieschichtlichen Zusammenhang auslgelegt. FRLANT 137. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985. Lilly, I. E. Two Books of Ezekiel. Papyrus 967 and the Masoretic Text as Variant Literary Editions. VTSup 150. Leiden / ​Boston: Brill, 2012. Lust, J. “Ezekiel 36–40 in the Oldest Greek Manuscript.” CBQ 43 (1981): 517–533. – “Messianism in LXX-Ezekiel: Toward a Synthesis.” Pages 417–30 in The Septuagint and Messianism. Edited by M. A. Knibb. BETL 195. Leuven: University Press, 2006. Lyons, M. A. From Law to Prophecy. Ezekiel’s Use of the Holiness Code. LHB.OTS 507. New York / ​London: T & T Clark, 2009. Mackie, T. P. Expanding Ezekiel: The Hermeneutics of Scribal Addition in the Ancient Text Witnesses of the Book of Ezekiel. FRLANT 257. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015. Milgrom, J. “Leviticus 26 and Ezekiel.” Pages 57–62 in The Quest for Context and Meaning: Studies in Biblical Intertextuality in Honor of James A. Sanders. BIS 28. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Milgrom, J. Leviticus 23–27: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AncB 3B. New York: Doubleday, 2001. Müller, R. “A Prophetic View of the Exile in the Holiness Code: Literary Growth and Tradition History in Leviticus 26.” Pages 207–228 in The Concept of Exile in Ancient Israel and its Historical Contexts. Edited by E. Ben Zvi and C. Levin. BZAW 404. Berlin / ​ New York: de Gruyter, 2010. Nihan, C. From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch: A Study in the Composition of the Book of Leviticus. FAT 2/25. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. – “The Priestly Covenant, Its Reinterpretations, and the Composition of ‘P’.” Pages 86–134 in The Strata of the Priestly Writings, Contemporary Debate and Future Directions. Edited by S. Shectman and J. Baden. AThANT 95. Zürich: TVZ, 2009. – “De la fin du jugement sur Jérusalem au jugement final des nations en Ézéchiel. Ézéchiel 33–39 et l’eschatologie du recueil.” Pages 99–146 in Les prophètes de la Bible et la fin des temps. LeDiv 240. Paris: Cerf, 2010. – “The nāśî’ and the Future of Royalty in Ezekiel.” Pages 229–46 in History, Memory, Hebrew Scriptures: A Festschrift for Ehud Ben Zvi. Edited by I. D. Wilson and D. Edelman. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2015. Ohnesorge, S. Jahwe gestaltet sein Volk neu. Zur Sicht der Zukunft Israels nach Ez 1,14–21; 20,1–44; 36,16–38; 37,1–14.15–28. FzB 64; Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1991. Otto, E. “Innerbiblische Exegese im Heiligkeitsgesetz Levitikus 17–26.” Pages 125–96 in Levitikus als Buch. Edited by H.-J. Fabry. BBB 119. Berlin: Philo, 1999.

178

Christophe L. Nihan

Pohlmann, K.-F. Das Buch des Propheten Hesekiel (Ezechiel). Kapitel 20–48. ATD. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001. Rudnig, T. A. Heilig und Profan. Redaktionskritische Studien zu Ez 40–48. BZAW 287. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000. Schmid, H. H. Šalôm. “Frieden” im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament. SBS 51. Stuttgart: KBW Verlag, 1971. Sedlmeier, F. Das Buch Ezechiel. Kapitel 25–48. NSK.AT. Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2013. Stackert, J. “Distinguishing Innerbiblical Exegesis from Pentateuchal Redaction: Leviticus 26 as a Test Case.” Pages 369–86 in The Pentateuch. International Perspectives on Current Research. Edited by T. Dozeman et al. FAT 78. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Steymans, H. U. “Verheißung und Drohung: Lev 26.” Pages 263–307 in Levitikus als Buch. Edited by H.-J. Fabry. BBB 119. Berlin: Philo, 1999. Stromberg, J. “Observations on Inner-Scriptural Scribal Expansions in MT Ezekiel.” VT 58 (2008), 68–86. Thiel, W. “Die Rede vom “Bund” in den Prophetenbüchern.” ThV 9 (1977): 11–36. Tooman, W. A. “Covenant and Presence in the Composition and Theology of Ezekiel.” Pages 151–82 in Divine Presence and Absence in Persian Period Judaism. Edited by N. MacDonald and I. J. de Hulster. FAT 2/61. Studies of the Sofja Kovalevskaja Research Group on Early Jewish Monotheism 2. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Van der Kooij, A. “The Septuagint of Ezekiel and Hasmonaean Leadership.” Pages 437–46 in Interpreting Translation, Studies on the LXX and Ezekiel in Honour of Johan Lust. Edited by F. García Martínez and M. Vervenne. BEThL 192. Leuven: Leuven University Press and Peeters, 2005. Wevers, J. W. Text History of the Greek Leviticus. AAWG.PH 153. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986. Wevers, J. W. Notes on the Greek Text of Leviticus. SBLSCSt 44. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. Ziegler, J. Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum. Vol. 16/1: Ezechiel. 2nd, revised edition, with a complement by D. Fraenkel. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977. Zimmerli, W. Ezechiel. 2. Teilband: Ezechiel 25–48. BKAT 13/2. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969.

Salvation for Sheep and Bones: Ezek 34 and 37 as Corner Pillars of Ezekiel’s Prophecy of Salvation Anja Klein

1. Introduction The affinity between Ezek 34 and 37 has long attracted attention. The first one to comment on the “formal likeness”1 of the texts was Siegfried Herrmann in 1965. However, the likeness is more than a formality, as the two chapters show also a number of similarities in content. Both start from an image for the restitution of the people that is followed by a number of oracles promising salvation for the people and the land. Moreover, Ezek 34 and 37 framed the salvation prophecies in the third part of the book for a long period during its literary development. This placement certainly suggests that the chapters’ likeness is not accidental, but that it can be explained by their redactional function. In the following, I would like to demonstrate that the chapters’ literary growth is mutually dependent and attests to an innerbiblical discussion on the expectations of salvation in postexilic times. The topics that are dealt with are the identity of the people of Israel, their gathering and return, the hope for a new king, and the redefinition of the relationship with God in terms of the covenant. As such, the two chapters form the framework of the salvation prophecies in the third part of the book, before the change towards the Masoretic chapter order altered the layout of the texts. The starting point for my argument is the analysis of Ezek 34 and 37, which aims to trace the literary growth of each (2.1 and 2.2). Taking these results as a basis, the third part of the analysis focuses on the literary relationship between the two chapters. Here, I will demonstrate that the reciprocal innerbiblical exegesis between Ezek 34 and 37 gradually shaped them into the corner pillars of the salvation prophecies in the book (2.3). Finally, the summarising remarks allow for some thoughts on the historical-theological background that initiated the prophecies of these two chapters (3.).

1 Siegfried Herrmann, Die prophetischen Heilserwartungen im Alten Testament: Ursprung und Gestaltwandel (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1965), 274 (“formale Ähnlichkeit”); he further includes Ezek 36 into this assessment.

180

Anja Klein

2. Textual Observations 2.1 The Shepherd Chapter: Ezekiel 34 Strictly speaking, salvation prophecy in the book of Ezekiel starts in Ezek 33.21 with the arrival of the one who had escaped (‫ )הפליט‬and now brings news of the fall of Jerusalem to the community of exiles in Babylon: “The city has fallen” (‫)הכתה העיר‬. In the narrative of the book, this event is the prerequisite for the onset of salvation that is promised in Ezek 34–39. This part of the book opens with the shepherd chapter in Ezek 34, in which salvation for the people and the land comes as the result from the judgement on the bad shepherds. Even though the chapter gives the impression of a unified composition that revolves around the image of the shepherd, there is some evidence to suggest literary growth. It is first and foremost the differing use of the image of shepherd and flock that points to a literary development. While in 34.1–10 the image is used to accuse the bad shepherds of their negligence, in 34.11–16 the focus is on the divine shepherd Yhwh, who announces that he will overtake the care of his flock. This promise is followed by a judgement oracle in the third part, 34.17–22, which aims at a distinction between the good and the bad sheep. In the fourth part, 34.23–24, the appointment of the Davidic ruler puts the Davidic shepherd in competition with the divine shepherd, while the last segment in 34.25–30 abandons nearly completely the shepherd imagery. Here, salvation prophecy focuses on the promise of the covenant of peace that shall re-establish the relationship between God and his people. Though the literary critical evaluation of the evidence is widely disputed,2 I want to suggest that the basic literary layer of the shepherd chapter can be found in its first part, Ezek 34.1–10* (34.1 f., 5 f., 9 f.).3 This part is constitutive for the 2 Though several exegetes undertake a literary critical analysis of the chapter, there are some differences in outlining the basic literary layer (see n. 3). Alternatively, a number of exegetes advocates the literary unity of Ezek 34, cf. e. g. Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998) 273–77, and Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 22A (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 705–9. 3 For a detailed analysis of Ezek 34 that offers further literary evidence for the redactional layering proposed cf. Klein, Schriftauslegung im Ezechielbuch: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Ez 34–39, BZAW 391 (Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 2008), 32–42. In contrast, Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), 212 f., assumes two original oracles in 34.1–15* and 34.17–22; similarly Leslie W. Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, WBC 29 (Dallas: Waco, 1990), 158–61, takes two oracles in 34.1–16* and 34.17–22 as starting point of the literary development. FrankLothar Hossfeld, Untersuchungen zu Komposition und Theologie des Ezechielbuches, fzb 20 (Würzburg: Echter, 1977), 230 ff., 284–86, limits the basic layer to an original word of judgement in 34.1 f.9 f.*, while Karl-Friedrich Pohlmann, Der Prophet Hesekiel (Ezechiel): Kapitel 20–48 (with a contribution by Thilo A. Rudnig), ATD 22/2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001), 463 f., reverts to the two parts in 34.1–10 and 34.11–16 as forming the original prophecy.

Salvation for Sheep and Bones: Ezek 34 and 37

181

whole chapter not only because it provides the meaningful beginning for the promises to follow, but also because it introduces the image of the shepherd and his flock that is presupposed in the chapter as a whole. In the original oracle (34.1–10*), the prophet is instructed to give a judgement saying against the bad shepherds, who are accused of having been feeding themselves instead of taking care of the flock (34.2: ‫)הוי רעי ישראל אשר היו רעים אותם הלוא הצאן ירעו הרעים‬. Thus, Yhwh announces that he will rescue his sheep from their hands and put a stop to their shepherding (34.10: ‫ודרשתי את צאני מידם והשבתים מרעות צאן ולא ירעו‬ ‫)עוד הרעים אותם והצלתי צאני מפיהם‬. The metaphor of the shepherd and his flock is a common image for the ruler, who cares for his people, throughout the ancient Near East and it is frequently encountered in the Hebrew Bible.4 However, with regard to Ezek 34.1–10*, it seems difficult to decide which group of rulers is accused of negligence here. It has long been seen that the oracle in Ezek 34 relates to the prophecy of Jer 23.1–8, a woe statement over the pre-exilic kings of Israel, who – in the image of shepherds – are accused of having scattered their flock (Jer 23.1: ‫)הוי רעים מאבדים ומפצים את צאן מרעיתי‬.5 However, in comparison with the oracle in the book of Jeremiah, Ezek 34 takes a different position. First of all, the catastrophe of 587 BCE seems to be presupposed and secondly, a situation in the land is described, in which the sheep are pictured to be scattered “all over the land” (34.6: ‫)כל פני הארץ‬.6 Therefore, I would like to suggest that the oracle in 34.1–10* deals with a group of post-exilic leaders, which could even consist of foreign rulers.7 They are accused of having neglected their sheep and thus their shepherd’s duty. Hence, Yhwh announces that he will discharge them of their task and put a stop to their shepherding. In a second step, this basic oracle was supplemented with the promise of Yhwh himself taking care of his sheep in Ezek 34.11–15*.8 The supplement turns to the scattered sheep that have been dispersed into the countries – a symbol that points clearly to Israel in the diaspora. Yhwh announces that he will gather and 4 Cf. the material quoted by Block, Book of Ezekiel, 279–82; see further Vinzenz Hamp, “Das Hirtenmotiv im Alten Testament” in Festschrift Kardinal Faulhaber zum 80. Geburtstag (München: Pfeiffer, 1949), 7–20; Bernd Willmes, Die sogenannte Hirtenallegorie Ez 34: Studien zum Bild des Hirten im Alten Testament, BET 19 (Frankfurt a. M.: Lang, 1984), 277–350, and Regine Hunziker-Rodewald, Hirt und Herde: Ein Beitrag zum alttestamentlichen Gottesverständnis, BWANT 155 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2001), 43–72. 5 See already Rudolf Smend, Der Prophet Ezekiel, 2nd ed, KEH 8 (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1880), 272; further Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 214, 216 f.; Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 161; Block, Book of Ezekiel, 275 f., 282, and Klein, Schriftauslegung, 42–59. 6 In the book of Ezekiel, the toponym ‫ הארץ‬denotes in the vast majority the land of Israel, cf. Klein, Schriftauslegung, 39. 7 Cf. Klein, Schriftauslegung, 40–2, while Pohlmann, Prophet Hesekiel, 464, opts for a group of Israelite post-exilic leaders. On the more traditional identification of the bad shepherds in Ezek 34.2 with the Judaean kings cf. e. g. Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 161. 8 The verse 34.16 can be described as a hinge verse that combines 34.1–15* with the later continuation in 34.17–22, cf. Klein, Schriftauslegung, 35. On its redactional function as a hinge verse see also Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 217, and Hossfeld, Untersuchungen, 244, 282, 285.

182

Anja Klein

return his people in a new exodus (34.13a: ‫והוצאתים מן העמים וקבצתים מן הארצות‬ ‫)והביאתים אל אדמתם‬9 and thus perform his duties as the royal shepherd. In the next step, the promise of a Davidic shepherd, who participates in the covenantal relationship between God and his people, was added. Here, the idea of a human shepherd figure next to the divine shepherd betrays clearly the secondary character of the verses.10 Different designations are used for David in this passage. While the promise in 34.23 stresses that David will be one shepherd (‫)רעה אחד‬ and labels him the servant of Yhwh (‫)עבדי דוד‬, in 34.24 he is also called a prince in their midst (‫)נשיא בתוכם‬. However, the designation of David as a prince in this part of the verse (34.24aß: ‫ )ועבדי דוד נשיא בתוכם‬can be identified as a later insertion that supplements the notion of David as a prince.11 The subsequent promise of a covenant of peace in Ezek 34.25–30* ignores the closing formula of divine asseveration in 34.24, which suggests its secondary nature.12 Further argument for a redactional seam is the observation that the metaphor of shepherd and flock is abandoned in the oracle in 34.25–30*. Apparently, the preceding description of the covenantal relationship between God, the people, and David is taken up and elaborated in a series of promises concerning the peaceful living in the land. These are based on the covenant blessings in Lev 26.13 The people may now live a blissful life safe from foreign nations, the assault of wild beasts, and existential worries such as famine. Finally, we must consider Ezek 34.17–22. These verses comprise a judgement oracle that draws a sharp distinction between the strong and the weak sheep within the flock. Yhwh promises that he will rescue his sheep (34.22: ‫והושעתי‬ ‫)לצאני‬ – meaning the weak ones – from the strong sheep, who suppress them vio  9 On the promise of the new exodus in Ezek 34.13 cf. Johan Lust, “‘Gathering and Return’ in Jeremiah and Ezekiel” in Pierre-Maurice Bogaert (ed.), Le Livre de Jérémie: Le Prophète et son Milieu: Les Oracles et Leur Transmission, BETL LIV (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1981), 121. 10 Cf. Stefan Ohnesorge, Jahwe gestaltet sein Volk neu: Zur Sicht der Zukunft Israels nach Ez 11,14–21; 20,1–44; 36,16–38; 37,1–14.15–28, fzb 64 (Würzburg: Echter, 1991), 370, and Klein, Schriftauslegung, 36 f. The secondary nature of the promise in 34.23 f. is advocated also by Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 159, 163, and Pohlmann, Prophet Hesekiel, 464. On the further literary differentiation in 34.23 cf. the following discussion and n. 11. 11 The verse part 34.24aß attracts suspicion because it disturbs the close connection between 34.23bß and 34.24aα that together form a covenant statement (David as their shepherd / ​Yhwh as their God); cf. Klein, Schriftauslegung, 37. On the secondary nature of 34.24aß cf. further Hossfeld, Untersuchungen, 252; Christoph Levin, Die Verheißung des neuen Bundes in ihrem theologiegeschichtlichen Zusammenhang ausgelegt, FRLANT 137 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985), 219–20 n. 86. 12 On this literary classification cf. Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 159, 163, and Klein, Schriftauslegung, 37. 13 On the links to Lev 26 see Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 220; Hossfeld, Untersuchungen, 273–76; Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 196; Block, Book of Ezekiel, 303 f.; Klein, Schriftauslegung, 184–90, and especially the synopsis by Dieter Baltzer, Ezechiel und Deuterojesaja: Berührungen in der Heilserwartung der beiden großen Exilspropheten, BZAW 121 (Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 1971), 156–60, also the links between Lev 26 and Ezek 37.25–28.

Salvation for Sheep and Bones: Ezek 34 and 37

183

lently. This differentiation within the flock points clearly to a late stage both in the literary and theological-historical development, when the preceding prophecies of salvation undergo a restrictive condition.14 It is not the flock as a whole that stands for the people of Yhwh anymore, since membership of the group depends on the conduct of each single sheep. To sum up: It has been demonstrated that the shepherd chapter is the result of a longer literary development. While the original oracle in 34.1–10* is concerned with the well-being of the people in the land, later continuations deal with essential problems of post-exilic times such as the return of the diaspora, the leadership, the relationship with God, and finally the judgement of the individual’s behaviour. Let us now turn to Ezek 37, whose literary growth attests to the discussion of similar problems. 2.1 The Vision of the Dry Bones and Words of Restoration Ezekiel 37 falls clearly into two halves: While the first part in 37.1–14 features the famous Vision of Dry Bones, the second half in 37.15–28 comprises different salvation prophecies for the people and the land. The literary nucleus of the chapter can be found in the original vision account in 37.1–6*, in which the prophet envisions the scattered bones in the valley.15 Yhwh transfers him into the setting of the vision, leads him around the bones and orders him to prophesy their revival by the spirit. As the whole vision takes place “in the middle of the valley” (37.2: ‫)הבקעה‬, where Ezekiel had seen the glory of Yhwh according to the introductory vision of the book (3.22, 23), the prophecy clearly addresses the first golah. Using the metaphor of the scattered bones, the fate of the first golah in Babylonian exile is described as being utterly hopeless and without escape. However, the prophet announces that Yhwh will revivify his people by putting spirit into them (37.5b: ‫)הנה אני מביא בכם רוח וחייתם‬. The original vision account is firstly continued with a disputation oracle in 37.11–13a. The prophetic word actualises the preceding vision by supplementing the idea that revivification means leading the people back to their homeland (37.12b: ‫)והבאתי אתכם אל אדמת ישראל‬. It is now the new exodus that effects new 14 Cf. Klein, Schriftauslegung, 36; see further Hossfeld, Untersuchungen, 233, 244–53, 282 f.; differently Block, Book of Ezekiel, 292, insists that this passage plays a vital role in the progression of the oracle and thus cannot be partitioned off as secondary. 15 Cf. Klein, Schriftauslegung, 270–76. Scholarship can be divided roughly into those exegetes that adhere to the general unity of the vision account in 34.1–10* and the disputation oracle in 34.11–14* (cf. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 256–58; Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 183 f.; Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 747–49; Block, Book of Ezekiel, 372) and those that suggest an original core within the vision part 34.1–10(11a)* (cf. e. g. Baltzer, Ezechiel, 114 f.; Hossfeld, Untersuchungen, 369; Ohnesorge, Jahwe, 298). The one exception is Karl-Friedrich Pohlmann, Ezechielstudien: Zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Buches und zur Frage nach den ältesten Texten, BZAW 180 (Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 1992), 115–19, who judges 34.11–14* to be preceding the vision account in 34.1–10* in literary terms.

184

Anja Klein

life for those who were close to death far away from their land. A second continuation in 37.13b–14 further specifies the events of restoration.16 The author of this prophecy is apparently concerned that the divine spirit shall not be bestowed outside the country and thus supplements the divine action with a further stage. According to 37.14, the divine spirit is now given only after the return of the people to their land (‫)ונתתי רוחי בכם וחייתם והנחתי אתכם על אדמתכם‬. In the second half of the chapter, the vision account is continued with a number of prophetic oracles that start from a sign act in 37.15–19. Here, the prophet is instructed to take two wooden sticks (37.16: ‫לך עץ אחד … ולקח עץ אחד ואתה‬ ‫ )בן אדם קח‬and join them together (37.17a: ‫)אל אחד לך לעץ אחד וקרב אתם אחד‬ in order to symbolise the reunification of Israel and Judah. The main aim of this process is to make them “one” in the hand of the prophet (37.17b: ‫והיו לאחדים‬ ‫)בידך‬. The idea of unity is carried through to the next literary layer in 37.20–23*, where, however, the sign act undergoes a decisive interpretation.17 It is no longer the reunification of the two nations Israel and Judah that takes centre stage; instead the unifying act of Yhwh focuses now on the scattered people. While the situation of separation formerly referred to the two separated nations, Israel and Judah (37.15–19), it now refers to the people scattered in the diaspora. Yhwh promises that he will gather them out of the foreign nations (37.21b: ‫וקבצתי‬ ‫ )אתם מסביב והבאתי אותם אל אדמתם‬in order to make them one nation in the land (37.22: ‫)ועשיתי אתם לגוי אחד בארץ‬. The oneness of the people is reflected in the oneness of their rulership, as it is one king that is supposed to reign over them (37.22aβ: ‫)ומלך אחד יהיה לכלם‬. So far, the identity of this king has not been unveiled. The riddle is only solved in the single verse supplement of 37.24 that introduces the servant David, who is appointed king and sole shepherd over the people (‫)ועבדי דוד מלך עליהם ורועה אחד יהיה לכלם‬.18 This appointment of the Davidic king and shepherd could put an end to the discussion, but the final liter-

16 The literary doublet in 37.12aß and 37.13b that describes Yhwh’s salvation action in terms of opening up the graves and bringing up his people from their graves, points to 37.13b–14 being a secondary continuation; cf. Klein, Schriftauslegung, 281 f. (similarly Ohnesorge, Jahwe, 295 f., while Baltzer, Ezechiel, 107 f., and Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 184, limit the reworking to 37.14). 17 The double instruction to speak in 37.19 and 37.21 points to the secondary nature of 37.20– 23* that abstracts from the action of the sign act; on the secondary character of 37.20–23* see Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 271–73; Ohnesorge, Jahwe, 339; and Klein, Schriftauslegung, 214. Less convincingly, Georg Fohrer, Ezechiel: Mit einem Beitrag von Kurt Galling, HAT 1/13 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1955), 211, and Hans Ferdinand Fuhs, Ezechiel 25–48, NEB 7 (Würzburg: Echter, 1984), 211, want to explain the doublet by assuming a gloss in 37.19 f.*. 18 The secondary nature of the single verse 37.24 can be justified as follows: the covenant formula at the end of 37.23 signals a caesura and the former unidentified king is now named as the servant David, which points to a specifying reworking in 37.24; cf. Hossfeld, Untersuchungen, 248–52 (who, however, undertakes a further literary differentiation within the verse), and Klein, Schriftauslegung, 216).

185

Salvation for Sheep and Bones: Ezek 34 and 37

ary continuation in 37.25–28*19 revokes the concept of kingship and adheres to the servant David being prince forever (37.25bβ: ‫)ודוד עבדי נשיא להם לעולם‬. This Davidic promise is furthermore embedded into the promise of the everlasting covenant of peace (37.26: ‫)וכרתי להם ברית שלום ברית עולם‬.20 The salvific effect of this covenant results in a comprehensive state of shalom in the country and takes shape in God’s ever-lasting presence in the sanctuary among his people (37.26bβ: ‫)ונתתי את מקדשי בתוכם לעולם‬. 2.2 The Literary Development The textual observations have shown that there is a great similarity between chapters 34 and 37 in both content and form. Each starts from a metaphorical image that symbolises the people’s need of restoration and then proceed to a string of salvation oracles. Hence, there is the question how these similarities are to be assessed. Yet before dealing with this question, I would like to widen the focus on the textual history of the book. The textual witnesses in hand give us valuable insight into the book’s literary development, as they attest to different stages of the literary growth. This especially concerns the placement of chapters 34 and 37. For a long period of time, the arrangement of the texts in the third part of the book had corresponded to the testimony of the Greek Papyrus 967 (Pap. 967), where the Gog Oracles (Ezek 38–39) are inserted in between Ezek 36 and 37.21 In this sequence, the two chapters 34 and 37 form the corner pillars of the salvation prophecies in the third part of the book, before a rearrangement of the texts led to the chapter order that is attested to by the Masoretic Text. The Textual Witness of Pap. 967 Pap. 967 MT

34 34

35 35

36 36

38+39 37

37 38+39

With that said, let us turn to the relationship between Ezek 34 and 37. As already mentioned, both chapters start from a metaphorical image for the dire distress 19 The passage starts new after the two continuations relating to the sign act in 37.20–23* and 37.24. Moreover, with the idea of the prince (37.25: ‫)נשיא‬, the oracle in 37.25–28* introduces a new ruler concept; cf. Klein, Schriftauslegung, 172–74; further Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 273, 276 (in relation to 37.24b–28); Fuhs, Ezechiel 25–48, 211–14, and Ohnesorge, Jahwe, 339–418. 20 On the concept of the covenant of peace cf. Bernard F. Batto, “The Covenant of Peace: A Neglected Ancient Near Eastern Motif,” CBQ 49 (1987): 187–211. 21 On the insight that Pap. 967 has preserved an older edition of the book than the Masoretic Text cf. Lust, “Ezekiel 36–40 in the Oldest Greek Manuscript,” CBQ 43 (1981): 517–33; Peter Schwagmeier, “Untersuchungen zu Textgeschichte und Entstehung des Ezechielbuches in masoretischer und griechischer Überlieferung” (PhD diss., University of Zurich, 2004), 180–86, 313–17, and Klein, Schriftauslegung, 60–5. This view has been opposed by Block, Book of Ezekiel, 341, and Joyce, Ezekiel: A Commentary, LHBOTS 482 (New York; London: T & T Clark, 2007), 205–06.

186

Anja Klein

of the people: the scattered flock in Ezek 34.1–10* and the scattered bones in Ezek 37.1–6*. At this stage of the literary growth, however, there is no evidence to suggest a literary dependency between the two chapters (34.1–10*; 37.1–6*).22 Rather, the reciprocal exegesis starts only with the two promises of gathering and return in 34.11–15* and 37.20–23*, which share some distinctive vocabulary. In both texts, the new exodus is announced in a tripartite promise that includes to ‘lead’ them out, to ‘gather’ them and to ‘bring’ them into the land of Israel. There are only few occurrences of this so-called “gathering-and-return formula”23 in the book and the linkages show that a dependency between the two prophetic oracles is most likely. There is one difference that attracts special attention: While in 34.13 the gathering shall take place from the nations and from the countries (‫)וקבצתים מן הארצות והוצאתים מן העמים‬, in 37.21, the people shall be gathered out of the midst of the nations and from roundabout (‫אני לקח את בני ישראל מבין‬ ‫)הגוים אשר הלכו שם וקבצתי אתם מסביב‬. Apparently, the promise in 37.21 deals with a later historical situation, when the exiled people had already mingled with the foreign population, so that the Israelites have to be taken out of their midst.24 Both texts present the prospect of a new exodus and both speak of a figure of major importance: the divine shepherd in 34.11–15* and the nameless king in 37.20–23*. Actually, this similarity holds the key to the identity of the nameless shepherd in 37.22. In 34.11–15*, Yhwh is depicted as the royal shepherd who takes care of his flock, while the literary subsequent text in 37.20–23* speaks of a nameless king who guarantees the unity of the people (37.22: ‫)מלך אחד‬. It is a reasonable suggestion to assume the identity of the two figures: The divine shepherd in chap. 34 can be identified with the one king that is promised in 37.22.25 Consequently, the later promise in 37.20–23* has to be understood as an exegesis of the preceding gathering and return promise in 34.11–15*. As interpreted by the later redactor, the metaphor of the divine shepherd (34.11–15*) is transferred into the image of the one king (37.20–23*), referring to Yhwh as the divine ruler 22  The literary relationship between Ezek 34.1–10* and 37.1–6* is difficult to assess, as the two texts do not signify a literary dependency. However, there is some evidence to suggest that the vision account in 37.1–6* is part of the original prophecies of the book, while the judgement oracle against the bad shepherds in 34.1–10* has been added at a later stage, cf. Klein, Schriftauslegung, 317–20. 23 The designation goes back to Lust, “Gathering,” 119–42. 24 Cf. Klein, Schriftauslegung, 220; similarly Pohlmann, Prophet Hesekiel, 503. 25 Cf. Klein, Schriftauslegung, 221. Besides myself, only Joyce considers Yhwh to be the king in 37.22 (cf. Joyce, “King,” 328, 335). However, he decides finally that the reference to a human king is “the most natural reading of 37.22” (Joyce, “King and Messiah in Ezekiel,” in John Day (ed.), King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar, JSOT 270 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998), 335). Traditionally, 37.22 is understood as a reference to a Davidic king; cf. especially Pohlmann, Prophet Hesekiel, 503 n. 20: “Obviously, as a representative of the unified Israel […] only a ‘David’ qualifies” [“Als Repräsentant des geeinten Israel bietet sich […] verständlicherweise nur ein ‘David’ an.”].

Salvation for Sheep and Bones: Ezek 34 and 37

187

of Israel. The unity of the people, whom Yhwh will make into one nation (‫לגוי‬ ‫)אחד‬, is reflected by their one divine ruler (‫)מלך אחד‬. Taking this interpretation as starting point, the further reciprocal exegesis can be unravelled. To begin with, a discussion regarding who might be responsible for the leadership of the people is initiated. The first contribution is made by the redactor responsible for the Davidic promise in 34.23 f*. He draws on the promise of the (divine) one king in 37.22 (‫)מלך אחד‬, who guarantees the unity of the people. In the shepherd chapter, this king is identified with the one Davidic shepherd, who is appointed by Yhwh (34.23a: ‫והקמתי עליהם רעה אחד ורעה אתהן‬ ‫)את עבדי דויד‬. The emphasis on the numeral “one” (‫ )אחד‬in 34.23 points clearly to the author of 34.23 f.* interpreting the promise in 37.22 as a reference to a Davidic king. This identification, however, subsequently finds its way into chap. 37, where the author of the single verse continuation in 37.24 names David explicitly king and one shepherd (‫)ועבדי דוד מלך עליהם ורועה אחד יהיה לכלם‬.26 Thereby, the addition does not only systematise the different concepts of rulership in the two chapters. This salvation promise now has to be understood as paving the way for the Davidic appointment in 37.24. Thus, the nameless king of 37.22 (formerly referring to Yhwh) is explicitly identified with the Davidic king. This reading, however, is corrected immediately in the following literary stage in chap. 37. Here, the author responsible for the promise of the covenant of peace in 37.25–28* attributes David the role of a prince only (37.25: ‫)נשיא‬, thus relegating him to second place. The same hand can be held responsible for the corresponding addition in 34.24aß, which also speaks of David as a prince (‫)נשיא‬.27 Apparently, the redactor at work is concerned to allocate the Davidic ruler a position subordinate to the divine ruler Yhwh. One might also suggest that he tries to balance the promise of a new ruler in Ezek 34 and 37 with the idea of the prince (‫ )נשיא‬as cultic head in Ezek 40–48*.28 In this perspective, the announcements of a prince in 34.24 and 37.25 can be read as pointing to both person and office of the prince in Ezek 40–48*. However, the salvation oracle in chap. 37.25–28* is not only concerned with interpreting the Davidic promise of the shepherd chapter, but also draws on the promise of the covenant of peace in 34.25–30*. In the shepherd chapter, this oracle describes the covenant of peace between God, David, and his people con26 Regarding the general literary dependency of the Davidic promise in 37.24 on the announcement in 34.23 f., cf. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 271 f., 278 f.; Timo Veijola, Verheißung in der Krise: Studien zur Literatur und Theologie der Exilszeit anhand des 89. Psalms, AASF B 220 (Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1982), 165 n. 3, and Klein, Schriftauslegung, 222. 27 The same authorship for the promises of a prince in Ezek 34.24aß and 37.25–28 is also considered by Hossfeld, Untersuchungen, 283, while Ohnesorge, Jahwe, 373, argues against this solution. 28 Cf. the occurrences of ‫( נשיא‬prince) in Ezek 44.3; 45.7–9, 16 f., 22; 46.2, 4, 8, 10, 12, 16–18; 48.21 f. On the role of the prince in Ezek 40–48 cf. Thilo A. Rudnig, Heilig und Profan: Redaktionskritische Studien zu Ez 40–48, BZAW 287 (Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 2000), 137–64.

188

Anja Klein

centrating on the salvific effect on men and land. The author of 37.25–28* takes up this description from 34.25–30*, but he interprets the covenant of peace in terms of an everlasting covenant (37.26: ‫)ברית שלום ברית עולם‬.29 Furthermore, he combines the promise of the covenant with the promise of the sanctuary as divine dwelling place “among them forever” (37.26: ‫)ונתתי את מקדשי בתוכם לעולם‬. Thus, the covenantal relationship takes shape in the presence of God in the midst of his people. With the promise of the everlasting covenant of peace, the reciprocal exegesis of the chapters Ezek 34 and 37 has come to an end. The last continuation within these chapters, the judgement on the good and the bad sheep in 34.17–22, has had no effect on the corresponding prophecy in chap. 37.

3. Ezekiel 34 and 37: A Compendium of Salvation There remains the question as to the theological-historical background that can account for the exegetical back and forth between Ezek 34 and 37. The foregoing observations have demonstrated the productive effect of the phenomenon of innerbiblical exegesis that led to the chapters growing into a complete picture of the coming salvation. Through this process, the major problems of post-exilic times came to be discussed.30 The exegetical discussion starts from the loss of identity resulting from the catastrophe of 587 BCE and its aftermath. The people in exilic and post-exilic times had to deal with the deprivation of their major identity markers such as the national deity, the statehood, and their home country. In our texts, this situation is symbolised by the metaphors of the strayed sheep and the scattered bones, both of which stand for disorientation and utter hopelessness. The problems are dealt with in the promise of the divine shepherd, who gathers his flock (34.1–10*), and the god that brings back life (37.1–6*). The identity of the people is thereby restored and defined in relation to their god, Yhwh. In the following, the people’s continuing existence in the diaspora had to be faced, a problem that is taken up in the corresponding promises of gathering and return in both chapters (34.11–15*; 37.20–23*). Obviously, the pending return of the scattered people had come to be seen as the major obstacle for salvation. However, with the return of the exiled to their land, the problems had only started, as the repatriates realised that they had to redefine those institutions that formerly constituted their identity in pre-exilic 29 On this direction of dependency, see Herrmann, Heilserwartungen, 274; Ohnesorge, Jahwe, 389; and Klein, Schriftauslegung, 177–79. 30 The following observations converge in several points with the picture of salvation expectations in the corpus propheticum as a whole; see the discussion by Odil H. Steck and Konrad Schmid, “Heilserwartungen in den Prophetenbüchern des Alten Testaments” in Konrad Schmid (ed.), Prophetische Heils‑ und Herrschererwartungen, SBS 194 (Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2005), 1–36.

Salvation for Sheep and Bones: Ezek 34 and 37

189

times. One pressing question was the future of the king in Israel. While the first contributions in our two texts opt for a theocratic ideal in this point, promising the divine shepherd (34.11–15*) and the divine king (37.20–23*), later authors try to fit in the Davidic hope in terms of a David redivivus. There is, however, some discussion as to whether David should resume the place of king, or if his role should be redefined in terms of a Davidic prince (34.23 f.*; 37.24; 34.24aß; 37.25–28). It can be assumed that this discussion should be seen in the context of the idea of the prince in the vision of the new sanctuary Ezek 40–48.31 Apparently, the author, who names David a prince in both 34.24aß and 37.25, wants to identify him with the prince of chapters 40–48, whose function is restricted to cultic matters. It is a phenomenon that is attested to in the whole corpus propheticum that the royal rule of salvation is significantly limited in political terms and concentrated on the welfare of the people.32 Another problem was the devastation of the land that, according to the testimony of the Hebrew Bible, had lain fallow and yielded no fruit.33 Though we know now that this picture is a theological concept – or a figure of thought34 – rather than a true depiction of the historical situation, it can be assumed that the years following the exile were not times of overflowing economical wealth.35 Furthermore, Judah’s political dependency, being a Persian province,36 and the absence of a national ruler contributed further to the problems of the people to form their collective identity and to organise daily life. The innerbiblical discussion in Ezek 34 and 37 deals with these problems by promising the well-being of the people in the land. Here, the covenant of peace effects the restoration of the land that shall bear fruit again and it provides for the safe dwelling of the people in their land (34.25–30*; 37.25–28*). Moreover, the renewed presence of God in his sanctuary that is part of the covenantal blessings (37.26) allows for a renewal of the ritually mediated relationship with Yhwh. It is not only the reestablishment 31 These chapters in themselves comprise a detailed outline for the restoration of temple, city and land, cf. Rainer Albertz, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period: Volume II: From the Exile to the Maccabees, OTL (Westminster John Knox Press: Louisville, 1994), 427–36. 32 Cf. Steck and Schmid, “Heilserwartungen,” 11 f. 33 On the idea of the ‘empty land’ during exilic times cf. Hans Barstad, The Myth of the Empty Land: A Study in the History and Archaeology of Judah During the ‘Exilic’ Period, Symbolae Osloenses 18 (Oslo; Cambridge, Mass.: Scandinavian University Press, 1996), 13–82. 34 The term ‘thought’ goes back to Ackroyd’s distinction of the events and the thought that he used to describe the phenomenon of exile in the Hebrew Bible (cf. Peter R. Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration: A Study of Hebrew Thought of the Sixth Century (London: SCM Press, 1968), e. g. 14). 35 Concerning the living conditions in post exilic times see Albertz, History, 437–533, and Lester L. Grabbe, A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period. Volume 1: Yehud: A History of the Persian Province of Judah, LSTS 47 (London; New York: T & T Clark, 2004), 263–89. 36 As a Persian province, Judah became known under the name of Yehud, cf. Grabbe, History, 132–66.

190

Anja Klein

of the temple cult in post-exilic times (520–515 BCE)37 that stands in the background of this promise, but also the thought of the covenant, which provides a new theological basis for the relationship between Yhwh and his people. Finally, the judgement oracle in 34.17–22 (the latest continuation in our two chapters) paves the way for an individualisation of faith. Here, salvation is not a promise for the people as a whole, but salvation depends on the individual’s conduct.38 Only those who are God-fearing will belong to the divine flock, while the bad sheep will be expelled. To sum up, this contribution has demonstrated the productive effect of innerbiblical exegesis on the prophecies in the book of Ezekiel. The two chapters Ezek 34 and 37 are key witnesses to the phenomenon that prophecies in hand initiated the actualisation and continuation of existing texts. These in return have influenced the understanding and reception of their literary Vorlagen, which had similar productive implications. In this way, Ezek 34 and 37 have grown into ideal pictures of salvation prophecies that run through restoration from A to Z. This effect is strengthened by their position as corner pillars framing the third part of the book, a position that they took up for a long period of the literary development. It was only with the rearrangement of the chapters according to the Masoretic order that Ezek 37 is dislodged from its position at the outer frame. Its place is taken by the Gog and Magog chapters in Ezek 38 f., which give restoration an eschatological drive, but this is another story. The following table gives an overview of the structure of Ezek 34 and 37. It shows the text-segmentation and highlights those text-features that are discussed in the argument.

37 Though it is reasonable to suggest that the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem was granted by the Persian ruler Darius I at the end of the sixth century BCE (520–515 BCE), the exact dates and the scope of the rebuilding are debated, cf. on this Grabbe, History, 282–85. 38 Steck and Schmid, “Heilserwartungen,” 35, see the Samaritan schism in the background of this theological concept; however, the concept of individual judgement seems to have a longer history in the Hebrew Bible and might have been triggered by several circumstances.

‫‪191‬‬

‫‪Salvation for Sheep and Bones: Ezek 34 and 37‬‬

‫‪Overview: Ezekiel 34 and 37‬‬ ‫*)‪37.1–6(14‬‬ ‫‪the vision of the dry bones‬‬ ‫וינחני בתוך הבקעה והיא מלאה ‪37.1:‬‬ ‫עצמות‬

‫*‪34.1–10‬‬ ‫­ ‪judgement oracle against the bad‬‬ ‫)‪shepherds (scattered sheep‬‬ ‫בן אדם הנבא על רועי ישראל ‪34.2:‬‬

‫והבאתי אתכם אל אדמת ישראל ‪37.12:‬‬ ‫‪37.15–22‬‬ ‫‪the sign act‬‬ ‫קח לך עץ אחד … ולקח עץ אחד ‪37.16:‬‬ ‫והיו לאחדים בידך ‪37.17:‬‬ ‫*‪37.20–23‬‬ ‫‪the promise of gathering and return‬‬

‫*)‪34.11–15(16‬‬ ‫‪the promise of gathering and return‬‬

‫אני לקח את בני ישראל מבין ‪37.21:‬‬ ‫הגוים … וקבצתי אתם מסביב והבאתי‬ ‫אותם אל אדמתם‬

‫והוצאתים מן העמים וקבצתים מן ‪34.13:‬‬ ‫הארצות והביאתים אל אדמתם‬

‫… ועשיתי אתם לגוי אחד בארץ ‪37.22:‬‬ ‫ומלך אחד יהיה לכלם‬ ‫‪34.17–22‬‬ ‫‪judgement on the good and‬‬ ‫‪the bad sheep‬‬ ‫‪37.24‬‬ ‫‪the Davidic promise‬‬

‫*‪34.23 f.‬‬ ‫‪the Davidic promise‬‬

‫ועבדי דוד מלך עליהם ורועה אחד ‪37.24:‬‬ ‫יהיה לכלם‬

‫והקמתי עליהם רעה אחד … את ‪34.23:‬‬ ‫עבדי דויד‬ ‫]ועבדי דוד נשיא בתוכם ‪[34.24aß:‬‬

‫*‪37.25–28‬‬ ‫‪the covenant of peace‬‬

‫*‪34.25–30‬‬ ‫‪the covenant of peace‬‬

‫ודוד עבדי נשיא להם לעולם ‪37.25:‬‬

‫וכרתי להם ברית שלום ‪34.25:‬‬

‫וכרתי להם ברית שלום ברית עולם ‪37.26:‬‬ ‫ונתתי את מקדשי בתוכם לעולם …‬

192

Anja Klein

Bibliography Ackroyd, Peter R. Exile and Restoration: A Study of Hebrew Thought of the Sixth Century. London: SCM Press, 1968. Albertz, Rainer. A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period: Volume II: From the Exile to the Maccabees. Old Testament Library. Westminster John Knox Press: Louisville, 1994. Allen, Leslie W. Ezekiel 20–48. Word Biblical Commentary 29. Dallas: Waco, 1990. Baltzer, Dieter. Ezechiel und Deuterojesaja: Berührungen in der Heilserwartung der beiden großen Exilspropheten. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 121. Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 1971. Barstad, Hans. The Myth of the Empty Land: A Study in the History and Archaeology of Judah During the ‘Exilic’ Period. Symbolae Osloenses 18. Oslo; Cambridge, Mass.: Scandinavian University Press, 1996. Batto, Bernard F. “The Covenant of Peace: A Neglected Ancient Near Eastern Motif,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 49 (1987): 187–211. Block, Daniel I. The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Fohrer, Georg. Ezechiel: Mit einem Beitrag von Kurt Galling. Handbuch zum Alten Testament 1/13. Tübingen: Mohr, 1955. Fuhs, Hans Ferdinand. Ezechiel 25–48. Neue Echter Bibel 7. Würzburg: Echter, 1984. Grabbe, Lester L. A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period. Volume 1: Yehud: A History of the Persian Province of Judah. Library of Second Temple Studies 47. London; New York: T & T Clark, 2004. Greenberg, Moshe. Ezekiel 21–37: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 22A. New York: Doubleday, 1997. Hamp, Vinzenz. “Das Hirtenmotiv im Alten Testament.” Pages 7–20 in Festschrift Kardinal Faulhaber zum 80. Geburtstag. München: Pfeiffer, 1949. Herrmann, Siegfried. Die prophetischen Heilserwartungen im Alten Testament: Ursprung und Gestaltwandel. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1965. Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar. Untersuchungen zu Komposition und Theologie des Ezechielbuches. Forschung zur Bibel 20. Würzburg: Echter, 1977. Hunziker-Rodewald, Regine. Hirt und Herde: Ein Beitrag zum alttestamentlichen Gottesverständnis. Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten (und Neuen) Testament 155. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2001. Joyce, Paul M. Ezekiel: A Commentary. Library of Hebrew Bible Old Testament Study 482. New York; London: T & T Clark, 2007. —. “King and Messiah in Ezekiel.” Pages 323–37 in King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar. Edited by John Day. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 270. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998. Klein, Anja. Schriftauslegung im Ezechielbuch: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Ez 34–39. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 391. Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 2008. Levin, Christoph. Die Verheißung des neuen Bundes in ihrem theologiegeschichtlichen Zusammenhang ausgelegt. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 137. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985.

Salvation for Sheep and Bones: Ezek 34 and 37

193

Lust, Johan. “Ezekiel 36–40 in the Oldest Greek Manuscript,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 43 (1981): 517–33. —,“‘Gathering and Return’ in Jeremiah and Ezekiel.” Pages 119–42 in Le Livre de Jérémie: Le Prophète et son Milieu: Les Oracles et Leur Transmission. Edited by Pierre-Maurice Bogaert. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium LIV. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1981. Ohnesorge. Stefan, Jahwe gestaltet sein Volk neu: Zur Sicht der Zukunft Israels nach Ez 11,14–21; 20,1–44; 36,16–38; 37,1–14.15–28. Forschung zur Bibel 64. Würzburg: Echter, 1991. Pohlmann, Karl-Friedrich. Der Prophet Hesekiel (Ezechiel): Kapitel 20–48 (with a contribution by Thilo A. Rudnig). Alt Testament Deutsch 22/2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001. —. Ezechielstudien: Zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Buches und zur Frage nach den ältesten Texten. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 180. Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 1992. Rudnig, Thilo A. Heilig und Profan: Redaktionskritische Studien zu Ez 40–48. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 287. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2000. Schwagmeier, Peter. “Untersuchungen zu Textgeschichte und Entstehung des Ezechielbuches in masoretischer und griechischer Überlieferung.” PhD diss., University of Zurich, 2004. Smend, Rudolf. Der Prophet Ezechiel. 2nd ed. Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament 8. Leipzig: Hirzel, 1880. Steck, Odil H. and Schmid, Konrad, “Heilserwartungen in den Prophetenbüchern des Alten Testaments.” Pages 1–36 in Prophetische Heils‑ und Herrschererwartungen. Edited by Konrad Schmid. Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 194. Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2005. Veijola, Timo. Verheißung in der Krise: Studien zur Literatur und Theologie der Exilszeit anhand des 89. Psalms. Annales Academiae scientiarum fennicae B 220. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1982. Willmes, Bernd. Die sogenannte Hirtenallegorie Ez 34: Studien zum Bild des Hirten im Alten Testament. Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese und Theologie 19. Frankfurt a. M.: Lang, 1984. Zimmerli, Walther. Ezekiel 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983.

The Gog Oracles of Ezekiel between Psalms and the Priestly Writer Frank-Lothar Hossfeld † The Gog Oracles (GO; Ezek 38–39) form a demarcated textual unit and commence with a prophetic word formula. These chapters were inserted into the third part of the book (Ezek 33–48), between the last two of the fourteen dates that comprise the book’s biographical system (Ezek 1.1; [3.16;] 8.1; 20.1; 24.1), namely Ezek 33.21 and 40.1. GO is the last word of the book about the foreign nations after chaps. 25–32. In this essay, I will refer to and make some remarks about three monographs published in the last three years: Biberger,1 Tooman,2 and Rösel.3

1. Bernd Biberger Biberger uses redaction criticism to identify three layers in GO: the basic text is Ezek 39.1–5, 7; then a major addition in Ezek 38.1–17*, 23 and 39.8–10, 17–29 which gives these two chapters the structure of two parallel halves with a final reflection. The third layer is a second redaction, especially in Ezek 38.18–22 and 39.6, 11–13 with a supplement in Ezek 39.14–16. The development of the whole text took place in the period between the second destruction of Jerusalem (587/86 BCE) and the middle of the fourth century BCE.

2. William A. Tooman Tooman offers a new solution added to the “numerous speculative theories on the redactional history of these two chapters.”4 GO constitutes a literary “pas1 Bernd Biberger, Endgültiges Heil innerhalb von Geschichte und Gegenwart. Zukunftskonzeptionen in Ez 38–39, Joel 1–4 und Sach 12–14, BBB (Göttingen: V&R unipress, 2010). 2 William A. Tooman, Gog of Magog: Reuse of Scripture and Compositional Technique in Ezekiel 38–39, FAT 2/52 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011). 3 Christoph Rösel, JHWHs Sieg über Gog und Magog. Ez 38–39 im Masoretischen Text und in der Septuaginta (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2012). 4 Tooman, Gog of Magog, 256.

The Gog Oracles of Ezekiel between Psalms and the Priestly Writer

195

tiche,” a new composition, which draws together locutions from all over the Hebrew Bible. These locutions have an “Ezekielian stamp,” but are sometimes used in a different manner. The author was a single individual from the Persian or Hellenistic period, who added his supplement to the extant book of Ezekiel. It seems to me that Tooman, in view of the text’s many incoherencies, makes a virtue out of necessity: Tooman acknowledges the structural relevance of the typical Ezekielian formulas, but he lowers their function because he concentrates mainly on smaller locutions. On the textual surface these two chapters are a mosaic of locutions, and did not originate as a speech. He analyzes the text according to the reading sequence, but without a verse-to-verse exegesis. In his thorough comparison of parallel locutions, however, he overemphasizes the parallels outside the book. In going to another book, with its own difficulties, the complexity of comparison increases and he therefore runs the risk of creating more questions in view of the direction of dependence. To me, in terms of priority, it seems better to look for parallels inside the book of Ezekiel before going outside the book. The late dating of the author is a consequence of the findings he applies: the more locutions from outside the book, the later the author has to be dated. To work out the redaction history of the text is in line with the exegetical tradition of Fortschreibung (Zimmerli), which interprets the development of prophetic books as a movement from verbal prophetic speech to complete written books, a process used to describe the development of many biblical books.5

3. Christoph Rösel Rösel gives a long overview of the history of research of GO. He wants to work towards a common basis for an appropriate exegesis of GO and offers three main parts: a. A verse-by-verse textual criticism with the conclusion that by comparing OG and MT we get an older reconstructed version of the two chapters. One result is that, in the older order of OG, GO follows immediately after Ezek 36.16–23bα, and Ezek 37 follows after GO. In the younger MT, GO stands between Ezek 37 and the second temple vision in Ezek 40–48. b. The second part is a verse-by-verse analysis of the background of motives and traditions in GO. Here we find a certain overlap with the comparisons of Tooman, but with different emphasis:

5 Wather Zimmerli, “Das Phänomen der ‘Fortschreibung’ im Buche Ezechiel” in Prophecy: Essays Presented to Georg Fohrer on his Sixty-Fifth Birthday (ed. John Emerton; BZAW 150; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1980): 174–191.

196

Frank-Lothar Hossfeld †

Die meisten Beziehungen im Blick auf Sprachgebrauch und Wortschatz bestehen zu Texten aus Kap. 1–37 und innerhalb dieser Kapitel zu den Fremdvölkerworten in Kap. 25–32 (p. 326) … Ez 38–39 nennt nur solche Völker, über die in Kap. 25–32 noch kein Gerichtswort steht, auch wenn die meisten Namen in der Liste der Handelspartner und Verbündeten von Tyrus in Ez 27 bereits belegt sind … Durch die Verbindung zu den anderen Völkertexten des Ezechielbuches wird deutlich, dass das Gog-Geschehen kein isoliertes Ereignis der ‚Endzeit‘ ist, sondern dass darin ein Prozess der Verhältnisbestimmung zu den Nationen zum Abschluss kommen wird.6 Im Einzelnen findet sich keine Aussage, die der durch die Ezechieltradition vorgegebenen Perspektive der Exilszeit ausdrücklich widersprechen würde. Eine Datierung der Perikope, die von der Zeit des Propheten selbst abrückt, muss deshalb durch andere Argumente begründet werden.7

Rösel indicates as terminus post quem 580 BCE and as terminus ante quem the 1st century BCE, since the Masada fragments of Ezekiel follow the order of MT.8 c. In the third part, Rösel compares the concept of the nations in GO with those within the context of the book and subsequently with those of other prophetic books. The oldest concepts belong to an exilic point of view: Zugespitzt könnte man diese Form der Völkertheologie als partikulare Lösung in einem universalen Rahmen beschreiben. Partikular daran ist, dass sich ausdrückliche Heilsaussagen allein für Israel finden. Israel und die Nationen stehen sich deshalb in dieser Hinsicht als zwei grundsätzlich verschiedene Größen gegenüber.9

Rösel keeps the redactional question open because it depends upon an overarching theory of the genesis of the whole book.10 Here he discusses the redactioncritical theories of Klein, Hossfeld and Krüger.

4. A Modified Proposal In the light of these three studies, I want to repeat my earlier, though slightly modified proposal that GO has its nucleus in Ezek 38.1–3a and 39.1b–5, 7.11 a. The basic oracle has structural parallels in Ezek 28.20–23; 29.2–6; and 35.1– 4. They are all announcements, but lack a direct accusation against the addressee. According to the context, Ezek 29.1–6 is the next and most similar parallel. The original introduction of 38.1–3a was separated from the basic text at a later stage.   6 Ibid,

407–408. JHWHs Sieg, 344.   8 Ibid, 351.   9 Ibid, 411. 10 Ibid, 353. 11 Frank-Lothar Hossfeld, Untersuchungen zu Komposition und Theologie des Ezechielbuches, FzB 20 (Würzburg: Echter, 1977). My modification depends as well on the detailed analysis of the GO by Biberger (Biberger, 37–132, especially his interpretation of the Old Greek (Papyrus967) in 125–128; cf. Rösel, 118–126).   7 Rösel,

The Gog Oracles of Ezekiel between Psalms and the Priestly Writer

197

The basic text became the introduction for the second part of GO with a parallel but abbreviated opening in 39.1a. b. An alternative way to understand Ezek 39.1b–5 is as follows: Ezekiel 39.1b–5 functions either as the basic text or as a repetition and summary of Ezek 38.4 ff. It subsequently functions as the introduction to the second part of GO. But why would there be a repetition, which specifically refers to the massacre of Ezek 39.4 and to the field of Ezek 39.5, which in any case are being commented upon in the following sections? In light of Ezek 26.5 f. (the first oracle against Tyre), it is possible that the concluding formula (‫ )נאם אדני יהוה‬could be continued with a sentence and the recognition formula. In case of our basic text, Ezek 39.7 also takes up a new sentence and the final recognition formula. The content of the verse takes up the theme of Ezek 36.16–23bα, namely the desecration of the holy name as a result of Israel’s exile among the nations. Here we have the original bridge of the GO to the context of Ezek 36. Thus the basic text treats the total defeat of the far-away Gog on the mountains of Israel as the exclusive action of God to show the holiness of his name. Gog and his troops are defeated and the rest of the nations are witnesses to this event. c. I turn now to the end of GO in Ezek 39.21–29. In v. 21 this text distinguishes between the judgement of Gog and of his troops, and the witness of the nations to this event. Verse 22 then separates the recognition of Israel (their special relationship with God) from the recognition of the nations in vv. 23 f. (i. e., their understanding of Israel’s exile as God’s justified reaction to their sins). Verses 25–29 then concentrate on the change taking place with regard to Israel’s new everlasting life in their homeland. Here the locutions are variations of the typical Ezekielian speech, for instance: –– In v. 22, Israel recognizes in the defeat of Gog their special relationship with their God (Ezek 39.22, 29). Their recognition of this fact is the same as their recognition in view of the exodus: see Exod 29.46 (P). –– God hides or does not hide his face in 39.23, 24, 29 (‫ פני מהם‬+ ‫)]לא[ סת״ר‬ – locutions drawn from Num 6.25 and Psa 13.2; 22.25; 27.9, etc. –– We have priestly terminology in the description of the sins of Israel in Ezek 39.23, 24, including ‫מע״ל‬, ‫טמ״א‬, and ‫( פש״ע‬cf. Ezek 36.17 and Lev 16.26). –– The change of fate in Ezek 39.25 (‫ )אשיב את־שבית‬is similar to Ezek 16.53 and Psa 85.2. The unique locution for the book of Ezekiel, to speaking of God’s mercy in Ezek 39.25 (‫ )רחמתי‬is similar to Psa 102.14; 103.13; 116.5. To live securely without any disturbance in Ezek 39.26 (‫)לבטח ואין מחריד‬, is comparable to Ezek 28.25 and Lev 26.6. –– The phrase “lands of the enemies” (‫ )ארצית איביהם‬in Ezek 39.27 is also found in Lev 26.34 ff. –– The variation on the exodus motif in Ezek 39.27 is comparable to Ezek 28.25 f.

198

Frank-Lothar Hossfeld †

I regard these variations as signals of a later redaction with priestly and cultic locutions. d. GO speaks of Israel’s enduring salvation, but without mentioning the centre of Jerusalem with the temple, or without remembering King David or any of his followers. Furthermore, there is no word of Zion or motives of the Zion theology in the whole of the book of Ezekiel. The book does not know anything of foreigners participating in the temple, unlike the book of Isaiah and the Psalms. In my opinion this points to a strict holiness theology of the 6th century BCE. Finally, a riddle has to be mentioned: Ezekiel and Deutero-Isaiah are prophets of the Exile, but Ezekiel says no word about the defeat of Babylon, no word about Cyrus like Deutero-Isaiah, and points only twice to Persia as an ally of Gog (Ezek 27.10 and 38.5). Is this possible at the height of the Persian Empire? Here, Rösel comments: Bei der Deutung aus nachexilischer Perspektive bleibt die Schwierigkeit, dass die Perser im Alten Testament sonst nie als feindliches Volk angeführt werden und dass ihre tatsächliche Bedeutung hier nicht berücksichtigt wird.12

Bibliography Biberger, Bernd. Endgültiges Heil innerhalb von Geschichte und Gegenwart. Zukunftskonzeptionen in Ez 38–39, Joel 1–4 und Sach 12–14. Bonner Biblische Beiträge. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010. Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar. Untersuchungen zu Komposition und Theologie des Ezechielbuches. Forschung zur Bibel 20. Würzburg: Echter, 1977. Rösel, Christoph. JHWHs Sieg über Gog und Magog. Ez 38–39 im Masoretischen Text und in der Septuaginta. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Theologie, 2012. Tooman, William A. Gog of Magog: Reuse of Scripture and Compositional Technique in Ezekiel 38–39. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2/52. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Zimmerli, Walther. “Das Phänomen der ‘Fortschreibung’ im Buche Ezechiel.” Pages 174–191 in Prophecy: Essays Presented to Georg Fohrer on his Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Edited by John Emerton. BZAW 150. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1980): 174–191.

12 Rösel,

JHWHs Sieg, 135.

Ezekiel 38–39 in Current Research: Questions and Perspectives Michael Konkel

1. Introduction Surveying the past decade of research concerning the Book of Ezekiel, the intensity of analysis regarding chapters 38–39 is striking. No less than four monographs discussing these chapters have been published (Sverre Bøe, Paul E. Fitzpatrick, William A. Tooman and, most recently, Christoph Rösel).1 One has to add publications regarding the textual history of Ezekiel, in which chapters 38–39 naturally play an important part because of the textual witness of Pap967: these publications are the books of Peter Schwagmeier, Ashley S. Crane and Ingrid E. Lilly.2 Finally, there are the studies applying redaction criticism to the latter part of the Book of Ezekiel, especially the books of Anja Klein and Bernd Biberger.3 Observing those new publications that reckon with the possibility that the Book of Ezekiel underwent a process of Fortschreibung, there seems to be a consensus that the textual sequence witnessed by Pap967 (Ezek 36.16–23abα; 38–39; 37; 40–48) represents an earlier edition than MT.4 By contrast, consensus 1 Sverre Bøe, Gog and Magog: Ezekiel 38–39 as Pre-Text for Revelation 19:17–21 and 20:7–10, WUNT 2/135 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001); Paul E. Fitzpatrick, The Disarmament of God: Ezekiel 38–39 in Its Mythic Context, CBQMS 37 (Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2004); William A. Tooman, Gog of Magog: Reuse of Scripture and Compositional Technique in Ezekiel 38–39, FAT 2/52 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011); Christoph Rösel, JHWHs Sieg über Gog aus Magog: Ez 38–39 im Masoretischen Text und in der Septuaginta, WMANT 132 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2012). 2 Peter Schwagmeier, “Untersuchungen zu Textgeschichte und Entstehung des Ezechielbuches in masoretischer und griechischer Überlieferung,” Dr. Theol. diss., Universität Zürich, 2004; Ashley S. Crane, Israel’s Restoration: A Textual-Comparative Exploration of Ezekiel 36–39, VTSup 122 (Leiden: Brill, 2008); Ingrid E. Lilly, Two Books of Ezekiel: Papyrus 967 and the Masoretic Text as Variant Literary Editions, VTSup 150 (Leiden: Brill, 2012). 3 Anja Klein, Schriftauslegung im Ezechielbuch: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Ez 34–39, BZAW 391 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008); Bernd Biberger, Endgültiges Heil innerhalb von Geschichte und Gegenwart: Zukunftskonzeptionen in Ez 38–39, Joel 1–4 und Sach 12–14, BBB 161 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010). Cf. also Volkmar Premstaller, Fremdvölkersprüche des Ezechielbuches, FB 104 (Würzburg: Echter, 2005). 4 Cp.  Johan Lust, “Ezekiel 36–40 in the Oldest Greek Manuscript,” CBQ 43 (1981): 517– 533; Peter Schwagmeier, “Untersuchungen”; Karl-Friedrich Pohlmann, Ezechiel: Der Stand

200

Michael Konkel

regarding the actual reconstruction of the redaction history of the two chapters seems to be a long way away. There are two basic options. The most recent monographs on Ezek 38–39 (by Tooman and Rösel) vote for a kind of “block model,” that is, chapters 38–39 were inserted as a block and did not develop slowly out of a small core. Klein and Biberger, on the other hand, attempt to reconstruct a multi-layered redaction history of both chapters. However, the cores Klein and Biberger propose differ hugely, as will be shown later in this investigation. I am going to examine the most recent proposals of redaction criticism of Ezek 38–39, in order to set a course for future research: should we prefer the model of a “core with many additions” or the one of a “block” for Ezek 38–39?

2. Ezekiel 38–39 in Recent Research 2.1 The Proposal of Walther Zimmerli (1965–1969) I have choosen the great commentary by Zimmerli5 as starting point. He applies his model of Fortschreibung to Ezek 38–39, assuming that the core of the chapters was Ezek 38.1–9*, 39.1–5, 17–20. The text grew to its present composition in many stages. The first thing to note is that Zimmerli identifies comprehensive glosses in Ezek 38.1–9, especially vv. 4a, 5.6 These “glosses” mostly contain typical phrases from Ezek 1–37. For example, the expression “I will put hooks in your jaws” in 38.4b can be identified as quotation of Ezek 29.4, where the “jaws” are put on Pharaoh of Egypt. Zimmerli identifies the text cleared of the glosses as the word of the original prophet, or at least, a word that comes close to the historical prophet’s preaching.7 But Gustav Hölscher had already shown in 1924 that Ezek 38.1–9 is, in its entirety, a tessellation of quotes from the rest of the book.8 Meshech and Tubal, for instance, whom Zimmerli cannot eliminate from his basic layer (v. 2), are already mentioned in Ezek 27.13; 32.26. However, crucial is 38.8 which places the events regarding Gog in a distant future after the return from Exile. This verse also takes up phrases from older texts: the “mountains of der theologischen Diskussion (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2008), 127–30; Crane, Israel’s Restoration; Lilly, Papyrus 967. 5 Walther Zimmerli, Ezechiel, 2nd ed., BKAT XIII (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1979). The commentary on Ezek 38–39 has been published for the first time in 1965 as part-delivery of the BKAT volume. The first edition of the volume that includes Ezek 25–48 has been completed in 1969. 6 V. 2a only “of the land of Magog”; V. 4a; V. 5; V. 6 the second “and all his hordes”; V. 9b. 7 Zimmerli, Ezechiel, 942–44. 8 See Gustav Hölscher, Hesekiel: Der Dichter und das Buch, BZAW 39 (Gießen: Töpelmann, 1924), 179; especially note 3. Ezek 38–39 as a whole is composed from phrases from Ezekiel, cp. the comprehensive list provided by Stephen L. Cooke, Prophecy and Apocalypticism: The Postexilic Social Setting (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 98–103.

Ezekiel 38–39 in Current Research: Questions and Perspectives

201

Israel” allude to Ezek 35; “leading out from among the nations” points to the second Exodus announced in Ezek 20; and “dwelling securely” takes up Ezek 28.26; 34.25–28. Thus, Ezek 38.1–9 presupposes fulfilment of a part of the prophecies of salvation in the rest of the book, namely, the return from the exile and the settlement in the land. From this, it is obvious that this text is not on the same level of tradition history as the salvation oracles in the rest of book, because it explores a new dimension of salvation. So it seems at least questionable that this text can be ascribed to the prophet himself. 2.2 The Proposal of Frank-Lothar Hossfeld (1977) Hossfeld develops Zimmerli’s proposal. He recognizes that an “old core” cannot be reconstructed out of 38.1–9 and therefore concentrates on 39.1–5. His basic layer consists of Ezek 38.1–3a; 39.1b–5.9 This core grew into the present text in several stages. Just as Zimmerli he ascribes the basic layer to the historical prophet. However, the core reconstructed by Hossfeld remains a torso. All oracles against foreign nations within the Book of Ezekiel start with an accusation or, alternatively, name a crime, as reason for the judgement of the addressed nation.10 Ezekiel 39.1–5 does not contain such an accusation. Thus, the verses are not at the same level of tradition history as the other oracles against foreign nations in Ezekiel. All the other foreign nations are slain in their own countries. So why shall Gog fall on the mountains of Israel? The basic stratum given by Hossfeld does not give an answer to this question. Ezekiel 39.1–5 already presupposes the concept of Gog being a puppet on a string, led by Yhwh – just as it is outlined in 38.1–9. The plot of the passage is intelligible only if the entire host of nations wears itself out in battle and Yhwh proves as sovereign ruler in the course of events (see Ezek 38.21). Comparing the proposals of Zimmerli and Hossfeld reveals the fundamental crux of the attempt to reconstruct an old core out of the Gog motif: eliminating the introductory verses (Ezek 38.1–9) leaves only a torso. Zimmerli might have recognised that. On the other hand, taking up 38.1–9 forms a basic stratum with massive intertextual links to later parts of Ezekiel, which makes it impossible to date such a reconstructed basic layer in an early phase of the book’s composition.

  9 Frank-Lothar Hossfeld, Untersuchungen zu Komposition und Theologie des Ezechielbuches, 2nd ed., FB 20 (Würzburg: Echter, 1983), 402–509. 10 The word against Sidon in Ezek 28.20–24 forms an exception. The offence is included in the announcement of 28.4.

202

Michael Konkel

2.3 The Proposal of K.-F. Pohlmann (1992) Pohlmann puts an entirely different emphasis on the matter in his Ezechielstudien (1992).11 His point of departure is the well-known crux that by the end of the Gog pericope (Ezek 39.25–29) the Gog motif is not an issue at all. These verses recapitulate the prophecies of salvation, together with the announcement of a second Exodus with gathering from the Diaspora, the allotment of the land and the pouring of the Spirit of Yhwh, but leave out all events regarding Gog. While Ezek 38.1–39.22 looks into a distant future, Ezek 39.25–29 turns to the near future at the end of the Exile. Zimmerli and Hossfeld regard Ezek 39.25–29 as a late addition that sets the Gog pericope within the horizon of Ezekiel’s salvation oracles.12 Pohlmann turns the argument the other way, taking up an older observation by Johannes Hermann, identifying Ezek 39.25–29* as the core of Ezek 38–39.13 He links this with the witness of Pap967, in which Ezek 38–39 follows Ezek 36.16–23abα. But Pohlmann goes beyond this by postulating that originally only 39.25–29* followed 36.16–23abα. The latter text focuses on the “desecration of the holy name” (esp. vv. 16–21) followed by “sanctification of the holy name” (esp. vv. 22–23abα). But 36.16–23abα does not state what the announced “sanctification of the name” should be. This is exactly the gap filled by Ezek 39.25–29. In turn, 39.25 is linked to 36.20–22 by mentioning the “desecration of the holy name.” Finally, the Diaspora motif links both texts. Thus, Pohlmann ascribes Ezek 36.16–23abα; 39.25–29* to a redaction layer from the late Persian Period, which is strongly oriented toward the Diaspora. However, there is a pitfall in directly connecting Ezek 39.25–29* to 36.16– 23abα and skipping the Gog motif. The closest parallel to Ezek 39.25–29 is 28.25– 26.14 These verses are the compositional and theological heart of the prophecies against the foreign nations in Ezekiel.15 Yhwh proves himself holy in gathering Israel from the nations (Ezek 39.26–27). Israel will dwell in safety (39.26) in the land given to Jacob (39.25). The threat of judgement on the nations is justified as a precaution for Israel. This is exactly in line with the Gog pericope: Yhwh judges not only the surrounding nations (28.26), but also all the nations, thus accomplishing final safety for Israel. Ezek 39.25–29 states the latter with refer-

11 Karl-Friedrich Pohlmann, Ezechielstudien: Zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Buches und zur Frage nach den ältesten Texten, BZAW 202 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992). Cf. Karl-Friedrich Pohlmann, Der Prophet Hesekiel / ​Ezechiel: Kapitel 20–48, ATD 22/2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001), 514–18; Pohlmann, Ezechiel, 128. 12 Zimmerli, Ezechiel, 968–73; Hossfeld, Untersuchungen, 508–09; cp. Cooke, Prophecy, 120. 13 Johannes Herrmann, Ezechiel, KAT 11 (Leipzig: Deicher, 1924), 251. 14 Cf. Hossfeld, Untersuchungen, 493. 15 Ibid., 3–5.

Ezekiel 38–39 in Current Research: Questions and Perspectives

203

ence to 28.25–26. Obviously, the theme of the judgment of the foreign nations is inherent to 39.25–29 via the intertext 28.25–26. This being the case, I regard it impossible to separate Ezek 39.25–29 from the Gog motif or, respectively, the idea of a final victory over the nations. One cannot connect these verses to 36.16–23aα directly, where the judgement of the nations is not in view at all. Ezek 39.25–29 opens a wide intertextual horizon connecting the Gog pericope to Ezekiel’s prophecies of salvation as well as other motifs. Maybe these verses are part of a redaction connecting Ezekiel to the corpus propheticum. 2.4 The Proposal of Anja Klein (2008) The same critique holds true for the proposal of Klein, which she outlines in her dissertation published in 2008. She takes up Pohlmann’s proposal, adjusting it by adding Ezek 39.23–24 and, at the same time, cutting off parts of Pohlmann’s basic stratum in 39.25–29*.16 In this view, Ezek 39.23–29* is directly connected to 36.16–22*. Ezekiel 28.25–26 remains the primary text of reference for 39.23–29* as well. Accordingly, the motif of victory over the nations is present through Ezek 28 as an intertext. But the main problem of Klein’s proposal is that the direction of speech changes between Ezek 36.23 and 39.22 from Israel as addressee to Israel as object of speech. Klein notes this, but disregards it too quickly.17 There is no precedent for such an abrupt change in the direction of speech within the Book of Ezekiel. Ezekiel 39.22 does not connect to 36.16–23bα smoothly. Thus, the attempt to establish a direct connection of Ezek 36 to 39 by leaving out the Gog motif still has failed. 2.5 The Proposal of Bernd Biberger (2010) Biberger adjusts the proposal of Hossfeld in his Habilitationsschrift, published in 2010.18 He does so in two ways. He realises that Ezek 39.1–5 could never have been an independent prophecy against the nations, because it lacks an accusation. Therefore, Biberger connects 39.1–5 directly to 36.16–23abα. The second thing he does is add 39.7 to the basic layer. This way, 39.7 sufficiently finishes the motif of the “knowledge of God of the nations” introduced in 36.16–23bα. Thus, Ezek 38–39 grew to the sequence witnessed by Pap967 in several stages, starting from the core 39.1–5, 7. MT represents an even later stage than the one attested in Pap967. 16 In detail: Ezek 36.16, 17a, 18aα, 20, 22; 39, 23–25, 27, 28aαβ, 29 (Klein, Schriftauslegung, 148). 17 Ibid., 146. 18 Biberger, Endgültiges Heil, 37–132.

204

Michael Konkel

So, at first glance, the proposal compensates for the deficiencies of Hossfeld’s. But Gog still falls on the mountains of Israel and the reconstructed basic layer lacks any information about when and in which context this should happen. This is exactly the gap filled by Ezek 38.8. This verse is crucial for understanding the plot of the Gog pericope. Reading only the text reconstructed by Biberger, the word against Gog would remain incomprehensible. Its context, and the wider context in the Book of Ezekiel, do not show that the judgement against Gog is carried out within the land of Israel only after the return from the exile. Regardless of the fact that Biberger’s proposal fills some gaps in Hossfeld’s one, this reconstruction remains a torso too. The Gog pericope remains incomprehensible without the introduction of Ezek 38.1–9.

3. Perspectives The proposals of redaction criticism presented so far all lead into aporia. One major problem is that the recent proposals of Pohlmann, Klein, and Biberger refer to the witness of Pap967 with an earlier sequence Ezek 36.16–23abα; 38–39, but disregard the details of text-critical data and reconstruct a core out of Ezek 38–39 that does not connect smoothly to 36.16–23abα. I am going to elaborate on that with Ezek 39.25–29 as an example, in order to develop new perspectives for redaction criticism of Ezek 38–39.19 25aα aβ aγ b 26aα aβ b 27aα aβ aγ bα bβ 28aα aβ aγ b 29a bα bβ

Therefore thus says the Lord Yhwh, “Then (‫ )עתה‬I will restore the fortunes of Jacob, and have mercy upon [all]G‑ the house of Israel, and will be jealous for my holy name. And they will bear their shame, and [all]G‑ their unfaithfulness, by which they acted unfaithfully [with me]Gwhen they dwell upon their land securely, and there is no one to cause fear. When I have returned them from the peoples, and I have gathered them from the lands [of their enemies],Pap967and display my holiness among them in the eyes of [many]G‑ nations. Then they will know that I am Yhwh their God, after I exile them among the nations, [and I gather them to their own land, and I do not leave any of them behind there.]GNeither will I hide my face any more from them, because I have poured out my spirit[ / ​my wrath]G upon the house of Israel.” – An utterance of the Lord Yhwh.

19 Translation

taken from Tooman, Gog of Magog, 189–190.

Ezekiel 38–39 in Current Research: Questions and Perspectives

205

It is obvious that the results of textual criticism are far more complex than the proposals discussed above are aware of. Credit belongs to Tooman and Rösel for having taken into account the results of textual criticism consistently. Rösel especially has shown the theological differences between the two versions of the text. G* witnesses a shorter text throughout. Three categories of variants are to be discerned: 1. MT harmonises Ezek 39.25–29 to the language used in the rest of the book more than the Old Greek (see for instance “with me,” lacking in 39.26aβ, which should be a harmonisation to 39.23). 2. The text of the Old Greek witnesses a far more positive attitude towards the nations than MT. This is obvious in 39.27: Pap967 speaks of a gathering only from the “lands,” while MT pointedly names the “lands of their enemies.” Rösel has proven that this positive attitude towards the nations is true for the Old Greek of Ezek 38–39 in general:20 Ezek 39.6 MT: And I send fire against Magog and those dwelling at the coasts safely. And they will know that I am Yhwh. Ezek 39.6 LXX: And I send fire against Gog, and the islands will be inhabited in peace. And they will know that I am the Lord.

While in MT the judgement over Gog extends to the end of the world, the judgement of the Septuagint brings safety to the inhabitants of the distant islands. 3. Finally, one notes that MT surpasses the prophecies of salvation within the Book of Ezekiel by statements of totality: Yhwh will have mercy on the entire house of Israel, they will bear all their trespasses, no one will be left in Diaspora and the Spirit is poured over Israel. According to Rösel this evidence has to be interpreted in the following way: the Old Greek, de facto represented by Pap967, in this case, witnesses an earlier tradition of the text.21 MT has been revised: the language of the book has been standardised and the nations have been put consistently in an unfavourable light. Above all, Ezek 39.25–29 has been reworked in surpassing the prophecies of salvation another time. Against this backdrop, the question of the function of Ezek 39.25–29 within the book’s composition has to be asked anew. In 39.25 Tooman translates ‫ עתה‬with “then”. He interprets the particle ‫ עתה‬as the designation of a moment after Gog’s extinction, not as a signal for a return to the prophet’s present. In other words, he interprets Ezek 39.25–29 differently from Pohlmann, who claims that the prophet jumps back to the exiles’ present in these verses.22 Tooman correlates the prophecies of salvation given here with Christoph Rösel, JHWHs Sieg, 124–25. the actual reconstruction of the Vorlage of G* in ibid., 345–48. 22 That 39.25–29 turn back to the prophet’s present is the usual interpretation of these verses. Cp. for example Daniel I. Block, “Gog and the Pouring out of the Spirit,“ VT 37 (1987): 261; Cook, Prophecy, 120; Margaret S. Odell, Ezekiel, Smyth and Helwys Bible Commentary (Ma20 See

21 Cp.

206

Michael Konkel

the time after the fall of Gog. Thus, he takes into account that Ezek 39.25–29 MT does not simply confirm the prophecies of salvation of the book, but surpasses them. Full salvation, meaning Yhwh having mercy and bringing diaspora to its definitive end, is realised only after victory over Gog. All prophecies of salvation beforehand become waypoints on the way to definite salvation, which will be fulfilled only at “the end of years” (38.8). It is crucial to answer the question whether it is possible to understand ‫ עתה‬that way. Rösel maintains a different view: ‫ עתה‬führt jetzt auf den implizierten Zeitpunkt des ›Wortempfangs‹ durch den Propheten zurück, der sich durch die folgenden Aussagen in die Zeit des Exils datieren lässt. Die dem Ezechielbuch durch die Person des Propheten vorgegebene Perspektive wird damit eingehalten.23

Indeed, the first two references given by Tooman for ‫ עתה‬meaning “then” are not sufficient (1 Sam 2.16 and Josh 14.11).24 But the third reference carries on the argument. Mic 4.6–7 reads: On that day, says the Lord, I will assemble the lame and gather those who have been driven away, and those whom I have afflicted. The lame I will make the remnant, and those who were cast off, a strong nation; and the Lord will reign over them in Mount Zion now (‫ )מעתה‬and for evermore. (Mic 4.6–7, NRSV)

This time ‫ עתה‬marks a moment in future, when the salvation promises will come true, and does not strictly point back to the situation of speech. Isaiah 29.22 can serve as another reference: Therefore thus says the Lord, who redeemed Abraham, concerning the house of Jacob: No longer (‫ )עתה‬shall Jacob be ashamed, no longer (‫ )עתה‬shall his face grow pale. (Isa 29.22, NRSV)

Here ‫ עתה‬also refers to a moment in future (“at this time”), when salvation will come and does not lead back to the situation of speaking.25 I hold the view against Rösel that Tooman’s interpretation regarding the character of Ezek 39.25–29 MT is possible – even compelling. The verses surpass the prophecies of salvation of the book, and do not simply recapitulate them. However, this does not hold not true for the earlier text that is witnessed by the Old Greek. In this text, the salvation oracles are not surpassed but only confirmed. The only new element here, compared to the preceding prophecies of salvation, is Yhwh’s commitment to have mercy on Israel. This statement is unique within the book, but the positive view of Israel is consistent with the tencon: Smyth &  Helwys, 2005), 475; Jacob Milgrom and Daniel I. Block, Ezekiel’s Hope: A Commentary on Ezekiel 38–48 (Eugene: Cascade, 2012), 32. 23 Ibid., 300. Rösel bases his rationale on Ernst Jenni, “Zur Verwendung von ‘atta ‘jetzt’ im Alten Testament,” ThZ 28 (1972): 5–12. 24 Tooman, Gog of Magog, 189 n. 214. 25 W. Tooman (oral communication) pointed me to Mic 5.3 as another reference that carries the argument.

Ezekiel 38–39 in Current Research: Questions and Perspectives

207

tatively earlier prophecies of salvation (cf., for example, Ezek 37.1–14*). In this earlier text ‫ עתה‬should be translated in its usual sense, “now.” This leads me to the reconstruction of the following diachronic development: in Ezek 39.25–29, the Vorlage of the Old Greek indeed changes perspective back from a distant future to the present of the Exile and confirms the prophecies of salvation. This confirmation is linked with a positive view of the nations. The later text of MT draws an entirely negative picture of the nations. In consistently surpassing the prophecies of salvation of the book, MT establishes a staged model of history, where fullness of salvation is reached only after Gog’s defeat. MT and the Old Greek (or its Vorlage) do not only differ in content, but show different pragmatics: the older text – represented by the Old Greek – does look into a distant future from the settlement onwards (cf. 38.8), but in 39.25–29 turns back to a nearer future. Thus, the text aims at its readers’ present and at confirmation of the book’s prophecies of salvation. Speaking bluntly, even if a foreign power engages against Israel in a distant future, this would not happen as a judgement over Israel, but would lead to a final victory over the foreign power. Israel would dwell in safety still. The text focuses on the present, which is the Exile within the narrated world and post-exilic times within the world of the narration. So the text does not focus on eschatological matters. This is different in MT, which is actually interested in the eschaton. Only now a sequence of tiered salvation is developed, according to which the fullness of salvation is reached only after a final victory over all nations.

4. Summary The possibilities for the reconstruction of an “old core” that developed into the present composition of Ezek 38–39 are limited. The options given are Ezek 39.1–5 or 39.25–29. Choosing the former leaves the text as a torso (Hossfeld, Biberger). Adding 38.1–9 to the basic layer (Zimmerli) makes it impossible to date the text to an early stage of the book’s development. Taking Ezek 39.25–29 as point of departure leads into aporia, too: these verses presuppose Ezek 28.25–26 and are thereby inseparable from the motif of a victory over the nations. Ezek 39.25–29 transfers the central message of Ezek 28.25–26 that refers to the surrounding nations to all the nations. Thus, Ezek 39.25–29 is aligned with the Gog motif and, furthermore, cannot be connected to 36.16–23abα directly (against Pohlmann and Klein). The evidence of textual criticism has to be taken seriously. Mainly sustained by the witness of Pap967, it is possible to reconstruct a text of Ezek 38–39 preceding MT that was originally connected to Ezek 36.16–23bα. This preceding text differs from MT in matters of pragmatics: Ezek 39.25–29* finally confirms the prophecies of salvation of the book realised in advance to Gog’s appearance. They look

208

Michael Konkel

into a distant future only to reinforce the finality of the realised salvation (cf. Ezek 38.8) to the post-exilic readers of the Book of Ezekiel. By contrast, MT separates chapters 38–39 from their original context and relocates them after Ezek 37 as an erratic block, now establishing a tiered eschatology. Return from the Exile, gathering from the Diaspora, reunion of the northern and southern kingdoms under a new David, and the restoration of the Temple (Ezek 37.25–28) are but intermediate stages of salvation. Only after the final victory over the nations, Yhwh will have mercy on Israel and gather them entirely from the Diaspora (Ezek 38–39). Accordingly, the Second Vision of the Temple (Ezek 40–48), now following immediately after Ezek 38–39, is recoded: the Temple in the form foreseen by Ezekiel will be erected only after Gog’s extinction.26 I doubt that it will be possible to reconstruct a textual stage earlier than the one witnessed by Pap967. It is certain that this text already underwent revision (cf. the tension between Ezek 39.11–16 and 17–20, for instance), but it seems obvious to me that an extended version of the Gog motif has been added, together with Ezek 36.16–23bα, to the basic stratum. This confirms the “block model” of Tooman and Rösel. Yet it remains an open question as to how to locate Ezek 36.16–23bα; 38–39* within the redaction history of the Book of Ezekiel.

Bibliography Biberger, Bernd. Endgültiges Heil innerhalb von Geschichte und Gegenwart: Zukunftskonzeptionen in Ez 38–39, Joel 1–4 und Sach 12–14. Bonner Biblische  Beiträge 161. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010. Block, Daniel I. “Gog and the Pouring out of the Spirit.” Vetus Testamentum 37 (1987): 257–270. Bøe, Sverre. Gog and Magog: Ezekiel 38–39 as Pre-Text for Revelation 19.17–21 and 20.7– 10. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2/135. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Cooke, Stephen L. Prophecy and Apocalypticism: The Postexilic Social Setting. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. Crane, Ashley S. Israel’s Restoration: A Textual-Comparative Exploration of Ezekiel 36–39. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 122. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Fitzpatrick, Paul E. The Disarmament of God: Ezekiel 38–39 in Its Mythic Context. Catholic Biblical Quarterly – Monograph Series 37. Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2004. Herrmann, Johannes. Ezechiel. Kommentar zum Alten Testament 11. Leipzig: Deicher, 1924. Hölscher, Gustav. Hesekiel: Der Dichter und das Buch. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 39. Gießen: Töpelmann, 1924. 26 Cf. Michael Konkel, “Die zweite Tempelvision Ezechiels (Ez 40–48): Dimensionen eines Entwurfs,” in Gottesstadt und Gottesgarten: Zu Geschichte und Theologie des Jerusalemer Tempels, ed. Othmar Keel and Erich Zenger, QD 191 (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2002), 170–75.

Ezekiel 38–39 in Current Research: Questions and Perspectives

209

Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar. Untersuchungen zu Komposition und Theologie des Ezechielbuches. 2nd ed. Forschung zur Bibel 20. Würzburg: Echter, 1983. Jenni, Ernst. “Zur Verwendung von ‘atta ‘jetzt’ im Alten Testament.” Theologische Zeitschrift 28 (1972): 5–12. Klein, Anja. Schriftauslegung im Ezechielbuch: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Ez 34–39. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 391. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008. Konkel, Michael. “Die zweite Tempelvision Ezechiels (Ez 40–48): Dimensionen eines Entwurfs.” In Gottesstadt und Gottesgarten: Zu Geschichte und Theologie des Jerusalemer Tempels, edited by Othmar Keel and Erich Zenger, 154–179. Quaestiones disputatae 191. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2002. Lilly, Ingrid E. Two Books of Ezekiel: Papyrus 967 and the Masoretic Text as Variant Literary Editions. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 150. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Lust, Johan. “Ezekiel 36–40 in the Oldest Greek Manuscript.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 43 (1981): 517–533. Milgrom, Jacob and Daniel I. Block, Ezekiel’s Hope: A Commentary on Ezekiel 38–48. Eugene: Cascade, 2012. Odell, Margaret S. Ezekiel. Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2005. Pohlmann, Karl-Friedrich. Ezechielstudien: Zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Buches und zur Frage nach den ältesten Texten. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 202. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992. Pohlmann, Karl-Friedrich. Der Prophet Hesekiel / ​Ezechiel: Kapitel 20–48. Das Alte Testament Deutsch 22/2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001. Pohlmann, Karl-Friedrich. Ezechiel: Der Stand der theologischen Diskussion. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2008. Premstaller, Volkmar. Fremdvölkersprüche des Ezechielbuches. Forschung zur Bibel 104. Würzburg: Echter, 2005. Rösel, Christoph. JHWHs Sieg über Gog aus Magog: Ez 38–39 im Masoretischen Text und in der Septuaginta. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 132. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2012. Schwagmeier, Peter. “Untersuchungen zu Textgeschichte und Entstehung des Ezechielbuches in masoretischer und griechischer Überlieferung.” Dr. Theol. diss., Universität Zürich, 2004. Tooman, William A. Gog of Magog: Reuse of Scripture and Compositional Technique in Ezekiel 38–39. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2/52. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Zimmerli, Walther. Ezechiel. 2nd ed. Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament XIII. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1979.

‘Like the Vision’: Temple Tours, Comparative Genre, and Scribal Composition in Ezekiel 43 Ingrid E. Lilly In the 1631 royal printing of the King James Bible, a negative particle was omitted.1 A famous “not” disappeared from one of the Ten Commandments. The printing of Exodus 20.14 read: “Thou shalt commit adultery” and understandably, the edition came to be known as the “Wicked Bible” or the “Adulterous Bible.” Although the royal printers claimed it was a mistake, the variant transformed sacred Scripture into its own anti-genre. The printers were fined in an English court, they were fired, many copies were burned, and the few that remain are enshrined in displays of rare book libraries. What kind of textual critic would be able to explain how a philological detail could send ripples through a society’s institutions and discourses? By what method can that critic analyze an otherwise minor text-critical omission and conclude that it represented a literary transformation with profound cultural effects? One word can transform not only a local sentence but an entire genre. In Ezekiel’s textual history, the compositional fluidity which produced large-scale variants, especially those preserved in the variant literary edition of Greek Papyrus 967 (Pap967), have received much attention.2 Since these advances, minor variants have gone under-examined.3 This was not always the case. Even before Pap967 furnished evidence for large-scale editing and late composition, schol1 I would like to thank Jeremy Hutton for his stimulating engagement with an earlier draft of this paper, William Tooman for his editorial feedback, and the participants of the meeting in Madrid celebrating the Fifth Centennial Complutensian Polyglot Bible for encouraging my questions about scribal editing and textual criticism. 2 Johan Lust, “Major Divergences between LXX and MT in Ezekiel,” in The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible: The Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered, ed. Adrian Schenker, SBLSCS 52 (Atlanta: SBL, 2003), 83–92. Ingrid E. Lilly, Two Books of Ezekiel: Papyrus 967 and the Masoretic Text as Variant Literary Editions, VTSup 150 (Boston: Brill, 2012). 3 My study of Pap967 included an analysis of minor variants that cohered with major variants, putting textual criticism into the service of redaction-critical analysis. Lilly, Two Books of Ezekiel, 63–223. See also Meindert Dijkstra, “The Glosses in Ezekiel Reconsidered: Aspects of Textual Transmission in Ezekiel 10,” in Ezekiel and His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and their Interrelation, ed. Johan Lust, BETL 74 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1986), 55–77. And the very recent Timothy P. Mackie, Expanding Ezekiel: The Hermeneutics of Scribal Addition in the Ancient Text Witnesses of the Book of Ezekiel (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015).

‘Like the Vision’

211

ars focused concerted and quite unique attention on Ezekiel’s many “glosses” or Stichwortglossen.4 Ezekiel is filled with hundreds of interpolations, textual plusses, and minor variants. Definitionally part of the transmission process of a text, these minor variants require that a scribe reproduce nearly all of his Vorlage except to add or change a few individual words.5 But interpolations and variants have historically been under-appreciated as patina on an already stable literary work: exegesis, part of the history of interpretation and reception. This follows from the conceptual break textual critics drew between the concepts of composition and transmission. Interpolations, it was argued, happened during transmission.6 Interpolations as local interventions are rarely framed as an act of revolutionary scribal composition.7 We should explore whether some of these small details impact genre. Although genre studies have yet to make headway in text-critical circles,8 scribal composition is a quickly growing interest. Changing ideas about the goals of textual criticism have prompted widespread research on processes of editing and reworking texts. Eugene Ulrich has been talking about textual pluriformity for a long time, using terms like fluidity (1999), composition-in-stages, (1999), evolution (2011), and developmental composition (2015).9 Earlier scholars had  See discussion in Dijkstra, “Glosses in Ezekiel Reconsidered,” 55–60. Tov points out the misuse of the term “gloss” in earlier scholarship, recommending terminological clarification, distinguishing glosses, intended as annotations in the margins, and interpolations as exegetical additions to the body of a text. Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress; Assen / ​Maastricht: Van Gorcum, 1992; 2d rev. ed., 2001), 281. I take it that glosses, for which we rarely have empirical evidence, when added to the running text became interpolations making the latter more comprehensive and hence the preferred term. 6 Tov, Textual Criticism, 276, and 281–84. 7 In the case of Ezekiel, Tov sees most of MT pluses not as interpolations, but as “explicativeexegetical” additions. Even with that terminological shift, explaining and exegeting are quite passive scribal interventions. Tov, Textual Criticism, 333. 8 Marvin Sweeney is a forerunner in connecting textual analysis with forms of literature, noting especially the way in which prophetic genres have been adapted by individual prophetic books for specific purposes. For example, Marvin A. Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39: With an Introduction to Prophetic Literature, FOTL 16 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 13–14. Idem, “The Masoretic and Septuagint Versions of the Book of Jeremiah in Synchronic and Diachronic Perspective,” in Form and Intertextuality in Prophetic and Apocalyptic Literature, ed. idem (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 65–77. He approaches textual variants ‘synchronically’ and ‘diachronically’ conducting literary analysis on the pre‑ and post‑ fluid stages of a text. His form‑ and text-critical approach resemble my interest in genre. However, I would make two distinctions. My approach does not presuppose a decision on priority, and I would add the need for comparative study. 9 Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible, SDSSRL (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Boston: Brill, 1999); Idem, “The Evolutionary Production and Transmission of the Scriptural Books,” page 61 in Changes in Scripture: Rewriting and Interpreting Authoratative Traditions in the Second Temple Period, ed. H. von Weissenberg, J. Pakkala, and M. Marttila (New York: De Gruyter, 2011); Idem, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Developmental Composition of the Bible (Boston: Brill, 2015). 4

5 Emanuel

212

Ingrid E. Lilly

pointed these issues out, some with more discussion than others.10 Recently, numerous monographs and edited volumes have come out exploring the biblical witnesses for empirical evidence of scribal practices and composition processes.11 Hans Debel recently put his finger on a crucial methodological issue: the most important conceptual change has been how the UrText has dissolved into different compositional stages. However, scholars have often failed to articulate methodologies that fully engage the implications of this change.12 As Hanne von Weissenberg et. al. state, “only a slow and painstaking investigation of the different texts may provide a more profound understanding of the scribal practices and editorial processes.”13 On the hunt for profound understanding, we have not always known how to identify the goal or the methods for this new brand of textual criticism. In this essay, I propose a new approach to textual fluidity. I will use genre analysis to map the relevance and character of minute details to ancient forms of scribal composition. The paper is a case study. It uses a basic and flexible definition of genre to explore how generic analysis can provide cultural competency in text-critical evaluation. The reflections made possible by this case study solve two text-critical problems. There has been a tendency for text-critical analysis to misjudge textual evidence through lack of attention to genre.14 Misjudgment is especially common when variants are examined in isolation. The other problem stems from how new are these analyses of scribal composition. Most analyses adopt categories that isolate textual evidence from the history of scribal composition. Both problems will be discussed in concluding sections. In considering the host of text-critical issues in Ezekiel 43, I was immediately impressed with how ‘major’ most of the variants and interpolations appeared. 10 For example, see Shemaryahu Talmon who points out that processes of transmission blended with processes of composition in idem, “The Textual Study of the Bible – A New Outlook” in Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text, eds. F. M. Cross and S. Talmon (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975), 333. 11 Kristen De Troyer, Rewriting the Sacred Text: What the Old Greek Texts Tell us about the Literary Growth of the Bible, TCS 4 (Atlanta: SBL, 2003); Gary D. Martin, Multiple Originals: New Approaches to Hebrew Bible Textual Criticism, TCS 7 (Atlanta: SBL, 2010); John S. Kloppenborg and Judith H. Newman, eds, Editing the Bible: Assessing the Task Past and Present, RBS 69 (Atlanta: SBL, 2012); Ingrid E. Lilly, Two Books of Ezekiel: Papyrus 967 and the Masoretic Text as Variant Literary Editions, VTSup 150 (Boston: Brill, 2012); Von Weissenberg, Pakkala, and Marttila, Changes in Scripture. 12 Hans Debel, “Rewritten Bible, Variant Literary Editions and Original Text(s): Exploring the Implications of a Pluriform Outlook on the Scriptural Tradition,” in Changes in Scripture, 65–92. One recent proposal that dissolved the UrText, though it abandoned text-critical methods, is Brennan Breed, Nomadic Text: A Theory of Biblical Reception History, ISBL (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2014). 13 Von Weissenberg, Pakkala, and Marttila, “Introducing Changes in Scripture” in Changes in Scripture, 9. 14 I made this observation about text-critical analysis of Ezekiel’s allegories, especially chap. 24’s metaphor of the cooking pot. Lilly, Two Books of Ezekiel, 181–89 and 222–23.

‘Like the Vision’

213

First, such density of textual variation suggests scribal composition and is ripe for text-critical analysis.15 Second, the chapter falls at a crucial point in Ezekiel’s temple vision (chs. 40–48). The textual fluidity in ch. 43 occurs in verses concerning Yhwh’s return to the temple and his first words to Ezekiel. Third, a vibrant history of interpretation surrounds Ezekiel’s temple vision and guided temple tour. Several Reworked Scriptures, Pseudepigrapha, Apocrypha, and later texts take up its themes and tropes. For example, as Martha Himmelfarb observes The debt of the Book of the Watchers to the Book of Ezekiel is not limited to … the picture of a heavenly temple. Through its innovations in form, Ezekiel also provides a model for the process of ascent. The series of verbs of motion of which Enoch is subject in the course of his ascent find their only prophetic precedent in Ezekiel’s perambulations in the Jerusalem temple as he watches the departure of the glory of God (chs. 8–11) and his guided tour of the eschatological temple at the end of the book (chs. 40–48).16

Ezekiel’s temple tour spawned a rich interpretive tradition, not least in the Enochic form of ascents to the heavenly temple. Literary generativity of this sort tells us not only about interpretation but also about scribal composition. Thus, the coincidence of (1) numerous interpolations and variants (2) in a crucial point in the plot (3) with a widespread and far-reaching interpretive tradition makes Ezekiel 43 an ideal case study.

1. Genre as Literary and Cultural Competency Genology (the study of genre) is a wide field of theory. In this paper, I will reference David Fishelov’s working definition of genre. This definition is meant to encompass multiple approaches, offering a set of foundational concepts shared across cognitive, social, discursive, and formalist theories of genre.17 Most importantly for the present analysis, it provides a basis to explore how genre can exert analytical push on text-critical evaluation. According to Fishelov, genre is: “A combination of prototypical, representative members, and a flexible set of constitutive rules that apply to some levels of literary texts, to some individual 15 This text-critical analysis will attribute little influence to the Greek translator in producing variants. See Daniel M. O’Hare, Have You Seen the Son of Man? A Study in the Translation and Vorlage of LXX Ezekiel 40–48, SCS 57 (Atlanta: SBL, 2010) who argues that the translator of Ezek 40–48 attempted to reproduce the Hebrew, even its strangeness. The translator’s interpretive tendencies engaged Hellenistic culture in architectural terminology and and inclusivity between Jewish and non-Jewish relations. 16 Martha Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 13. 17 A future paper will develop the theoretical discussion about genre and textual criticism more fully (to be presented at SBL Atlanta, 2015).

214

Ingrid E. Lilly

writers, usually to more than one literary period, and to more than one language and culture.”18 Fishelov raises several relevant issues for textual critics. First, multiple periods, languages, and cultures speak to the social nature of genre. Genres are not locked cages of isolated meaning, restricted to one specific social location. Rather, they are repeatable, discursive, translatable, and even evolutionary. These characteristics of genre complement text-critical premises: scribes repeat; editing is discursive; scribes translate; texts evolve through transmitted composition.19 Genres offer an ideal approach to studying textual fluidity. Second, genres encompass the operations of both literary texts and individual writers. Behind this claim lie the cognitive aspects of genre.20 While we cannot know what scribes were thinking, we can view scribes as cognitive agents who could be more or less intentional about inserting interpolations and engaging genres.21 Third, Fishelov’s definition of genre gives us the important concept of a prototype.22 More than a strict set of characteristics, a prototype correlates several typical features that are governed and arranged by flexible rules. For example, Ezekiel’s temple architecture is associated in chaps. 40–48 with priestly roles, laws of sacrifice, visionary journeys, and the mobile Glory of Yhwh. We can begin our quest to discern prototypes with these coordinated themes. Indeed, several of these features correlate in texts as diverse as Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, the Temple Scroll, Hodayot, 1 Enoch, Hekhalot, Revelation, etc. Deeper analysis of comparable literature hones the impression of prototypical features.23 To continue with the example above, a more specific prototype may be identified in the literature of heavenly ascents. Beginning in 1 Enoch 18 David Fishelov, Metaphors of Genre: The Role of Analogies in Genre Theory (University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1993), 8. 19 See the evolutionary textual model proposed in Ulrich, “The Evolutionary Production,” 47–64. 20 See Robert Williamson, Jr., “Pesher: A Cognitive Model of the Genre,” DSD 17 (2010): 307–331. 21 Modern literary critics tend to view genre as an enterprise from the outside. That is, readers impose genre. This is especially true of post-structuralist critics. However, my interest in genre comes from anthropology and is informed by cognitive, historical, and cultural approaches. I view authors as agents, and their writing as media for genre production and transformation. The debate about whether genre comes from the outside impacts how I use the term emic. While post-structuralist critics would call all genre identification etic, I take a more historical position, viewing a high incidence of coordinated literary tropes and themes as evidence of emic genres and generative cultural forms. 22 See Carol A. Newsom’s discussion of how family resemblances relate to prototypes in idem, “Spying out the Land: A Report from Genology,” in Seeking Out the Wisdom of the Ancients: Essays Offered to Honor Michael V. Fox on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. Ronald L. Troxel, Kelvin G. Friebel, and Dennis M. Magary (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 437–50. Newsom engages the Semeia 14 definition of genre showing how genre theory and prototypes in particular offer fruitful lines of future inquiry. 23 Literary genres were probably unformalized and conceptually versatile. See Hindy Naj­ man’s critique of genre analysis in idem, “The Idea of Biblical Genre: From Discourse to Con-

‘Like the Vision’

215

14, which combines a heavenly ascent and a heavenly temple with a prophetic call, heavenly ascents appear in numerous works and show developments in different features.24 The Apocalypse of Abraham describes a vision of the heavenly temple with strong mystical themes. Several heavenly ascents expand the temple architecture in favor of seven tiers of heaven, with Testament of Levi and 3 Baruch perhaps initiating and then breaking that generic expectation by stopping at the third and fifth, respectively.25 The Testament of Levi highlights weapons for judgment in the heavenly temple’s storehouses. The widespread incidence of ascents in a variety of languages and literary contexts strengthens the case for prototype theory. And true to the nature of genre, we see in these examples the correlation of typical features alongside innovations showcasing the productivity of this prototype. Comparative genres form essential contexts for understanding how scribes might have edited their Vorlagen. As types of literature were composed and recomposed, both in and outside the canonical Bible, scribes would have engaged culturally meaningful genres. The textual critic can develop cultural competency about generic prototypical features. Such competency should influence the evaluation of interpolations. Ezekiel’s guided visionary journey through the temple probably evoked several generic prototypes to scribes.26 The scribes’ interpolations then, could redirect, innovate, contest, or invert individual features or even the entire genre.

stellation,” in Prayer and Poetry in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature: Essays in Honor of Eileen Schuller on the Occassion of her 65th Birthday, eds. Jeremy Penner, Ken M. Penner, and Cecilia Wassen (Boston: Brill, 2012), 307–321. Indeed, it is easy to misidentify or impose etic categories on genres, cf., Matt Goff, “Qumran Wisdom Literature and the Problem of Genre,” DSD 17 (2010): 286–306. Such cautions about genre do not apply to prototypes since they operate at a particular layer of textuality. For example, prototypes are found in literary contexts with particular persuasive features, rhetorical strategies, and culturally specific semantics. My objective then, would be to identify productive prototypes that circulated within a wider scribal context, recognizing the variety of ways they might be deployed. 24 See Martha Himmelfarb’s argument that Ezekiel played a key role in the development of the genre, in chap. 1 of idem, Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993). 25 For a good review of the issue, see chap. 2 “The Seven Heavens in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses,” in Adela Yarbro-Collins, Cosmology and Eschatology in Jewish and Christian Apocalypticism (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 21–54. 26 For a discussion of the important role played by ‫ חזון‬in differentiating MT from Pap967, see discussion of prophecy in Lilly, Two Books of Ezekiel, 132–56.

216

Ingrid E. Lilly

2. Genre and Textual Evidence I: Like the Vision of Glory (43.3) Similar to the vision was (‫ )וכמראה‬the vision which I saw, like the vision which I saw (‫ )כמראה אשׁר ראיתי‬when I came to destroy (‫ )לשׁחת‬the city. And visions (minus) were like the vision which I saw at the river Chebar. I fell on my face.27 ‫ וכמראה‬MT ] και Z ≈ rel. | ην ειδον 62’ 46 C’-233 410 Arab ‫ כמראה אשׁר ראיתי‬MT = (ορασιν) Z rel. ] (minus) 967 | κατα το ειδος ο ειδον L’’-46 Tht. ‫ לשׁחת‬MT ] του χρισαι Z rel. (minus) MT ] του αρματος ου ειδον Z ≈ rel. (÷ O Hi.) | (minus) Peshitta

In the middle of the guided temple vision, Ezekiel enters the inner court in ch. 43 and witnesses Yhwh’s return to the altar. The vision of the Glory causes him to fall on his face (v. 3) as it enters (v. 4) and fills the temple (v. 5). MT variants protect and domesticate the Glory through the phrase “like the vision.” In v. 3, the word vision (‫ )מראה‬repeats five times. The initial comparative construction (‫ )כמראה‬in v. 3 is unique and awkward, but it highlights the governing role ‫ כמראה‬should play in the remainder of the verse, where the parallelism is clear: ‫ המראה … כמראה‬ ‫ מראות … כמראה‬

The vision … like the vision (the) visions … like the vision

Without question, MT refers to the visions from earlier in the book, comparing the vision of Yhwh in ch. 43 to the visions of Glory from chs. 8–11 and ch. 1, respectively. “When he came to destroy the city” and “by the river Chebar” establish an internal intertextual horizon, domesticating the imagery of the Glory in the canonical book of Ezekiel. The LXX lacks the initial comparative construction (‫ )כמראה‬and presents alternate content in both comparisons, establishing different intertextual connections for the Glory.28 Neither compared vision is precisely recognizable from the current content of Ezekiel’s book. Especially strange is the LXX reference to “the vision which I saw when I entered to anoint the city.” There is no such episode in Ezekiel. In the second comparison, LXX retains the reference to the river Chebar from chap. 1, but attests the term του αρματος, “of the chariot,” perhaps translating a now missing Hebrew ‫מרכבה‬.29 Ezekiel 1 became a foundational text 27 Textual lemmata display MT as the base text. Z stands for Ziegler’s eclectic OG text, which usually follows B. All other sigla are standard. 28 Pap967 omits the second ‫ כמראה‬as well. It would be reasonable to imagine homoioteleuton happened here with the word ‫ראיתי‬. However, one should refrain from judgment until the entire section is assessed. Variants in v. 2 especially raise doubts about the error of Pap967 in v. 3. 29 LXX translates a few military references to chariots with αρμα (Ezek 23, 26(2), and 27). For the association of merkavah with the vision of God’s glory, see Ithamar Gruenwald, Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism, 2d rev. ed (Boston: Brill, 2014). This retroversion was also suggested

‘Like the Vision’

217

for Merkavah mysticism, but it was a much later development and indeed, ‫מרכבה‬ does not occur anywhere in Ezekiel. Text-critical stemmatic analysis would want to take account of the variety of readings in the versions, for instance, the Peshitta omits the first four words of MT (‫ )כמראה המראה אשׁר ראיתי‬and the Lucianic manuscripts attest a different Greek term for vision (ειδος). Whatever arguments for priority one would make, whether MT is the anterior or posterior text, a more fundamental fact demands our attention: these variants both impact genre.30 MT emphasizes that the Glory of chap. 43 be encountered in the genre of one of Ezekiel’s canonical visions. In contrast, LXX sends its readers out into comparative texts associated with Ezekiel’s visionary descriptions of the Glory of Yhwh. Whether those compared texts were earlier editions of Ezekiel whose references were effaced from the book, or pseudepigraphic Ezekiel traditions now unknown to us,31 or even perhaps known poetic developments of an Ezeklian flavor (like the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice), the generic horizon for the compared visions in LXX extends beyond those in the current book.32

3. Genre and Textual Evidence II: Prostration, Priestly Piety, and Guided Visions (43.6) (minus) And I heard (‫ )ואשׁמע‬someone speaking to me from the temple (‫מדבר אלי‬ ‫ )מהבית‬while the man was standing beside me. (minus) MT ] και εστην Z 967 (÷ O) ≈ rel. ‫ ואשׁמע‬MT ] και ιδου φωνη Z 967 ≈ rel. ‫ מדבר אלי מהבית‬MT = O-Q] (tr.) εκ του οικου λαλουντος προς με Z 967 rel.

The variant in v. 6a dictates Ezekiel’s response to seeing the Glory in chap 43. The LXX-plus portrays Ezekiel standing up (και εστην), followed by “and behold, a voice” (και ιδου φωνη). Ezekiel stands at attention to hear the divine speech in by Zimmerli, Ezekiel, trans. Ronald E. Clements (2 vols.; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 1.127. For more extensive tradition historical background for the throne chariot, see idem, 1:127–30; and James M. Scott, “Throne Chariot Mysticism in Qumran and in Paul,” in Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Craig A. Evans and Peter W. Flint (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 101–19. 30 “Like the vision” offers a similar distancing effect to Ezekiel’s phrase, “the appearance of the likeness of the glory of Yhwh” in Ezek 1.28. 31 The river Chebar is mentioned in Judean texts from Babylon, suggesting its social significance early in Second Temple and diaspora Judaism. Laurie E. Pearce and Cornelia Wunsch, Documents of Judean Exiles and West Semites in Babylonia in the Collection of David Sofer, CUSAS 28 (Ithica, NY: Capital Decisions Ltd., 2014). 32 Lest one mistakenly assume that the LXX is the innovator here, one final point should be made. The variant readings in Ezek 43.3 both participate in Second Temple generic transformations of visions, chariot-thrones, and city-anointers / ​destroyers, the MT reflecting an added concern to limit the intertextual horizon to the canonical book.

218

Ingrid E. Lilly

vv. 7–12. In contrast, MT reports no change to Ezekiel’s body position. He is still lying prostrate from v. 3 where he fell on his face. The variant is about Ezekiel’s body in response to seeing the Glory and in preparation to hear divine speech. One could speculate much about this difference. Prostration may reflect a model piety for the priestly approach to the Glory. Alternatively, standing up to hear the divine voice might reference another authoritative model of human comportment in the presence of the divine. More likely, it readies Ezekiel for the mobility of the guided vision ahead. In any case, one ought to look outside the book of Ezekiel to understand the detail. MT’s prostration should reflect knowledge of how priesthood, prayer, and prostration were imagined in various forms of Judaism.33 Especially helpful would be an identification of prototypes that correlate temple / ​glory and body position. In light of the Second Temple explosion of discourses and constructions of priestly identities, especially in light of temple communities, there is a large body of relevant literature to draw upon.34

4. Genre and Textual Evidence III: The Laws and Architecture of the Temple Vision (43.10) You, son of man, explain the temple to the house of Israel so they will feel ashamed (‫ )ויכלמו‬of their iniquities and measure (‫ )ומדדו‬the exemplar (‫)תכנית‬. ‫ ויכלמו‬MT = L′’-449 ] και κοπασουσιν Z rel. ‫ ומדדו‬MT] την ορασιν αυτου 967 Z ≈ rel. ‫ תכנית‬MT] την διαταξιν αυτου 967 Z ≈ rel. (43.11) And if they are ashamed (‫( )ואם נכלמו‬minus) of all that they have made, the form (‫ )צורת‬of the temple, its arrangement (‫)ותכונתו‬, its exits (‫)ומוצאיו‬, its entrances (‫)ומובאיו‬, and its whole form (‫)וכל צורתו‬, then make known to them all its statutes, its whole form (‫)וכל צורתו‬, its whole torah (‫)וכל תורתו‬. Write before their eyes that they may guard its whole form (‫ )וכל צורתו‬and all its statutes (‫)חקתיו‬. They shall do them. ‫ ואם נכלמו‬MT ] και αυτοι λημψονται 967 Z rel. | Qmg L′’-613 ≈ MT (minus) MT ] την κολασιν αυτων 967 Z rel. ‫ צורת‬ΜΤ ] και διαγραψεις 967 Z rel. | διαστρεψεις 106 ‫ ותכונתו‬MT ] (minus) Z B 967 | (※ Ο) και την ετοιμασιαν αυτου (‑των 130*)    rel. = MT 33 For example, Sirach 50.17 depicts prostration in the context of offerings and temple singers. (cf. Jos. Ag. Ap. 2 §§ 8, 24, m. Tamid 5.1, or the inscription for 1QHa 20.7–22.42). 34 See the helpful discussions in Daniel K. Falk, “Qumran Prayer Texts and the Temple,” in Sapiential, Liturgical, and Poetical Texts from Qumran: Proceedings of the Third Meeting of the International Organization of Qumran Studies, Published in Memory of Maurice Baillet, ed. Daniel K. Falk, F. Garcia-Martinez, and Eileen M. Schuller (Boston: Brill, 2000), 106–26; For a thorough-going examination of priesthood in Second Temple texts without reference to genre, see Martha Himmelfarb, A Kingdom of Priests: Ancestry and Merit in Ancient Judaism (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 2006).

‘Like the Vision’

219

‫ ומוצאיו‬MT ] και τας διεξοδους αυτου 967 538 | και τας εξοδους αυτου Z    ≈ rel. ‫ ומובאיו‬MT ] (minus) B C′’-130–613 | (※ Ο) και τας (> 88) εισοδους αυτου    rel. = MT ‫ וכל צורתו‬MT ] και την υποστασιν αυτου B 967 rel. | και πασας διαγραφας    αυτου 62′ | (minus) 403 ‫ וכל צורתו‬MT ] (minus) B 967 rel. | και τας διαγραφας αυτου 62′ ≈ MT ‫ וכל תורתו‬MT ] και παντα τα κριματα αυτου 967 | και παντα το νομμιμα   αυτου    Z ≈ rel. + (※ Ο) και παντας (> Arm) τους νομους αυτου O L′’ Arm    Hi = (plus = MT) ‫ תורתו‬MT ] τα δικαιωματα μου 967 Z ‫ חקתיו‬MT ] τα προσταγματα μου 967 Z | (minus) 407 C′ (43.12) This (‫ )זאת‬is the law (‫ )תורת‬of the temple on top of the mountain. The boundaries all around shall be most holy. This is the law of the temple (‫)זאת תורת הבית‬. ‫ זאת‬MT ] και 967 Z | κατα 62′ | αυτη L′’ = MT ‫ תורת‬MT ] την διαγραφην 967 rel. ‫ הנה‬MT] (minus) 967 Z 106 | (※ Ο) εισιν rel. = MT | εστιν L′’ ‫ זאת תורת הבית‬MT ≈ rel.] (minus) 967 Z | (※ Ο) ουτος ο νομος του οικου    rel. = MT

Verses 10–12 of ch. 43 perform deep generic work. They conclude Yhwh’s words to Ezekiel in his inaugural speech after returning to the temple. Verses 1–6 describe that return. Verses 7–12 are Yhwh’s first direct address to Ezekiel in the temple vision.35 After explaining the conditions of his return, Yhwh commands Ezekiel to explain the temple (v. 10). Shared content in both MT and LXX, v. 10a quickly gives way to numerous variants (vv. 10b–12) affecting features of Yhwh’s command. In other words, vv. 10–12 differently explain the temple and introduce generic expectations for 43.12–48.35. Through a brief survey of 43.13–48.35, one quickly appreciates the need for generic guidance. The content is rather haphazard. Some content may be characterized as spatial, part of the plan for the temple: the altar and its dedication (43.13–27), the division of the land (45.1–8), the tribal land allotments (47.13– 48.29) and the city gates (48.30–35). Other content focuses on legislations for activities or people: personnel and access (44.1–31) and festival offerings (45.9– 46.24). Steven Tuell expresses the difficulty, “the legislation of these chapters is a crazy-quilt, affixed to the core vision in a nearly random fashion. No attempt to find here a coherent ‘program’ can succeed.”36 If a crazy-quilt, it becomes even 35 Given the variety of content, it should not surprise that divine voices direct attention somewhat often (cf., 43.18; 44.2, 5; 46.20, 24; 47.6, 8–12). The only other place where Yhwh speaks from a manifestation of his glory is in Ezek 44:5. 36 Steven Tuell, “The Temple Vision of Ezekiel 40–48: A Program for Restoration?” in Proceedings, Eastern Great Lakes Biblical Society 2 (1992): 98; idem, The Law of the Temple in Ezekiel 40–48, HSM 49 (Atlanta: Scholar’s Press, 1992).

220

Ingrid E. Lilly

more understandable that scribes would seek to manage generic expectations in the divine speech that sanctions and introduces it. Out of all the textual issues in vv. 10–12, the number of variants in v. 11 is staggering, suggesting a good place to begin. Out of 30 Hebrew words in the verse, 11 are contested.37 With additional plus material, even without text-critical analysis, it is clear that textual transmission saw frequent editorial interventions in this verse. Predicate nouns are most affected. MT’s denser predicate list contrasts with LXX’s variant nouns, minuses, and verbal elements. The noun ‫ צורה‬corresponds to the verb διαγραφω, changing the syntax. Several Hebrew words share no corresponding or equivalent term in the earlier Greek versions (‫)ותכונתו‬, (‫)ומובאיו‬, (‫)וכל צורתו‬. And MT’s ‫ ואם נכלמו‬parallels the variant and longer phrase και αυτοι λημψονται την κολασιν αυτων in LXX. There is clearer semantic-syntactical structure in MT, giving the impression that a scribe has introduced some order on an especially fluid section of text: aα – And if they are ashamed of all that they have made: aβ – the form of the temple, its arrangement, its exits, its entrances, and its whole form, bβ – then make known to them: bα – (‫ )את‬all its statutes, its whole form, its whole torah. cα – Write before their eyes that they may guard: cβ – (‫ )את‬its whole form and all its statutes. d – They shall do them.

Commentators disagree about how to break up the long list of predicate nouns in the first half of the verse. For example, NRSV translates ‫ עשׂה‬in v. 11aα without a direct object. So the entire list of nouns in v. 11aβ and bα are governed by the verb, “to make known” (v. 11bβ). As a consequence of this decision, several nouns repeat in the list without clear rationale. To avoid a pleonastic reading, one should try to account for the appearance of ‫את‬. Assuming the direct object markers signal syntactical breaks, the verse achieves the clarity of the outline above. If the conditions of v. 11aα are met, Ezekiel should provide a three-fold revelation: “all its statutes, its whole form, its whole torah” (v. 11bα). I read “its whole torah” as the culmination of the list, encompassing both the statues and the form.38 These two main pieces of revelatory content are cast into literature by Ezekiel’s public writing (v. 11cα). Indeed, “statutes” and “the whole form” accurately describe the material that follows in Ezek 43.13–48.35. Turning to v. 12, my reading grows still more compelling. MT presents a twice repeated phrase (both unique): “This is the torah of the temple.” Standing at the transition into Ezekiel’s legal and architectural dictates, MT is making an argument about genre: the temple vision, and especially Ezek 43.13–48.35, should 37 Not

including direct object markers. the repetition and chiasm between bα and cβ. bα – (‫ )את‬all its statutes, its whole form, its whole torah. cβ – (‫ )את‬its whole form and all its statutes. 38 Note

‘Like the Vision’

221

be read as ‘torah’ comprising two types of material about the temple, laws and a diagram. MT scribes uniquely emphasize architectural specifics in two places. First, in v. 10 God instructs Ezekiel to “measure (‫ )מדד‬the exemplar (‫)תכנית‬.”39 This reading is not replicated in the LXX. Second, in v. 11aβ, the people’s sin and their shame is induced by the temple’s form, arrangement, exits, and entrances.40 Both of these features are unique material in MT with no counterpart in LXX’s readings. And both demonstrate a scribal interest in the measurements of chs. 40–48. Turning to v. 11 in the LXX, the verse can be arranged as follows: a – And they will bear their punishment for all the things they have done. bα – And you will diagram (διαγραφω) the house bβ – and its exits, and its essence, and all its ordinances, and all its laws, bγ – you will reveal (γνωριζω) them. c – And you will diagram (διαγραφω) in their sight dα – And they will guard all my regulations and all my ordinances dβ – And they will do them.

In contrast with MT, LXX lacks the conditional clause (a), it rearranges syntactical relationships (especially bα–bβ), provides a different verb (διαγραφω) to govern the predicate nouns (bβ), never references a singular “law,” (cf. τα προσταγματα and τα νομιμα in bβ; τα δικαιωματα and τα προσταγματα in dα), uniquely deploys the verb diagram twice, and uses γνωριζω (“to make known”) about the temple’s exits, essence, ordinances, and laws, not the whole torah, as in bα-MT. Some additional emphases in LXX can be highlighted. First, LXX focuses on drawing the temple. Conjugations of διαγραφω uniquely appear twice over against MT, once for the noun ‫ צורה‬and once for the verb ‫כתב‬. Both should be understood as literary variants. ‫ צורה‬is otherwise unattested, occurring four times in this verse, where LXX never offers a fair corollary.41 ‫כתב‬, a well-known word in Ezekiel and the rest of MT, is consistently translated with γραφω and never διαγραφω.42 The lexeme captures more than just writing. διαγραφω means “to mark out by lines,” a verb amenable to drawing architecture. The LXX undoubtedly emphasizes the importance of the temple drawing when it uniquely reads: “diagram the house” (bα). The ‫( בית‬οικος) is never an explicit direct object 39 See

textual discussion in footnote 40 below. the LXX’s parallel list, which in any case is governed by a different verb: exits, essence, ordinances, and laws. 41 Once the LXX is a minus. Once, it translates την υποστασιν, “the essence,” which is either a non-literal term for ‫צורת‬, or captures a Hebrew Vorlage different from MT. And once it corresponds to δικαιωμα where either the translator or a Hebrew scribe confused or reinterpreted ‫ ​צ‬/ ‫ ת‬in ‫ צורה‬and ‫תורה‬. 42 γραφω translates the eight occurrences of ‫ כתב‬in Ezekiel. The same translation obtains for the four occurrences in Daniel and the sixteen in Jeremiah. The eleven occurrences of ‫ כתב‬in Exodus, where we might expect διαγραφω on account of the laws for building the tabernacle, nevertheless correspond to γραφω, with one use of καταγραφω in (Exod 32.15). 40 Compare

222

Ingrid E. Lilly

of a verb for writing or drawing in MT. The emphasis on diagramming the temple in v. 11 can also be found in a phrase unique to LXX in v. 12 where the noun form is used, “the diagram” (την διαγραφην). Recall that the MT reads “this is the torah” and repeats the phrase at the end of v. 12 in a unique plus. Since v. 12 functions as an introduction to Ezek 43.13–48.35, the scribes responsible for LXX privilege the genre of temple diagrams, bringing attention to the temple’s essence through an act of diagramming. Second, the diagram of the temple has a moral effect in LXX. Ezekiel’s audience will stop sinning when they witness the diagram of the temple (v. 10): “Show the temple, its vision and its arrangement43 to the house of Israel, and they will abate from their sins.”44 The moral impact of the diagram is again emphasized in v. 11c where Ezekiel draws his diagram under the witnessing eyes of his audience. Drawing as public display leads to another result clause: “they will guard my commandments (δικαιωματα) and my ordinances (προσταγματα).” The logical connection is not stated here, but read in conjunction with unique material v. 10, LXX affirms that the experience of seeing the temple diagram will enable / ​ inspire / ​empower / ​coerce Ezekiel’s audience to do the commandments and statues.45 The temple diagram uniquely plays a performative or perlocutionary role in LXX. It is now possible to clarify the generic transformations at work in these scribal interventions. These verses offer the divine rationale and provide a supernatural frame for the sacra that follow, the special knowledge dispatched to Israel in 43.13–48.35. Verses 10–12 both introduce the section and supernaturally authorize its genre. 43 διαταξις in v. 10 carries multiple meanings, including cosmic arrangement or the structure of a treatise. Arist. Cael.300b25 and Ph. Bel. 49.4. διαταξις comes to mean also a rhetorical arrangement of topics (Luc. Hist.Conscr.24). The first two references occur in 1st and 3rd century BCE texts, while the last is from the 3rd cent C. E. διαταξις is a reasonable term for ‫( תכנית‬exemplar), albeit culturally innovative, and it should be considered a translation variant. However, την ορασιν αυτου must come from editorial activity. ορασιν is not a translation of ‫מדד‬. If an error in the Greek, we might expect ορασιν to be a misreading of another Greek term. However, there is no Greek word for “measure” that remotely resembles ορασιν. οινομετρεω (measure out wine) begins with an omicron, but this is hardly a candidate. A common Greek verb, μετρεω could phonetically resemble ‫מ ְדדּו‬, ָ but the expected future middle conjugation does not. The best candidate for error lies in the Hebrew stages where the similarity of the first two consonants ‫( מראה‬vision) and ‫ מדדו‬could have occasioned the different inscriptions. But this does not explain all the textual features. Better than arguments for error, the variant is probably intentional, and helps construct a different generic introduction to Ezek 43.13–48. 44 I take the two dangling accusatives at the end of the verse to be governed by the initial verb. The translation is probably literal, following the word order of its Hebrew Vorlage. Hebrew syntax affects another aspect of translation where, for instance, the copulative on ‫ויכלמו‬, translated και κοπασουσιν, introduces a result-clause. While this is possible in Greek, it is far more likely reflective of a Hebrew syntactical construction, so literal translation technique led the Greek scribes to retain the coordinating conjunction. 45 The two unique references to the diagram, discussed above, are both syntactically coordinated by results clauses involving moral action and adherence to statues.

‘Like the Vision’

223

MT seeks readers who are ashamed because of a bad temple design (exits, entrances, etc.). In fact, shame seems to be a prerequisite to reading further, positioning readers as initiates. This is underscored not least by the conditional phrase in MT’s plus in v. 11aα, “If they are ashamed” (‫)ואם נכלמו‬. In lieu of the shameful temple architecture, MT commends to its initiates the correlation of architecture and statutes such as those found in Ezek 43–48. Twice, MT provides generic guidance on how to read Ezekiel’s temple vision: “this is the torah of the temple.” This can especially be seen in MT’s use of ‫הנה‬. An introduction to the unique content in a vision, ‫ הנה‬focuses the reader on what and how he / ​she is to see. The whole phrase is an MT plus. “Behold” suggests that the focus for the remaining vision should be the torah, both its form and its statutes. In contrast, LXX prioritizes the essence of the diagram. Variants emphasize its diagram, Ezekiel as the architect, and the public display of his drawing. Further, there is no pre-requisite for encountering this material. Instead, when read as the genre of a diagram, focusing on the architecture, LXX asserts that moral transformation will take place. Ezekiel’s audience witnesses the temple design as a perlocutionary strategy to help them obey statutes. As a complement, LXX compares the diagram to the vision of the chariot (του αρματος), a possible reference to a form of Merkabah mysticism. Perhaps reflective of an early form of mystical reading, the version of Ezek 43 in LXX plays a perlocutionary role to enable obedience to statutes, following more participatory and mystical themes.46 Whether one reads the temple tour with MT as an initiation to torah or with LXX as a perlocutionary diagram, these variant emphases require generic context to make sense. For instance, while LXX gives the diagram and perlocutionary role, MT indicts shameful architecture (form, arrangement, exits, and entrances). One would have to go outside the text of Ezekiel to understand these issues.47 The critic needs to become familiar with debates and discourses about architecture. For example, we know about an alternate diagram of architecture in the Temple Scroll, the enormous designs imagined in the (Aramaic) New Jersusalem text, that astronomical speculations on the temple generated new literature, that resistance communities imagined themselves as community-temples, that the temple architecture in the Sabbath Songs facilitated mystical / ​esoteric participatory experiences, and that actual architectural changes occurred under Antiochus IV and especially in the construction of the Herodian temple.48 These materialist, 46 It is interesting that in later Merkavah mysticism and Hekalot literature, the chariot of Yhwh is the very vehicle for learning Torah thoroughly and completely. 47 It is possible that an edition of chs. 40–42 presented a negative model of the temple. I argued this in an SBL presentation comparing variants in Ezek 40–42 to the temple narrative in 2 Maccabees. See also the relevant though not wholly accurate conclusions on the temple vision in the Maccabean period in George R. Berry, “The Authorship of Ezekiel 40–48,” JBL 34 (1915): 17–40. 48 For example, see F. Schmidt, La Pensée du Temple de Jérusalem à Qoumrân: Identité et lien social dans le Judaïsm ancien, trans. J. E. Crowley as How the Temple Thinks: Identity and Social

224

Ingrid E. Lilly

sociological, and virtual instances of the temple diagram underscore the variety of generic contexts scribes may have summoned in editing Ezekiel’s temple tour.

5. Comparative Genre Analysis as Evidence for Scribal Composition Comparing literature within generic families trains a modern critic in cultural forms and ancient scribal obsessions. We can explore the role genre plays in scribal editing by developing the case study of Ezek 43 further. In what follows, I consider three pieces of literature with comparable temple tours: the New Jerusalem text, 1 Enoch 14, and the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice. These samples give modern critics representative generic forms that would have impacted scribal composition in Ezek 43. The Aramaic New Jerusalem text presents a guided vision with numerous similarities to Ezek 43. It is a first-person visionary account of an angel-guided tour of Jerusalem and the temple. Like Ezek 40–48, the tour emphasizes temple rituals and architectural features, like walls, gates, and rooms. While it does not seem to propose an actual building agenda, it does dispute halakhic issues and serves as a model temple with possible significance for pilgrimage.49 This text contains several relevant features: temple measurements correlated with halakhic material, a visionary guide, and possible social meaning for a journey (pilgrimage). 1 Enoch 14 combines a heavenly ascent with a visionary tour of the temple. While architecture is mentioned (ceilings, walls, gates, rooms) it is more fantastic than Ezekiel (it incorporates celestial bodies into the architecture and everything is on fire, for instance). The vision describes Enoch’s perambulations towards the inner chamber where the Great Glory sits on his throne. Of note for the LXX version of Ezek 43, Enoch is prostrate when he hears a voice and is made to stand as he approaches the door. Like Ezekiel, Enoch is a scribe, although his inscriptions do not include a full-blown architectural diagram nor explicit halakhic laws about the temple. Finally, the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice put the temple to hymnic and mystical use.50 As angels sing and praise the Glory of God, the hymns move Cohesion in Ancient Judaism, BS 78 (Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 2001). Lawrence Shiffman, “Community without Temple: The Qumran Community’s Withdrawl from the Jerusalem Temple,” in Qumran and Jerusalem: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the History of Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 81–97. 49 For more, see Eibert Tigchelaar, “The Character of the City and the Temple of the Aramaic New Jersusalem,” in Other Worlds and Their Relation to This World: Early Jewish and Christian Traditions, eds. T. Nicklas, J. Verheyden, and E. Eynikel, JSJSup 143 (Boston: Brill, 2010), 117–132. 50 For connections between Ezekiel and the Sabbath Songs, see Carol A. Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition, HSS 27 (Atlanta: Scholar’s Press, 1985), 303–21.

‘Like the Vision’

225

through temple spaces referencing cosmic architecture (halls, porches, gates).51 The hymns use the term merkavah, penetrate the inner room of the temple, and describe a theophanic appearance of God evoking Ezek 43’s mobile return. The hymns describe angelic rituals, offering a participatory experience of the heavenly temple oriented around songs of praise to the Glory. None of these texts offer an exact template for Ezekiel’s scribes. MT and LXX have distinguishing features from all three examples. Instead, the three examples demonstrate the generic productivity of a prototype during a longer period of scribal composition: the temple tour. When the critic identifies a prototype and studies more and more examples of comparable genres, she acquires an informed map by which to evaluate textual data. Ezekiel probably does stand up in the LXX to get ready for his guided tour. Enoch stood up too in response the the voice from the temple. The MT scribe’s concern for temple measurements and halakhah as “the whole torah” probably does participate in a similar genre as the New Jerusalem text. Unique material in the LXX probably was shaped by the mystical and perlocutionary worship of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice. The skeptical critic may still not appreciate the weight I am placing on comparing genres, despite the clear fact that guided visions, heavenly ascents, temple diagrams, and mystical temple texts enjoyed centuries of literary productivity. In fact, one need not rely on modern genre theory at all. As students of our scribes, we should listen when they speak plainly about their intellectual work. In 43.3, the MT glosses the verse with the phrase “like the vision.” The ancient scribes sounded a call to compare genres.

6. Genre Analysis and Text-Critical Study in Ezekiel For those interested in scribal composition, genre analysis offers a needed cultural competency for analyzing textual evidence. To start, genre analysis exerts resistance against the sometimes limited scope and creative license of text-critical evaluations. For example, Cooke calls 43.11 in MT “a confused text” and emends towards LXX. Of the reading ‫ואם נכלמו‬, Cooke justifies his text-critical emendation because “it is not quite natural to insist upon being ashamed as the condition of imparting knowledge.”52 I disagree.53 When a textual critic reckons that shame cannot be a condition for knowledge, it is time to look up. We know that criticism 51 See James R. Davila, “The Macrocosmic Temple, Scriptural Exegesis, and the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice,” DSD 9/1 (2002): 1–19. 52 G. A. Cooke, A Critical Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel, ICC (Edinburgh: Clark, 1936), 474. Italics original. 53 The Lucianic Greek manuscripts as well as all the medieval Hebrew manuscripts present the conditional particle. Shame is a strong theme in Ezekiel. In the plan for restoration, shame allows even those with a new heart to obey statutes (Ezek 36.32).

226

Ingrid E. Lilly

of the Second Temple was wide-spread, not least among the sectarian documents at Qumran. It is highly probable that Hebrew scribes insisted upon shame about the temple form as a precondition to torah-learning. Zimmerli has a similar problem with ‫ ואם נכלמו‬in v. 11 and suggests that scribes misread ‫ ואם‬for an original ‫והם‬. One could argue that ‫ והם‬is attested by και αυτοι in the earliest Greek witnesses (prob. OG). However, the whole Greek phrase (και αυτοι λημψονται την κολασιν αυτων) is not a literal translation of the Hebrew (‫)ואם נכלמו‬. The Greek translators are normally quite literal, elsewhere translating ‫ כלם‬with ατιμοω, εξατιμοομαι, and αισχυνομαι (16.54, 61; 36.32). Although there is no consistency across these lexemes, the Greek never elongates the phrase. The closest Greek translation to 43.11 comes in 36.7, ουτοι την ατιμιαν αυτων λημχονται, but there it is a literal translation of the Hebrew Vorlage, ‫המה כלמתם ישׂאו‬. Hence, even the Greek versions do not offer support for Zimmerli’s conjecture.54 What can constrain textual criticism from its more creative albeit ingenious problem-solving? Textual criticism has honed its talent for diagnosing errors. Genre analysis helps constrain the impression of errors with emic competencies to explore scribal innovation. Indeed, genre analysis imputes more ingenuity to scribes than is typically presumed by textual criticism. An especially good example is furnished by the MT word ‫ צורה‬which occurs four times in v. 11. According to the organization presented above for MT, ‫ צורה‬compares with four different readings in the LXX. aβ – ‫ צורת הבית‬ aβ – ‫ וכל צורתו‬ bα – ‫ וכל צורתו‬ cβ – ‫ כל צורתו‬

διαγραψεις τον οικον και την υποστασιν αυτου (minus) παντα τα δικαιωματα μου

Zimmerli’s analysis is again instructive. He does not emend the text of aβ, but suggests that the Greek read ‫ וצרת‬from the verb ‫ צור‬meaning “design, to make a plan.” This Hebrew base text makes good sense of διαγραφω. Zimmerli goes on to call the remaining three instances of ‫ צורה‬errors. The two in aβ and bα were generated by misreading ‫ וכל צורתו‬for ‫ וכל תורתו‬in bα, a mistake of ‫ ​ת‬/ ‫ צ‬that led to a clarifying gloss. Zimmerli explains cβ as the same erroneous ‫ ​ת‬/ ‫צ‬. According to Zimmerli’s analysis, ‫ צורה‬only occurred once in the earliest Hebrew text. Twice it entered as an error and once as a gloss to explain the error. This seems improbable. Moreover, this text-critical judgment imputes exactly no compositional ingenuity to the scribes. In my reading of MT, all four instances of ‫צורה‬ were important to its genre. The verse begins by announcing the shame of the temple’s form. Then Ezekiel is instructed to write torah encompassing statues and forms. It is possible that some instances of ‫ צורה‬entered the text through creative 54 One should also note the variant in 43.10 where the Greek translates MT ‫ כלם‬with κοπαζω, suggesting a second intentional scribal change at some point in the transmission of chap 43.

‘Like the Vision’

227

reworking of terms like ‫( תורה‬attested) and ‫( צור‬retroverted). The LXX attests still more scribal innovations, showcasing the ingenuity of either the translators or in some cases the scribes responsible for their Hebrew Vorlage.55 In either case, the result is a generic statement in MT.56 When read with the textual evidence in vv. 3, 6, 10, and 12, the fluidity in v. 11 reveals the generic expectations that shaped the editing processes of the MT scribes: Ezekiel’s temple vision was torah instruction; it replaced a bad form with a good one. ‫ צורה‬was not subject to three scribal mistakes. On the contrary, it was a productive scribal obsession, an integral part of textual reworking.

7. Genre Analysis and Scribal Composition in Ezekiel Another problem that genre analysis helps to solve is making textual evidence available in a form that is useful to the history of scribal composition. To illustrate the problem, I will review one classic and two recent studies of Ezekiel’s textual expansions. In 1954, Georg Fohrer identified 364 “glosses” across Ezekiel and developed categories to asses them as proto-rabbinic forms of exegesis.57 His period of scholarship focused concerted attention on Ezekiel’s textual expansions to study the wider phenomenon of interpolations.58 Fohrer attempted to find rabbinic forms of exegesis in his ample data set. The problem with Fohrer’s analysis was how it handled category errors. He discerned six major categories and 19 subcategories, some of which contain only a few examples.59 Idiosyncratic categories for features that do not fit into the system are of questionable use. But more, critics should not also give the illusion of their diagnostic utility. Etic categories can help modern scholars organize ancient material. But they can also obscure processes and practices of ancient scribal composition.

55 See conclusions about the Hebrew Vorlage of the Old Greek in Lilly, Two Books of Ezekiel, 301–304. 56 No matter how one judges priority from a text-critical perspective, the prior and posterior texts still craft different generic expectations. This is what makes genre a fascinating and powerful complement to the issue of fluidity in textual criticism. Genology can identify literary sites of fluidity without requiring a stance on priority (unlike redaction criticism, for example). Genology focuses on relative textual transformations. It permits analysis of fluidity not in light of diachrony but as alternate entextualizations of genre. And it allows that texts participate in literary genres in and outside of the book in which they are lodged. I think it methodologically prudent to explore the complementarity of genre to text-critical questions not only because of its explanatory power, but because genology is rooted in an epistemic theory of scribal production. 57 Georg Fohrer, “Die Glossen im Buche Ezechiel,” ZAW 63 (1951): 33–53. 58 See review in Tov, Textual Criticism, 283–284. 59 See a fuller critique of Fohrer in Kenneth S. Freedy, “The Glosses in Ezekiel I–XXIV,” VT 20 (1970): 130–31.

228

Ingrid E. Lilly

A more recent analysis of Ezekiel’s textual expansions is Ashley Crane’s study of Ezekiel 36–39.60 Crane adopts a text-comparative approach which respects individual manuscripts as literature. Textual variants are discussed as ‘trajectories of interpretation.’ One drawback of this study is the way Crane chose to synthesize his conclusions through the lens of historical-political context that was underdeveloped and overgeneralized. His conclusions, while stimulating, are therefore hard to accept. The running analysis of variants in Ezekiel 36–39 has much to offer, but like our modern commentaries, it is most useful to those studying the history of interpretation of specific passages or verses. Its organizational strategy does not converse easily with wider questions about scribal composition. Finally, Timothy P. Mackie’s Expanding Ezekiel adopts traditional text-critical approaches to textual editing. As such, it is an ideal place to discuss both the value and shortcomings of text-critical methods for questions of scribal editing. I would like to start with an example of Mackie’s analysis, the LXX plus του αρματος in Ezek 43.3.61 Mackie presents two text-critical explanations of the “chariot” plus: it was added by the Greek translator or was present in the Hebrew Vorlage of the OG. The discussion weighs arguments about harmonization, theological motivation, dittography, and the preservation of two alternate readings.62 He discusses mystical interpretation and concludes that the plus was added during Hebrew stages of transmission. Indeed, Mackie acknowledges the larger questions about Merkavah mysticism in Second Temple Judaism. But two aspects of his study obscure the significance of this conclusion. First, his organization of analysis isolates the variant from the abundant textual evidence in chap. 43.63 Some of that discussion happens in his section, “Harmonizations among the Vision Scenes” fifty pages earlier.64 Textual critics regularly isolate variants from potentially relevant nearby textual information. The premise of this approach sets up a major blind spot in study of scribal composition. Second, and just as important, categories matter. Mackie analyzes scribal expansions according to familiar text-critical categories: explication, elaboration, harmonization, and assimilation.65 In a potentially exciting connection at the end of the book, Mackie puts his analysis of scribal additions into conversation with Tigay’s famous work on the Gilgamesh Epic.66 But there again, the categories are hardly useful to 60 Ashley Crane, Israel’s Restoration: A Textual-Comparative Exploration of Ezekiel 36–39, VTSup 122 (Boston: Brill, 2008). 61 Timothy P. Mackie, Expanding Ezekiel, 173–76. 62 Mackie adds his own analysis of translation technique, showing that mystical interpretation was not a regular feature of the translator. Ibid. 63 Compare D. J. Halperin, “Merkabah Mysticism in the Septuagint,” JBL 101 (1982): 354 whose analysis of 43.3 also neglects other variants in the generic literary context. 64 Ibid., 122–31. 65 Ibid., Expanding Ezekiel, 71–205. 66 Ibid., Expanding Ezekiel, 209–211.

‘Like the Vision’

229

larger questions in the history of literature: elaboration by additional adjectives or predicatives, elaboration by additional parallel lines, and assimilation and harmonization of contextually distant passages. The success of categories like these affirms what was already a premise of the study, namely that scribes reworked and edited their texts. Textual criticism furnishes valuable conclusions for some approaches to scribal editing. But unless one is interested in the history of the predicate noun, those conclusions are grossly insufficient to tell us about the history of literary composition. Textual criticism works with modern etic categories for scribal changes: “contextual,” “theological,” “exegetical,” “harmonizing,” “stylistic,” “redactional,” “editorial,” “explicative,” etc. The time is ripe to use textual criticism to ask new questions about scribal processes. Scribal appropriation of genres brings us closer to an analysis of cultures and histories of literature.67 By way of conclusion, it is instructive to point out that genre studies have often made inroads to debates about Rewritten Scripture, a related phenomenon with implications for scribal editing. As appeals to genology have grown more sophisticated, several scholars conclude that rewriting a scriptural text is not its own genre, certainly not for ancient scribes.68 If rewriting is not a genre, then perhaps we should begin thinking of texts as platforms that become sites of various kinds of cultural activity. The cultural and literary historian should be as or even more interested in which sites generated the most compositional activity (temples, divine speeches, visions, etc). As textual criticism is currently practiced, its conclusions remain isolated from larger areas of historical, literary, and cultural study. Genre has the potential to complement text-critical methods, as this case study has explored, bringing textual criticism into conversations about ancient composition and textual fluidity.

Bibliography Berry, George R. “The Authorship of Ezekiel 40–48.” JBL 34 (1915): 17–40. Breed, Brennan. Nomadic Text: A Theory of Biblical Reception History. ISBL. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2014. Cooke, G. A. A Critical Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel. ICC. Edinburgh: Clark, 1936. Crane, Ashley. Israel’s Restoration: A Textual-Comparative Exploration of Ezekiel 36–39. VTSup 122. Boston: Brill, 2008.

67 For example, this genre analysis of Ezek 43 facilitates conversation with non-text-critical studies of the period, like Hindy Najman, Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism, JSJSup 77 (Boston: Brill, 2003); or any of the other research cited as comparative material. 68 See Molly Zahn’s review and assessment in idem, “Genre and Rewritten Scripture: A Reassessment,” JBL 131 (2012): 271–288.

230

Ingrid E. Lilly

Davila, James R. “The Macrocosmic Temple, Scriptural Exegesis, and the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice.” DSD 9.1 (2002): 1–19. De Troyer, Kristen. Rewriting the Sacred Text: What the Old Greek Texts Tell us about the Literary Growth of the Bible. TCS 4. Atlanta: SBL, 2003. Debel, Hans. “Rewritten Bible, Variant Literary Editions and Original Text(s): Exploring the Implications of a Pluriform Outlook on the Scriptural Tradition.” Pages 65–92 in Changes in Scripture,Changes in Scripture: Rewriting and Interpreting Authoratative Traditions in the Second Temple Period. Edited by idem. New York: De Gruyter, 2011. Dijkstra, Meindert. “The Glosses in Ezekiel Reconsidered: Aspects of Textual Transmission in Ezekiel 10.” Pages 55–77 in Ezekiel and His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and their Interrelation. Edited by Johan Lust. BETL 74. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1986. Falk, Daniel K. “Qumran Prayer Texts and the Temple.” Pages 106–126 in Sapiential, Liturgical, and Poetical Texts from Qumran: Proceedings of the Third Meeting of the International Organization of Qumran Studies, Published in Memory of Maurice Baillet. Edited by Daniel K. Falk, F. Garcia-Martinez, and Eileen M. Schuller. Boston: Brill, 2000. Fishelov, David. Metaphors of Genre: The Role of Analogies in Genre Theory. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1993. Fohrer, Georg. “Die Glossen im Buche Ezechiel.” ZAW 63 (1951): 33–53. Freedy, Kenneth S. “The Glosses in Ezekiel I–XXIV.” VT 20 (1970): 129–152. Goff, Matt. “Qumran Wisdom Literature and the Problem of Genre.” DSD 17 (2010): 286–306. Gruenwald, Ithamar. Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism. 2d rev. Boston: Brill, 2014. Halperin, D. J. “Merkabah Mysticism in the Septuagint.” JBL 101 (1982): 351–363. Himmelfarb, Martha. Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993. –. A Kingdom of Priests: Ancestry and Merit in Ancient Judaism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 2006. Kloppenborg, John S., and Judith H. Newman, eds. Editing the Bible: Assessing the Task Past and Present. RBS 69. Atlanta: SBL, 2012. Lilly, Ingrid E. Two Books of Ezekiel: Papyrus 967 and the Masoretic Text as Variant Literary Editions. VTSup 150. Boston: Brill, 2012. Lust, Johan. “Major Divergences between LXX and MT in Ezekiel.” Pages 83–92 in The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible: The Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered Edited by Adrian Schenker. SBLSCS 52. Atlanta: SBL, 2003. Martin, Gary D. Multiple Originals: New Approaches to Hebrew Bible Textual Criticism. TCS 7. Atlanta: SBL, 2010. Mackie, Timothy P. Expanding Ezekiel: The Hermeneutics of Scribal Addition in the Ancient Text Witnesses of the Book of Ezekiel. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015. Najman, Hindy. Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism. SupJSJ 77. Boston: Brill, 2003. –. “The Idea of Biblical Genre: From Discourse to Constellation.” Pages 307–321 in Prayer and Poetry in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature: Essays in Honor of Eileen Schuller on the Occassion of her 65th Birthday. Edited by Jeremy Penner, Ken M. Penner, and Cecilia Wassen. Boston: Brill, 2012. Newsom, Carol A. Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition. HSS 27. Atlanta: Scholar’s Press, 1985.

‘Like the Vision’

231

–. “Spying out the Land: A Report from Genology.” Pages 437–450 in Seeking Out the Wisdom of the Ancients: Essays Offered to Honor Michael V. Fox on the Occasion of his SixtyFifth Birthday. Edited by Ronald L. Troxel, Kelvin G. Friebel, and Dennis M. Magary. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005. O’Hare, Daniel M. Have You Seen the Son of Man? A Study in the Translation and Vorlage of LXX Ezekiel 40–48. SCS 57. Atlanta: SBL, 2010. Pearce, Laurie E., and Cornelia Wunsch. Documents of Judean Exiles and West Semites in Babylonia in the Collection of David Sofer. CUSAS 28. Ithica, NY: Capital Decisions Ltd., 2014. Schmidt, F. La Pensée du Temple de Jérusalem à Qoumrân: Identité et lien social dans le Judaïsm ancien. Translated by J. E. Crowley. How the Temple Thinks: Identity and Social Cohesion in Ancient Judaism. BS 78. Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 2001. Scott, James M. “Throne Chariot Mysticism in Qumran and in Paul.” Pages 101–119 in Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Peter W. Flint. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Shiffman, Lawrence. “Community without Temple: The Qumran Community’s Withdrawl from the Jerusalem Temple.” Pages 81–97 in Qumran and Jerusalem: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the History of Judaism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Sweeney, Marvin A. Isaiah 1–39: With an Introduction to Prophetic Literature. FOTL 16. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. –. “The Masoretic and Septuagint Versions of the Book of Jeremiah in Synchronic and Diachronic Perspective.” Pages 65–77 in Form and Intertextuality in Prophetic and Apocalyptic Literature. Edited by idem. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Talmon, Shemaryahu. “The Textual Study of the Bible – A New Outlook.” Pages 321–400 in Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text. Edited by F. M. Cross and S. Talmon. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975. Tigchelaar, Eibert. “The Character of the City and the Temple of the Aramaic New Jerusalem.” Page 117–132 in Other Worlds and Their Relation to This World: Early Jewish and Christian Traditions. Edited by T. Nicklas, J. Verheyden, and E. Eynikel. SupJSJ 143. Boston: Brill, 2010. Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 2d rev. ed. Minneapolis: Fortress; Assen / ​Maastricht: Van Gorcum, 1992. Tuell, Steven. The Law of the Temple in Ezekiel 40–48. HSM 49. Atlanta: Scholar’s Press, 1992. Ulrich, Eugene. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible. SDSSRL. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Boston: Brill, 1999. –. “The Evolutionary Production and Transmission of the Scriptural Books.” Pages 209– 225 in Changes in Scripture: Rewriting and Interpreting Authoratative Traditions in the Second Temple Period. Edited by H. von Weissenberg, J. Pakkala, and M. Marttila. New York: De Gruyter, 2011. –. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Developmental Composition of the Bible. Boston: Brill, 2015. Von Weissenberg, Hanne, Juha Pakkala, and M. Marttila, “Introducing Changes in Scripture.” Pages 3–20 in Changes in Scripture,Changes in Scripture: Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period. Edited by idem. New York: De Gruyter, 2011. Williamson, Jr., Robert. “Pesher: A Cognitive Model of the Genre.” DSD 17 (2010): 307–331.

232

Ingrid E. Lilly

Yarbro-Collins, Adela. Cosmology and Eschatology in Jewish and Christian Apocalypticism. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Zahn, Molly. “Genre and Rewritten Scripture: A Reassessment.” JBL 131 (2012): 271–288. Zimmerli, Walther. Ezekiel. Translated by Ronald E. Clements. 2 vols. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979–83.

Part 3

Ezekiel’s Book and its Thought in Synchronic Perspective

Literary Structure and Formulas in Ezekiel 34–37 Tyler D. Mayfield Scholars attach many descriptors to the book of Ezekiel in the process of its interpretation – forbidden,1 priestly,2 traumatic,3 orderly,4 and architectonic,5 to name only a few. The following discussion highlights another adjective that should be on the list – formulaic. The book of Ezekiel is a book of formulas. Ezekiel uses numerous different formulas and uses them repeatedly. For example, the prophetic utterance formula, usually translated as “utterance of Yhwh,” occurs eightyone times in Ezekiel.6 The messenger formula, translated as “Thus says Adonai Yhwh,” occurs 126 times in Ezekiel.7 In addition to these two formulas, Ezekiel includes an assortment of formulas such as the prophetic word formula, covenant formula, oath formula, recognition formula, self-introduction formula,8 and hand of Yhwh formula. Altogether there are over 300 formulaic occurrences in the book’s forty-eight chapters.9 In our focal section, Ezekiel 34–37, over sixty in1 According to Jerome, Jews under the age of thirty were forbidden to read the beginning and end of Ezekiel. See Commentariorum in Hiezechielem libri XIV, S. Hieronymi presbyteri Opera 1/4, Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 75 (Turnholt: Berpols, 1964), 3–4. 2 Michael A. Lyons, From Law to Prophecy: Ezekiel’s Use of the Holiness Code, LHBOTS 507 (New York: T & T Clark, 2009); T. J. Betts, Ezekiel the Priest: Custodian of Tora, Studies in Biblical Literature 74 (New York: Lang, 2005). 3 For example, David G. Garber, “Traumatizing Ezekiel, the Exilic Prophet,” in Psychology and the Bible: A New Way to Read the Scriptures Volume 2: From Genesis to Apocalyptic Vision, ed. J. Harold Ellens and Wayne G. Rollins, 215–235; Praeger Perspectives: Psychology, Religion, and Spirituality (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2004). 4  Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel Chapters 1–24; Hermeneia; trans. Ronald E. Clements (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), 2, states, “In coming from the other prophetic books, one is struck by the impression of great order in the book of Ezekiel.” 5 Ellen F. Davis, Swallowing the Scroll: Textuality and the Dynamics of Discourse in Ezekiel’s Prophecy, Bible and Literature 21 (Sheffield: Almond, 1989), 11, begins “‘Architectonic’ seems to be the scholarly epithet peculiar to the book of Ezekiel. The primary object of critical research has been to account for the book’s salient feature: its comprehensive design, which appears highly deliberate and distinguishes this work from earlier collections of prophetic speeches.” 6 See Friedrich Baumgärtel, “Die Formel ‘ne’um jahwe,’” ZAW 73 (1961): 277–290. 7 See Daniel I. Block, Ezekiel 1–24, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 32–33, and bibliography therein. 8 See Walther Zimmerli, I am Yahweh, trans. D. W. Scott (Atlanta: John Knox, 1982): 1–98. 9 For an overview of individual formulas in Ezekiel, see Ronald M. Hals, Ezekiel, FOTL 19 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 359–363.

236

Tyler D. Mayfield

stances of formulas occur including at least eight distinct formulas.10 The book’s elaborate use of formulas deserves additional attention in Ezekelian scholarship as a unique feature of the book’s overall literary design and message. What can be added to our knowledge of this prophetic book’s composition, editorial process, literary presentation, and theology if we consider its near obsession with formulaic expressions? Ezekiel is also a highly structured book. Scholars detect a highly ordered composition with discernible literary units. The book typically divides into three major sections  – Ezek 1–24, 25–32, and 33–48  – based primarily on content (judgment, judgment of nations, promise), but also on an assumed, scholarly idea of the form of a typical prophetic book and ideas about the composition of the book.11 A more fruitful approach to the book’s macro and microstructure includes a consideration of the role of some of these formulas within the book. Ezekiel’s use of formulas does not always serve a structural function, but some of the formulas help divide the entire book into units and subunits as well as helping to divide individual passages into sections. Thus, certain formulas can help the reader to discern how to read by noting where to begin and end literary units. I focus on these two issues, formulas and literary structure, by examining Ezek 34–37 and asking how certain formulas can help divide and ultimately read these four chapters. I take a literary approach, bracketing for the moment questions concerning the editorial process of the book and its compositional history. One could certainly ask how these formulas came to exist in the book of Ezekiel over time, but this is not my question here. First, I examine Ezek 34–37 within the larger literary context of the book of Ezekiel and demonstrate how chronological formulas and prophetic word formulas help structure the book’s primary units and subunits. These two formulas provide both a coherent literary structure for the whole book and an appropriate literary context for our chapters. Second, I examine how the messenger formula helps to structure (or not) various subunits within Ezek 34–37.

1. Ezekiel 34–37 within the Literary Context of the Book of Ezekiel: Chronological and Prophetic Word Formulas Even though Ezek 34–37 is the focus of our analysis here, these four chapters are not, strictly speaking, a literary unit in the book of Ezekiel. No explicit textual 10 Formulas in Ezek 34–37 include prophetic word formula, messenger formula, prophetic utterance formula, recognition formula, oath formula, hand of YHWH formula, call to attention formula, and covenant formula. 11 One thinks of Isaiah’s diachronic division into three parts (Isa 1–39, 40–55, 56–66), Zechariah’s three part structure (Zech 1–8, 9–11, 12–14), Micah’s division based on compositional history (Mic 1–3, 4–5, 6–7), and Zephaniah’s tripartite structure (Zeph 1–2.3, 2.4–3.8, 3.9–20).

Literary Structure and Formulas in Ezekiel 34–37

237

markers guide readers to view these four chapters together as a distinct unit. Unquestionably, they can be read sequentially given their placement in order (so, chapter 35 can be read and understood in light of its position immediately after chapter 34), but grouping these four chapters together as a unit (i. e., to the exclusion of Ezek 33 or 38, for example) is not supported by the text. In other words, the book of Ezekiel provides no good reason to draw boundaries around these four particular chapters. Therefore, I propose that we situate these chapters within a larger literary context, a context that is more clearly delineated. So, where might one make a division in the text to create a literary unit? Where do we find textual markers that provide helpful reasons to draw boundaries? How do we discern a surface structure of the book of Ezekiel that demarcates clear borders around units of texts?12 1.1 Chronological Formulas Focusing on certain formulas in the book provides a way to situate these chapters within a larger context. For example, the chronological formula, which occurs thirteen times in Ezekiel, can provide the highest-level divisions for the prophetic book. These formulas create thirteen macro-units within Ezekiel. The following four characteristics of the chronological formulas support this literary division of the book. First, the chronological formulas occur consistently throughout the book (Ezek 1.1; 8.1; 20.1; 24.1; 26.1; 29.1; 29.17; 30.20; 31.1; 32.1; 32.17; 33.21; and 40.1). They are not correlated to a specific genre such as vision or sign act within Ezekiel but are spread throughout the book in a regular way. Second, the use of a chronological formula to begin the book of Ezekiel demonstrates the structural importance of the formula for this book. Likewise, the last literary unit of the book, Ezek 40–48, generally recognized in the scholarly discussion as a single major text-segment, also begins with a chronological formula. Third, the sequential order of the thirteen formulas marks progression of time through the first quarter of the sixth century BCE such that a historical timeframe is imposed on the book as well as a literary framework. One reads through the book with the guidance of these chronological bookmarks, which provide structure and a sense of relationship between the various textual units. Fourth, the chronological markers establish a reliable literary pattern within each of the 13 units, a pattern that consists of a narrative of varying length followed by an oracle or series of oracles. This pattern is found in all the units, excepting Ezek 40–48, if one reads each chronological formula as the beginning of a new macro-unit that continues until the occurrence of the next chronological formula.13 12 For a methodological discussion of literary structure, see Tyler D. Mayfield, Literary Structure and Setting in Ezekiel, FAT 2/43 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 33–75. 13 Some of the macro-units are quite short, e. g., seven verses or sixteen verses, while the longest macro-unit is twelve chapters. In addition, some of the resulting macro-units are odd

238

Tyler D. Mayfield

Using the chronological formulas as a guide, the literary macro-structure of the book of Ezekiel is as follows:14   1. Vision and Oracles concerning Ezekiel’s Call and Message to Israel   2. Visions and Oracles concerning God’s Departure from Jerusalem   3. Oracles concerning Judgment and Promise for Israel   4. Oracles concerning the Siege of Jerusalem   5. Oracles concerning Tyre, Sidon, and Israel   6. Oracle concerning Judgment of Egypt   7. Oracle concerning the Fate of Egypt   8. Oracle concerning Babylon’s Defeat of Egypt   9. Oracle concerning Pharaoh 10. Oracle concerning a Lament over Pharaoh 11. Oracles concerning Egypt and the Watchman 12. Report and Oracles concerning Fall and Restoration 13. Vision of the Temple

1–7 8–19 20–23 24–25 26–28 29.1–16 29.17–30.19 30.20–26 31 32.1–16 32.17–33.20 33.21–39.29 40–48

As one can see in the outline, Ezek 34–37 is situated within a larger textual unit, Ezek 33.21–39.29, which begins with a chronological formula in Ezek 33.21 and continues until the following chronological formula in Ezek 40.1. The unit, the twelfth of thirteen, contains an introductory chronological formula, a short narrative concerning the announcement of the fall of the city, and a series of oracles. What is gained by an interpretation of Ezek 33.21–39.29 as a complete literary unit, instead of just Ezek 34–37? The interpretive importance of using the chronological formulas to determine literary units and to help read the book is seen especially at the beginning of this particular unit. Obviously, reading the literary unit as Ezek 33.21–39.29, and not Ezek 34–37, includes more textual material in the unit, material that is pivotal to the interpretation of these chapters. The opening narrative in Ezek 33.21–22, although brief, is essential to understanding the prophetic oracles and vision that follow it. Indeed, Ezek 33.21–22 is a critical, if not the critical, moment in the book, and it points forward to the responses found in the oracles. Each of the oracles in this literary unit depends in one way or another on this announcement of the city’s fall. For example, the imagery of God as shepherd and the call for a shepherd and servant, David, in Ezek 34 is best read in the literary and historical context of the announcement of the fall of the city and therefore the monarchy. Let me reiterate at this point that I am not arguing that Ezek 34 was either composed by Ezekiel or was a later addition to the text. Instead, I am highlighting the chapter’s literary dependence on with regard to their content, e. g., Ezek 24–25, a macro-unit that unites two chapters traditionally separated by a definitive literary division. For further analysis of chronological formulas in Ezekiel, see Mayfield, Literary Structure, 84–117. 14 The labels attached to these thirteen literary units represent some of the prominent genres within each unit. Therefore, this system of labeling does not represent accurately Ezekiel’s literary pattern of narrative plus oracles noted earlier. In other words, all the units in the above outline begin with a chronological formula even though some of the units are labeled as oracles.

Literary Structure and Formulas in Ezekiel 34–37

239

the announcement of the fall. Similarly, the prophecy against Mount Seir in Ezek 35 is predicated on Edom’s actions toward Israel either during or after the fall of Jerusalem. The literary unit is held together thematically as a (mostly) hopeful response to this horrific news of destruction. Any attempt to address the various interpretive issues within Ezek 34–37 needs to take into account the larger literary setting of these chapters and the important narrative material at the beginning of the literary unit that relates to the city’s destruction. The book of Ezekiel, of course, allows space for the reader to place in conversation certain passages that are not part of the same literary unit. For example, Ezek 36’s brief recitation of Israel’s history can be read in light of an earlier, longer recitation in Ezek 20 (or vice versa). Moreover, the motif of dumbness in Ezek 33.22 refers the reader back to Ezek 3. These are just two of the examples of inner-textuality in Ezekiel in which a given theme is revived later in the book. But I am arguing for something different here than inner-textuality; I am arguing for the importance of literary setting. The chronological formulas in Ezekiel set boundaries within the book that allow for a contextual reading of each passage within its distinct unit. Reading Ezek 34–37 without its surrounding literary context does not provide the appropriate context in which to interpret the responses. The announcement in 33.21–22 comes just a few months after the destruction of Jerusalem. So these responses are set within a historical context that is actually close to the actual events. No matter when they were composed, they are read in their current form as responses to the news of the destruction of the city. 1.2 Prophetic Word Formulas The chronological formulas are not the only structuring devices within the book however. Prophetic word formulas, “And the word of Yhwh came to me saying,” function within Ezekiel as secondary structural markers for the book by dividing the thirteen largest literary units of the book into smaller subunits. This understanding of the PWF15 provides a reliable and consistent reading of these formulas by taking into account all 48 occurrences of them within Ezekiel. Each occurrence is given the same interpretive weight and has the same function. Previous scholars such as Hals and Block have noted a structural role for the PWF, but scholars do not treat each occurrence of the formula in a consistent manner as a marker of structure. Instead, they consider a particular PWF an appropriate indicator for structure ostensibly when another criterion has already established the structure. The PWF, in these scholars’ analysis, is crucial to literary organization in some instances but ignored in other cases. Using the PWF to subdivide the thirteen literary units provides a consistent reading for these formulas. In addition, this explanation of the formula places it in clear and direct relationship with other formulas so as to create a plausible literary structure for Ezekiel. 15 PWF

= prophetic word formula.

240

Tyler D. Mayfield

Scholars often have failed to relate the PWF to other formulas within the book of Ezekiel by focusing too narrowly on how the PWF is used only within a particular pericope, thereby giving little consideration to its purpose within the larger literary context of the book. We cannot see the forest because of all the fascinating trees. The PWFs become so tied to their individual passages that we fail to see a pattern emerging. If one takes a look at the larger context and notices the PWF’s role within the entire book, then one sees that the PWF provides the book of Ezekiel a decisive, structural element to its literary structure insofar as the 48 PWFs divide the thirteen macro-textual units – designated by introductory chronological formulas – into smaller subunits each with precisely one oracle. The subunits of Ezek 33.21–39.29 are marked by six PWFs, resulting in the following structure: Ezekiel’s Report and Oracles concerning Fall and Restoration A. CF16 + Narrative Report of Jerusalem’s Capture B. PWF + Oracle concerning dispossessions of the land C. PWF + Oracle concerning shepherds of Israel D. PWF + Oracle concerning Mount Seir and the mountains of Israel E. PWF + Oracle concerning restoration because of God’s holy name F. PWF + Oracle concerning joining of Judah and Israel G. PWF + Oracle concerning Gog of Magog

33.21–39.29 33.21–22 33.23–33 34.1–31 35.1–36.15 36.16–37.14 37.15–28 38.1–39.29

Each of the thirteen literary units of Ezekiel (except 40–48) has this literary pattern: an opening narrative with a chronological formula and an oracle or series of oracles. This division of the text based on PWFs aids with reading and interpreting Ezekiel by clearly delineating the beginning and ending of oracles. The PWFs introduce each new oracle. Turning now to Ezek 34–37, we have four oracles: 34.1–31, 35.1–36.15, 36.16– 37.14, and 37.15–28. Many scholars, including Zimmerli, Greenberg, Block, and Hals, would agree with the textual boundaries of the first, second and last oracles in this section, Ezek 34, 35.1–36.15, and 37.15–28.17 These passages are typically interpreted as oracles with clear textual boundaries. Yet, the third oracle, oracle ‘E’ as it is labeled above, Ezek 36.16–37.14, is almost never read together as a literary unit, as a single oracle. The majority of scholars divide the oracle in half: Ezek 36.16–38 is an oracle proper generically concerning a new heart and new spirit and uses the imagery of cleansing, while 37.1–14 is generically the vision of dry bones.18 Genre distinctions between the two passages lead scholars to divide 16 CF

= chronological formula.

17 For example, Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 272; Hals, Ezekiel, 245–61, 272–75; Zimmerli, Ezekiel

2, 203–240, 267–80; Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 22A (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 393–94; Paul M. Joyce, Ezekiel: A Commentary (New York: T & T Clark, 2009), 62. 18 This decision to divide the oracle in half also enjoys the support of the medieval chapter divisions.

Literary Structure and Formulas in Ezekiel 34–37

241

them and interpret them separately. But does the textual markers encourage such a reading? And why might it matter? If we consistently use the PWFs to denote the beginning of oracles and literary subunits, a function it serves reliably throughout the book of Ezekiel, then the entire oracle consists of the material concerning cleansing and restoration for the sake of God’s name and the material concerning the valley of dry bones. The vision is presented literarily as part of the overall unit. Most scholars have treated the vision separately because of its distinct genre as a vision in opposition to the surrounding oracles and because of the hand of Yhwh formula at the beginning of Ezek 37. However, the literary pattern of the book and the use of the PWFs enjoin us to read the vision of Ezek 37 and the passage on a new heart and spirit as more closely linked together than our readings have traditionally allowed. Is there a way to read Ezek 37’s vision as an elaboration of Ezek 36.16–38’s oracle? Is there a way to read these two passages together instead of dividing them based on their differing genres? Another way to think about this issue of the literary unit, Ezek 36.16–37.14, is to ask about the role of the hand of YHWH formula within the book of Ezekiel. Time does not permit a comprehensive treatment of this formula, but I note in passing that the hand of YHWH formula occurs seven times in Ezekiel: 1.3; 3.14, 22; 8.1; 33.22; 37.1; 40.1, and scholars note that the formula frequently introduces a vision report, emphasizing its literary function as a genre marker.19 But the hand of YHWH does not always introduce a vision. Most scholars do not find seven visions within Ezekiel to correspond to the seven occurrences of the hand of YHWH formula. Instead, we find three or four major visions as compared to 48 oracles (and 48 PWFs). So, how do these relatively few vision reports work in conjunction and disjunction with the overwhelming number of oracles in the book? Are the vision reports subsumed into the oracles as might be the case with Ezek 36.16–37.14? At least twice the hand of YHWH formula occurs at the beginning of a literary unit immediately after the chronological formula (Ezek 8.1, 40.1), but at other places in the book this function is not so clear. In summary, in the above discussion of chronological formulas and PWFs, I have suggested two new readings within Ezek 34–37 as a result of examining these two formulas. First, I argue that the chronological formula in Ezek 33.21 leads us to read Ezek 33.21–39.29 as a unit with its own sense of literary cohesion and purpose. Second, using the PWFs, I argue that Ezek 36.16–37.14 is best viewed as a single literary unit, one that includes an oracle and a vision.

19 Hals,

Ezekiel, 360.

242

Tyler D. Mayfield

2. Structuring Ezekiel 34–37: Messenger Formula Turning now from the chronological and prophetic word formulas in Ezek 34– 37, we find another formula in these chapters worthy of discussion as a structural marker. The messenger formula, “Thus says Adonai Yhwh,” occurs 126 times in Ezekiel.20 There are 22 occurrences in just these four focal chapters.21 So, one challenge in understanding the precise role and literary function of this particular formula is its frequent use in various literary situations. I argue here, however, that this formula can serve a structuring purpose within the book. Take two examples. First, the literary subunit, Ezek 34.1–31, includes five messenger formulas. At the beginning of the chapter, the messenger formula occurs after the prophetic word formula (v. 1), and other direct instructions to the prophet (v. 2a–b4). Thus, the formula begins the actual divine words for the prophetic audience in verse 2b5. The formula begins the prophecy or divine speech proper. The formula marks the transition from the divine words for the prophet only (“Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel, prophesy and say to them, to the shepherds …”) and the words to the shepherds (“Thus says Adonai Yhwh: Ah, shepherds of Israel, who shepherd yourselves …”). The messenger formula is not absolutely necessary to make this distinction in audience, but its presence is helpful in noting the switch in literary addressee. The formula is then repeated four times (vv. 10, 11, 17, 20) in order to divide the passage into smaller prophetic speeches. It should be noted however that a few words can come directly in front of this formula within the speech; it is not the absolute beginning to the section in vv. 11, 17, and 20. In addition, whereas the messenger formula in v. 2 introduces the prophecy proper, its function in vv. 10, 11, 17, 20 cannot be to distinguish between speech directed toward the prophet and speech toward the prophet’s audience. The previous text before the formula in these cases is already divine speech to the prophet’s audience. However, I suggest that the precise addressee does shift subtly throughout the chapter, and the messenger formulas help to highlight these understated shifts. For example, in v. 10, the speech shifts from speaking about the shepherds in the 2nd person (“you shepherds”) to 3rd person references only (“shepherds”). Verse 17 includes a messenger formula and a shift in addressee back to 2nd person but a different group (“you, my flock”). Scholars have often stated that the messenger formula introduces divine speech. This function indeed holds true in Ezekiel at the beginning of oracles in which there is a first person narration of a PWF, then a divine speech to the prophet himself. In these passages, the actual divine speech to the people occurs 20 This count includes the three times in Ezekiel when an occurrence of the messenger formula lacks both divine names (Ezek 11.5, 21.8, 30.6). 21 Ezek 34.2, 10, 11, 17, 20; 34.5, 14; 36.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13, 22, 33, 37; 37.5, 9, 12, 19, 21.

Literary Structure and Formulas in Ezekiel 34–37

243

next with an introduction by the messenger formula. However, this understanding of the messenger formula does not consider all its occurrences within the book. Moreover, it is too general to be helpful. For example, scholars puzzle over the messenger formula’s appearance again in the middle of such a divine speech. We might label this occurrence “a resumptive formula.” This form of the formula neither begins nor concludes divine speech but breaks the previous speech from the following one. This particular role of the messenger formula can be seen in Ezek 34.11, 17, and 20, all of which use the resumptive messenger formula to continue divine speech (even if the audience changes slightly as noted above). Take another example: the subunit Ezek 35.1–36.15 contains nine messenger formulas. The first occurrence of the messenger formula functions in much the same way at the first messenger formulas in Ezek 34. The formula separates the divine speech towards the prophet (“Son of man, set your face against Mount Seir and prophesy against it and say to it”) and the actual divine speech to the mountain. The next messenger formula occurs in 35.14 and does not appear to begin a new unit or mark a change in addressee. The subsequent messenger formula occurs in Ezek 36.2 wherein the addressee changes to the “mountains of Israel.” The new addressee is marked literarily with a new “son of man” title, a command to the prophet to prophesy, and the messenger formula. Then, we find a rapid recurrence of the messenger formula in vv. 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. This highly repetitive use of the messenger formula does not seem to perform a structural function, but a rhetorical function. The speech has concentrated the use of “Thus says Adonai Yhwh” in order to make a rhetorical point about these prophecies. In summary, the messenger formula does not provide a clear structural function with its every use in the two examples above. If we were to examine the other 104 times the messenger formula occurs outside of Ezek 34–37, we would find that the formula begins, ends, and simple resumes divine speech. One at least one occasion, noted above, the formula does appear to highlight the subtle shift in addressee. Thus, the primary function of this formula must lie elsewhere, or the formula does not have a primary function, only a range of possibilities. To conclude: the book of Ezekiel uses several different types of formulas that are important to the book’s message at a micro‑ and macro-level. I have argued above that some of these formulas serve a structural role within the book, giving it shape and a literary pattern. Most notably, the chronological formulas and prophetic word formulas provide the literary unit and subunits of the final form of the book. Whether this was the original intention of the author or even the intention of later editors is not addressed here. Instead, a literary reading of the book as it comes to us as the Masoretic Text establishes these structural elements. In addition, other formulas such as the messenger formula also seem to play a structure role within individual passages, but this is not a consistent role and a larger pattern does not appear with regard to the usage of the messenger formula.

244

Tyler D. Mayfield

Bibliography Baumgärtel, Friedrich. “Die Formel ‘ne’um jahwe’.” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 73 (1961): 277–290. Betts, T. J. Ezekiel the Priest: Custodian of Tora. Studies in Biblical Literature 74. New York: Lang, 2005. Block, Daniel I. Ezekiel: Chapter 1–24. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Davis, Ellen F. Swallowing the Scroll: Textuality and the Dynamics of Discourse in Ezekiel’s Prophecy. Bible and Literature 21. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1989. Garber, David G. “Traumatizing Ezekiel, the Exilic Prophet.” In Psychology and the Bible: A New Way to Read the Scriptures Volume 2: From Genesis to Apocalyptic Vision, ed. J. Harold Ellens and Wayne G. Rollins, 215–235. Praeger Perspectives: Psychology, Religion, and Spirituality. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2004. Greenberg, Moshe. Ezekiel 21–37: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 22A. New York: Doubleday, 1997. Hals, Ronald M. Ezekiel. Forms of Old Testament Literature 19. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989. Jerome. Commentariorum in Hiezechielem libri XIV, S. Hieronymi presbyteri Opera 1/4. Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 75. Turnholt: Berpols, 1964. Joyce, Paul M. Ezekiel: A Commentary. New York: T & T Clark, 2009. Lyons, Michael A. From Law to Prophecy: Ezekiel’s Use of the Holiness Code. Library of Hebrew Bible / ​Old Testament Studies 507. New York: T & T Clark, 2009. Mayfield, Tyler D. Literary Structure and Setting in Ezekiel. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2/43. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Zimmerli, Walther. Ezekiel 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel Chapters 1–24. Hermeneia. Translated by Ronald E. Clements. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979. Originally published as Ezechiel 1, I. Teilband. Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament XIII/1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969. –. I am Yahweh. Translated by D. W. Scott. Atlanta: John Knox, 1982.

Cosmic Re-Creation and Ezekiel’s Vocabulary John T. Strong Ezekiel’s remarkable language has elicited many comments, with Zimmerli providing a concise, reliable appraisal: … the language of the book of Ezekiel is noteworthy both in the absence of central terms and verbs of other Old Testament writings as well as by the use of a specific vocabulary, which is not attested in other writings.1

In regard to the absence of central vocabulary, the terms Zion and Yahweh Sebaoth often top scholars’ lists,2 and the lone declaration of Yahweh as king, buried as it is in Ezek 20.33, is appended to this same list of expected expressions.3 These were all important, central terms within the Zion traditions, formative for the theology of the Jerusalem temple, and one would expect them of a noble, Jerusalem priest such as Ezekiel. For this reason, many scholars point to Ezekiel’s vocabulary as evidence that he had abandoned trust in Jerusalem’s temple and its cult as an effective portal to the presence of Yahweh. A fair argument, indeed, for if Ezekiel truly sought to sustain Zion Theology through the exile, as I have argued elsewhere,4 why would he have abandoned these theologically pregnant signifiers? On the flip side, expressions characteristic of Ezekiel, as alluded to by 1 Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, trans. Ronald E. Clements, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 22. 2 E. g., Paul M. Joyce, Ezekiel: A Commentary, LHBOTS 482 (New York: T & T Clark, 2007), 34; Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel 1–24, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 40; Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, trans. James D. Martin, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 556–558. 3 Cf. Ralph W. Klein, Ezekiel: The Prophet and His Message, Studies on Personalities of the Old Testament (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1988), 79, and 94 n. 13. Klein notes that not only in this single instance is Yahweh declared to be king over Israel, but the context is one of an oath formula, not of praise (as seen in Deutero-Isaiah [Isa 52.7]), in which wrath is poured out on Israel, suggesting “that the military force and the divine anger will be aimed as much against Israel as against any foreign power” (79). Similarly, see Daniel I. Block, “Zion Theology in the Book of Ezekiel,” in Beyond the River Chebar: Studies in Kingship and Eschatology in the Book of Ezekiel (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2013), 1–10. 4 See my essays, “The God that Ezekiel Inherited,” in The God Ezekiel Creates, ed. Paul M. Joyce and Dalit Rom-Shiloni, LHBOTS 607 (New York: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2015), 24–54; and “God’s Kābôd: The Presence of Yahweh in the Book of Ezekiel” in The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Approaches, ed. Margaret S. Odell and John T. Strong, SBLSS 9 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000), 69–95.

246

John T. Strong

Zimmerli, include most prominently the phrases ‫בן־אדם‬, ‫אדמת ישראל‬, and ‫אדני‬ ‫יהוה‬. What should we make of Ezekiel’s language? Quite a lot, actually. In what follows, I will argue that Ezekiel chose his words carefully. I hope to make a clear and forceful case that Ezekiel’s language reflected not an abandonment of Zion theology, but rather his theological perspective of the exile as a hiatus in the cosmic order, a temporary reversal when ordered space devolved back into chaos. And yet, his language just as strongly looked forward to a future when Yahweh would re-create the cosmic order, which he understood specifically to begin with the exiles as the revivified Israel, who would live on land re-ordered by Yahweh, their Sovereign Lord.

1. Ezekiel and Creation A fundamental question bearing on my thesis is Ezekiel’s relation to creation traditions. Both David Petersen and Madhavi Nevader have distanced Ezekiel from creation traditions, a position challenging my argument here.5 My main discussion below will focus on the three expressions, but I begin by tackling the broader question, in order to carve out a foothold for my thesis that Ezekiel’s language (and theology) was grounded in his own cosmology. In Ezek 28.11–19*,6 the prophet constructs an elaborate lament (‫ ;קינה‬v. 11) over the King of Tyre, which he constructed on the fundamental framework of 5 See David L. Petersen, “Creation and Hierarchy in Ezekiel: Methodological Perspectives and Theological Prospects,” in Ezekiel’s Hierarchical World: Wrestling with a Tiered Reality, ed. Stephen L. Cook, and Corrine L. Patton, SBLSS 31 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004), 169–178; Madhavi Nevader, “Creating a Deus Non Creator: Divine Sovereignty and Creation in Ezekiel,” in The God Ezekiel Creates, ed. Paul M. Joyce and Dalit Rom-Shiloni, LHBOTS 607 (New York: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2015), 55–70. 6 I understand the earliest layer of the text to consist of Ezek 28.11–13aa, 13b*, 14*–15, 16b, 17b, 19b. Zimmerli (Ezekiel 2, 87–89) identifies 28.12b, 13ab, 13b, 14a, 15–16ab, 17a*, 17b, 18b–19a as the earliest layers; and Franz Sedlmeier (pre-Ezekiel in origin, perhaps with its origin in a Tyrian myth of the dying and rising god, Melchart; Das Buch Ezechiel, Kapitel 25–48, Neuer Stuttgarter Kommentar, Altes Testament 21/2 [Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2013], 59, 65] reads 28.11–18*. Both Karl-Friedrich Pohlmann (most recently in “Synchrone und diachrone Texterschließung im Ezechielbuch,” HeBAI 1 [2012]: 261–269; Pohlmann describes a long process of theological reflection from post-587 to Hellenistic times) and Thomas Krüger (Geschichtskonzepte im Ezechielbuch, BZAW 180 [New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1989], 307–310) argue that the oracles against the nations in Ezek 25–32 are late additions to an earlier collection of Ezekiel oracles, and not reflective of Ezekiel’s prophecies. Robert R. Wilson has argued that the list of precious stones, which resembles the priestly breast plate in Exod 28.17–20 was a significant and sly, yet intentional, stab in the back of the Jerusalem priesthood (“The Death of the King of Tyre: The Editorial History of Ezekiel 28,” in Love and Death in the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of Marvin H. Pope, ed. John Marks, and Robert Good [Guilford, CT: Four Quarters Publishing, 1987], 211–218). Steven Tuell has further championed this interpretation in the same volume. My view, and that of many interpreters, is that the list in Ezekiel has

Cosmic Re-Creation and Ezekiel’s Vocabulary

247

the garden story of Gen 3.7 If we review the outline of this oracle, we encounter first a figure, perhaps a signet seal,8 in a primeval garden (vv. 12–13), perfect in beauty (v. 12, 13). The lament, being structured around an einst-jetzt pivot, lingers for a further moment or two over the central figure’s surroundings, which is a paradise appropriate for a precious signet seal, located on the Mountain of God (v. 14). However, a “flaw” (‫ )עולתה‬was found in the signet (v. 15b), and it was cast away as impure (v. 16bα), whereupon the signet was humiliated before other kings (v. 17b). Earlier scholarship has puzzled over this passage’s connections with various myths, whether stemming from Ugaritic, Mesopotamian, or Hebrew contexts.9 The prophet, however, was clearly playing with images that were pregnant with theological significance, and which now appear also in Gen 3. Along these lines, Stordalen, followed by Mettinger, has uncovered the outlines of a Hebrew creation myth behind this lament.10 The value of their scholarship is that while Ezek 28 is an original literary creation, it also demonstrates that the priest / ​prophet all the characteristics of a marginal gloss that has over time and through scribal activity crept into the body of the text.   7 For a more detailed discussion of this oracle, see my essay, “In Defense of the Great King: Ezekiel’s Oracles against Tyre,” in Concerning the Nations: Essays on the Oracles Against the Nations in Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, ed. Andrew Mein, Else K. Holt, and Hyun Chul Paul Kim, LHBOTS 612 (New York: Bloomsbury, 2014).   8 The phrase ‫חותם תבנית‬, “signet of perfection” (NRSV) or “seal of perfection” (NJPS), should be emended to ‫חותם בניתת‬, “engraved seal” or “signet seal.” An original ‫( ב‬beth) was confused with a ‫( כ‬kaph). See my article, “In Defense of the Great King”; and Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, AB 22A (Garden City: Doubleday, 1997), 579, 580. Dexter Callender translates this phrase, “You were a seal, a likeness” (“The Primal Human in Ezekiel and the Image of God,” in The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives, ed. Margaret S. Odell and John T. Strong, SBLSS 9 [Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000] 186–189); and idem, Adam in Myth and History: Ancient Israelite Perspectives on the Primal Human, HSS 48 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 91. For a synopsis, see Terje Stordalen, Echoes of Eden: Genesis 2–3 and symbolism of the Eden Garden in Biblical Hebrew Literature (Leuven: Peeters, 2000), 336–337.   9 Various arguments for interpreting Ezek 28.11–19 by means of another ancient myth have been attempted. See, e. g., Donald Gowan, When Man Becomes God: Humanism and Hybris in the Old Testament, Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series 6 (Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press, 1975), 75–92 (no direct borrowing, but Ezekiel used images common to the ancient Near East); Marvin Pope, El in the Ugaritic Texts (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1955), 97–103 (a Ugaritic myth); Markus Saur, “Ezekiel 26–28 and the History of Tyre,” SJOT 24/2 (2010): 208–221 (based on the ritual immolation of Melqart); John L. McKenzie, “Mythological Allusions in Ezek 28.12–18,” JBL 75 (1956): 322–327 (a Hebrew myth); Georg Fohrer, Ezechiel, HAT 13 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr / ​ Paul Siebeck, 1955), 162. Cooke’s comments are illustrative: “The story belonged, no doubt, to the common stock of Semitic myths, some of them preserved in the Babylonian epics, some in Phoenician traditions. A select few are to be found in Genesis, purged by the genius of Hebrew religion; in Ez. the purifying process has not gone so far” (The Book of Ezekiel, ICC [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1936], 315). 10 Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, 332–357 (basing his analysis on the LXX version of the text, and dating it to the early fifth century BCE), Trygvve N. D. Mettinger, The Eden Narrative: A Literary and Religio-historical Study of Genesis 2–3 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 85–93.

248

John T. Strong

knew of creation traditions and utilized them in crafting his oracles. The same process will become evident in the discussion below of Ezek 37.1–14, which draws from another creation episode, the creation of the man and his wife, now found in Gen 2.11 These creation traditions need not have been written, though they may have been; Ezekiel was not quoting these tales verbatim. That their precise form eventually crystalized in a literary document is only minimally relevant, actually. What is more critical for my argument is that a body of creation images lay at his disposal, which already carried theological content, and which he could use to interpret the exile.12 The basic principle of ordering chaos, now preserved in Gen 1, was a part of the ancient Near Eastern air that Ezekiel and his comrades in exile breathed, for it appears in numerous literary forms, the Enuma Elish being just one example. To be discussed below, Ezekiel clearly knew of the formation of ‫ האדם‬out of ‫אדמה‬, followed by the animation of the man by the Spirit, now available in Gen 2.13 The Hebrews’ version of the flood story, found now in Gen 6–9, another form of which is expressed in Gilgamesh’s encounter with Utnapishtim, demonstrates that in the ancient Near East creation was a continuous process, always in flux, at best marked by covenantal guarantees.14 This tradition provided a powerful interpretive tool with which Ezekiel could explain both the exile and any possible future for the nation. Ezekiel knew of and played with a treasure trove of the images and theological precepts from ancient Israel’s creation traditions. As will be argued below, Ezekiel combined, shaped, and morphed these images as he deemed fit in order to explain the exile as another chapter in Yahweh’s creation activity. Upon creating humankind as the image of God and charging them with dominion over the created order, God rested (Gen 2.1–2). This too is woven into the fabric of the ancient Near Eastern concept of creation, and one of Ezekiel’s tools for interpreting the exile. In the ancient Near East, the creative activity of the deity was distinct from the activity of the deity as the divine ruler. John Walton has summarized this principle: 11 I would also argue that Ezek 47.1–12 reflects creation traditions regarding the Gihon spring, now found in Gen 2.10–14. Similarly, see Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, 366–367. 12 Stefan Paas (Creation and Judgement: Creation Texts in some Eighth Century Prophets, OTS 47 [Boston: Brill, 2003]) offers a detailed argument for the role of creation traditions in pre-exilic, monarchical Israel and Judah. His main argument focuses on the appropriation of creation traditions by Amos, Hosea, and Isaiah ben Amoz, but also, drawing upon creation material in the psalms, he dates the role of creation early in the monarchy (cf. 38–49). 13 John Kutsko has argued that (re‑)creation traditions now found in Gen 1–3 undergird the prophecies of Ezek 36–37 (Between Heaven and Earth: Divine Presence and Absence in the Book of Ezekiel, Biblical and Judaic Studies from the University of California, San Diego 7 [Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2000], 129–142). 14 See the discussion of continuous creation in Stefan Paas, Creation and Judgement, 126–128; and 64–65, in regard to ‫ ;ברא‬78–79, in regard to Chaoskampf; and 81–84, in regard to Yahweh as creator and maintainer of the world; and pace Nevader, “Creating a Deus Non Creator,” 65–66.

Cosmic Re-Creation and Ezekiel’s Vocabulary

249

… divine rest generally represents a state that has been achieved through a particular action that was undertaken as a response to a condition or a situation that prior to the divine action was usually viewed as unacceptable. The condition in each case represents something that prevents rest. The action indicates how rest is achieved, and the state describes the type of rest anticipated or enjoyed. The common denominator in most of these cases is that divine rest provides a sense of security. When the situation among the gods or in the larger cosmos is secure, deity may rest – regardless of whether the rest means that he / ​she is thereby free to do nothing, to socialize, to enjoy life, or to do the work of running the cosmos unimpeded. The location where this rest will be experienced is, of course, the temple, the palace home of the god, where the deity may enjoy leisure, social activities, and rule.15

Walton’s point is that when the deity had finished ordering the cosmos, the deity would rest, of which the ancient Hebrew expression is found in the seventh day.16 The resting deity, then, would dwell in and rule from the temple, the “control room,” of the cosmos.17 The concept of the deity battling as a part of the process to find rest defined the exile for Ezekiel, for during his own prophetic activity Yahweh and his Kabod were on the move (Ezek 1.4–28; 11.22–23). This brief survey prepares for our discussion of creation traditions and the theological precepts inherent in them as a context by which to understand Ezekiel’s unique choice of vocabulary with which he explained the exile. As will be argued in greater detail below, Ezekiel’s choice of ‫בן־אדם‬, ‫אדמת ישראל‬, and ‫ אדני יהוה‬on the one side, and his refusal to use ‫ ציון‬and ‫ יהוה צבאות‬on the other, were individual pieces of a unified rhetorical strategy that defined the exile as a period of de-creation, but one that prepared for an envisioned re-creation.

15 John H. Walton, Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 110–111. 16  In addition to Gen 2.1–2, see also Gen 9.8–17 and Exod 20.11. Jon D. Levenson, “The Temple and the World,” Journal of Religion 64/3 (1984): 288; Bernard F. Batto, “Creation Theology in Genesis,” in Creation in the Biblical Traditions, ed. Richard J. Clifford and John J. Collins, CBQMS 24 (Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1992), 33; idem, “The Divine Sovereign: The Image of God in the Priestly Creation Account,” in David and Zion: Biblical Studies in Honor of J. J. M. Roberts, ed. Bernard F. Batto and Kathryn L. Roberts (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2004), 169–170; idem, “The Sleeping God: An Ancient Near Eastern Motif of Divine Sovereignty,” Bib 68 (1987): 153–177; idem, Slaying the Dragon: Mythmaking in the Biblical Tradition (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1992), 77–80. 17 Walton, Genesis 1, 110–119. Walton uses the White House as an analogy, which serves both as the residence for the United States’ presidents and also the Oval Office, the seat of presidential functions (Genesis 1, 111 n. 332). For ancient Near Eastern sources identifying temples as places of rest, see appendix 5 in Victor Hurowitz, I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings, JSOTSup 115 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), 330–331.

250

John T. Strong

2. The Theocratic Triad and Ezekiel In Daniel Block’s 1988 work, The Gods of the Nations,18 he described the relationship between the nation’s deity, the citizens of the state, and its territorial inheritance, by means of a triangle. In this triangle, the deity, the people, and the land were at the apexes, and the lines between represented bilateral associations.19 Block went on to argue that in the ancient Near East, the deity-land relationship took priority, whereas in ancient Israel, the deity-people relationship was elevated in importance.20 Whether Block is correct on this last particular is beyond the scope of my present argument. More to my point, however, is Block’s discussion of the national territory as the “feudal” estate of the deity; it was his “inheritance” (‫)נחלה‬, which was then divinely granted to the people.21 Block goes on to discuss Ezek 8–11 in the context of a break in the relationship between Yahweh and the land (but not Yahweh and the people, according to Block, citing Ezek 8.12 and 9.9, contrasted with 11.16).22 Again, while I might quibble with Block on certain points, I think that his triad presents a useful model, one that helps to control the scope of the research question and focus our attention on Ezekiel’s theological agenda, and I will refer to this model throughout this chapter. I will ask a slightly different question than Block, however: what, in Ezekiel’s view, was the state of creation at the three apexes of this triad at the time of the exile? 2.1 ‫בן־אדם‬ – Ezekiel as the Primal Human The prophet’s identification, ‫בן־אדם‬, (“mortal,” NRSV) appears 93 times in the book,23 and stands among the prophet’s characteristic, albeit enigmatic expressions. Certainly, Ezekiel wanted to be recognized as a prophet (cf. 2.5; 12.21–27; 33.33), yet he never referred to himself as one (pace e. g., Jeremiah in Jer 1.5; Isaiah in 2 Kgs 19.2/ / ​Isa 37.2; Elijah in 1 Kgs 18.22). Scholars often explain Ezekiel’s identification as underscoring his humanness in contrast to the divine 18 Daniel I. Block, The Gods of the Nations: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern National Theology, ETSMS 2 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1988). 19 Ibid., 4–6. 20 Ibid., 7–22. Israel, Block argues, broke “new trails in ancient Semitic thought,” and made a “radical shift” by emphasizing that the deity was primarily tied to the people, not the land (cf. 22–23; and see his discussion of Deut 32.8–9; 13–22, esp. 13–14). 21 Ibid., 74, 96. Block’s description is echoed by Tammi J. Schneider, who describes ancient Near Eastern religion in general as viewing humans as having been created for the purpose of serving the gods (An Introduction to Ancient Mesopotamian Religion [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011]; cf. her discussion of the Enuma Elish, 41; and her summary statements on 1, 50, 126). 22 Block, Gods of the Nations, 150–159. 23 Cf. Ezek 2.1, 3, 6, 8; 3.1, 3, 4, 10, 17, 25; 4.1, 16; 5.1; 6.2; 7.2; 8.5, 6, 8, 12, 15, 17; 11.2, 4, 15; 12.2, 3, 9, 18, 22, 27; 13.2, 17; 14.3, 13; 15.2; 16.2; 17.2; 20.3, 4, 27, 46; 21.2, 6, 9, 12, 14, 19, 28; 22.2, 18, 24; 23.2, 36; 24.2, 16, 25; 25.2; 26.2; 27.2; 28.2, 12, 21; 29.2, 18; 30.2, 21; 31.2; 32.2, 18; 33.2, 7, 10, 12, 24, 30; 34.2; 35.2; 36.1, 17; 37.3, 9, 11, 16; 38.2, 14; 39.1, 17; 40.4; 43.7, 10, 18; 44.5; 47.6.

Cosmic Re-Creation and Ezekiel’s Vocabulary

251

holiness of Yahweh’s Kabod.24 Perhaps an explanation that opposes God and Ezekiel works for those instances in which Ezekiel encounters God in a vision (by my count 25 instances),25 but elsewhere Ezekiel is simply addressed by God and given an assignment to speak an oracle, provide a particular interpretation of a sign-act, or the like.26 In light of the wide distribution of this title, Blenkinsopp’s suggestion that ‫ בן־אדם‬is an office or a title points in a promising direction.27 While ‫ בן‬seems straightforward enough, a term of association,28 this construction presents the nomen rectum, ‫אדם‬, as its defining crux, for it identifies Ezekiel with all of humankind. Herein lies the rub. Why did Ezekiel affiliate first and foremost with ‫אדם‬, and not with Israel, Jacob, the Zadokites, the Sons of the Prophets, or some other orderly and predictable family or group? I will argue that the title ‫בן־אדם‬ claimed for Ezekiel a very special office, one well known to his fellow exiles, that of Primal Human. Dexter Callender has defined this figure as follows: The primal human conception presents an image that is consonant with the notion of intermediation by virtue of the fact that he occupies a position between deity and 24 See H. Haag, who understands ‫ בן־אדם‬to emphasize the distance between Yahweh and humankind, remoteness rather than nearness, and the “rule of God” rather than the “fatherhood of God” (‫בן־אדם‬, bēn ʾādhām, TDOT, 2:163). Zimmerli’s understanding is a more nuanced, stating that ‫ בן־אדם‬identifies Ezekiel “as an individual within the created order, the servant, who is summoned by his master in an act of unprecedented condescension by his divine Lord.” Zimmerli thus emphasizes the distance between Yahweh and his commissioned intermediary, but does not see within this title an appointment to an office (Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 131; and 22, “[T]he title is fully intelligible from the antithesis ‫)”…אל־אדם‬. Similarly, see Franz Sedlmeier (Das Buch Ezechiel, Kapitel 1–24, Neuer Stuttgarter Kommentar, Altes Testament 21/2 [Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2002], 95). Moshe Greenberg (Ezekiel 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 22 [Garden City: Doubleday, 1983] 61–62) suggests that Ezekiel is called ‫“ בן־אדם‬in order to single him out from the divine beings that fill this scene” (referring to his encounter with Yahweh’s Glory). For similar views, see Leslie C. Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, WBC 28 (Dallas: Word, 1994), 38; Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 115; Katheryn Pfisterer Darr, “The Book of Ezekiel,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 6, Isaiah-Ezekiel, ed. Leander Keck (Nashville: Abingdon, 1994), 1121–1122; Walther Eichrodt, Ezekiel: A Commentary, trans. Coslett Quin, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970), 61; Joyce, Ezekiel, 76; Margaret S. Odell, Ezekiel, Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2005), 54; Steven S. Tuell, Ezekiel , New International Biblical Commentary 15 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009), 13; and John W. Wevers, Ezekiel, NCBC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969), 48. 25 I am restricting these instances to Ezekiel’s call vision (Ezek 1.4–3.17), Yahweh’s Glory abandoning the temple (Ezek 8.1–11.23), and the final temple vision (excluding the legal material; Ezek 40–48). In these passages, ‫ בן־אדם‬appears in the following verses: 2.1, 3, 6, 8; 3.1, 3, 4, 10, 17, 25; 8.5, 6, 8, 12, 15, 17; 11.2, 4, 15; 40.4; 43.7, 10, 18; 44.5; 47.6. 26 See the following selected examples: 4.1, “Take a brick and set it before you” (and cf. 12.3, 18; 24.16, 25; 37.16); 6.2, “Set your face against …” (cf. 13.17; 20.46; 21.2; 25.2; 28.21; 29.2; 35.2); 13.2, “Prophesy …” (cf. 21.9, 28; 34.2; 36.1; 37.9); 14.3 “Shall I be consulted …?” (cf. 20.3); 17.2, “Propound a riddle” (cf. 15.2; 16.2; 23.2); 27.2; 28.12, “Raise a lamentation …” (cf. 32.18). 27 Joseph Blenkinsopp, Ezekiel, Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1990), 24. 28 H. Haag, “‫בן‬, bēn,” TDOT 2:151.

252

John T. Strong

humanity; moreover, he is the only one who can truly lay claim to that distinction. The primal human alone is not ‘born of woman.’ He is the only one whose natural state was face to face with God. He is the only one who lived in the ‘actual’ (mythical) divine dwelling. Others can perform the function of intermediary, but in doing so they but mimetically follow the primal human. In the sense, the primal human is the significant ancestor who established the paradigm for contact with the divine.29

In the texts left to us by Ezekiel, he portrayed himself not merely as a prophet, but more, he lived in the presence of God, encountering him face-to-face, and occupied a position between the Kabod and the exilic community through which he mediated the de-creation and then re-creation of God’s elect. Ezekiel 1.28b–3.1130 relates to the reader Ezekiel’s commission as a prophet.31 I would like, however, to lift out 1.28ba–2.2 for special consideration. First, v. 1.28b narrates that Ezekiel fell on his face, the appropriate gesture of obeisance. Immediately, the prophet hears a Voice32 and a Spirit lifts him up and sets him on his feet (1.28bb–2.1). These gestures represent, on the one hand, the appropriate act of humility on the part of Ezekiel, but then, by raising him, the Spirit elevates him to a level of equality.33 This equality did not equate Ezekiel with the heavenly servants in terms of essence; Ezekiel did not become immortal. Instead, by as Callender, Adam in Myth and History, 206–207. Sedlmeier has made a cogent argument for the fundamental unity of 1.28b–3.15 (Ezechiel 1–24, 93–94), with which I am in fundamental agreement. 31 Cf. Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 111–131; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 95–100; Ronald M. Hals, Ezekiel, FOTL 19 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 17–20; Sedlmeier, Ezechiel 1–24, 93; Tuell, Ezekiel, 8–22; Margaret S. Odell, “You Are What You Eat: Ezekiel and the Scroll,” JBL 117 (1998): 229–248; and idem, Ezekiel, 54. I am not, in the end, persuaded by Odell’s interesting argument that reads the sign-acts in 4.1–5.17 as an integral part of Ezekiel’s initiation rite. In my view, she speeds past an important break in the text in 4.1, ‫ואתה בן־אדם‬, followed by an imperative. 32 Azzan Yadin has argued that the Voice was a hypostasis of Yahweh, similar to my view of the Kabod (“‫ קול‬as Hypostasis in the Hebrew Bible,” JBL 122 [2003]: 601–626). Both the ‫ קול‬and ‫ רוח‬certainly seem to behave autonomously, and so I tend to support Yadin. However, it should be recognized that these figures operate on a different order in the heavenly hierarchy than the Kabod, in service to the will of Yahweh, following the commands of their divine Overlord. 33  As a helpful parallel to what is reported here in Ezekiel, upon his return to Egypt, Sinuhe prostrated himself before the Pharaoh in a gesture of obsequiousness, and then immediately the Pharaoh commanded that he be lifted (ANET3, 21). Centuries after Ezekiel, Dan 8.15–27 repeated this tradition of a narrator falling prostrate before a heavenly emissary, only to be lifted up, addressed as ‫בן־אדם‬, and commissioned with a divine assignment. Esther fell at the feet of the King Ahasuerus, who then extended his scepter, allowing her to rise and make her request (Est 8.3–5). For an interesting discussion of the reports of bowing and groveling in greeting formulae in the El Amarna Tablets, see Ellen F. Morris, “Bowing and Scraping in the Ancient Near East: An Investigation into Obsequiousness in the Amarna Letters,” JNES 65 (2006): 179–196. For a broader discussion of how gestures are reported in texts, see Victor H. Matthews, “Making Your Point: The Use of Gestures in Ancient Israel,” Biblical Theology Bulletin 42 (2012): 18–29. Also relevant for this discussion is Sedlmeier’s observation that the Spirit has changed Ezekiel (Ezechiel 1–24, 95). My application of Sedlmeier’s observation understands the Spirit to have transformed Ezekiel into ‫בן־אדם‬, into a special mediator, called to carry out a particular mission. As noted above, Sedlmeier differs with me in how he understands ‫בן־אדם‬. 29

30 Franz

Cosmic Re-Creation and Ezekiel’s Vocabulary

253

signing to Ezekiel his new role as ‫בן־אדם‬, the Voice appointed Ezekiel as a mediator who shared their mission to the exiles. Ezekiel had been conscripted. Here, I want to pause long enough to mention that Ezekiel is now ‫בן־אדם‬, and not an Israelite, that is to say, not one of the ‫בני־ישראל‬.34 In terms of the creation schema outlined above, Ezekiel has been associated with an earlier stage of the ordering of humankind, a stage prior to the creation of the “people apex” of Block’s cosmic theocratic triad, prior to the scattering of ‫ אדם‬into various ‫עמים‬, and so prior to the Tower of Babel story, indeed, his association moves him all the way back to the garden of Gen 2. Having yanked Ezekiel out from Israel, the text now dissolves the nation itself. First, Ezekiel is sent to ‫( בני ישראל‬2.3), however they are evaluated as having been a rebellious nation from their beginning, earning them the new name ‫בית מרי‬ (2.3–10). After Yahweh’s fixed message, that is to say, the scroll of lamentations, sighing, and woe (‫ ;קנים והגה והי‬2.10), is handed to Ezekiel to digest, the Voice commands him to go to the ‫( בית ישראל‬3.1), a title that sticks to Israel throughout Ezekiel’s prophecies.35 The shift from ‫ בני־‬to ‫ בית ישראל‬signals a change in Yahweh’s relationship with the people. ‫ בית ישראל‬generally designates Israel as a political unit, a collection of tribes and people who had united together, without regard to their personal significance, character, or being. It is a bland, flat designation. So, the tribal league was titled ‫בית ישראל‬, as was the United Monarchy under Saul, David, and Solomon.36 Then, when the ten northern tribes broke away with Jeroboam I, the new confederation of tribes that made up the Northern Kingdom was called ‫( בית ישראל‬1 Kgs 12.21; 20.31).37 In contrast, ‫בני ישראל‬ denotes family ties and significant, personal relationships, and so, commonly translated simply as “Israelites.” Hence, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, texts that depict Yahweh’s election and creation of the nation out of the world’s popu34 On the basis of the LXX, some emend the MT in v. 3 to ‫ ;בית־ישראל‬e. g., Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 89; and Ezekiel 2, 564; Cooke, Ezekiel, 31; Eichrodt, Ezekiel, 59–60 nb; Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 10 n. 3a; and Karl-Friedrich Pohlmann, Das Buch des Propheten Hesekiel (Ezechiel): Kapitel 1–19, ATD 22/1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 45 n. 26. The more difficult reading, however, is the MT, and it seems more probable that the translators of LXX smoothed over the text (cf. Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 31–32, and 115 n. 14; Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 62; Wevers, Ezekiel, 49). Additionally, I disagree with the judgment that v. 4a, omitted by the LXX, is secondary. Zimmerli follows the LXX on the basis of the unusual absolute use of ‫( בנים‬here and in 20.21), but much to the contrary, these unique formulations, both of which refer to the constant rebellion of the people (cf. Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 62), should signal to the reader an important theological point made by the prophet. 35 ‫ בית־ישראל‬appears 186 times in the book. In contrast, ‫ בני־ישראל‬appears only eleven times. See the discussions of Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 563–565; Block, “Israel’s House: Reflections on the Use of BYT YŚR’L in the Old Testament in the Light of Its Ancient Near Eastern Environment,” JETS 28/3 (1985): 257–275 (261–262); idem, Ezekiel 1–24, 119; Harry A. Hoffner, “‫בית‬, bayith,” TDOT 2:114; William A. Tooman, Gog of Magog: Reuse of Scripture and Compositional Technique in Ezekiel 38–39, FAT 2/52 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 50. 36 Cf. 1 Sam 7.2, 3; 2 Sam 1.12; 6.5, 15; 16.3. 37 See in this regard the comments of Hoffner, “‫בית‬,” TDOT 2: 114.

254

John T. Strong

lations, chose ‫ בני ישראל‬predominately.38 The reversal in Ezekiel’s oracles from ‫בני‬ ‫ ישראל‬to ‫בית ישראל‬, then implies a reversal in the relationship with Yahweh, and Yahweh’s new view of his former elect as simply another political unit out in the world. Such a shift is consonant with the pejorative title for Israel in 1.28b–3.11, ‫( בית מרי‬2.5, 6; 3.9).39 Next, the emissaries of the Kabod realign Ezekiel, the new ‫בן־אדם‬, with the exiles in Babylon, ‫הגולה‬. Critical evidence for Ezekiel’s bias for his fellow exiles is found in Ezek 5.1–4; 11.1–21; and 33.23–33, but we are tipped off as to his loyalty already here in his commissioning, when the gola-community is referred to as ‫בן־עמך‬, “your people” (3.11).40 Ezekiel’s allegiance to the Babylonian exiles has long been recognized by scholars, but recently Dalit Rom-Shiloni has significantly polished our understanding of Ezekiel’s mission to the exiles, and its lasting effects on later traditions.41 Rom-Shiloni traces the group identity distinctions made between those who remained in the land and those repatriates from Babylonian exiles in the books of Ezra-Nehemiah, Zechariah, and Haggai, describing how each of these works privilege the repatriates. This bias, she argues persuasively, began with Ezekiel.42

38  ‫ בני־ישראל‬is used 283 times in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers: Exod 1.1, 9, 12, 13; 2.23, 25; 3.9, 10, 11, 13, 15; 4.29, 31; 5.14, 15, 19; 6.5, 9, 11, 12, 13, 26, 27; 7.2, 4, 5; 9.6, 26, 35; 10.20, 23; 11.7, 10; 12.27, 28, 31, 37, 40, 42, 50, 51; 13.18, 19; 14.2, 8, 10, 15, 16, 22; 16.1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 12, 15, 17; 17.1, 7; 19.1, 6; 20.22; 24.5, 11, 17; 25.2, 22; 27.20, 21; 28.1, 9, 11, 21, 29, 30, 38; 29.28, 45; 30.12, 16, 31; 31.13, 16, 17; 32.20; 33.5, 6; 34.30, 32, 34, 35; 35.1, 4, 20, 29, 30; 36.3; 39.6, 14, 32, 42; 40.36; Lev 1.2; 4.2; 7.23, 29, 34, 36, 38; 9.3; 10.11, 14; 11.2; 12.2; 15.2, 31; 16.5, 16, 19, 21, 34; 17.2, 5; 18.2; 19.2; 20.2;21.24; 22.2, 3, 15, 18, 32; 23.2, 10, 24, 34, 43, 44; 24.2, 8, 10, 15, 23; 25.2, 33, 46, 55; 26.46; 27.2, 34; Num 1.2, 45, 49, 52, 53, 54; 2.2, 32, 33, 34; 3.8, 9, 12, 38, 41, 46, 50; 5.2, 4, 6, 9, 12; 6.2, 23, 27; 8.6, 8.9, 10, 11, 14, 16, 19, 20; 9.2, 4, 5, 7, 10, 17, 18, 19, 22; 10.12, 28; 11.4; 13.3, 24, 26, 32; 14.2, 5, 7, 10, 27, 39; 15.2, 18, 25, 26, 32, 38; 17.6, 17, 20, 21, 24, 27; 18.5, 6, 8, 11, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 26, 28, 32; 19.2, 9; 20.1, 12, 13, 19, 22; 21.10; 22.1, 3; 25.6, 8, 11, 13; 26.2, 51, 62, 63, 64; 27.8, 20, 21; 28.2; 30.1; 31.2, 9, 12, 30, 42, 47; 32.7, 9, 17, 18; 33.1, 3, 5, 38, 40, 51; 34.2, 13, 29; 35.2, 8, 10, 34; 36.3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 13. In contrast, ‫ בית־ישראל‬is used only four times in these same books: Exod 16.31; 40.38; Lev 10.6; Num 20.29. 39  See also Sedlmeier’s discussion in Ezechiel 1–24, 96–97. 40 The expression ‫ בני־עמך‬was known to Ezekiel’s audience from the Holiness Code (Lev 19.18), where it is set parallel with ‫רעה‬, “neighbor.” Two relational terms are being used in the construct. ‫בנים‬, “family members,” which has already been discussed above. In addition, ‫עם‬, “people,” fundamentally refers to an agnate relationship. See E. Lipiński, “‫עם‬, ʿam,” TDOT 11:165. See also my essay, “Verbal Forms of ‫ עמם‬in Ezekiel and Lamentations,” Bib 88/4 (2007): 546–552. 41 See Dalit Rom-Shiloni, Exclusive Inclusivity: Identity Conflicts between the Exiles and the People Who Remained (6th to 5th Centuries BCE), LHBOTS 543 (New York: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2013); idem, “Ezekiel and Jeremiah: What Might Stand Behind the Silence?” HeBAI 1/2 (2012): 203–230; idem, “Ezekiel as the Voice of the Exiles and Constructor of Exilic Ideology,” HUCA 76 (2005): 1–45. 42 Rom-Shiloni, Exclusive Inclusivity, 139–197. She states: “… Ezekiel should indeed be considered both as the voice of the Jehoiachin Exiles and as the constructor of a new Babylonian exilic ideology” (144, cf. 169, 185).

Cosmic Re-Creation and Ezekiel’s Vocabulary

255

In 593 BCE, Ezekiel faced a state of chaos, which his prophecies addressed head on. From the start, at the time of his call, the people of Israel had been splintered and scattered by the exile. What did this mean for Israel? What did it mean for him, a priest of Yahweh? Ezek 1.28b–3.11 depicts the initial stages of realignment, a re-ordering of creation. Ezekiel was commissioned as ‫בן־אדם‬ to help mediate the divine activity. Israel forfeited its significance as a people, as ‫בני ישראל‬, now simply ‫בית ישראל‬, just one more political unit out there in the world. Still, just as with the family of Terah-Abram in the wake of the scattering of humankind after the destruction of the Tower in Gen 11.1–9, a fragment of the people, the gola-community, Ezekiel’s ‫עם‬, was selected. Even in the process of de-creation, Yahweh promised re-creation. For the sake of space, I must rush ahead to the vision of the dry bones in Ezek 37.1–14, which famously foretells the re-creation of the house of Israel. The imagery of the creation of ‫ אדם‬washes over and through this vision of the restoration of the nation.43 Step-by-step, the desiccated bones scattered about the valley qua ossuary take on order, joining bone-to-bone, adding flesh and skin, and culminating with the breath / ​spirit (‫ )רוח‬animating them (vv. 9–10). Michael Konkel has noted how this last piece, the animation by the Spirit, connects this vision with Ezekiel’s commissioning in 2.1–2.44 We are justified, however, in pushing the connection further, for in Ezek 37.1–14 Ezekiel actively carries out his mediating role as Primal Human by prophesying unto the bones (v. 4), directing the sinews and flesh to cover the naked bones (v. 5–8a) and ushering the animating Spirit into their newly ordered bodies (vv. 9–10). This resulting army, 43 E. g., Christopher R. Seitz, “Ezekiel 37.1–14,” Int 46 (1992): 53; Jacqueline E. Lapsley, Can These Bones Live? The Problem of the Moral Self in the Book of Ezekiel, BZAW 31 (New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2000), 170; Joyce, Ezekiel, 209; Darr, Ezekiel, 1500; Leslie C. Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, WBC 29 (Dallas: Word, 1990), 185; John T. Strong, “Egypt’s Shameful Death and the House of Israel’s Exodus from Sheol (Ezekiel 32.17–32 and 37.1–14),” JSOT 34 (2010): 499; and Kutsko, Between Heaven and Earth, 129–134. Resurrection is not what Ezekiel had in mind (cf. Michael V. Fox, “The Rhetoric of Ezekiel’s Vision of the Valley of the Bones,” HUCA 51 (1980): 11–12; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 264; Darr, Ezekiel, 1502), though later Jewish and Christian interpretations moved in this directions, e. g., famously the synagogue paints of Dura-Europas (cf. Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 749–51; Michael E. Stone, Benjamin G. Wright and David Satran eds., The Apocryphal Ezekiel [Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000], 101–112; Gary T. Manning, Jr., “Shepherd, Vine and Bones: The Use of Ezekiel in the Gospel of John,” in After Ezekiel: Essays on the Reception of a Difficult Prophet, ed. Paul M. Joyce and Andrew Mein; LHBOTS 535 [New York: T & T Clark, 2011], 40–43). Note the counter argument of Bernhard Lang, who did proffer an argument for the notion of resurrection, reading this passage in the context of Zoroastrianism – complete with pictures of dry bones from a Tower of Silence! (“Street Theater, Raising the Dead, and the Zoroastrian Connection in Ezekiel’s Prophecy,” in Ezekiel and His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and their Interrelation, ed. J. Lust, BETL 74 [Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1986], 307–312). 44 See also the discussion of Michael Konkel, “Ezechiel – Prophet ohne Eigenschaften: Biographie zwischen Theologie und Anthropologie,” in Biblische Anthropologie: Neue Einsichten aus dem Alten Testament, ed. Christian Frevel, Questiones Disputatae 237 (Freiburg: Verlag Herder, 2010), 237–238.

256

John T. Strong

once again standing on its feet, was created by Ezekiel performing his mediating role as ‫( בן־אדם‬cf. vv. 3, 9). The text emphasizes as well that the bones in the valley are the exilic community. The hand of Yahweh takes Ezekiel back to “the valley” (‫ ;הבקעה‬v. 1). The definite article alone signals a specific location and a specific significance,45 but more, ‫בקעה‬, “valley,” only appears here in Ezek 37 and in his call, Ezek 3.22–23.46 Hence, Ezekiel was returned to the same location where the exiles of Tel Abib lived (cf. 3.15, 22), his people (3.11), from whom Yahweh would create a new elected people through the mediation of the Primal Human. The nominal sentence in 37.11ad presents a tricky grammatical feature. It reads: ‫העצמות האלה כל־בית ישראל המה‬. The final pronoun, ‫המה‬, serves as a demonstrative, highlighting its antecedent ‫הלאה העצמות‬, the bones in the valley,47 which as stated above are Ezekiel’s exilic community in Babylon. The sentence, therefore, defines the exiles as “all the house of Israel,” but what exactly is meant by the expression “all the house of Israel”? The phrase ‫ כל־בית ישראל‬appears seven times in the text of Ezekiel.48 An interesting progression can be traced through Ezekiel’s oracles. In Ezek 3.7, the entire house of Israel is in a state of rebellion, having a hard forehead and stubborn heart. Note that this is true even of the exiles (cf. 33.30–33). Though chosen, it is not because they were righteous. Ezek 11.15, however, presents a decisive shift. I read this verse as a nominal sentence, in which the exiles, who are said to be Ezekiel’s kinsmen (‫אחך‬, doubled), are 45 Block states that the valley was “… unidentified but presumably well known to Ezekiel, if not to his audience. From God’s perspective this was certainly not just any valley, randomly chosen. More important than its location is the sight that greeted the prophet there …” (Ezekiel 25–48, 373). The location remained unnamed because it did not need identification; Ezekiel’s audience would have recognized themselves as the bones in the valley. Odell sees the significance of the valley as being a place of battle, and therefore, punishment of the rebellious house of Israel (Ezekiel, 444). 46 There have been various treatments of the references to ‫ בקעה‬in both Ezek 3 and 37. See Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 184; Cooke, Ezekiel, 397; Eichrodt, Ezekiel, 507; Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 743; Joyce, Ezekiel, 208; Seitz, “Ezekiel 37.1–14,” 53–54; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 259. The reference to ‫ בקעה‬in Ezek 8.4 simply references the vision in Ezek 1. 47  Gesenius § 136; Waltke-O’Connor, § 16.3.3d. 48 ‫ כל־בית ישראל‬appears in 3.7; 5.4; 11.15; 20.40; 36.10; 37.11; and 39.25. With hesitation, I concur with those who read the appearance of this phrase in 5.4 as later comment (cf. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 173–174; Fohrer, Ezechiel, 33–36, “dogmatic gloss”; with less certainty, Cooke, Ezekiel, 58), although I differ on the particulars, especially the sewing of a few hairs into Ezekiel’s cloak rings true to Ezekiel in my view (cf. Joyce, Ezekiel, 88). Pohlmann, of course, reads vv. 3 f. as the reflections of a later community who knew of a remnant in the land (Ezekiel 1–19, 96–97). Note that the LXX, which both Fohrer and Zimmerli follow, separates “all of the house of Israel” from the foregoing sign-act, and links it instead with the following speech of Yahweh. For the unity of 5.1–4, see Block (Ezekiel 1–24, 191; and Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 109–110). I follow Sedlmeier’s argument regarding Ezek 20.39*, 40–44 as a later expansion (Ezechiel 1–24, 272–273). I deem 36.10 to be secondary; see note 75 below. Ezek 38–39 are a later pastiche, drawn from earlier language in the book (cf. Tooman, Gog of Magog), and so with these chapters, I do not bring in 39.25 to fill out the picture of how “all the house of Israel” operates in Ezekiel’s prophecies.

Cosmic Re-Creation and Ezekiel’s Vocabulary

257

immediately juxtaposed to a double-determinative, “your redeemers” (‫)גאלתך‬49 and “all the house of Israel – all of it,”50 joined together with a conjunctive-waw. The prophet’s exilic community has, in essence, now become all of Israel, distinct from and opposed to those continuing to inhabit Jerusalem. Indeed, they, as redeemers, will possess the city and the land. This reallotment of the land remains a promise – a redeemer holds a right to inherit the property in the future – to be collected upon death. This promissory note is signed at the time the temple is abandoned (Ezek 10–11*) and its courts have been cordoned off as a morgue (Ezek 9*). In contrast, the exiles have experienced Yahweh’s nearness (11.16), a reference back to the visitation by his Kābôd, in Ezek 1. Once the remnant of Israel (cf. 11.13) has died, carried out by Nebuchadnezzar’s army, beginning in 24.2 and accomplished in 33.21, the exiles are created as “grand and great multitude” (‫ ;חיל גדול מאד־מאד‬v. 37.10, cf. Gen 1.31; Exod 11.3), and named “my people” (‫​עמי‬51; 37.12, 13; reading with the MT). Hence, the grammar allows v. 37.11ag–d to be understood as a statement of election, which I think should best be read as “These bones, they are the whole house of Israel.” These bones, that is to say, all 49 The LXX seems to have made a theological emendation (αἰχμαλωσίας; “captives, exiles”). The more difficult reading supports the MT reading, ‫גאלתך‬, will be followed here (see also Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 229, 261). The definition found in HALOT (1:170) is useful, and with it, I understand ‫ אנשי גאלתך‬to mean “men who have your right to redeem.” Ezekiel clearly has in mind the laws of redemption now preserved in Lev 25. The text implies that Ezekiel believed the exiles, his kinsmen (‫)אחיך‬, would possess the land for him, but that he himself would not, presumably because he did not expect to be alive at the time of redemption. 50 For a morphological discussion and explanation of ‫כלה‬, see Gesenius, § 7c, 91e. Syntactically, as modifier in ‫כל־בית ישראל‬, see Waltke-O’Connor, § 12.3d, n. 10. This view regarding how ‫ כלה‬syntactically functions, as well as the understanding of ‫ אנשי גאלתך‬mentioned above, can be found already in the nineteenth century, in Carl Friedrich Keil’s comments (Commentary on the Old Testament in Ten Volumes, Volume IX, Ezekiel, Daniel, trans. James Martin [Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1949], 149–150). This view is carried forward in the modern discussion of Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 261: “[The whole house of Israel] includes those who were affected by the speech of the Jerusalem citizens, i. e., the whole circle of the exiles, which here quite intentionally receives the name Israel. Through the repetition of ‫ אחיך‬and ‫ כל‬it is strongly emphasized that the word of God must address every single one of the exiles without exception, tempted by the words of the citizens of Jerusalem.” So also, Block: “The use of this inclusive expression, plus the addition of kullōh, in Yahweh’s opening statement betrays where his sympathies lie. The only people worthy of the name ‘Israel’ are in exile. It can no longer be applied to those left behind in Jerusalem” (Ezekiel 1–24, 347). And similarly Allen (Ezekiel 1–19, 164): “In this context, as in 20.40 (cf. 37.15–23), [“the whole community of Israel in its entirety”] seems to refer to the Judean exiles languishing in their Babylonian settlements, characterizing their exclusively as the people of God.” 51 ‫ עמי‬has covenantal overtones in Ezekiel, drawn from the covenant formula: “You will be my people; I will be your God” (cf. 11.20; 14.11; 34.24, 30 [in an altered form]; 37.23). For a recent discussion of covenant in Ezekiel, see William A. Tooman, “Covenant and Presence in the Composition and Theology of Ezekiel,” in Divine Presence and Absence in Exilic and Post-Exilic Judaism: Studies of the Sofja Kovalevskaja Research Group of Early Jewish Monotheism, Volume II, ed. Nathan MacDonald and Izaak J. de Hulster; FAT 2/61 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 151–182. Standing alone, ‫ עמי‬appears in 13.9–10, 19, 21, 23; 14.8, 9; 21.12; 25.14; 33.31; 36.12; 37.12, 13; 38.14, 16; 39.7; 44.23; 45.8, 9; 46.18.

258

John T. Strong

the house of Israel, will then be brought to the land (‫ ;אדמת ישראל‬vv. 12, 14), at which time the promissory note will have matured and the deed to the land will be transferred. This process demonstrates clearly Ezekiel’s rhetorical strategy, as defined by Rom-Shiloni,52 which has as its goal the singling out of the exiles as Yahweh’s newly elected, new created people. Regarding the first point of the triad, that concerning Israel, Ezekiel is commissioned as ‫בן־אדם‬, the Primal Human, to mediate the election and creation of Yahweh’s ‫עם‬. At the time that we come to the last of his salvation oracles, heading into his final, grand temple vision in chapters 40–48,53 the exiles have been animated, along with Ezekiel, by the Spirit, and hold a promissory note to ‫אדמת‬ ‫ ישראל‬the next apex of the cosmic triad to which we now turn. 2.2 ‫אדמת ישראל‬ – Israel as Primal Soil Ezekiel’s unique and favorite term for the territory of Israel, the apex of the theocratic triad relating to the national deity’s inheritance of land (cf. Deut 32.7–9; Ezek 35.10), is ‫אדמת ישראל‬, the “soil of Israel,” or as I will translate here, the Primal Soil of Israel. The collection of oracles ascribed to the prophet contains this expression 17 times, with ‫ אדמה‬alone being found an additional ten times.54 52 Rom-Shiloni discusses the rhetorical strategy using the terms entirety and annexation. By “entirety,” she means the claim by one segment of the group to the entirety of the past traditions of the whole group. By “annexation,” she means that one part of the group, fragment “B” (e. g., the Babylonian Exiles), annexes for itself the national and religious traditions, and thereby claim to be the only rightful heirs of the larger group’s identity, “A” (i. e., Israel, the people of Yahweh), to the exclusion of another part of the larger group, fragment “C” (e. g., those remaining in the land). See Rom-Shiloni, Exclusive Inclusivity, 28–29. Rom-Shiloni specifically discusses the phrase ‫ כל בית ישראל‬as a part of the strategy of incorporating all the waves of exiles from 587 and 582 within the in-group of the 597 Jehoiachin exiles, while excluding those left in the land (192–196). She attributes this move to a successive working of Ezekiel’s oracles, yet still in the sixth century BCE. 53 The placement of the Gog oracles prior to Ezek 37 in P967 implies that Ezek 37 led directly to the temple vision in chapters 40–48 in the earliest collection of Ezekiel’s oracles. This observation, in turn, provides early testimony to how early readers / ​hearers of Ezekiel’s prophecies understood them. See Ashley S. Crane, Israel’s Restoration: A Textual-Comparative Exploration of Ezekiel 36–39, VTSupp 122 (Boston: Brill, 2008), 216–220; Ingrid Lilly, Two Books of Ezekiel: Papyrus 967 and the Masoretic Text as Variant Literary Editions, VTSupp 150 (Boston: Brill, 2012); and Tooman, Gog of Magog, 75–83. 54 ‫ אדמת ישראל‬is found in Ezek 7.2; 11.17; 12.19, 22; 13.9; 18.2; 20.38, 42; 21.7, 8; 25.3, 6.33.24; 36.6; 37.12; and 38.18, 19. Alone, ‫ אדמה‬is used in 28.25; 34.1, 27; 36.17, 24; 37.14, 21; 38.20; and 39.26, 28. See also the comments of Tooman, Gog of Magog, 44; and Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 565. Additionally, both Tooman (Gog and Magog, 43) and Zimmerli (Ezekiel 2, 565; and Ezekiel 1, 185) read ‫הרי ישראל‬, “the mountains of Israel,” as coreferential with ‫אדמת ישראל‬. Tooman suggests that ‫ הרי ישראל‬is used to emphasize the worship of idols on the mountains and hills. Following Alt, Zimmerli related Ezekiel’s choice of ‫ הרי ישראל‬to Israel’s origins in the highlands of Palestine (Ezekiel 1, 185). Perhaps idolatry remained a part of the nuance, but I would argue instead that the chief reason was because Ezekiel understood the nation to have been de-evolved to a more basic level.

Cosmic Re-Creation and Ezekiel’s Vocabulary

259

Notably, nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible does this particular expression, ‫אדמת‬ ‫ישראל‬, appear. Of equal importance in this regard, ‫ אדמת ישראל‬disappears entirely in the vision of restoration in chapters 40–48, suddenly to be replaced with the emergence of ‫( ארץ ישראל‬40.2; 47.13–48.29).55 The survey that follows will argue that Ezekiel, in order to confront and comprehend the exile, drew heavily upon the theological content of the flood story. Frymer-Kensky has summarized well the relationship between the flood story and the exile: The Exile was necessitated by the polluted state of the land. It was not, according to this paradigm, an act of vengeance or even a result of anger. It was also not intended to be a final destruction of the people. The prophecies of doom are frequently accompanied by mention of the remnant which is to be saved and restored to the land. In this respect the Exile resembles the Flood, which also allowed a remnant – Noah – to be rescued and restored. The connection between the Exile and the Flood, moreover, is not simply a matter of destruction and restoration. As narrated in Genesis, the Flood is the grand cosmic paradigm of the Exile.56

Again, Ezekiel’s rhetoric reflects his understanding of a shift in this apex of the cosmic triad, revealing a de-evolution of the land during the exile, the dissolution of ‫ ארץ‬into ‫אדמה‬, a shift that anticipates and prepares for a later re-creation back into ‫ארץ‬. From his vantage point in Babylonia, Ezekiel, the Primal Human, peers back upon the land of Israel and sees ‫אדמה‬, the Urstoff found by Yahweh in the garden and used to create ‫אדם‬, and the same matter Noah first saw when the chaotic waters receded (Gen 8.13). It was bounded on all sides and allotted to Israel; it belonged to Israel, and so the title ‫אדמת ישראל‬. At the time of the exile, however, ‫ בן־אדם‬viewed this particular tract as uncreated Primal Soil.

55 See Zimmerli’s comments (The Fiery Throne: The Prophets and Old Testament Theology, ed. K. C. Hanson, Fortress Classics in Biblical Studies [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003], 52), who ascribes no theological significance to the choice of, shift in, and distribution of Ezekiel’s vocabulary in this regard. In his commentary, Zimmerli states that only 40.2, at the most, can be ascribed to the prophet (Ezekiel 2, 565). I will come to a much different conclusion (see below). 56 Tikva Frymer-Kensky, “Pollution, Purification, and Purgation in Biblical Israel,” in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David N. Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday, ed. Carol L. Meyers and M. O’Connor (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 409. Frymer-Kensky goes on to note how the exile-as-flood paradigm appears in the prophets (410–412), and Ezekiel specifically (411–412). She notes that at the end of the flood in Genesis, laws were given as a part of the covenant with Noah (411; cf. Gen 9.1–17; and cf. FrymerKensky, “The Atrahasis Epic and Its Significance for Our Understanding of Genesis 1–9,” BA 40 [1977]: 147–155). In the same way, she argues that both Jeremiah and Ezekiel promise that following the exile a new order would be established, with a new law (411–412).

260

John T. Strong

Ezekiel 6* and its counterpart, Ezek 35.1–36.15*, preserve an elaborate theological treatment of the mountains of Israel57 a synonym for the ‫אדמת ישראל‬.58 The cultic significance of mountains in the ancient Near East in general, and as high places within the land of Israel specifically, allows the prophet to underscore his theological point that the land, as Yahweh’s inheritance, had been defiled by heterodox worship practices, and these related passages provide the prophet’s strongest statement on the land. For the purposes of this essay, I will focus only on the judgment of the mountains in Ezek 6*, and it counter announcement of restoration in Ezek 36*, leaving aside the oracle against Edom in Ezek 35.1–15*,59 which accompanied Ezek 36*. I deem Ezek 6.1–7 (excepting v. 6aa–b; “all of your inhabitable places, the cities, will be destroyed”)60 and 36.1–2, 6a–ba, 8–9, 1161 to have been original to the prophet. Ezek 6 presents introductory formulae in vv. 1–3bb, followed by a judgment on the high places in the land, vv. 3bg–5, 6ag, after which the prophet paints the resulting portrait, vv. 6b, and the oracles concludes with the recognition formula in v. 7. The meat of the oracle, then, appears in vv. 3bg–5, 6ag, and the issue at hand 57 See the studies of Horacio Simian, Die theologische Nachgeschichte der Prophetie Ezechiels: Form‑ und traditionskritische Untersuchung zu Ez 6; 35; 36, FB (Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1974); Lawrence Boadt, “Rhetorical Strategies in Ezekiel’s Oracles of Judgment,” in Ezekiel and His Book, 182–200; and Brad E. Kelle, “Dealing with the Trauma of Defeat: The Rhetoric of the Devastation and Rejuvenation of Nature in Ezekiel,” JBL 128/3 (2009): 469–490. Many scholars note the connection between Ezek 6* and 35.1–36.15*, and see as just two examples the discussion of Fohrer, Ezechiel, 200; and Thomas Renz, The Rhetorical Function of the Book of Ezekiel, VTSupp 74; (Boston: Brill, 1999), 110. 58 So, Tooman, Gog of Magog, 43. 59 Pace Pohlmann (cf. “Synchrone und diachrone,” 261–270; idem, Ezechiel 20–48, 473– 477), I hold Ezek 35.1–12a to be original to the prophet. There, the prophet charges Mt. Seir with holding an ancient enmity (v. 5), defined as Edom’s desire to possess the land (v. 10). On these counts, he justifies the judgment of emptying Seir’s land, similar to the judgment against the mountains of Israel in Ezek 6.1–7. 60 Compare with Zimmerli, who ascribes vv. 2–4, 5b, 7b to the prophet (Ezekiel 1, 182–184); Simian judges vv. 1–4, 5b, 7b to be a part of the earliest layer, but dates this layer post-Ezekiel, perhaps to the early fourth century BCE (Theologische Nachgeschichte der Prophetie Ezechiels, 125; 351–358); and Fohrer proposes vv. 6.1, –3ba, 3bb–4 (Ezechiel, 36). Pohlmann attributes vv. 6.1–3, 6ab, 7, and perhaps 11a to a layer that predated the gola-oriented redaction, a layer that he dates to around the catastrophe of 587 (Ezechiel 1–19, 104–105). In contrast to these analyses, Greenberg discerns a structure that knits the components of Ezek 6 together (Ezekiel 1–20, 137–138), who is followed closely by Block (Ezekiel 1–24, 217–219). 61 Compare with Zimmerli, who ascribes 1–3a, 6–11 to the prophet (Ezekiel 2, 232–234); Simian, concludes that vv. 1, 2, 4aba, 6abg, 7abb, 8a, 9bb, 10aa, 11b belong to the earliest (postEzekiel, post-exilic) layer (Theologische Nachgeschichte der Prophetie Ezechiels, 67–87); and Sedlmeier includes 1–2, 4a, 8–9, 11 in the Grundtext (Ezechiel 25–48, 179, and see note 61, below); Fohrer reads 36.1–3, 5, 7, 8–9, 11 (Ezechiel, 200); and Pohlmann deems 36.1–2, (5), 7–9, 11 to stem from an early, pre-gola-oriented layer that made up part of the conclusion of the earliest collection of oracles (Ezechiel 20–48, 474–477). Block describes Ezek 36.1–15 as a patchwork quilt without a design, and suggests that a basic text, consisting of vv. 36.1–2, 7, 8–9, 10–11, originally stemming from Ezekiel has been disturbed by later editorial work, perhaps by Ezekiel himself (Ezekiel, 322–324).

Cosmic Re-Creation and Ezekiel’s Vocabulary

261

is heterodox worship of idols that occurred at the high places.62 The judgment, introduced by ‫למען‬, will result in elimination of the offensive cultic utensils, and ending with the expression “your deeds will be wiped out” (‫)ונמחו מעשיכם‬.63 The verb ‫מחה‬, “to wipe away,” also appears in Gen 6.7; and 7.4, 23, being used to describe how all of life will be wiped away by the flood on account of their wickedness.64 In the process of wiping the land clean, v. 5 (and v. 7) states that the ‫“( חללים‬pierced ones”)65 will fall before their idols, and that their bones will be scattered around the altars. The bones defile the high places, their altars, the incense burners, and the mountains themselves,66 similar to Josiah’s defilement of the altar of Bethel (2 Kgs 23.15–16; 1 Kgs 13.1–3). It should also be recognized that the pierced ones strewn across ‫ אדמת ישראל‬are separate from those of “the valley” (‫ ;הבקעה‬Ezek 37). These are a different set of bones entirely, bones never

62  In contrast to much of the scholarly discussion (e. g., Risa Levitt Kohn, New Heart and A New Soul: Ezekiel, the Exile and the Torah, JSOTSupp 358 [London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002], 89; and Tova Ganzel, “Transformation of Pentateuchal Descriptions of Idolatry,” in Transforming Visions: Transformations of Text, Tradition, and Theology in Ezekiel, ed. William A. Tooman and Michael A. Lyons, PTMS 127 [Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2010], 33–49), I do not view the high places themselves to be the problem in Ezekiel’s view, but rather, the specific cultic worship being conducted there, that is to say, the worship of idols, is the problem. Note in this regard that the result of the judgment in v. 6b does not mention the high places at all, but only the altars, the idols, the incense stands, and the mountains’ deeds. Yahweh’s Kabod was called upon at the high places, such as Arad, which was orthodox in the eyes of the Jerusalem priesthood, according to the evidence found at Arad. Ezekiel’s condemnation of the ‫ במות‬have been read in the light of Deuteronomistic language and thought, without considering the possibility that worship centers outside of Jerusalem, i. e., ‫במות‬, where not the problem per se. In each instance where ‫ במה‬or ‫ במות‬appear in Ezekiel, it is the activity involved that creates the scandal (Ezek 6.3, 6; 16.16; 20.29; 36.2). I suspect that Ezekiel may have incorporated Deuteronomistic language, but not all of its content. 63 The LXX does not bear witness to this final clause. Allen, however, posits a mistake by the eye, skipping ahead from ‫ ‑כם‬of ‫ המניכם‬past ‫ ונמחו‬to ‫ ונפל‬in v. 7 (Ezekiel 1–19, 82). Zimmerli and Block note that ‫ מחה‬does not appear elsewhere in Ezekiel, causing them to emend the text (e. g., Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 179; Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 221). With reservations, I maintain the clause. Commencing with ‫למען‬, the indictment matches two pairs of verbs with one cult object: “Destroyed (‫ )יחרבו‬and desecrated (‫ )וישמו‬will be your altars; Broken (‫ )נשברו‬and finished (‫ )נשבתו‬will be your idols.” The next two lines match a single verb with a direct object: “Hewn down (‫ )נגדעו‬will be your incense stands; Wiped out (‫ )נמחו‬will be your deeds.” This structure has the effect of slowing down the pace of the indictment. When pronounced, the three sets of pairs create an assonance that binds them together, and the decrease from four syllables in ‫ונגדעו‬ to three in ‫ ונחהו‬aids the slowing pace as well. This is admittedly a convenient textual decision. 64 See also Greenberg’s comments in this regard (Ezekiel 1–20, 133). 65 For a discussion of ‫ חללים‬as a grotesque body in Ezekiel’s thought world, see Jacqueline Lapsley, “Body Piercings: The Priestly Body and the ‘Body’ of the Temple in Ezekiel,” HeBAI 2 (2012): 246–270, and note especially on 239, note 25 of this article. 66 See Francesca Stavrakopoulou, “Gog’s Grave and the Use and Abuse of Corpses in Ezekiel 39.11–20,” JBL 129/1 (2010): 67–84; especially 67–70; and idem, Land of Our Fathers: The Roles of Ancestor Veneration in Biblical Land Claims, LHBOTS 473 (New York: T & T Clark, 2010), 1–28.

262

John T. Strong

to be revivified.67 The land, then, has been defiled by both idolatry and the presence of corpses, two of the three things cited by Frymer-Kensky (sexual immorality being the third)68 that necessitated the land to be scraped clean (so ‫ ;מחה‬v. 6) via the exile qua flood. I must make one last, final note regarding the sequencing envisioned by Ezek 6. This judgment oracle, while not a vision, envisions the same sequence of defiling practices / ​defiling judgment seen also in Ezek 8 and 9. Clearly, openings and closings in the text have demarcated the oracle in Ezek 6 from the vision in Ezek 8–11, nevertheless Ezekiel’s audience and the editors who were their heirs, I argue, would have seen the connection. In Ezek 8–9, the situation is the Jerusalem temple; in Ezek 6, it is the outer shrines of Yahweh’s Kabod.69 The places of worship, both central and peripheral, had been polluted by heterodox cultic worship (Ezek 6.4, 6; Ezek 8). As a result, created space, ‫ארץ‬, de-evolved into Primal Soil, ‫אדמה‬, allowing what was once sacred space to receive corpses (Ezek 6.5; Ezek 9.7). This same sequence – defilement by corpse pollution followed by a return to chaos – is also present in the Urgeschichte, now found in Gen 4–8. Cain kills Abel; Lamech kills seventy times the number of victims as Cain; and at the end of this sequence, the Warriors of Old populate the earth. Yahweh regrets his creation, and decides to begin again by scraping created ‫ ארץ‬clean of the dead and the deadly. Again, what does Noah first see when the chaotic waters are pushed back? The face of the Primal Soil, ‫( פני אדמה‬Gen 8.13). The repetition of the pattern suggests that Ezekiel was applying a theological pattern well-known to himself and the educated elite in exile in Babylon. Turning now to the prophet’s oracle of restoration of the mountains in Ezek 36, his counter to Ezek 6, we can observe Ezekiel’s employment of creation language and the transformation of the Primal Soil to potentially fertile, life-giving land. Creation language fills v. 11. “I will multiply” (‫)והרביתי‬70 echoes the command to the humans in Gen 1.28. “Human and beast” (‫ )אדם ובהמה‬is the standard merism designating the whole of created life, a merism that also appears in the flood nar-

67 In ancient thought, the dead could continue and honor would be bestowed by inscribing their name, a duty of the designated ‫גאל‬. See the discussion of Job 19.23–27 in this regard, by Matthew J. Suriano, “Death, Disinheritance, and Job’s Kinsman-Redeemer,” JBL 129/1 (2010): 49–67. Consideration of this role of a redeemer recalls the earlier discussion of Ezek 11.15. The exiles had assigned redeemers, something the corpses on the Mountains of Israel lacked. 68 Frymer-Kensky, “Pollution, Purification, and Purgation in Biblical Israel,” 406–409. 69 See my discussion, “The God that Ezekiel Inherited,” 27–40; and “God’s Kābôd,” 69–95. 70 The LXX tradition lacks “and they will be fruitful and multiply” (‫)ורבו ופרו‬. The third person speech interrupts the first person speech that surrounds it, and seems to be a later interpretive gloss. See Simian, Theologische Nachgeschichte der Prophetie Ezechiel, 77; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 230; Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 32; Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 169; and Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 720. This gloss, however, presents an early interpretation of the text, one that recognized its connections with creation.

Cosmic Re-Creation and Ezekiel’s Vocabulary

263

rative, defining the thoroughness of the cleansing of the earth.71 Additionally, the verbal form of ‫ טוב‬recalls God’s assessment of the created order in P’s account in Gen 1. It seems reasonable, on this basis, to interpret ‫ קדמות‬and ‫​ראשת‬72 mythologically. By this, I mean that Ezekiel certainly intended the time when Israel first came into the land, for the land would have been pristine, according to Ezekiel. I mean as well the primeval Urzeit, the time when the mountains were first created is in play. For Ezekiel, these two epochs would have folded into one another; both would have been periods when the land was holy and pristine, unspoiled, untouched, undefiled. Ezekiel still looked to the future in this oracle, and so his rhetoric addressed the Primal Soil of Israel (v. 673). Nowhere in this passage are the mountains identified as ‫ארץ‬. Nevertheless, vv. 8–9 describes verdant, fertile land, land that has been prepared to produce if cultivated. What is merely implied here is fleshed out in Ezek 47.1–13. As noted above, the term ‫ אדמה‬disappears entirely from the text of Ezek 40–48, while, in contrast, the title “Land of Israel” appears twice in this vision of re-creation (40.2; 47.18). Between these two brackets, the image of the River of Paradise (47.1–12) envisions for the land what the revivification of the Dry Bones accomplished for the people; both foresee re-creation. The phrase ‫אדמת‬ ‫ ישראל‬appears for the first time in Ezekiel in 40.2, wherein Ezekiel describes his visionary journey to “the land of Israel,” and where he is set down on a very high mountain. The next, last, and only other instance of this construction occurs in 47.18, which is embedded in the complex that is 47.13–48.29, which orders and arranges the re-created land of Israel through its apportionment as the inheritance of Israel. Ezek 47.13 introduces this section as “the land for the twelve tribes of Israel” (‫)את־הארץ לשני עשר שבט ישראל‬, which merely expands the construct phrase “land of Israel,” yet another example of the prophet’s savvy rhetoric. Caught between these two bookends is the vision of the fructifying river (Ezek 47.1–12), a statement of the re-creation of the land.74 Ezek 47.1–12 hangs together as a unit, consisting of a vision (vv. 1–7), followed by its proper inter-

71 The narrative of Gen 2 conceptually juxtaposes ‫ האדם‬and ‫“( הבמה‬land animals”) by means of the man’s naming of the animals in his search for a suitable mate. See also in P’s creation account, Gen 1.24–31. Paired together, see Gen 6.7; 7.21, 23; Exod 8.13, 14; 9.9, 10, 19, 22, 25; 11.5, 7; 12.12, 29; 13.2, 15; 19.13; Num 8.17; 18.15; 31.11, 26. 72 For ‫קדמה‬, see T. Kronholm, “‫קדמה‬, qādîm,” TDOT 12:509; and HALOT, 2:1070. For the hapex legomenon, ‫ראשה‬, see HALOT, 2:1168, “origins, beginnings.” 73 Sedlmeier’s literary critical decisions coincide with mine quite closely (vv. 1–2, 4a, 8–9, 11; Ezechiel 25–48, 179), except for v. 6; he deemed v. 4a to be original, which leaves out any mention of ‫אדמה‬. See note 50, above. 74 See Steven S. Tuell, “The Rivers of Paradise: Ezekiel 47.1–12 and Genesis 2.10–14,” in God Who Creates: Essays in Honor of W. Sibley Towner, ed. William P. Brown and S. Dean McBride (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 171–189; and John H. Walton, Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology, 104–105.

264

John T. Strong

pretation, supplied by Ezekiel’s guide (vv. 8–12).75 The guide’s thesis statement appears in v. 8, which I translate: “These waters are going out to the pristine regions (‫)הגלילה הקדמונה‬, and then descending to the Arabah. They flow to the Sea, to the waters that are welling forth,76 and they will repristinate (‫ )ורפאו‬the waters.” As is clear from my translation, I read creation language and theology throughout these sentences, as well as in the vision as a whole.77 For example, the prophet chose the term ‫גלילה‬, “region,” a rare term in the Hebrew Bible,78 and the prophet’s choice bears all the marks of being intentional. In Josh 13.1–7, ‫ גלילה‬describes the land of Canaan, west of the Jordan, which remained to be possessed. Specifically, it was land that would be allotted to Israel (Josh 13.6), but 75 See the discussions of Sedlmeier (Ezechiel 25–48, 322–323); Block (Ezekiel 25–48, 690, “I

see no reason to break up the unity of this passage”); Zimmerli Ezekiel 2, 508–509 (only trims off vv. 6b, 7, as apparent interruptions to the passage, but sees many glosses in vv. 9–12); Cooke, Ezekiel, 518 (v. 11 is secondary, but otherwise is a unit to be corrected by the LXX); Eichrodt, Ezekiel, 581–582 (original except for the relocation of the prophet in v. 1); Fohrer, Ezechiel, 241–245 (all but vv. 10–11). In contrast, see Pohlmann, Ezechiel 20–48, 612–617 (the earliest layer, vv. 1, 8, 9ab, bb, and 12a belong to the gola-oriented redactional layer, so Persian period; the remainder stems from later layers of redaction). 76 My translation reads ‫ מוצאים‬as a Hophal participle and so something like “waters that are made to well up.” The Hebrew seems to be trying to denote springs whose sources are the primordial waters. Owing to the masculine plural ending on this participle, and with the LXX, I emend the MT, ‫הימה‬, “the Sea,” to read ‫המים‬, “waters.” My view counters G. R. Driver, who postulated another verb, ‫צוא‬, “to be made filthy” (“Linguistic and Textual Problems: Ezekiel,” Bib 19 [1938]: 186–187), which has been incorporated into many of the modern discussions of this verse. 77 See Fohrer, Ezechiel, 245; Tuell, “The Rivers of Paradise,” 175–186; idem, Ezekiel, 331– 334. Both Fohrer and Tuell (Ezekiel, 334), however, keep the envisioned river in heaven, and thereby maintains Ezekiel’s rejection of Zion. In my opinion, Ezek 47.1–12 provides yet again an important example of how creation and Zion traditions were combined and worked together. Clearly, this vision builds upon the river of paradise seen in the Zion psalm, Ps 46.5 [ET v. 4], but also it draws upon the mythological significance attributed to the Gihon Spring in Gen 2.10–14 and Isa 8.6–8. Ultimately, the traditions collide at the top of the Mountain of God, where the deity (or deities) have their palaces, and from whence their blessings flow down in streams of living water (cf. Jer 2.13; 17.13; and Rev 22.1–2). Sedlmeier (Ezechiel 25–48, 321–322) provides a very good summary of the theological traditions from which Ezek 47.1–12 draw. These include Pss 46, 48, and 76 (Zion psalms), as well as the creation narrative of Gen 2.10–14. See also related discussions in John Walton, Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology, 102–107; Richard Clifford, The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament, HSM 4 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972), 9–97, 98–103, 131–160 [and see 149–151, regarding Ps 46]; and Othmar Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms, trans. Timothy J. Hallett (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 113–120, and especially the discussion of figures 153 and 513a, on 116–118). 78 Cf. Josh 13.2; 22.10, 11; Joel 4.4 [ET 3.4]; Ezek 47.8. Elsewhere, the Hebrew Bible uses ‫ארץ‬ followed by a name or a specific descriptor to narrow the concept down to “region” (i. e., Gen 20.1; 34.1, 2; 47.27; Lev 16.22). In addition, ‫כל‬, or the prepositions ‫ ב‬or ‫ מן‬plus a place name also indicates an entire region (i. e., Deut 2.37; 3.4, 13, 14; Josh 13.11; 24.15; 1 Kgs 4.24; 1 Chr 5.10). ‫ שדה‬and a place name identifies regions outside of Yahweh’s territory (i. e., Num 21.20 [Moab]; Jdg 5.4 [Edom]), but see also Neh 12.29, which identifies singers from Geba and Azmaveth and elsewhere who celebrated the dedication of the walls of Jerusalem.

Cosmic Re-Creation and Ezekiel’s Vocabulary

265

which Yahweh himself must yet acquire, owing to Joshua and the nation’s failure to conquer it (Josh 13.1–7). Returning to Ezek 47.8, ‫ גלילה‬designated land still in need of being controlled and yet to be allotted. Hence, Ezek 47.1–12 provides an apt introduction to 47.13–48.29, in which the land is once again allocated to the tribes.79 The modifier, ‫הקדמונה‬, which I translate here as “pristine,”80 communicates the ontologically ideal state of the region established at its origins.81 This state of the land corresponds to that promised in Ezek 36.11. Quite interesting still is Ezekiel’s choice of the term ‫רפא‬, which I understand here to mean to return something to its original state, and so I translate it as “repristinate.” The versions commonly understand this verb to mean that the waters become fresh, not briny (NIV, NASB, NRSV and CEB [“fresh”], NJPS [“wholesome”]). True enough, ‫ רפא‬often means “to heal,”82 but as Brown correctly states “… is rāʾ is used in every instance [in the Hebrew Bible] with reference to restoring a wrong, sick, broken, or deficient condition to its original and proper state.”83 Ezek 79 Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 280–281; Odell, Ezekiel, 520; Jacob Milgrom and Daniel I. Block,

Ezekiel’s Hope: A Commentary on Ezekiel 38–48 (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2012), 229 (citing R. Kashar). 80 The sufformative –‫ון‬, common on adjectives, is the only element distinguishing ‫קדמון‬, here, from ‫ קדמה‬in Ezek 16.55 and 36.11. This may be an instance when this sufformative connotes a conceptual abstraction. See Gesenius, § 85u; and Sabatino Moscati, Anton Spitaler, Edward Ullendorff, Wolfram von Soden, An Introduction to the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages: Phonology and Morphology, Porta Linguarum Orientalium VI; (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1964), § 12.21 (“… occur especially in abstracts …”); and Waltke-O’Connor, § 5.7b. 81 Contrast my theologically loaded reading with that of most commentators, who see this phrase as merely indicating the eastern region. See, e. g., Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 693; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 512. In their favor is the clear and quite mundane geographical designation, Arabah. My counter to this argument is that Ezekiel commonly integrated mythological symbols with actual, physical features. Note, for example, Ezekiel’s vision of the future temple, quite idealized in many of its features, yet it was placed on the 500 by 500 cubit platform remained from the First Temple Period (cf., my article, “Grounding Ezekiel’s Heavenly Ascent: A Defense of Ezek 40–48 as a Program for Restoration,” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament: An International Journal of Nordic Theology 26/2 (2012): 192–211 [196–203]). Odell states: “In this vision of transforming the Dead Sea with the healing streams of the river of life, Ezekiel has again merged historical geography with myth” (Ezekiel, 521). Clements’ description of this passage as “pictorial theology” is helpful (cf. Ronald E. Clements, Ezekiel, WBC [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996], 203–205). 82 E. g., Gen 20.17; Exod 15.26; Lev 13.18, 37; 14.3, 48; Num 12.13; Deut 32.39; 1 Sam 6.3; 2 Kgs 8.29; 9.15; 20.5, 8; Job 5.18; Pss 6.3; 30.3 [Eng. 2]; 103.3; 147.3; Jer 15.10; 17.14; 30.17; Hos 5.13; 6.1. 83 M. Brown, “‫רפא‬, rāpāʾ,” TDOT 13:597. In 1 Kgs 18.30, ‫ רפא‬is used to describe Elijah’s ¯ altar of Yahweh. ‫ רפא‬is used in the context of restoring water to its restoration of the dilapidated pure state in Exod 15.25–26; 2 Kgs 2.21–22; 2 Chr 7.14; and Ps 60.4. The concept of “original and proper state” is also evident in Jer 6.14 and 8.11, in which Jeremiah’s opponents falsely declare a state of wholeness or completion (‫)שלום‬, and in so doing, fail to restore the wound of the people. Brown says of our passage: “Ezekiel uses the niphal to describe salt water that has been made potable. Thus what is in view here is not a ‘healing’ in the strict sense but a ‘making whole’ as a priestly term for a change from unclean to clean, from defective to complete” (XIII: 599).

266

John T. Strong

47.1–12, then, is Ezekiel’s mystical experience of Yahweh re-creating the Primal Soil into ordered land. In his first campaign, Sennacherib destroyed the rival city, Babylon. As a part of that destruction, the images of Marduk and the other deities of Babylon were carried off to Assyria, which was explained as the gods abandoning the Esagila because of the sins of the people. This was standard operating procedure, well documented in the ancient literature and well known to modern scholars.84 Pertinent to this discussion, however, Sennacherib carried off even more than an image or two of Marduk and his friends, he removed the very dirt of Babylon … that the ground of that city might be carried off, I removed its ground and had it carried to the Euphrates (and on) to the sea. Its dirt reached (was carried) unto Dilmun …85

Sennacherib reports his actions without commentary; they apparently needed none. In fact, the theological explanation that we have observed here in Ezekiel, may actually provide the necessary ancient background needed to interpret Sennacherib’s decision. Essentially, Sennacherib removed the created land of Babylon, dumped it in the Euphrates so that it would be carried to and absorbed by the chaotic waters of the Sea, thereby reducing Babylon to its Primal Soil. This practice seems to have stood behind Ezekiel’s description of the reduction of Tyre to a bare rock (Ezek 26.4), as well as perhaps Mt. Zion (24.7). Data from the ancient Near East suggests that for Ezekiel and his audience, destruction and conquest theologically involved the de-evolution of the land. Regarding the second point of the cosmic theocratic triad, that concerning the land, Ezekiel as ‫בן־אדם‬, the Primal Human, mediated the deconstruction of Israel’s inheritance, ‫ארץ‬, to its primordial material state, that of ‫אדמה‬, Primal Soil. The land as primordial stuff holds throughout the oracles, until in the last grand vision, Ezekiel, similar to God’s granting to Moses a vision of the land from

84 See Esarhaddon’s annals, translated in Daniel David Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, vol. 2, Historical Records of Assyria from Sargon to the End (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1927) § 643 (2:243); § 650 (2:245); and see also 2:255, § 662–3; and his “The Ordeal of Marduk” (cf. Kenton L. Sparks, Ancient Texts for the Study of the Hebrew Bible: A Guide to the Background Literature [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005], 321); and “The Sin of Sargon” (which dates to the time of Esarhaddon, cf. Sparks, Ancient Texts, 290–291). For general discussions, cf. Block, Gods of the Nations, 139–144; and also his discussion in Chapter One. 85 The translation is taken from Daniel David Luckenbill, The Annals of Sennacherib (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1924), 137. This text is from a foundation inscription found at Assur (KAH, II, number 122, lines 36–41). Sennacherib dumped the soil of Babylon into the Euphrates, for the purposes of carrying to the sea (i. e., to the chaotic abyss) material that for the Babylonians (and therefore for him) apparently had some sort of theological or ontological significance. Compare this act of removal with the ritual of dealing with an unsolved murder (Deut 21.1–9), and also with Elijah’s slaying of the 450 prophets of Baal at the Wadi Kishon (1 Kgs 18.40).

Cosmic Re-Creation and Ezekiel’s Vocabulary

267

beyond Jordan,86 was allowed to see the re-creation of the land, in preparation for its renewed allotment and possession. The unique vocabulary of his oracles communicates Ezekiel’s mediating role in the de-creation and yet-to-be-realized re-creation of two points of the triad, the people and the land. How his selection of vocabulary conveyed his theology of the creating, ordering work of Yahweh is the final apex of this triangle, and the one to which we now turn. 2.3 ‫אדני יהוה‬ – Sovereign Lord Yahweh While Ezekiel experienced the presence of God through his Kabod, the prophet received his oracles from ‫אדני יהוה‬, which I translate throughout as “the Sovereign Lord Yahweh.” Zimmerli and others have noted that this title for Yahweh is characteristic of the book, appearing 217 times, more than anywhere else in the Hebrew Bible, and specifically 208 times in either a call to deliver an oracle or its conclusion (‫כה אמר אדני יהוה‬, “thus says the Lord Yahweh”; ‫נאם אדני יהוה‬, “a saying of the Lord Yahweh”).87 For many years, scholarship treated the double appellation text-critically, viewing ‫ אדני‬as a theologically motivated addition to the MT. However, the MT of Ezekiel consistently evidences ‫ אדני יהוה‬in the opening and closing formulae, while the Greek manuscripts display a variety of translations, often reflecting a concern for piety. The consistency of the MT argues that the double appellative presents to us another intentional choice of vocabulary by Ezekiel, rhetoric original to his Hebrew oracles.88 Consequently, since the work of Leslie John McGregor and the response by Johann Lust,89 scholarship has in86 Scholars have often compared Ezekiel with Moses, in particular as one who brought the law. See Jon D. Levenson, Theology of the Program of Restoration of Ezekiel 40–48, HSM 10 (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976), 38–39; Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 498–501; and Tuell, Ezekiel, 321. Additionally, like Moses, Ezekiel was shown the new land in Ezek 47.1–12; 47.13–48.29; and 48.30–35, though he was not allowed to enter it (cf. Num 27.12–14; Deut 3.23–27; 32.48–52; 34.1–4). 87 Cf., Ezek. 2.4; 3.11, 27; 4.14; 5.5, 7, 8, 11; 6.3, 11; 7.2, 5; 8.1; 9.8; 11.7, 8, 13, 16, 17, 21; 12.10, 19, 23, 25, 28; 13.3, 8, 9, 13, 16, 18, 20; 14.4, 6, 11, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 23; 15.6, 8; 16.3, 8, 14, 19, 23, 30, 36, 43, 48, 59, 63; 17.3, 9, 16, 19, 22; 18.3, 9, 23, 25, 29, 30, 32; 20.3, 5, 27, 30, 31, 33, 36, 39, 40, 44; 21.3, 5, 12, 14, 18, 29, 31, 33; 22.3, 12, 19, 28, 31; 23.22, 28, 32, 34, 35, 46; 49; 24.3, 6, 9, 14, 21, 24; 25.3, 6, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16; 26.3, 5, 7, 14, 15, 19, 21; 27.3, 28.2, 6, 10, 12, 22, 24, 25; 29.3, 8, 13, 16, 19, 20; 30.2, 6, 10, 13, 22; 31.10, 15, 18; 32.3, 8, 11, 14, 16, 31, 32; 33.11, 17, 20, 25, 27; 34.2, 8, 10, 11, 15, 17, 20, 30, 31; 35.3, 6, 11, 14; 36.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13, 14, 15, 22, 23, 32, 33, 37; 37.3, 5, 9, 12, 19, 21; 38.3, 10, 14, 17, 18, 21; 39.1, 5, 8, 10, 13, 17, 20, 25, 29; 43.18, 19, 27; 44.6, 9, 12, 15, 27; 45.9, 15, 18; 46.1, 16; 47.13, 23; 48.29. See also Zimmerli’s discussion, Ezekiel 2, 558–562. 88 See Greenberg’s statement: “This preference [for the double appellation] appears to be rhetorical, a verbal signature to the oracle. … The imprint of this initial experience [Greenberg refers to Ezekiel’s commission in Ezek 2.4] of a messenger formula with a double appellative (chosen here for its specific contextual value) became normative for the rest of Ezekiel’s experience. He continued to use the double appellative virtually without variation in the opening of all of his messages, and in a common closing formula … as a kind of divine signature” (Ezekiel 1–20, 64–65). 89 Leslie John McGregor, The Greek Text of Ezekiel: An Examination of Its Homogeneity, SBLSCS 18 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), 57–92; and Johann Lust, “‫ אדני יהוה‬in Ezekiel and its Counterpart in the Old Greek,” ETL 76 (1996): 138–145.

268

John T. Strong

creasingly followed the MT, reading ‫ אדני‬as original.90 Still, what did the prophet mean with this double appellation? Significantly, the title ‫ אדני יהוה‬appears alongside the prophet’s own title, ‫בן‬ ‫אדם‬, and just as suddenly – in the commissioning passage, in v. 2.4. Moreover, also like ‫בן אדם‬, ‫ אדני יהוה‬is left undefined. This fact in itself indicates that Ezekiel employed a title he had inherited from earlier traditions, one quite familiar to his audience who knew its theological content. For modern readers, however, the task has proven to be more challenging. Mettinger notes the shift in language, but since ‫ אדני יהוה‬does not communicate the presence of God (‫ כבוד‬accomplishes this), he chooses not to sidetrack his research with an explanation.91 Joyce says that the double expression strives “to reinforce the sense of Yhwh’s awesome presence.”92 Ralph Klein suggests that the formula “reminded his audience of God’s sovereignty and their own rebellion against it,”93 an explanation shared by Greenberg.94 Similarly, Block views this locution in a two sided fashion, emphasizing both the source of the prophet’s authority, and at the same time alluding to Israel’s rebellion against Yahweh, their Lord.95 As noted in the introduction, Ezekiel does not use the royal title ‫יהוה צבאות‬, the common designation for Yahweh in the Jerusalem temple, but he uses instead ‫יהוה אדני‬. Otherwise in the Hebrew Bible, both terms are ubiquitous, overlapping at points (e. g., Isa 6.1), yet still, distributed differently. ‫ יהוה צבאות‬does not appear in the Torah. It is found extensively in First Isaiah, but only six times in Deutero-Isaiah, and not at all in Trito-Isaiah.96 Haggai and First Zechariah, prophets of the second temple, use ‫ צבאות יהוה‬extensively.97 Notably, ‫יהוה צבאות‬ is not found in Lamentations. ‫אדני יהוה‬, on the other hand, appears in the Torah, though sparingly, specifically in regard to the exodus, as will be discussed in a 90 See, for example, Lilly, Two Books, 53 n. 89; Daniel M. O’Hare, “Have You Seen, Son of Man?” A Study in the Translation and Vorlage of LXX of Ezekiel 40–48, SBLSCS 57 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010), 13–15; Joyce, Ezekiel, 77; Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 10 n. 4c; Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 116 n. 18. Zimmerli eventually read with the MT and against the LXX, reversing his initial conclusion (cf. Ezekiel 2, 556–562). 91  Trygvve N. D. Mettinger, Dethronement of Sebaoth: Studies in the Shem and Kabod Theologies, trans. Frederick H. Cryer, Coniectanea Biblica, Old Testament Series 18 (Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup: 1982), 52, n. 51. 92 Joyce, Ezekiel: A Commentary, 77. 93 Klein, Ezekiel: The Prophet and His Message, 15. 94 Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 64–5. 95 Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 30. 96 ‫ יהוה צבאות‬51 times in Proto-Isaiah: 1.9, 24; 3.1, 15; 5.7, 9, 16, 24; 6.3, 5; 8.13, 18; 9.6, 12, 18; 10.16, 23, 24, 26, 33; 13.4, 13; 14.22, 23, 24, 27; 17.3; 18.7; 19.4, 12, 16, 17, 25; 21.10; 22.5, 12, 14, 15, 25; 23.9; 24.23; 25.6; 28.5, 22, 29; 29.6; 31.4, 5; 37.16, 32; and 39.5. In Deutero-Isaiah, it is found in 44.6; 45.13; 47.4; 48.2; 51.15; and 54.5. 97 In the book of Haggai, ‫ יהוה צבאות‬appears 12 times, which constitute over 31 % of the verses in the book: cf. Hag 1.2, 5, 7, 9, 14; 2.4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 23. In Proto-Zechariah, it appears 38 times, similarly about 31 % of the verses in chapters 1–8: cf. Zech 1.3, 4, 6, 12, 14, 16, 17; 2.12, 13, 15; 3.7, 9, 10; 4.6, 9; 5.4; 6.12, 15; 7.3, 4, 9, 12, 13; 8.1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23.

Cosmic Re-Creation and Ezekiel’s Vocabulary

269

moment.98 Lamentation contains 13 citations of ‫אדני יהוה‬,99 but it is absent from Haggai and First Zechariah (Zechariah does use ‫ אדני‬of an angelic guide). What can we say about Ezekiel’s rhetorical choice? ‫ צבאות‬designates Yahweh as king, enthroned on the cherubim throne located in the Jerusalem temple. Mettinger concluded a 1982 essay: [‫ ]יהוה צבאות‬is used in the Jerusalem cult, and refers to the God who sits invisible on the immense cherubim throne in the most sacred chamber of the Solomonic temple. This explains the important role which the conception of God as king plays in the Sabaoth texts.100

The title may originally have been linked with the shrine at Shiloh, on the basis of 1 Sam 1.3, 11 and 4.4.101 Of the passages in Isaiah, most tellingly ‫ צבאות‬appears in Isaiah’s inaugural vision in 6.1–13. Here, Isaiah beholds Yahweh Sebaoth as the king: “The King, Yahweh Sebaoth, my eyes have seen” (v. 5, and cf. v. 3;and cf. 6.1). Just as the affirmation that Yahweh Sebaoth was king opened up Isaiah’s Denkschrift,102 so too the prophet closed his text of written prophecies with the same affirmation: “Yahweh Sebaoth, the one enthroned on Mt. Zion” (8.18). ‫ צבאות‬also appears in Zion psalms, specifically Pss 46 and 48, extolling the myth-

  98 ‫ אדני יהוה‬appears or is implied in a total of seven verses in the Torah: Gen 15.2, 8; Exod 4.10 (implied); 5.22 (implied); 15.17 (in essence); Deut 3.24; 9.26. In each of these verses, an authoritative ancestor of the people, either Abraham or Moses, address Yahweh at a time when he is initiating a campaign that will create the people. In Gen 15.2 and 8, Abraham addresses the Sovereign Lord Yahweh during the covenantal ceremony that promised to his line descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky. The verses in Exodus all involve Yahweh’s creation of Israel as a nation, separated from the chaos represented by Pharaoh and Egypt (see the discussion below). The same is true of the two verses in Deuteronomy, with 3.24 perhaps providing an interesting expression of Yahweh’s role as ‫אדני‬: “O Sovereign Lord Yahweh, you are beginning to make your servant see your greatness and your strong hand; what god in heaven or on earth can accomplish your deeds and your acts of might!” This verse underscores at the beginning of his creation of the nation Yahweh’s coming feats of power and war.   99 In Lamentations, the title ‫ אדני‬appears alone, not the double appellative ‫אדני יהוה‬. See Lam 1.14, 15; 2.1, 2, 5, 7, 18, 19, 20; 3.31, 36, 37, 58. It should be noted that many later Hebrew manuscripts replace every instance of ‫ אדני‬with ‫יהוה‬. Delbert R. Hillers (Lamentations, AB 7A (Garden City: Doubleday, 1972], 12) describes the distribution as haphazard, the choice as random, and that the two terms seem to have been interchangeable. Regarding his own textual choices (to follow Leningradensis), he states: “It seems impossible to be sure that the usage was absolutely uniform even in the original form of the book, even though it is likely that to some extent ʾadōnāy has replaced an original yhwh, especially since in later periods ʾadōnāy was being pronounced, in public reading, wherever yhwh stood in the text.” 100 Trygvve N. D. Mettinger, “YHWH SABAOTH – The Heavenly King on the Cherubim Throne,” in Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1982), 118. In his discussion, Mettinger draws from texts such as Jer 46.18; 48.15; 51.57; Ps 48.9; Isa 6.5; 8.18; 14.24–27; 37.16; and Mal 1.14. 101 Hans J. Zobel, “‫צבאות‬, ṣeḅāʾôṯ,” TDOT 12:222–224. 102 See Hans Wildberger’s literary critical discussion, Isaiah 1–12: A Continental Commentary, trans. Thomas H. Trapp (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 364–365.

270

John T. Strong

ical height as the city of Yahweh Sebaoth.103 Psalm 84 contains four instances of Yahweh Sebaoth (vv. 2, 4, 9, and 13). Kraus has identified the Sitz im Leben of this psalm as a prayer for entry into the temple, offered at the temple gates.104 My point in highlighting these selected verses is to connect ‫ צבאות‬with the notion of Yahweh’s role as Divine King, and his residence in the Jerusalem temple. To recall Walton’s point, ‫ צבאות‬applies to Yahweh in his role as a resting deity, reigning over the cosmos from his throne in the Jerusalem temple. ‫ אדני‬conveys a broader concept than ‫צבאות‬, referring to Yahweh’s sovereignty in general; the two titles are not contradictory. Rather, ‫ אדני‬is an umbrella title, encapsulating Yahweh’s lordship over all creation. ‫ צבאות‬is a narrower title, restricted to Yahweh as the Divine King, enthroned in the Jerusalem temple. As noted above, Isaiah encounters ‫ אדני יהוה‬in Isa 6.1, the very passage in which he sees Yahweh enthroned in the temple, and later in this passage addresses him as ‫יהוה צבאות‬. A parallel situation is seen when David addresses Saul as “my lord, the king” (1 Sam 24.9; 26.17; 29.8). The royal title ‫צבאות‬, however, cannot apply to Yahweh at a time when he has cut off the Jerusalem temple from his heavenly abode (Ezek 8.6), and so, at a time when the earthly realm is completely in chaos. Analogously, Nabal’s wife, Abigail, bows down to David before he becomes king, and addresses him “my lord” (1 Sam 25.24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 41). ‫יהוה צבאות‬ is, therefore, the apt title for Yahweh at times when he is not acting in the role of reigning, enthroned deity, yet is still working to create an ordered cosmos. As ‫אדני‬, Yahweh engages in activities before or after (in the case of Ezekiel), or in some way outside of his role as the Divine King enthroned in the Jerusalem temple. In his article in The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Otto Eißfeldt reads ‫ אדני‬in a superlative sense, not merely as a possessive, on the basis of passages such as 2 Kgs 19.23 // Isa 37.24; Pss 38.16; 130.3, in which ‫ אדני‬makes sense as a title or a name. He also turns to evidence from the Ugaritic literature as well, where the /-āi/ ending intensified the root noun, and did not convey a possessive sense. Eißfeldt concludes that ‫ אדני‬should be understood as, “Lord of all,” yet 103  Cf. Pss 46.5–8; 48.2–9. For Zion / ​Jerusalem as the seat of Yahweh Sebaoth, see the various discussions by J. J. M. Roberts, “Zion in the Theology of the Davidic-Solomonic Empire,” in Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays, ed. Tomoo Ishida (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1982), 93–108; idem, “Solomon’s Jerusalem and the Zion Tradition,” in Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period, ed. Andrew G. Vaughn and Ann E. Killebrew, SBLSS 18 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 161–170; idem, “Zion Tradition,” in Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: Supplementary Volume, ed. Keith Crim (Nashville: Abingdon, 1976), 985–987; Ben C. Ollenburger, Zion, City of the Great King: A Theological Symbol of the Jerusalem Cult, JSOT Supp 41 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987), 23–52; and Ronald E. Clements, God and Temple (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1965), 76. 104 Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalms 60–150: A Continental Commentary, trans. Hilton C. Oswald (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1989), 166–167. Erich Zenger opts for a setting away from the temple, and so, a longing for the temple. See his discussion in Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Psalms 2: A Commentary on Psalms 51–100, ed. Klaus Baltzer; trans. Linda M. Maloney; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 350–354.

Cosmic Re-Creation and Ezekiel’s Vocabulary

271

without losing the personal connection with the prophet, based on the context of the use of this title,105 and with Eißfeldt, I translate the double appellative, “Sovereign Lord Yahweh.” Eißfeldt, along with McGregor and others, strongly disagrees with those scholars who view the use of ‫ אדני‬as a later intrusion, and not just in Ezekiel, but in Israel’s cult in general. Eißfeldt argues that ‫ אדני‬was a title at home early on in Israel’s cult, as evidenced by its appearance in the Song of the Sea, Exod 15.106 Ezek 15.17 reads: You brought them (Israel) and you planted them on the mountain of your inheritance The place of your enthronement you established, O Yahweh The sanctuary, O Sovereign (‫)אדני‬,107 your hands established.

In Exod 15, it is Yahweh, as ‫אדני‬, who created the nation of Israel at the time of the exodus.108 Exodus 15 and the exodus traditions lead to Ezek 20, which contains the prophet’s focused revision of the exodus. Here, as adroitly as he molded the traditions of the Urgeschichte, Ezekiel nimbly folds the exodus into the exile.109 For Ezekiel, the exile was just another step in the protracted process by which Yahweh created Israel. More to my point, however, verse 33 forms the culmination of this passage. As I live, says the Sovereign Lord (‫)אדני‬, Yahweh With nothing other than a strong hand and an outstretched arm and wrath poured out I will rule over you!

Only here, in connection with the creation of the nation, did Ezekiel explicitly assert Yahweh’s kingship over the people, which opened up opportunities for scholars to puzzle over Ezekiel’s theological re-imagination of Yahweh’s kingship over Israel.110 Leaving aside this issue and turning to the question at hand, Ezek Eisfeldt, “‫אדון‬, ʾādhôn,” TDOT 1:64–69. “70–1:69 ”,‫אדון‬. 107 Exod 15.17 involves a textual question, and with Eisfeldt (“70–69 ”,‫ )אדון‬I side with the MT as preserving the older reading. The Targumim, several Hebrew manuscripts, and the Samaritan Pentateuch (cf. also the pre-Samaritan text, 4QExodc col. VI, frag. 33 ii) witness to ‫ יהוה‬instead of ‫אדוני‬, which appears in both the MT and the LXX. Cross (Canaanite Myth, 131 n. 70) sides with the Samaritan Pentateuch, but adds “… a rare instance of its preserving the older reading.” Presumably, Cross follows the Samaritan text in this “rare” instance on the basis of the evidence from Qumran. 108 Again, I connect the exodus with creation. See the discussion and n. 15 above. 109 As scholars have long noted, Jeremiah and Deutero-Isaiah likewise called for a new exodus at the time of the return from exile; cf. Isa 43.14–21; 48.20–21; 51.9–11; Jer 23.7–8. The connection between the exodus and the exile in Ezekiel relates to the conclusion that vv. 27–29 are a secondary insertion. See the comments of Sedlmeier, Ezechiel 1–24, 270–271, 286–287; Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 12–13; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 412. 110 At issue is to what extent Ezekiel sought to maintain or revise the conception of Yahweh as the Great King as confessed by Zion Theology. Many scholars view Ezekiel as a revolutionary, seeking to re-write and break apart Zion’s theological conception of Yahweh as king. See, for example, Ralph Klein (Ezekiel, 79): “To be the divine king of Israel means to be the savior in the 105 Otto

106 Eisfeldt,

272

John T. Strong

20.33 exhibits important conceptual links to the exodus story, thereby providing insight into Ezekiel’s choice of Yahweh as ‫אדני‬, and not ‫צבאות‬. Nestled into the midst of Yahweh’s oath is the threefold assertion of his actions: ‫ביד חזקה ובזרוע‬ ‫“( נטויה ובחמה שפוכה‬with a strong hand and an outstretched arm and wrath poured out”). The first two elements are often paired and associated with the exodus,111 and Zimmerli understands them to stem from the “stereotyped statements of the credo accounts of the exodus.”112 Taken separately, the first element of Ezek 20.33, Yahweh’s strong hand (‫ )יד חזקה‬suggests Exod 15.17, which established the people in his possession and sanctuary. The second element, Yahweh’s “arm outstretched” in Ezek 20.33 echoes “your right hand / ​arm” in Exod 15.6, which is glorious in power (‫ )נאדרי בכח‬and destroyed the enemy (‫)תרעץ אויב‬. Similarly, it is Yahweh’s outstretched arm that swallows his enemies, when in Exod 15.12 he stretched out his right hand / ​arm (‫)נטית ימינך‬. In Exod 15.16, Yahweh’s arm (‫ )בגדל זרועך‬silences his enemies. The third element in Yahweh’s oath in Ezek 20.33, ‫“( ובחמה שפוכה‬and with wrath poured out”), recalls Yahweh’s wrath in the Song of the Sea, which states that Yahweh acted in his fury (‫תשלח‬ ‫חרנך‬, “you sent out your fury”; Exod 15.7). In essence, Ezekiel fills the body of verse 33 with vocabulary of power, all of which recalls his creation of the nation at the exodus, as celebrated in Exod 15. The sequence of events as indicated in the verb tenses in both Ezek 20.33 and Exod 15 is telling as well. Yahweh’s declaration in Ezek 20.33 brings the prophet’s retelling of Israel’s exodus (which encompasses the exile) to a conclusion, with Yahweh swearing finally that he will, in the future, reign over Israel as king (‫אמלוך‬ ‫)עליכם‬. Likewise, the Song of the Sea in Exod 15 celebrates Yahweh’s creation of Israel by separating them out of Chaos, symbolized both by Egypt and the Sea. This activity took place in the narrated past. Yet still in the future, the Song culminated with the declaration of Yahweh’s eternal reign (‫ ;יהוה ימלך לעלם ועד‬v. 18).113 Exodus, as Exodus 15.18 and Ezekiel 20.33–34 make clear. Yahweh’s royal actions are military in scope – with a mighty hand, an outstretched arm, and wrath poured out. … but their use in Ezekiel 20, especially in light of verses 8, 13, and 21, where the pouring out of wrath refers to Yahweh’s judgment on Israel, suggests that the military force and the divine anger will be aimed as much against Israel as against any foreign power.” Sedlmeier (Ezechiel 1–24, 296) concludes: “Der König JHWH [nach Ez 20,33] führt sein Volk nun aber gerade nicht zum Zion, sondern in die ‘Wüste der Nationen’.” Similarly, Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 650–651; Eichrodt, Ezekiel, 278–279. In contrast, my thesis argues that Ezekiel’s Kabod theology was a tenet of the Zion traditions of Jerusalem, and that Ezek 20.33 reasserts his eventual re-enthronement. See Strong, “The God that Ezekiel Inherited,” 24–54 (esp. 27–40); and idem, “God’s Kābôd,” 69–95. 111 The precise expression ‫“( ביד חזקה ובזרוע נטויה‬with a strong hand and an outstretched arm”) is found in Deut 4.34; 5.15; 7.19; 11.2; 26.18. See the comments of Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 371–372. Though the language is Deuteronomic in character, Block has correctly pointed out that it is not the sole property of the Deuteronomistic traditions (Ezekiel 1–24, 650, n. 182). 112 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 415. 113 Cross argued that the prefixed forms of the verbs in Exod 15 indicated preterit tense on the basis of Ugaritic (Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973], 125). With verse 18, Cross’s transla-

Cosmic Re-Creation and Ezekiel’s Vocabulary

273

Both Ezek 20.33 and Exod 15 have in sight Yahweh as an active and powerful warrior in battle, yet not one at rest and reigning. For both Israel’s ancient cult that sang the Song of the Sea, as well as Ezekiel at a much later date, ‫ אדני‬was the appropriate title for Yahweh in his role as a warrior fighting to create his people, prior to one day mounting his throne to reign as the Divine King. Our discussion of how Ezekiel addressed the three points of the cosmic triad is now complete. Regarding the point associated with the people, Ezekiel took on the role of the Primal Human, ‫בן־אדם‬, and mediated the de-creation of Yahweh’s people, and then their re-creation out of the Babylonian exile. With the point associated with the land, Israel’s inheritance too de-evolved into Primal Soil, but its future fecundity was promised, and it would again be allotted to Israel. This creation activity was the work of Yahweh not as ‫צבאות‬, a royal title for a king at rest, but rather that of ‫אדני יהוה‬, the Sovereign Lord, once again battling to create the nation out of Chaos.

3. Final Thoughts and Reflections David Petersen has argued that creation traditions “are absent from Ezekiel,” indeed, that “[c]reation traditions are not important for Ezekiel’s theological argument.”114 He concludes his essay, stating: Unlike Deutero-Isaiah, the theologies of creation are relatively unimportant in the overall theological construction of Ezekiel. Further, in the vision of a new temple-based community, new hierarchies emerge, those of space  – hierarchies of holiness  – and people, reflecting their access and proximity to the sanctuary. Places and people of highest status are those closest to the deity. They are hierarchies of space and people do not inhere in the created order. Rather, they stem from the acts of restoration foreseen in Ezek 40–48.115

Far from being unimportant, I contend that creation traditions – not just allusions – permeated Ezekiel’s theological interpretation of both the exile in which he lived, and the future for which he hoped. I have argued here that Ezekiel’s unique choice of language was the result of his implementing expressions and concepts that he knew from Jerusalem’s creation traditions, which tion indicates in one instance a jussive, “Let Yahweh reign” (131) and a future tense in another (142; but see Brevard Childs’ critique in Exodus, OTL [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974], 242). This is tantamount to nit-picking, for Cross’s point, as well as mine, is that the Song of the Sea envisions an act of salvation and creation that led to Yahweh’s kingship. 114 Petersen, “Creation and Hierarchy,” 175. As noted above, Madhavi Nevader has also argued that Ezekiel purposefully avoided the use of creation traditions (“Creating a Deus Non Creator,” 55–70). Nevader and I differ on her categorical separation of Chaoskampf traditions from creation traditions, and sequestering them away with notions of Yahweh’s power and royal sovereignty over his enemies. 115 Petersen, “Creation and Hierarchy,” 178.

274

John T. Strong

expressed precisely his understanding of the exile as a unique time in history, a time when the land of Israel was enjoying its Sabbath rest. During this period, Ezekiel’s language reflected his particular understanding of the theocratic triad as being re-created from the ground up. Ezekiel associated himself with humankind in general, serving in the mediating role as the ‫בן־אדם‬, the Primal Human. This move disassociated the prophet from the house of Israel, but in turn, it allowed for him to announce Yahweh’s new election of a people from his exilic community. In regard to the land, Ezekiel understood it to have become Primal Soil, ‫אדמת ישראל‬, redefining it as the basic material God used to create. In regard to the third point of the triad, Ezekiel understood Yahweh not as being at rest in his throne room, but rather as the Sovereign Lord Yahweh, ‫אדני יהוה‬, who battled again to place his people on his inherited land, in order to reign as their Divine King. The God that Ezekiel, as ‫בן־אדם‬, encountered, whose oracles he delivered held the title ‫אדני‬, appropriated from the ancient traditions of the exodus. The theological perspective gained by looking at the vocabulary Ezekiel chose explains as well why Ezekiel did not use other terms common to the Zion traditions. With the land reverting to “soil,” and without a people elected to maintain a proper cult, Zion, the nexus between heaven and earth, was not a reality during the exile. The portal to Yahweh’s heavenly throne room that was the temple had been closed, for the people had removed themselves through their abominations far from Yahweh’s heavenly sanctuary (cf. Ezek 8.6),116 and were scattered about the earth. For this reason, Yahweh did not relate to the people as ‫צבאות‬, the Divine King seated in the temple on Zion, and so it would have been inappropriate as well to apply this title to Yahweh during the exile. An uncreated people, without a land, did not have an enthroned Divine King, but rather a warring Sovereign Lord (‫)אדני יהוה‬. De-creation, however, only set the stage for the next act of creation, seen also after the humans were scattered after the Tower of Babel, where Yahweh immediately selected the family of Terah for the next creation. The expectation existed that once the duration of the exile / ​exodus was completed, once Endzeit wird Urzeit, Zion and Sebaoth would once again be proper titles to be used by newly elected Israel living on the land.117 116 For the proper translation of ‫ לרחקה‬in Ezek 8.6, cf. Ka Leung Wong, “A Note on Ezekiel VIII 6,” VT 51 (2001): 396–400; Odell, Ezekiel, 107; Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 169; contra several modern commentators, e. g., Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 287. The theological sense is that Yahweh remains enthroned in his palace in heaven, but Jerusalem’s temple on Mt. Zion has ceased to offer access to Yahweh’s heavenly throne room. 117 With many commentators, I understand the significance of the date in Ezek 40.1 as an allusion to the Year of Jubilee, Lev 25. See Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 345–347; and James Miller, “The Thirtieth Year of Ezekiel 1.1,” RB 99 (1992): 502. Sedlmeier (Ezechiel 25–48, 269) calculates back to Josiah’s reform and the bringing of the law and the cleansing of the temple (2 Kgs 23), concluding that Ezek 40.1 marks the beginning of the Year of Jubilee, and the return of all inheritance. Odell (Ezekiel, 486–487) dismisses any reference to the Year of Jubilee (Lev 25) in the date of Ezek 40.1, and instead interprets this date as the conclusion of Judah’s punishment.

Cosmic Re-Creation and Ezekiel’s Vocabulary

275

The traditions of the ancient Hebrews, their cultural relics, have left behind another time, in addition to the exile, when God withdrew his control over chaos and allowed creation to be absorbed for a set duration, as preparation for later re-creation. As we have seen, the story of the flood in Gen 6–9 is a story when the chaotic waters were allowed to “prevail upon the earth” (Gen 7.17–24) on account of the corruption of the human heart (Gen 6.5–7). This flood too had a defined period of 40 days, and at the end of this time, when God made the waters recede through the agency of the spirit (Gen 8.1), Noah saw soil (‫פני‬ ‫ ;האדמה‬Gen 8.13). It provided, then, a theological model for other times of chaos, quintessentially the exile.118 Theologically speaking, Ezekiel understood himself to be living during a time similar to the flood. I recall the quote from FrymerKensky, presented earlier in this essay: “… the Exile resembles the Flood, which also allowed a remnant – Noah – to be rescued and restored.”119 Ezekiel placed his companions in exile, settled by the River Chebar, in the role of Noah and his family, who had been selected to survive by means of an ark. Perhaps not so coincidentally, the place where this segment of Israel would survive, their “ark,” so to speak, Ezekiel called ‫תל אביב‬, “tel of the flood” (Ezek 3.15).

Bibliography Allen, Leslie. Ezekiel 1–19. Word Biblical Commentary 28. Dallas: Word, 1994. –. Ezekiel 20–48. Word Biblical Commentary 29. Dallas: Word, 1990. Batto, Bernard F. “The Divine Sovereign: The Image of God in the Priestly Creation Account.” In David and Zion: Biblical Studies in Honor of J. J. M. Roberts, edited by Bernard F. Batto and Kathryn L. Roberts, 143–186. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2004. –. “The Covenant of Peace: A Neglected Ancient Near Eastern Motif.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 49/2 (1987): 187–211. –. “Creation Theology in Genesis.” In Creation in the Biblical Traditions, edited by Richard J. Clifford and John J. Collins, 16–38. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 24. Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1992. –. “The Sleeping God: An Ancient Near Eastern Motif of Divine Sovereignty.” Biblica 68 (1987): 153–177. –. Slaying the Dragon: Mythmaking in the Biblical Tradition. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1992. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Creation, Un-Creation, Re-Creation: A Discursive Commentary on Genesis 1–11. New York: T & T Clark, 2011. –. Ezekiel. Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1990. Block, Daniel I. Beyond the River Chebar: Historical, Literary, and Theological Studies in the Book of Ezekiel. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2013. 118 Cf.

Pss 69.1, 2, 14; 93.4; 104.3, 6; 144.7; 148.4. “Pollution, Purification, and Purgation,” 409.

119 Frymer-Kensky,

276

John T. Strong

–. The Book of Ezekiel 1–24. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. –. The Book of Ezekiel 25–48. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. –. “The God Ezekiel Wants Us to Meet: Theological Perspectives on the Book of Ezekiel.” In The God Ezekiel Creates, edited by Paul M. Joyce and Dalit Rom-Shiloni, 162–192. Library of Hebrew Bible / ​Old Testament Studies 607. New York: T & T Clark, 2015. –. The Gods of the Nations: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern National Theology. Evangelical Theological Society Monograph Series 2; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1988. –. “Israel’s House: Reflections on the Use of BYT YŚR’L in the Old Testament in the Light of Its Ancient Near Eastern Environment.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 28/3 (1985): 257–275. Boadt, Lawrence. Ezekiel’s Oracles against Egypt: A Literary and Philological Study of Ezekiel 29–32. Biblica et Orientalia 37. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980. –. “Rhetorical Strategies in Ezekiel’s Oracles of Judgment.” In Ezekiel and His Book, edited by Johan Lust, 182–200. Leuven: University Press, 1986. Bodi, Daniel. The Book of Ezekiel and the Poem of Erra. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 104. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1991. Brown, M. L. “‫רפא‬, rāpāʾ.” In Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. 13, edited ¯ Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, 593–602. by G. Johannes Botterweck, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Brownlee, William H. Ezekiel 1–19. Word Biblical Commentary 28. Waco: Word Books, 1986. Callender, Dexter E., Jr. Adam in Myth and History: Ancient Israelite Perspectives on the Primal Human. Harvard Semitic Studies 48. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2000. –. “The Primal Human in Ezekiel and the Image of God.” In The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives, edited by Margaret S. Odell and John T. Strong, 175–193. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 9. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000. Childs, Brevard S. The Book of Exodus. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974. Clements, Ronald E. Ezekiel. Westminster Bible Companion. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996. Clements, Ronald E. God and Temple. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1965. –. Isaiah 1–39. New Century Bible. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1980. –. “The Prophet as an Author: The Case of the Isaiah Memoir.” In Writings and Speech in Israelite and Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy, edited by Ehud Ben Zvi and Michael H. Floyd, 89–101. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 10. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000. –. “The Prophets and the Nations.” In Prophecy and Tradition, 58–72. Growing Points in Theology. Atlanta: John Knox, 1975. Clifford, Richard J. The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament. Harvard Semitic Monographs 4. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1972. Clifford, Richard J., and John J. Collins, eds. Creation in the Biblical Traditions. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 24. Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1992.

Cosmic Re-Creation and Ezekiel’s Vocabulary

277

Cook, Stephen L., and Corrine L. Patton, eds. Ezekiel’s Hierarchical World: Wrestling with a Tiered Reality. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 31. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004. Cooke, G. A. The Book of Ezekiel. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1936. Crane, Ashley S. Israel’s Restoration: A Textual-Comparative Exploration of Ezekiel 36–39. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 122. Boston: Brill, 2008. Cross, Frank Moore. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1973. Darr, Katheryn Pfisterer. “The Book of Ezekiel.” In The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 6, Isaiah-Ezekiel, edited by Leander E. Keck, 1073–1607. Nashville: Abingdon, 1994. –. “Ezekiel among the Critics.” Currents in Research 2 (1994): 9–24. –. “The Wall around Paradise: Ezekielian Ideas about the Future.” Vetus Testamentum 37 (1987): 271–279. Driver, G. R. “Linguistic and Textual Problems: Ezekiel.” Biblica 19 (1938): 60–69. –. “Linguistic and Textual Problems: Ezekiel.” Biblica 19 (1938): 175–187. –. “Ezekiel: Linguistic and Textual Problems.” Biblica 35 (1954): 145–159. –. “Ezekiel: Linguistic and Textual Problems.” Biblica 35 (1954): 299–312. Eichrodt, Walther. Ezekiel: A Commentary. Translated by Coslett Quin. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970. Eisfeldt, Otto. “‫אדון‬, ʾādhôn.” In Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. 1, edited by G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, 62–72. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011. Fohrer, Georg. Ezechiel. Handbuch zum Alten Testament 13. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr / ​ Paul Siebeck, 1955. Fox, Michael V. “The Rhetoric of Ezekiel’s Vision of the Valley of the Bones.” Hebrew Union College Annual 51 (1980): 1–15. Freedy, K. S., and D. B. Redford. “The Dates in Ezekiel in Relation to Biblical, Babylonian and Egyptian Sources.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 90 (1970): 462–485. Frymer-Kensky, Tikva. “The Atrahasis Epic and Its Significance for Our Understanding of Genesis 1–9.” Biblical Archaeologist 40 (December 1977): 147–155. –. “Pollution, Purification, and Purgation in Biblical Israel.” In The Word Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday, edited by Carol L. Meyers and M. O’Connor, 399–414. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983. Ganzel, Tova. “The Defilement and Desecration of the Temple in Ezekiel.” Biblica 89 (2008): 369–379. –. “Transformation of Pentateuchal Descriptions of Idolatry.” In William A. Tooman and Michael A. Lyons, Transforming Visions: Transformations of Text, Tradition, and Theology in Ezekiel, 33–49. Princeton Theological Monograph Series 127. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2010. Gowan, Donald E. When Man Becomes God: Humanism and Hybris in the Old Testament. Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series 6. Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press, 1975. Greenberg, Moshe. Ezekiel 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 22. Garden City: Doubleday, 1983. –. Ezekiel 21–37: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 22A. Garden City: Doubleday, 1997.

278

John T. Strong

Haag, H. “‫בן‬, bēn.” In Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. 2, edited by G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, 147–159. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975. –. “‫בן־אדם‬, bēn ʾā�ām.” In Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. 2, edited by G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, 159–165. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975. Hals, Ronald M. Ezekiel. Forms of the Old Testament Literature 19. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989. Hillers, Delbert R. Lamentations. Anchor Bible 7A. Garden City: Doubleday, 1972. Hoffner, Harry A. “‫בית‬, bayith.” In Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. 2, edited by G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, 107–116. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975. Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar, and Erich Zenger. Psalms 2: A Commentary on Psalms 51–100. Edited by Klaus Baltzer. Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005 Hurowitz, Victor. I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 115. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992. Joyce, Paul M. Divine Initiative and Human Response in Ezekiel. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 51. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989. –. Ezekiel: A Commentary. Library of Hebrew Bible / ​Old Testament Studies 482. New York: T & T Clark, 2007. Joyce, Paul M., and Andrew Mein. After Ezekiel: Essays on the Reception of a Difficult Prophet. Library of Hebrew Bible / ​Old Testament Studies 535. New York: T & T Clark, 2011. Joyce, Paul M., and Dalit Rom-Shiloni. The God Ezekiel Creates. Library of Hebrew Bible / ​Old Testament Studies 607. New York: T & T Clark, 2015. Keel, Othmar. The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms. Translated by Timothy J. Hallett. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1997. Keel, Othmar, and Christoph Uehlinger. Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel. Translated by Thomas H. Trapp. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998. Keil, Carl Friedrich. Commentary on the Old Testament in Ten Volumes, vol. 9, Ezekiel, Daniel. Translated by James Martin. Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1949. Kelle, Brad E. “Dealing with the Trauma of Defeat: The Rhetoric of the Devastation and Rejuvenation of Nature in Ezekiel.” Journal of Biblical Literature 128/3 (2009): 469–490. Klein, Anja. Schriftauslegung im Ezechielbuch: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Ez 34–39. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 391. New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2008. Klein, Ralph W. Ezekiel: The Prophet and His Message. Studies on Personalities of the Old Testament. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1988. –. Israel in Exile: A Theological Interpretation. Overtures to Biblical Theology. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. Kohn, Risa Levitt. New Heart and A New Soul: Ezekiel, the Exile and the Torah. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 358. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. Konkel, Michael. “Ezechiel – Prophet ohne Eigenschaften: Biographie zwischen Theologie und Anthropologie.” In Biblische Anthropologie: Neue Einsichten aus dem Alten

Cosmic Re-Creation and Ezekiel’s Vocabulary

279

Testament, edited by Christian Frevel, 216–242. Questiones Disputatae 237. Freiburg: Verlag Herder, 2010. –. “The System of Holiness in Ezekiel’s Vision of the New Temple (Ezek 40–48).” In Purity and the Forming of Religious Traditions in the Ancient Mediterranean World and Ancient Judaism, edited by Christian Frevel and Christophe Nihan, 429–455. Dynamics in the History of Religion 3. Boston: Brill, 2003. Kraus, Hans-Joachim. Psalms 1–59: A Continental Commentary. Translated by Hilton C. Oswald. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1988. –. Psalms 60–150: A Continental Commentary. Translated by Hilton C. Oswald. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1989. Kronholm, T. “‫קדמה‬, qādîm.” In Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. 12, edited by G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, 501–505. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. Krüger, Thomas. Geschichtskonzepte im Ezechielbuch. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für alttestamentlische Wissenschaft 180. New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1989. Kutsko, John F. Between Heaven and Earth: Divine Presence and Absence in the Book of Ezekiel. Biblical and Judaic Studies from the University of California, San Diego 7. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2000. Lang, Bernhard. “Street Theater, Raising the Dead, and the Zoroastrian Connection in Ezekiel’s Prophecy.” In Ezekiel and His Book, edited by Johan Lust, 297–316. Leuven: University Press, 1986. Lapsley, Jacqueline E. “Body Piercings: The Priestly Body and the ‘Body’ of the Temple in Ezekiel.” Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 2 (2012): 246–270. –. Can These Bones Live? The Problem of the Moral Self in the Book of Ezekiel. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentlische Wissenschaft 31. New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2000. –. “Shame and Self-Knowledge: The Positive Role of Shame in Ezekiel’s View of the Moral Self.” In The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives, edited by Margaret S. Odell and John T. Strong, 143–173. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 9. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000. Levenson, Jon D. “The Temple and the World.” Journal of Religion 64/3 (1984): 275–298. –. Theology of the Program of Restoration of Ezekiel 40–48. Harvard Semitic Monograph Series 10. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976. Lilly, Ingrid E. Two Books of Ezekiel: Papyrus 967 and the Masoretic Text as Variant Literary Editions. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 150. Boston: Brill, 2012. Lipiński, Edward. “‫עם‬, ʿam.” In Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. 11, edited by G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, 163–177. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015. Luckenbill, Daniel David. Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, vol. 2, Historical Records of Assyria from Sargon to the End. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1927. –. The Annals of Sennacherib. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1924. Lust, Johan. “‫ אדני יהוה‬in Ezekiel and its Counterpart in the Old Greek.” Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses 76 (1996): 138–145. Lust, Johan, ed. Ezekiel and His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and their Interrelation. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 74. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1986. Lyons, Michael A. From Law to Prophecy: Ezekiel’s Use of the Holiness Code. Library of Hebrew Bible / ​Old Testament Studies 507. New York: T & T Clark, 2009.

280

John T. Strong

–. “Transformation of Law: Ezekiel’s Use of the Holiness Code (Leviticus 17–26).” In Transforming Visions: Transformations of Text, Tradition, and Theology in Ezekiel, edited by William A. Tooman and Michael A. Lyons, 1–32. Princeton Theological Monograph Series 127. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2010. Manning, Gary T., Jr. “Shepherd, Vine and Bones: The Use of Ezekiel in the Gospel of John.” In After Ezekiel: Essays on the Reception of a Difficult Prophet. Edited by Paul M. Joyce and Andrew Mein, 25–44. Library of Hebrew Bible / ​Old Testament Studies 535. New York: T & T Clark, 2011. Matthews, Victor H. “Making Your Point: The Use of Gestures in Ancient Israel.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 42 (2012): 18–29. Mayfield, Tyler D. Literary Structure and Setting in Ezekiel. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2/43. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. McBride, S. Dean, Jr. “Divine Protocol: Genesis 1:1–2:3 as Prologue to the Pentateuch.” In God Who Creates: Essays in Honor of W. Sibley Towner, edited by William P. Brown and S. Dean McBride, Jr., 3–41. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. McGregor, Leslie John. The Greek Text of Ezekiel: An Examination of Its Homogeneity. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 18. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985. McKenzie, John L. “Mythological Allusions in Ezek 28.12–18.” Journal of Biblical Literature 75 (1956): 322–327. Mein, Andrew. Ezekiel and the Ethics of Exile. Oxford Theological Monographs. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. Mettinger, Trygvve N. D. The Dethronement of Sabaoth: Studies in the Shem and Kabod Theologies. Translated by Frederick H. Cryer. Coniectanea Biblica, Old Testament Series 18. Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1982. –. The Eden Narrative: A Literary and Religio-historical Study of Genesis 2–3. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007. –. “YHWH SABAOTH – The Heavenly King on the Cherubim Throne.” In Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays, edited by Tomoo Ishida, 109–138. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1982. Milgrom, Jacob and Daniel I. Block, Ezekiel’s Hope: A Commentary on Ezekiel 38–48. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2012. Miller, James E. “The 30th Year of Ezek. 1.1.” Revue Biblique 99 (1992): 499–503. –. “The Mælæk of Tyre (Ezekiel 28,11–19).” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 105 (1993): 497–501. Morris, Ellen F. “Bowing and Scraping in the Ancient Near East: An Investigation into Obsequiousness in the Amarna Letters.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 65 (2006): 179–196. Moscati, Sabatino, Anton Spitaler, Edward Ullendorff, and Wolfram von Soden. An Introduction to the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages: Phonology and Morphology. Porta Linguarum Orientalium, neue serie 6. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1964. Nevader, Madhavi. “Creating a Deus Non Creator: Divine Sovereignty and Creation in Ezekiel.” In The God Ezekiel Creates, edited by Paul M. Joyce and Dalit Rom-Shiloni, 55–70. Library of Hebrew Bible / ​Old Testament Studies 607. New York: T & T Clark, 2015. Odell, Margaret S. Ezekiel. Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2005.

Cosmic Re-Creation and Ezekiel’s Vocabulary

281

–. “Genre and Persona in Ezekiel 24:15–24.” In The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives, edited by Maragaret S. Odell and John T. Strong, 195–219. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 9. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000. –. “The Inversion of Shame and Forgiveness in Ezekiel 16.59–63.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 56 (1992): 101–112. –. “You Are What You Eat: Ezekiel and the Scroll.” Journal of Biblical Literature 117 (1998): 229–248. Odell, Margaret S., and John T. Strong, eds. The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 9. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000. O’Hare, Daniel M. “Have You Seen, Son of Man?” A Study in the Translation and Vorlage of LXX of Ezekiel 40–48. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 57. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010. Ollenburger, Ben C. Zion, City of the Great King: A Theological Symbol of the Jerusalem Cult. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 41. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987. Paas, Stefan. Creation and Judgment: Creation Texts in Some Eighth Century Prophets. Oudtestamentische Studiën 47. Boston: Brill, 2003. Petersen, David L. “Creation and Hierarchy in Ezekiel: Methodological Perspectives and Theological Prospects.” In Ezekiel’s Hierarchical World: Wrestling with a Tiered Reality, edited by Stephen L. Cook and Corrine L. Patton, 169–178. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 31. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004. Pohlmann, Karl-Friedrich. Das Buch des Propheten Hesekiel (Ezechiel): Kapitel 1–19. Das Alte Testament Deutsch 22/1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. –. Das Buch des Propheten Hesekiel (Ezechiel): Kapitel 20–48. Das Alte Testament Deutsch 22/2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001. –. “Synchrone und diachrone Texterschlieβung im Ezechielbuch.” Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 1 [2012]: 261–269. Pope, Marvin. El in the Ugaritic Texts. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1955. Poser, Ruth. Das Ezechielbuch als Trauma-Literatur. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 154. Boston: Brill, 2012. Renz, Thomas. The Rhetorical Function of the Book of Ezekiel. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 74. Boston: Brill, 1999. –. “The Use of the Zion Tradition in the Book of Ezekiel.” In Zion, City of Our God, edited by Richard S. Hess and Gordon J. Wenham, 77–103. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Roberts, J. J. M. “The Davidic Origin of the Zion Tradition.” Journal of Biblical Literature 92 (1973): 329–344. –. “Solomon’s Jerusalem and the Zion Tradition.” In Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period, edited by Andrew G. Vaughn and Ann E. Killebrew, 163–70. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 18. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003. –. “Zion in the Theology of the Davidic-Solomonic Empire.” In Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays, edited by Tomoo Ishida, 93–108. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1982. –. “Zion Tradition.” In The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, supplementary vol., edited by Keith Crim, 985–987. Nashville: Abingdon, 1976.

282

John T. Strong

Rom-Shiloni, Dalit. Exclusive Inclusivity: Identity Conflicts between the Exiles and the People Who Remained (6th to 5th Centuries BCE). Library of Hebrew Bible / ​Old Testament Studies 543. New York: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2013. –. “Ezekiel and Jeremiah: What Might Stand Behind the Silence?” Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 1/2 (2012): 203–230. –. “Ezekiel as the Voice of the Exiles and Constructor of Exilic Ideology.” Hebrew Union College Annual 76 (2005): 1–45. Saur, Markus. “Ezekiel 26–28 and the History of Tyre.” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 24/2 (2010): 208–221. Schneider, Tammi J. An Introduction to Ancient Mesopotamian Religion. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011. Sedlmeier, Franz. Das Buch Ezechiel, Kapitel 1–24. Neuer Stuttgarter Kommentar, Altes Testament 21/2. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2002. –. Das Buch Ezechiel, Kapitel 25–48. Neuer Stuttgarter Kommentar Altes Testament 21/2. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2013. Seitz, Christopher. “Ezekiel 37:1–14.” Interpretation 42 (1992): 53–6. Simian, Horacio. Die theologische Nachgeschichte der Prophetie Ezechiels: Form‑ und traditionskritische Untersuchung zu Ez 6; 35; 36. Forschung zur Bibel 14. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1974. Sparks, Kenton L. Ancient Texts for the Study of the Hebrew Bible: A Guide to the Background Literature. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005. Stavrakopoulou, Francesca. “Gog’s Grave and the Use and Abuse of Corpses in Ezekiel 39:11–20.” Journal of Biblical Literature 129/1 (2010): 67–84. –. Land of Our Fathers: The Roles of Ancestor Veneration in Biblical Land Claims. Library of Hebrew Bible / ​Old Testament Studies 473. New York: T & T Clark, 2010. Stone, Michael E., Benjamin G. Wright and David Satran (eds.). The Apocryphal Ezekiel. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000 Stordalen, T. Echoes of Eden: Genesis 2–3 and Symbolism of the Eden Garden in Biblical Hebrew Literature. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 25. Leuven: Peeters, 2000. Strong, John T. “Egypt’s Shameful Death and the House of Israel’s Exodus from Sheol (Ezekiel 32.17–32 and 37.1–14).” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 34 (2010): 475–504. –. “Ezekiel’s Use of the Recognition Formula in his Oracles Against the Nations.” Perspectives in Religious Studies 22/2 (1995): 115–134. –. “The God that Ezekiel Inherited.” In The God Ezekiel Creates, edited by Paul M. Joyce and Dalit Rom-Shiloni, 24–54. Library of Hebrew Bible / ​Old Testament Studies 607. New York: T & T Clark, 2015. –. “God’s Kābôd: The Presence of Yahweh in the Book of Ezekiel.” In The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives, edited by Margaret S. Odell and John T. Strong, 69–95. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 9. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000. –. “Grounding Ezekiel’s Heavenly Ascent: A Defense of Ezek 40–48 as a Program for Restoration.” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament: An International Journal of Nordic Theology 26/2 (2012): 192–211. –. “In Defense of the Great King: Ezekiel’s Oracles against Tyre.” In Concerning the Nations: Essays on the Oracles Against the Nations in Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, edited

Cosmic Re-Creation and Ezekiel’s Vocabulary

283

by Andrew Mein, Else K. Holt, and Hyun Chul Paul Kim, 179–194. Library of Hebrew Bible / ​Old Testament Studies 612. New York: Bloomsbury, 2014. –. “Shattering the Image of God: A Response to Theodore Hiebert’s Interpretation of the Story of the Tower of Babel.” Journal of Biblical Literature 127/4 (2008): 625–634. –. “Verbal Forms of ‫ עמם‬in Ezekiel and Lamentations.” Biblica 88/4 (2007): 546–552. –. “Zion, Theology of.” In New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, vol. 4, edited by Willem A. VanGemeren, 1314–1321. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997. Suriano, Matthew J. “Death, Disinheritance, and Job’s Kinsman-Redeemer.” Journal of Biblical Literature 129/1 (2010): 49–67. Sweeney, Marvin A. “The Destruction of Jerusalem as Purification in Ezek 8–11.” In Form and Intertextuality in Prophetic and Apocalyptic Literature, 144–55. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2010. –. “The Ezekiel that G-d Creates.” In The God Ezekiel Creates, edited by Paul M. Joyce and Dalit Rom-Shiloni, 150–161. Library of Hebrew Bible / ​Old Testament Studies 607. New York: T & T Clark, 2015. –. “Ezekiel: Zadokite Priest and Visionary Prophet of the Exile.” In Form and Intertextuality in Prophetic and Apocalyptic Literature, 125–143. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2010. First published 2005 by Mohr Siebeck. Tooman, William A. “Covenant and Presence in the Composition and Theology of Ezekiel.” In Divine Presence and Absence in Exilic and Post-Exilic Judaism, edited by Nathan MacDonald and Izaak J. de Hulster, 151–182. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2/61. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. –. Gog of Magog: Reuse of Scripture and compositional Technique in Ezekiel 38–39 Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2/52. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. –. “Transformation of Israel’s Hope: The Reuse of Scripture in the Gog Oracles.” In Transforming Visions: Transformations of Text, Tradition, and Theology in Ezekiel, edited by Tooman and Lyons, 50–110. Princeton Theological Monograph Series 127. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2010. Tooman, William A., and Michael A. Lyons, eds. Transforming Visions: Transformations of Text, Tradition, and Theology in Ezekiel. Princeton Theological Monograph Series 127. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2010. Tuell, Steven S. “Divine Presence and Absence in Ezekiel’s Prophecy.” In The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives, edited by Margaret S. Odell and John T. Strong, 97–116. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 9. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000. –. “The Rivers of Paradise: Ezekiel 47:1–12 and Genesis 2:10–14.” In God Who Creates: Essays in Honor of W. Sibley Towner, edited by William P. Brown and S. Dean McBride, 171–189. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. –. Ezekiel. New International Biblical Commentary 15. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009. –. “Ezekiel 40–42 as Verbal Icon.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 58 (1996): 649–664. –. The Law of the Temple in Ezekiel 40–48. Harvard Semitic Monographs 49. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. Walton, John H. Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011. Westermann, Claus. Genesis 1–11: A Continental Commentary. Translated by John J. Scullion. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994. Wevers, John H. Ezekiel. New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969.

284

John T. Strong

Wildberger, Hans. Isaiah 1–12: A Continental Commentary. Translated by Thomas H. Trapp. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. –. Isaiah 13–27: A Continental Commentary. Translated by Thomas H. Trapp. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997. Wilson, Robert R. “The Death of the King of Tyre: The Editorial History of Ezekiel 28.” In Love and Death in the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of Marvin H. Pope, edited by John Marks and Robert Good, 211–218. Guilford, CT: Four Quarters, 1987. –. “An Interpretation of Ezekiel’s Dumbness.” Vetus Testamentum 22 (1972): 91–104. –. “Prophecy in Crisis.” Interpretation 38 (1984): 117–130. Wong, Ka Leung. “A Note on Ezekiel VIII 6.” Vetus Testamentum 51 (2001): 396–400. –. The Idea of Retribution in the Book of Ezekiel. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 87. Boston: Brill, 2001. Wright, J. Edward. The Apocryphal Ezekiel. Edited by Michael E. Stone, Benjamin G. Wright, David Satran. Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and Its Literature. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000. Yadin, Azzan. “‫ קול‬as Hypostasis in the Hebrew Bible.” Journal of Biblical Literature 122 (2003): 601–626. Zimmerli, Walther. Ezekiel 1. Translated by Ronald E. Clements. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. –. Ezekiel 2. Translated by James D. Martin. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. –. The Fiery Throne: The Prophets and Old Testament Theology. Edited by K. C. Hanson. Fortress Classics in Biblical Studies. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003. –. I Am Yahweh. Edited by Walter Brueggemann. Translated by Douglas W. Stott. Atlanta: John Knox, 1982. Zobel, Hans J. “‫צבאות‬, ṣeḇāʾôṯ.” In Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. 12, edited by G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, 215–232. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012.

The Conquest of the Land and Yahweh’s Honor before the Nations in Ezekiel John T. Strong In this study, I will explore a particular problem Ezekiel had regarding his prophecies about the coming restoration of the nation in the land. The priestturned-prophet sat in exile, in Babylon, far from the land given by Yahweh to the Israelites, seemingly counted among the cursed by his own people who remained back in Jerusalem and Judah. They were the ones, after all, who at that time were living on and were therefore in possession of the land, and who thus claimed all rights to it (Ezek 11.1–13; 33.21; and cf. Jer 27.11; 32.1–15; 42.10–12). What hope did the exiles have to ever again hold deed to a piece of their ancient ancestral land? And yet, despite such a bleak situation and in the face of the claims of those remaining in the land, Ezekiel referred to his compatriots in exile as the ‫ גאלה‬to whom Yahweh would give the land (11.14–21, especially v. 15).1 But upon what tradition could Ezekiel draw to legitimize the exiles’ redemption of their inheritance? Already in his youth, as an aspiring priest in the Jerusalem temple, perhaps destined to become the high priest, Ezekiel earnestly studied the ancient theological traditions of his day.2 Among those studied by the young Ezekiel would have been conquest traditions promoted most vigorously by Josiah’s court. In Deut 4.37b–38,3 for example, the Divine Warrior violently conquers the na1 The LXX of Ezek 11.15 reads αἰχμαλωσίας σου, “your fellow exiles,” a common translation of ‫גולה‬. The MT, however, should be maintained in this case. See, e. g., the discussions in Zimmerli (Ezekiel 1, trans. Ronald E. Clements, Herm [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979 (German edition dated 1969)], 229 and 261), and Allen (Ezekiel 1–19, WBC 28 [Dallas: Word, 1994], 28 and 163–4). 2 See Marvin A. Sweeney, “The Ezekiel that G-d Creates,” in The God Ezekiel Creates, eds. Paul Joyce and Dalit Rom-Shiloni; LHBOTS 607 (New York: T & T Clark, 2015), 150–1. 3 Commentators generally date Deut 4.1–40 to a late stage in the growth of the Deuteronomistic traditions. See, for example, Richard D. Nelson, Deuteronomy (OTL; Louisville: Westminster / ​John Knox, 2002), 60–3; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 5 (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 223–30 (“an epitome of Jewish liturgy formulated as a sermon,” 228). Nevertheless, these verses look back and liturgically rehearse (following Weinfeld, p. 229; “… the motifs in this oration … existed in a liturgical setting before the crystallization of this chapter”) the conquest traditions, and as such, they summarize for us the themes and theology inherent in the conquest traditions that Ezekiel would have learned.

286

John T. Strong

tions preceding Israel in the land, following his salvific deeds of the exodus: “He brought you out from Egypt before his face, by his great strength, and he drove out from before you nations greater and more powerful than you, in order to bring you to and to give to you their land as an inheritance, even unto this day.” These traditions, and others as well, indoctrinated Ezekiel into the belief that Israel was not the first nation to possess this land, and that its deed to the land did not go back to creation (cf. also Deut 32.7–14). Ezekiel learned as well that God acted for the sake of his own honor. The ancient Hebrews knew that Yahweh acted not because they were more righteous than their predecessors, nor because they themselves were powerful enough to demand a land of their own. Nor do the texts infer that Yahweh particularly felt compassion for the Hebrews on account of their oppression.4 Ultimately, the awesome acts of God were performed before the eyes of the people for the purpose of revealing his strength (Deut 4.34–35). Which god ever attempted to go and to take for himself a nation from the midst of a nation by trials, by signs and wonders and warfare, by a strong hand and an outstretched arm, and by great and fearsome deeds, such as all that Yahweh your God did in Egypt for you, before your eyes? You were shown (these things) in order to know that Yahweh is God, there is none except for him.

To Ezekiel was inculcated a conquest tradition that was thoroughly theocentric. In this essay, I argue that Ezekiel re-crafted the conquest traditions for the benefit of his own exilic setting. Ezekiel imagined a new, second conquest in his oracle against Edom in chapter 35, and it will become clear that, like the Deuteronomists, Ezekiel’s conquest was thoroughly theocentric. Ultimately, by means of conquest, Ezekiel prophesied Yahweh’s march into the land for the sake of his honor.

1. The Theological Framework of Israel’s First Conquest Ancient Israel made no moral argument for the purgation of the prior nations from the land, and it seems not to have required a justification for its right to possess the land.5 Quite sufficient, it would seem, was the explanation found simply in Yahweh’s election of and covenant with the nation’s ancestors (e. g., Gen 15.1–21; 17.7–8; Exod 6.7; 34.10–11; Lev 26.12; Deut 29.1; 32.8–9). 4 The reference in Deut 4.37 to Yahweh’s “love” (‫ )אהב‬refers to Yahweh’s covenant with Israel’s ancestors, and the patriarchal traditions. As is commonly noted in the commentaries, ‫ אהב‬is a covenantal term, the context of which are Neo-Assyrian vassal treaties. See Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 338, 351–2; Nelson, Deuteronomy, 91; and Gerhard Wallis, “‫אהב‬, ʾāhabh,” TDOT I: 115–16. 5 In light of the emotionally charged political issues currently surrounding the modern state of Israel, I want explicitly to distance my discussion in this essay from any argument regarding any particular group’s claims on the land.

The Conquest of the Land and Yahweh’s Honor before the Nations in Ezekiel

287

Gerhard von Rad began his decipherment of the Hexateuchal traditions with his analysis of Deut 26.5–9, his “Little Credo,” which expressed the ancient Israelite’s confession at the Festival of Weeks.6 Leaving aside his dating and traditionhistorical deductions drawn from his form-critical conclusions about this credo,7 the passage bears witness to Israel’s beliefs about its conquest of a land that was not its own, beliefs that never supply any justification for its possession of it.8 Verses 6–7 recall the weakness of the people and the might of Yahweh, attributing the blessings of a bountiful harvest that they now enjoy in the land to Yahweh. While one could perhaps perceive a glimmer of grace, mercy, and divine empathy in Yahweh’s response to the cry of his people oppressed in Egypt, they cry to Yahweh simply because of his role as the God of their ancestors, their protector, which much more implies a covenantal obligation.9 Within the Hebrew Bible are found lists of nations who are remembered as having first lived in the land prior to Israel.10 These lists are at once formulaic, yet varied in the particular nations named in these lists, as well as the length and arrangement of the nations.11 For my purposes, however, I note only that the lists essentially emphasize that these nations were mightier and more numerous than Israel, the point being ultimately to honor Yahweh as Israel’s mighty Divine Warrior (cf. Deut 20.1–9; Judg 7.2–7). Never do they suggest a moral failing on the part of the previous nations, causing Yahweh to drive them from the land and hope for better luck with Israel. Perhaps the list in Deut 7.1–2 sufficiently   6 “The Form-Critical Problem of the Hexateuch,” in The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (trans. E. W. Trueman Dicken; London: SCM, 1966; [original German publication, 1938]), 1–78; for the connection of the Credo with the Festival of Weeks, see 41–48, especially 42–3.   7 See, for example, Nelson’s brief summary, and the bibliography he cites, in Deuteronomy, 308, note 2. He states: “It is still possible to speak of a ‘short historical credo,’ but only as a Deuteronomic theological summary.”   8 Note von Rad’s comments (41): “… the settlement tradition commemorates [God’s] guidance and redemptive activity. … The tradition of the settlement takes an accepted historical instance of God’s saving purpose and validates it as an article of faith.”  9  In a subsequent essay, von Rad argued that Yahweh’s covenant with the ancestors was an early, older element of the Hexateuchal outline, which the Yahwist had at hand. It was not evident, he points out, in the confession found in Deut 26.5–9. See “The Promised Land and Yahweh’s Land in the Hexateuch,” in The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (original German publication, 1943), 82–3. 10 See Gen 15.18–21; Exod 3.8, 17; 13.5; 23.23, 28; 33.2; 34.11; Deut 7.1; 20.17; Josh 3.10; 9.1; 12.8; 24.11; Judg 3.5; 1 Kings 9.20; Ezra 9.1; Neh 9.8; 2 Chr 8.7. 11 See the study by Tomoo Ishida, “The Structure and Historical Implications of the Lists of Pre-Israelite Nations,” Bib 60 (1979): 461–90; and note especially Table I, 461–2. In his introductory remarks, Ishida summarizes the situation: “Although it is explicitly stated in Deut. 7,1 that they were ‘seven nations’, the number in the various lists actually ranges from two to twelve. Moreover, the order of the entries in one list is so different from that in another that it looks as though the listings of the nations were made incidentally” (462; and see the bibliography he supplies in note 1). Ishida’s study valiantly attempts to explain the apparent random nature of the lists, but I am not finally convinced by his conclusions.

288

John T. Strong

illustrates my point. As Christensen has described it, the list has a ritualistic feel.12 In regard to a motive, verses 7–9 state specifically that Yahweh did not elect Israel because they were numerous, but acted only because of his covenant with Israel’s forebears (“because of Yahweh’s love for your ancestors, he kept his oath …”; “know that Yahweh, your God, is God …, who keeps covenant loyalty” [‫הברית‬ ‫)]והחסד‬.13 Similarly, Exod 23.20–33 ties Yahweh’s destruction of the nations solely to his covenant loyalty to Israel: “I will oppose your enemies,14 and become a foe to your foes” (v. 23.22). In the reprise in Exod 33.1–3, the text takes up again – after Israel’s folly with the golden calf (Exod 32) – the subject of Israel’s possession of the land, which necessitates the expulsion of the nations. In none of these passages is a reason for the nations’ expulsion given other than the fact that land was covenanted to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (v. 33.1). Hence, in these passages, Yahweh’s covenant alone motivates, either explicitly or implicitly, both Yahweh’s deliverance of the Hebrews from oppression in Egypt, as well as his assault on the nations who inhabited the inheritance promised to Israel. Also, a point subsequent and subordinated to the first point, Yahweh will clear away the other nations in order to prevent apostasy on the part of his covenanted people (cf., Exod 23.32–33; 34.12–16; Deut 7.2–6; 20.15–18). Moshe Weinfeld has argued that the nature of the covenant with Abraham is that of a “land grant,” seen broadly in the ancient Near East, in which a king grants a parcel of land to a subject for loyalty and faithful service.15 Weinfeld argues that such grants were “motivated by loyal service” to the suzerain, stating: “The grant par excellence is an act of royal benevolence arising from the king’s desire to reward his loyal servant. It is no wonder, then, that the gift of the land to Abraham and the assurance of dynasty to David were formulated in the style of the grants to outstanding servants.”16 I fundamentally agree with Weinfeld to the extent that he recites the parallel expressions and language found in both ancient Near Eastern land grants and the Biblical texts, but I want to nuance some of his comments regarding the motiva12  Duane Christensen identifies this list as Deuteronomic, traditional in nature, and used as something of a roll call within a ritualistic conquest of the land (“Nations,” in ABD IV: 1038; and idem, Deuteronomy 1–11, WBC 6a [Dallas: Word, 1991], 157, and his excursus, “Holy War as Celebrated Event in Ancient Israel,” 45–7). Similarly, A. D. H. Mayes (Deuteronomy, NCBC [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979], 182) understands the function of the stereotyped nature of this list to communicate the totality of the nations and Israel’s complete control over the land. 13 See the comments on this verse in A. D. H. Mayes, Deuteronomy, 186; Christensen, Deuteronomy 1–11, 159; and Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 369, and see note 4, above. 14 I must call attention to the Hebrew of v. 22bα, ‫ואיבתי את־איביך‬, a clause built from the root ‫איב‬. Later in this paper, I will discuss Ezekiel’s use of this root in his oracles in chapters 35 and 36. 15 Moshe Weinfeld, “Covenant Aspect of the Promise of the Land to Israel,” in The Promise of the Land: The Inheritance of the Land of Canaan by the Israelites (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), 222–64. Weinfeld distinguishes this type of covenant from the vassal treaty in that it is designed mainly to protect the rights of the servant (224). 16 Ibid. 236, and also 228.

The Conquest of the Land and Yahweh’s Honor before the Nations in Ezekiel

289

tions behind the granting of land. In regard to Abraham, Weinfeld analyzes Gen 15 as God, the suzerain, granting land to Abraham.17 His analysis succeeds in explaining the various components of the accompanying ritual, e. g., splitting of an animal in two and a torch passing in the middle (vv. 17).18 But Weinfeld never specifies Abraham’s great act of loyalty by which he won Yahweh’s grant. He does cite Gen 17.1 as evidence of Yahweh rewarding Abraham’s loyalty, but the verb in this verse is an HtD imperative (‫התהלך לפני‬, “walk before me”), calling for future obedience; it is not a reward for past obedience.19 As far as the present text tells the story of Abraham’s life, he had accomplished no heroic deed of loyalty that benefitted Yahweh,20 and thus, he had done nothing to warrant Yahweh’s gift of land. Indeed, Yahweh’s assurance of land in Gen 15 was grounded in his election of Abraham in Gen 11.27–32; and 12.1–3. In sum, the conquest traditions remain void of any motivation other than Yahweh’s covenant with Israel and its forbearers. Second, alongside Yahweh’s covenantal loyalty as the motivation for his removal of the nations, the conquest traditions depict Yahweh as ultimately being honored as a mighty warrior when he destroys the nations (cf. Exod 3.20; 23.20, 27–30; 34.10; Josh 3.5, 7–14; 24.2–14). For this reason, Deut 20.1–9 institutes policies that intentionally whittle down the size of Israel’s army. In the narrative written to reflect the basic principle, Judg 7.1–8, states the motivation explicitly: “The troops with you are too many for me to give the Midianites into their hand. Israel would only take the credit away from me, saying, ‘My own hand has delivered me.’” It will be seen that these two themes, covenant loyalty and Yahweh’s honor, also motived Ezekiel’s vision of a new conquest. Before leaving this survey, I must dispel further any notion that Yahweh’s removal of the peoples who previously lived in the land was in any way motivated by their sin or idolatry. Ancient Israel entertained itself with no such morality play. In this regard, I want to address two texts from the Holiness Code, Lev 18.24–30 and 20.22–26,21 as well as Deut 18.9–14, all of which cite the abomina Ibid. 251–61. 252–58. 19 Ibid. 230. Weinfeld also cites Gen 26.4–5. This text, however, recalls the covenant with Abraham, and does not narrate a new covenant. Indeed, at the point in the story of Gen 17, Yahweh had not given any commandments or statutes or laws for Abraham to follow, for which Yahweh would reward him with a grant of land. Perhaps the Apostle Paul had a point (cf. Gal 3.15–18). 20 Abram / ​Abraham’s battle against the coalition of kings in Gen 14.1–16 rescued his nephew Lot. As a result, Abraham won new found riches, much of which he gave to Melchizekek (vv. 17–24), yet he did not win any gains for Yahweh’s estate. 21 Michael Lyons has argued persuasively that the Holiness Code served as an authoritative text for Ezekiel (From Law to Prophecy: Ezekiel’s Use of the Holiness Code, LHBOTS 507 [New York: T & T Clark, 2009], 111–13, 155–8; and see also Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 46–52; and Wong, The Idea of Retribution in the Book of Ezekiel, VTSup 87 [Boston: Brill, 2001], 79–87). As such, these passages are of vital importance to this discussion of Ezekiel. 17

18 Ibid.

290

John T. Strong

tions of the nations who were previously in the land. Lev 18.24–25 states: “Do not defile yourselves in any of these things, for in all of these matters the nations, whom I sent out from before you, defiled themselves. The land was defiled and I observed22 its [= the land’s] iniquities upon it [= the land], and the land vomited out its inhabitants.” The text goes on to say that if Israel were to defile the land as did the preceding nations, the land would spew it out as well (v. 28). Similarly, Lev 20:23 reads: “You shall not walk in the ordinances of the nations whom I sent out from before you, for all of these things they did, and I made an end of them.” Certain considerations, however, militate against reading these texts as the cause for Yahweh actively removing them from the land. Beginning with Lev 18.24–25, the language in this text portrays a mechanical expulsion of the nations out of the land, not an active retributive justice taken by Yahweh.23 Stated more simply, the personified land vomited out the nations, as opposed to Yahweh punishing them for their sin.24 Syntactically, the land sits as the subject of the Nstem form of ‫( טמא‬v. 25), meaning that it was the party offended by the nations’ licentious behavior. As the injured party, the land expelled the nations, although even here, the verb used (‫“ ;קיא‬to vomit”) denotes an involuntary reflex of the body’s digestive system, the natural course of ridding itself of a bad case of food poisoning. In Lev 18.25, Yahweh’s role was to take note (‫ )פקד‬of the iniquity

22 According to HALOT (955–6), the basic meanings of the verb ‫ פקד‬could be either “to observe something examinable,” or “to seek out” or “to visit.” I have tried to reflect the former sense in my translation here. In contrast, see the NRSV (“I punished it for its iniquity”) and the Einheits Übersetzung (“ich habe an ihm seine Schuld geahndet”). The NJPS translation took more of a middle course (“I called it to account for its iniquity”; cf, HALOT II: 956, definition 5c). 23 I am drawing upon the language used by Ka Leung Wong, in his review and discussion of retributive justice in The Idea of Retribution in the Book of Ezekiel, 1–30. Wong reviews scholarly opinions, which hold that in the Hebrew Bible punishment is wrapped up with sin, so that the fate of Israel follows mechanically from its actions. In this view, exile was not the result of God’s active judgment, but rather it was inherent in Israel’s behavior, and God played a passive role in Israel’s fate. Wong argues that Ezekiel, quite to the contrary, argued for Yahweh’s active role in the punishment of Israel. Of interest in this regard, according to my view, the Holiness Code does indeed view the fate of the nations as a natural consequence of their actions, with only the land playing an active role, yet still not one of judgment, but rather of involuntary expectoration due to “poisoning.” With regard to the nations, the Holiness Code does not portray Yahweh as playing the active role of a judge. In regard to the land, Wong argues that the exile was Yahweh’s method of purifying the land by removing the defiling agent, the people. See Retribution, 121–32; and 178–93. 24 See the comments of Jan Joosten, People and Land in the Holiness Code, VTSup 67 (New York: Brill, 1996), 152–4. Brad Kelle has argued that Ezekiel, in his oracle against the mountains of Israel (Ezek 6), took judgment speech to a new level by accusing the land of sinning, and then prophesying the punishment of the land (“Dealing with the Trauma of Defeat: The Rhetoric of the Devastation and Rejuvenation of Nature in Ezekiel,” JBL 128/3 [2009]: 469–490). Leviticus 18.24–30, however, provides evidence that the concept of the personified land was a part of the priestly vernacular in Ezekiel’s time.

The Conquest of the Land and Yahweh’s Honor before the Nations in Ezekiel

291

(‫ )עון‬upon the land.25 Granted, Lev 18.24 and 20.23 give Yahweh an active role in sending out the nations, but in both of these texts, the prepositional phrase “from before you” (‫ )מפניכם‬limits Yahweh’s actions. The texts do not here say that they were sent away because they committed abominations on the land, but rather only that Yahweh removed them from before his people, which, as noted above, is a corollary to Yahweh’s covenant with Israel, and associated with the concept of Yahweh as Israel’s Divine Warrior (cf. Exod 23.32–33; 34.12, 15; Deut 7.2–6). Contextually, these texts do not deal with Israel’s conquest of the land or with Yahweh’s removal of these nations for the purpose of establishing Israel as his people. Instead, the point of Lev 18 and 20 is to dissuade Israel from engaging in certain defiling practices, which are mainly sexual and religious in nature.26 The statement in vv. 24–25 that the land vomited out the previous inhabitants really just elaborates on 18.3, “Like the practices of the land of Canaan, whence I am bringing you, you shall not do. Their ordinances you shall not follow,” and the logical consequence of the initial, covenantal affirmation “I am Yahweh, your God” (v. 2b).27 These prohibitions do not justify Israel’s acquisition of the land. As seen above, Israel apparently required none. Rather, these statements define the indigenous nations as “other,” and set their customs in contrast to Yahweh’s ordinances and statues.28 As such, these statements function rhetorically as ethnic markers. It is interesting to note as well that in no other context does the Holiness Code state that the land vomited out the other nations. No vile practices of nations are mentioned in regard to the possible pollution of the land by mishandling blood (Lev 17.10–16). Nor does Lev 19.31, a prohibition against ancestor worship, state that this practice by Israel’s predecessors resulted in their being expectorated by the land, even though such a connection is made in 20.6. Perhaps surprisingly, 25 Milgrom comments: “God’s intervention is automatic; it is as though he had no choice.” Leviticus 17–22: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 1580. 26 The aberrant practices circumscribed include adultery (20.10) and incestuous relationships (18.6–18; 20.11–12, 17), as well as prohibitions against various other sexual practices (18.19–23; 20.13–16, 18–21), sacrificing children to Molech (18.21; 20.1b–5), and ancestor worship (20.6). The principles organizing these materials are not obvious. Milgrom suggests that the overriding issue involves “the emission of semen for the purpose of copulation, resulting in either incest and illicit progeny or, as in (the case of sexual relations between men), lack of progeny (or its destruction in the case of Molek worship, v. 21)” (Leviticus 17–22: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 3A [New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000], 1567). 27 See the discussions of Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1517–17; and Gordon J. Wenham, Leviticus, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 250–1. 28 Similarly, Erhard S. Gerstenberger, Leviticus, trans. Douglas W. Stott; OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 255. Gerstenberger (256–7) makes a very valid point, that the sexual mores seen in the Holiness Code did not differ in any significant way from those of other nations in the ancient Near East. See also Milgrom Leviticus 17–22, 1520 (citing D. Nussbaum, “The Priestly Explanation of Exile and Its Bearing upon the Portrayal of the Canaanites in the Bible,” [Master’s thesis, University of Pennsylvania, 1974], 90–115).

292

John T. Strong

the Holiness Code’s requirement that the land enjoy a Sabbatical rest every seventh year (Lev 25.1–7) has no basis on past misuse of the land by the previous caretakers. Coupled with the observation noted above that the other nations’ laws and mores did not differ significantly from the normative ideals specified here for Israel, the statements about the former nations’ abominable practices take on the appearance of rhetorical flourishes. The previous nations’ engagement in these social taboos serves as a foil against which Israel’s ideal of sexual practices and a specific set of religious rituals can be seen in all of its purity. Turning now to the Deuteronomic tradition, which may have been roughly contemporary with the Holiness Code,29 a similar expression is found in Deut 18.12: “For abhorrent to Yahweh are all who are doing these acts. On account of these abominations, Yahweh is driving them out from before you.” Again, a close reading acknowledges that the text makes no mention of the nations being driven out from the land, or of Yahweh giving the land to Israel because of the sin of the other nations. Instead, the prepositional phrase ‫מפניך‬, “from before you,” states clearly that the nations are being driven out from before Israel, the people. The next sentence (Deut 18.13) clarifies the concern, namely: the nations’ practices could lead Israel into infidelity toward Yahweh. True enough, v. 14 states that Israel will dispossess the other nations of the land, thereby implying the conquest, the issue nevertheless remains soothsaying, necromancy, and aberrant divination practices (cf. the context of vv. 9–22). The issue here in Deut 18.9–14 is the same as that seen throughout the Deuteronomistic corpus, and that also seen in the Lev 18.3, 24–25; 20.23, that is to say, the danger of other nations leading Israel astray from faithful obedience to Yahweh. In this sense, Deuteronomy is following the same strategy seen in the Holiness Code. It opposes Yahweh’s commands to Israel once they are living in the land over against the practices of the other nations (cf., v. 9), and hence the rhetoric in v. 12 functions similarly as an ethnic marker. My concern in this section is to understand the theological traditions that Ezekiel inherited, carried with him into exile, and on which he based his theological interpretation of his current situation and hope for the future. This conquest tradition studied by Ezekiel based Israel’s claim on the land on Yahweh’s covenant with Israel, and it included affirmations that Yahweh as the Divine Warrior had cast out the inhabitants of the land, obtaining for himself honor. And while accusations of abominable practices added a rhetorical flourish to these traditions, Yahweh’s election of his people always served as the reason for his grant of the 29 I date the laws now found in Deut 12–26 to the end of the seventh, beginning of the sixth century bce. For discussions of this dating, see Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy, JPS Torah (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996), xix–xxiv; Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972), 158–71, especially 164; Mayes, Deuteronomy, 85–103; Nelson, Deuteronomy, 4–9; and the bibliography referenced therein.

The Conquest of the Land and Yahweh’s Honor before the Nations in Ezekiel

293

land to Israel. Ultimately, as celebrated in the Song of Moses (Deut 32.7–14),30 Israel possessed the land because it was so ordained in the divine realm.31 Finally, Weinfeld argued in regard to Yahweh’s land-grant to Israel that his grant to Israel was permanent, citing Lev 26.44–45 as evidence: “Even when they are in the land of their enemies I will not reject them or spurn them so as to destroy them, violating my covenant with them. I will remember in their favor the covenant with the ancients.”32 This element as well Ezekiel inherited as an authoritative tradition that shaped his theological interpretation of the exile, since for Ezekiel his exilic comrades had become Yahweh’s elect.33 With these traditions in hand, Ezekiel turned after Jerusalem’s fateful destruction in 587/6 to prophecies of restoration, and in the ensuing discussion, I hope to be able to faithfully follow how these traditions shaped his prophecies of hope to his community in exile.

2. The Historical Situation Facing Ezekiel Ancient Israel’s conquest traditions were necessary for Ezekiel’s announcements to the exiles regarding their return to the land because he knew that the land was already occupied.34 In the main, these inhabitants were those Judahites and 30 Although a redactional addition to Deuteronomy, I subscribe to the view that the Song of Moses was early, and had a long history of use in Israel’s cultic and ritual celebrations. For discussions of the composition and dating of this poem, see David A. Robertson, Linguistic Evidence in Dating Early Hebrew Poetry, SBLDS 3 (Missoula, Mont.: Society of Biblical Literature, 1976), 153–6, proposing an absolute date of eleventh to the tenth centuries bce, 155; Mark Leuchter, “Why Is the Song of Moses in the Book of Deuteronomy?” VT 57 (2007): 295–317; and Matthew Thiessen, “The Form and Function of the Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32:1–43),” JBL 123 (2004): 401–24. 31 In this regard, see Daniel Block’s discussion of the “Deity-Nation” relationship, in The Gods of the Nations: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern National Theology, Evangelical Theological Society Monograph Series No. 2 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1988), 1–23; and my discussion of his thesis earlier in this volume, pp. XX–XX. 32 The translation of Lev 26.44–45 is by Weinfeld. See “Covenant Aspect of the Promise of the Land to Israel,” 250–1. 33 See Dalit Rom-Shiloni, Exclusive Inclusivity: Identity Conflicts between the Exiles and the People Who Remained (6th to 5th Centuries bce), LHBOTS 543 (New York: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2013), 139–97; idem, “Ezekiel as the Voice of the Exiles and Constructor of Exilic Ideology,” HUCA 76 (2005): 1–45; and my discussion of ‫בית־ישראל‬, above, pp. XX–XX. 34 See Blenkinsopp’s statement: “The myth of the empty land is therefore the creation of the Judaeo-Babylonian immigrant community which achieved social, economic and religious dominance in Judah during the first century of the Iranian rule. The idea that these diaspora Jews returned to a land emptied of inhabitants by the Babylonians had the advantage of obviating embarrassing questions of legal ownership of real estate” (“The Bible, Archaeology and Politics; or The Empty Land Revisited,” JSOT 27/2 (2002): 177. The general picture that emerges from the archaeological record presents a decimated central urban center, Jerusalem (but see Blenkinsopp’s caution on 184), with the population was left in the rural hinterland, where agricultural production was allowed to continue, presumably with Babylon as the beneficiary (cf. Lipschits, cited below). In additional to Blenkinsopp’s article, see the discussions and further bibliography

Itzhaq Beit-Arieh, Tel ʿIra: A Stronghold in the Biblical Negev. Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology 15 (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1999), 4, fig. 1.2.

294 John T. Strong

The Conquest of the Land and Yahweh’s Honor before the Nations in Ezekiel

295

Jerusalemites who were left, and who had already staked their claim (cf., Ezek 11.15; 33.24), a claim that Ezekiel had to refute (cf., Ezek 11.17–21; 33.25–29). Dalit Rom-Shiloni and other commentators have already dealt with this claim, arguing persuasively in my view that Ezekiel must be credited with privileging the Babylonian exilic community over those remaining in the land.35 However, several Biblical texts indicate that Edom also encroached on traditional Judahite territory, and in this act took onto themselves the mantle of the “Canaanites” and other traditional enemies who had possessed the land in Israel’s conquest traditions. In a most disturbing statement, Psalm 137.7 reads: “Remember, O Yahweh, the sons of Edom at the time of the Day of Jerusalem. They were the ones saying: “Lay bare! Lay bare – even unto its foundations!”36 Such sentiments of vengeance found in the Bible have been generally taken seriously as evidence of Edom’s complicity in the fall of Jerusalem, with some dubbing these diatribes as the product of a “Damn Edom Theology.”37 This line of argumentation has cited in support ostraca from Arad, one of which reads: … from Arad five and from Qinah […] and send them to Ramat-negeb under Malkiyahu son of Qerabur. He is to hand them over to Elisha son of Yirmeyahu at Ramat-negeb lest anything happen to the city. This is an order from the king – a life-and-death matter for you. I send (this message) to warn you now: The(se) men (must be) with Elisha lest (the) Edom(ites) (should) enter there.38

In the 1970s and 1980s, John Bartlett reacted against this description.39 He argued that there lacked archaeological evidence to support an aggressive Edomite in Hans. M. Barstad, The Myth of the Empty Land: A Study in the History and Archaeology of Judah During the ‘Exilic’ Period, Symbolae Osloenses Sup XXVIII (Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1996), see especially 47–55; and 67–74 regarding Babylon’s economic interests in Judah; Ephraim Stern, ‘The Babylonian Gap: The Archaeological Reality,” JSOT 28/3 (2004): 273–77; Oded Lipschits, “The Rural Settlement in Judah in the Sixth Century BCE: A Rejoinder,” PEQ 136/2 (2004): 99–107; Ehud Ben Zvi and Christoph Levin (ed.), The Concept of Exile in Ancient Israel and its Historical Contexts, BZAW 404 (New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2010); Avraham Faust, Judah in the Neo-Babylonian Period: The Archaeology of Desolation, SBLABS 18 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010). 35  See her discussion in Exclusive Inclusivity, 139–97. To be clear, the myth of the empty land as a means of claiming rights to the real estate of Palestine was a later development, one used by the returnees at a temporal distance from the facts of the exilic period. See Rom-Shiloni’s discussion of the strategies used by Zechariah (Exclusive Inclusivity, 49–61; particularly 52–3). 36 For other condemnations of Edom outside of Ezekiel, see Isa 34.5–7; Lam 4.21–22; Jer 49.7–22; Amos 1.11–12; Obadiah; and Mal 1.2–5. 37 See Bruce C. Cresson, “The Condemnation of Edom in Postexilic Judaism,” in The Use of the Old Testament in the New and Other Essays: Studies in Honor of William Franklin Stinespring, ed. James M. Efird (Durham, N. C.: Duke University Press; 1972), 125–48. 38 The translation is that of Dennis Pardee (COS 3.43K, 84–5). According to Aharoni, Ostracon 24 was found on the western slope of the tel, and was dated to the end of the seventh or the beginning of the sixth century, based on the paleography (Arad Inscriptions [Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1981], 46). 39 John R. Bartlett, “Edom and the Fall of Jerusalem, 587 b.c.,” PEQ 114 (1982): 13–24; idem, Edom and the Edomites, JSOTSup 77 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), 147–62.

296

John T. Strong

military incursion into land traditionally controlled by Judah, and instead he supposed a borderless territory in which a common heritage was shared between Judahites and Edomites. Prophetic and other Biblical texts, then, were formulaic, reflecting a theological prejudice stemming from Edom’s successful rebellion from vassalage to the Davidic dynasty during the monarchic period.40 As a result, Bartlett concluded: “… Edom played no direct part in the events of 587 bce. The only firm evidence suggests that some Judaean refugees found sanctuary in Edom. For the destruction of Jerusalem and Judah in 587 bce Edom cannot be held responsible.”41 If a lack of archaeological evidence in the seventies and eighties caused Bartlett to doubt the Biblical texts and to posit a more passive role for Edom in the early sixth century, then the work of archaeologists in the eighties and nineties, especially that of Itzhaq Beit-Arieh, might cause another re-evaluation of the evidence.42 Indeed, Beit-Arieh has since confronted Bartlett’s conclusion, arguing on the basis of the archaeological evidence that Edom engaged in a military invasion of the northeastern Negev,43 territory traditionally controlled by Judah, in order to expand its trade routes to the coast (see the map of the Arad-Beersheba Valley). While much of my discussion in this section of the essay will focus on the excavations of Beit-Arieh, I begin with the excavation of ʿEn Ḥaṣeva by Rudolf Cohen. ʿEn Ḥaṣeva sits in the Arabah, roughly twenty miles south of the Dead Sea, on a hill adjacent to the Nahal Ḥaṣeva – in other words, on a natural geographical divide between ancient Edom and Judah’s southern Negev region.44 The excavators unearthed a series of five successive fortresses or enclosed structures of variand the Edomites, 156. 157. 42 In 1999, Beit-Arieh wrote: “The Arad – Beersheba valley (the eastern biblical Negev) is possibly one of the most thoroughly archaeologically researched regions of Israel” (Tel ʿIra: A Stronghold in the Biblical Negev, Tel Aviv University / ​Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 15 [Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology, 1999], 1). 43 The modern term, “Negev” (with a “v”), denotes all of the desert region in southern Israel, that area roughly south of the line stretching east to west from the southern tip of the Dead Sea and across the southern boundary of the Shephelah. The ancient term, “Negeb” (with a “b”), is confined to the northeastern part of this region, roughly defined as the Arad-Beersheba valley. In this essay, I may refer to the area identified in the map of the Arad-Beersheba Valley as the “northeastern Negev,” that is to say, a particular area – the Arad-Beersheba valley – in order to circumscribe a certain area in the modern desert region in southern Israel. Or, I may simply state, “Negeb,” using the ancient term for this same region. In this way, I will follow the terminology used by Finkelstein, “Ḥȯrvat Qiṭmīt and the Southern Trade in the Late Iron Age II,” Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins (1953–) 108 (1992): 156, note 1. 44 Cohen and others have identified this site with Biblical Tamar and Roman Tamara, though since no ancient “Welcome to Tamar” signpost has been unearthed, this identification carries all of the tenuousness of most identifications. See Rudolph Cohen, “The Fortresses at ʿEn Ḥaṣeva,” BA 57/4 (1994): 212 and 204; and idem, “Ḥaṣeva, Meẓad” in NEAEHL 2:593. 40 Edom 41 Ibid.,

The Conquest of the Land and Yahweh’s Honor before the Nations in Ezekiel

297

ous sizes, dating to differing time periods, beginning with Solomonic (stratum 6), a ninth-eighth century fortress – the largest (stratum 5), a small fortress with a shrine by the eastern gate, dating to the end of the seventh-beginning of the sixth centuries (stratum 4), a Nabataean Caravanserai (stratum 3), and the Roman era fortress (strata 2a–2b). The differences between the strata 5 and 4 structures attracts my interest in this essay. The stratum 5 fortress was a large structure, covering approximately one hectare, with a solid outer inset-offset wall, as well as casemate rooms. The size of the fortress exceeds that of walled southern Judahite fortresses, such as Arad and Ḥorvat ʿUza, and rivals the fortress city of Beersheba.45 The pottery sample is small, but Cohen dated the Stratum 5 fortress to the ninth-eighth / ​seventh centuries bce, and links this fortress to the conflicts between Judah and Edom in that period.46 Cohen concluded that this fortress’s similar structure to other walled in fortresses such as Arad, Ḥorvat ʿUza, and Tell El-Kheleifeh, as well as its strategic position, define it as a border fortress guarding Judah’s eastern border shared with Edom.47 In contrast, the stratum 4 fortress was significantly smaller, with walls only 36 meters in length, as opposed to stratum 5’s walls of 100 meters, and most curiously, an Edomite cult site had been constructed beside the gate of the eastern wall. The remains of the cult site provide evidence of a small U-shaped structure (ca. 6.5 × 2.5 meters). What identifies it as Edomite, however, was an assemblage of 67 clay objects and 7 stone altars of varying size, which were found in an adjacent pit. These objects were deliberately placed in the pit, which the excavators correctly interpreted, I believe, as a favissa, then smashed with large ashlar stones, as evidenced by the fact that every shard of every item was recovered and each vessel could be fully restored.48 In addition, a seal bearing an Edomite inscription depicts a priest officiating before a deity in front of a horned altar.49 These objects, several of which were anthropomorphic, resemble objects found at Ḥorvat, which Beit-Arieh has also identified as an Edomite Shrine (see the discussion below), led Cohen to conclude that this structure, too, was an Edomite cult site.50 Cohen dates the stratum 4 structure and the pottery assemblage to the end of the seventh-beginning of the sixth centuries.51 Cohen suggests that the cult site may 45 See

Cohen, “Fortresses,” 211; and idem, “Iron Age Fortresses at ʿEn Ḥaṣeva,” 230–1. “Fortresses,” 211; and “Iron Age Fortresses at ʿEn Ḥaṣeva,” 230–1. 47 Ibid., 211–13. 48 Cohen, “Iron Age Fortresses at ʿEn Ḥaṣeva,” 224, 226, and 228. 49 Ibid., 224. 50 Ibid., 224–5; and see the color photos in Rudolf Cohen and Yigal Yisrael, “Smashing the Idols: Piecing together an Edomite shrine in Judah,” BARev, 22/4 (July / ​August 1996): 40–51. The clay objects consisted of cult stands of various styles, some with figures in relief, three anthropomorphic, several fenestrated, and others were cylindrical. Cohen interpreted the humanoid stands as representations of worshippers presenting offerings, not as representations of the deities (225). 51 Cohen, “Iron Age Fortresses at ʿEn Ḥaṣeva,” 225. 46 Cohen,

298

John T. Strong

have been set up during Manasseh’s reign, and represented a form of popular religion later deemed to be heterodox.52 The fortress, according to Cohen, was built by Josiah, “either prior to or after destroying the shrine and its vessels.”53 This reconstruction raises several questions and problems in my mind. First, the figurines and altars in the favissa had an exclusively Edomite character, and did not include items characterizing Judahite popular religion, such as Judahite pillar figurines or horse-and-sun-disc figures, found in Jerusalem. Blomquist has suggested that a possible bull-stele found there presented Qaus as a weather deity.54 Second, the cultic figures, incense stands, and altars were placed in a favissa and covered over, suggesting a respectful decommissioning, not a profanation, as was narrated in regard to Bethel (2 Kgs 23.15–20), and implied by the treatment of the four-horned that was scattered about Beersheba.55 Third, the shrine lay a mere 50 feet from the stratum 4 fortress, making it difficult to imagine that they were not contemporaries, especially in light of the fact that the stratum 4 fortress was a replacement – not a refurbishing, of the Judahite stratum 5 fortress. These observations lead me to conclude that this was not an expression of Judahite popular religion, but rather a shrine built and sanctioned by Edom. The chronological window defined by the pottery (a full, detailed report has not yet been published) allows for another, and in my view, more probable interpretation. Namely, that the smaller fortress and the shrine were both built by Edom, after Josiah’s death in 609, a time when Judah’s focus was directed to its sovereigns Egypt or Babylon. Hence, my argument here is that Edom built ʿEn Ḥaṣeva in service to its trade route to the Mediterranean Sea, which it constructed in the vacuum left in the northeastern Negev by a Judah that had lost the ability to control this region. Further archaeological evidence corroborates this conclusion. Moving about 45 kilometers northwest from Ḥaṣeva, Ḥorvat ʿUza suggests further that Edom intentionally and aggressively invaded into the northeastern Negev. Ḥorvat ʿUza was a substantial fortress constructed in the mid-seventh century bce, according to the excavator, Itzhaq Beit-Arieh.56 It sat on the Naḥal 52 Ibid.,

228. 230. 54 Tina Haettner Blomquist. Gates and Gods: Cults in the City Gates of Iron Age Palestine. An Investigation of the Archaeological and Biblical Sources, ConBibOT 46 (Lund: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1999), 101–5. 55 See Anson F. Rainey, “Hezekiah’s Reform and the Altars at Beersheba and Arad,” in Scripture and Other Artifacts: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Honor of Philp J. King, eds. Michael D. Coogan, J. Cheryl Exum, and Lawrence E. Stager (Louisville: Westminster / ​John Knox, 1994), 333–49. 56 See Ḥorvat ʿUza and Ḥorvat Radum: Two Fortresses in the Biblical Negev, Tel Aviv University Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 25 (Tel Aviv: Emery and Clair Yass Publications in Archaeology, 2007), 332. See also Itzhaq Beit-Arieh and Bruce C. Cresson, “Ḥorvat ʿUza: A Fortified Outpost on the Eastern Negev Border,” BA 54/3 (September 1991): 126–35. 53 Ibid.,

The Conquest of the Land and Yahweh’s Honor before the Nations in Ezekiel

299

Qinah,57 accompanied by an extramural settlement, “Site 24,” immediately outside its gates on the steep wadi slope to the north, and Ḥorvat Radum, an advance outpost, 2 kilometers to the south. Beit-Arieh locates the construction of ʿUza with Josiah (or perhaps Manasseh), and says of ʿUza, as with several other Negeb settlements, that prior to its final demise, Edom seems to have had a presence at the site.58 To be clear, Beit-Arieh does not identify a specific event in which ʿUza changed hands and Edomites took over from Judah’s possession of the fort.59 Still, within numerous rooms throughout the fort, Beit-Arieh notes two phases of construction, the earlier one being stronger and more substantial, the latter being weaker and flimsier.60 Additionally, his team of excavators revealed the charred remains of the fortress gate.61 Beit-Arieh is careful to state that there is no typological change between phases, but the extensive nature of the reparations, coupled with layers of ash in some areas, suggest to me a battle within the fort followed by hastily made repairs. More telling is the evidence from inscriptions. The site was rich with ostraca, 34 in total, and one stamp seal. Ostracon 10, the so-called Aḥiquam Ostracon, found in the second season in the gatehouse, was apparently a letter written in Hebrew “slowly and laboriously by an untrained hand.” Beit-Arieh suggests that Aḥiquam may have been the commander of the fortress at ʿUza, and he reads this ostracon within the context of Arad Ostracon 24, which directs the movement of troops toward the end of the Judahite state.62 In contrast, Ostracon 7 states surprisingly, “I bless you by Qaus,” which along with several letters that are 57 Beit-Arieh identifies Ḥorvat ʿUza with Biblical Qinah (Josh 15:22), pace Aharoni, who argued for Ramat Negev (Arad Ostracon 24, and Josh 19.8; 1 Sam 30.27). See Ḥorvat ʿUza and Ḥorvat Radum, 1, 4. 58 Beit-Arieh, Ḥorvat ʿUza and Ḥorvat Radum, 332–3. 59 In his 1991 article on Ḥorvat ʿUza in the Anchor Bible Dictionary, Beit-Arieh does state within the context of a discussion of Edomite Ostracon 10 “[The ostracon] also may indicate that the fort was captured by the Edomites shortly before the Babylonian conquest” (ʿUza, Ḥorvat,” ABD VI: 774). See Beit-Arieh’s similar comments in his report on Ḥorvat Qitmit (Ḥorvat Qitmit: An Edomite Shrine in the Biblical Negev, Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University 11 [Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University, 1995], 311). Together with Bruce Cresson, Beit-Arieh states: “That the [“Edomite”] ostracon was found at Ḥorvat Qitmit indisputably proves Edomite presence at this site and allows us to infer that the fort was captured by the Edomites shortly before the Babylonian conquest” (“Ḥorvat ʿUza,” 134). 60 See “ʿUza, Ḥorvat,” in NEAEHL, 5: 2064; and his discussion in Ḥorvat ʿUza and Ḥorvat Radum of the bamah (31), Complex 927 (33), Complex 780 – a layer of ash found in all the rooms, with a second phase raising the street level (39), and in the extramural settlement, Complex 571 (49). 61 Ḥorvat ʿUza and Ḥorvat Radum, 23. 62 Ibid., 143, and see the full discussion on 139–43, with the preceding quotation being taken from 142; and also Beit-Arieh and Cresson, “ʿUza, Ḥorvat,” 133. Beit-Arieh admits equally that this ostracon could be a copy of a letter sent from ʿUza to Aḥiquam, a commander at another location.

300

John T. Strong

distinctive of Edomite script, identifies this text as Edomite.63 It too was found in the gate house, in the central entryway, and Beit-Arieh suggests that the blbl, to whom the letter was addressed, was a “high Edomite official …, apparently a high-ranking officer in an Edomite fort at ʿUza or elsewhere in the Negev …”64 Clearly, the fort had changed hands. If ʿEn Ḥaṣeva and Ḥorvat ʿUza suggest an Edomite incursion, Ḥorvat Qitmit screams it.65 Traveling further west along the ancient trade route to the coast that Edom seemed to have been building, Ḥorvat Qitmit lies less than ten kilometers west of Ḥorvat ʿUza, about the same distance due south of Tel Arad, but only five kilometers east of the important site of Tel Malḥata.66 The site is a single occupation site, dated to the late seventh to early sixth century bce.67 It consists of two building complexes, labeled Structure A and Structure B. Structure A contained a three-room building (roughly 10.5 by five meters in size), a bamah enclosure, and an altar, a wash basin, and a small pit or silo.68 Complex B, which was detached and lay north of Complex A, consisted of a large main room with a courtyard containing a maṣṣebah, with two smaller rooms to the west.69 Locus 80, a pit located about 70 meters down the slope and southeast from the bamah and altar areas, was interpreted as a favissa.70 According to Beit-Arieh, the site was oriented to the south or southeast, the general direction of Mt. Seir.71 The 63 See Ḥorvat ʿUza and Ḥorvat Radum, 133–7, for the full discussion, and 137 for the summary of distinctive Edomite traits; Itzhaq Beit-Arieh and Bruce C. Cresson, “An Edomite Ostracon from Ḥorvat ʿUza,” TA 12 (1985): 69–101; and idem, “Ḥorvat ʿUza,” 134. 64 Ḥorvat ʿUza and Ḥorvat Radum, 136. 65 See Itzhaq Beit-Arieh, Pirhiya Beck, and Liora Freud, Ḥorvat Qitmit: An Edomite Shrine in the Biblical Negev, Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University 11 [Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University, 1995); idem, “The Edomite Shrine at Ḥorvat Qitmit in the Judean Negev: A Preliminary Report.” Tel Aviv 18 (1991): 93–116; idem, “Qitmit, Ḥorvat,” in NEAHL 4: 1230–3; and Itzhaq Beit-Arieh and Pirhiya Beck, Edomite Shrine: Discoveries from Qitmit in the Negev, Israel Museum Catalogue 277 (Jerusalem: Israel Museum, 1987). 66 Tel Malḥata is another site that appears to have changed from Judahite to Edomite hands in the late seventh century bce, and pertains to the present study. It was excavated by Moshe Kochavi in 1967 and 1971, and again during seven seasons of excavations, 1990, 1992–1995, 1998, and 2000, directed by Beit-Arieh and Bruce Cresson. The excavation report was published posthumously in the summer of 2015, unfortunately while this essay in the final stages of preparation for publication, and too late to be consulted in this survey. See Itzhaq Beit-Arieh and Liora Freud, Tel MalḤata: A Central city in the Biblical Negev, 2 volumes; Tele Aviv University / ​Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 32 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2015). 67 See Beit-Arieh’s summary statement, Ḥorvat Qitmit, 303, and the analysis of the pottery assemblage by Liora Freud and Beit-Arieh, Ḥorvat Qitmit, 255. 68 Ḥorvat Qitmit, 9–20. 69 Ibid., 20–4. 70 Ibid., 26. 71 This orientation is indicated by the fact that both Structure A and B open to the south, the bamah and the altar are directed toward the south, and that a maṣṣebah stood on the southern edge of the courtyard of Structure B, which would orient worshippers to face southwards. Beit-

The Conquest of the Land and Yahweh’s Honor before the Nations in Ezekiel

301

pottery assemblage is exceptional in its make-up, being predominantly Edomite in style and character.72 Pirhiya Beck analyzed the iconographic figurines from Qitmit, which included human, animal, and composite representations, some of which portrayed dancing (No. 119) and flute-playing (No, 118). While some may have represented deities, many of these figures functioned as incense and cult stands, and Beck interpreted them as worshippers.73 Beck further identified the style of the Qitmit figures as having close connections with similar figures from the Transjordan, but quite distinct from contemporary Judahite artistic work. Particularly distinctive were the goatees on the male figurines. She also noted the close connection with the assemblage of anthropomorphic figures found in the favissa at ʿEn Ḥaṣeva.74 Inscriptions appearing at Qitmit name the national deity Qaus several times, perhaps once in a direct reference to Qaus (inscription number 3), otherwise as theophoric elements (numbers 2 and 7).75 The scattering and grouping of objects is interesting and indicative. Most of the anthropomorphic cult stands and objects, as well as the inscriptions, were located in the Structure A area, and around the bamah, while animal bones and evidence of cooking were found around Structure B.76 With such a set of evidence, I remain convinced with Arieh states: “Most temples, from the earliest periods through the Iron Age, uncovered till now in Israel and Syria are generally oriented to the west while in Iron II the westward orientation became widespread. In this respect, the southerly orientation of the sanctuary at ḤorvatQitmit is quite exceptional for the period” (Beit-Arieh, ḤorvatQitmit, 307). 72 Although some Judahite pottery ware was found at Qitmit, Liora Freud and Beit-Arieh conclude that 83 % of the cooking–pot fragments were Edomite (Ḥorvat Qitmit, 254), and states elsewhere that this figure is “several times higher than the percentage of Edomite pottery found at other Judean sites” (“Preliminary Report,” 104). The identification of the Edomite character of the assemblage is based on comparisons with the assemblages from Tel Arad, Tel Malḥata, Aroer, Tel Ira, Ḥorvat ʿUza, Kadesh-Barnea, Tel Goren, Tel Beersheba, Tell Beit Mirsim, and Lachish in Judah, and Buseirah, Umm el-Biyara, Tawilan and Tell el-Keleifeh in ancient Edom (Ḥorvat Qitmit, 254). 73 Ibid., 181. 74 Ibid., 186–90. Beck states: “That these innovations are not the work of Judahite artists is evident by comparison to contemporary Judaean art. … the most likely candidates for their production are the Edomites whose presence at the site is evidenced by their distinctive painted pottery, … and the Edomite ostraca. The case of the painted pottery can be used as an indication of specific Edomite style which distinguishes them from the other Transjordanian people” 189–90. 75 See the discussions regarding Number 3 in Ḥorvat Qitmit, 260–1; and “Preliminary Report,” 108; inscription Number 2 in Ḥorvat Qitmit, 259; and inscription Number 7 in Ḥorvat Qitmit, 264–7. 76 Ibid., 9–20. Beit-Arieh proceeds with caution, and does not present a detailed hypothesis as to how the two structures were used. I am influenced, however, by both the discovery of the ktmw Stele at Zinc̨irli and the use of the cult site at Dan. The Ktmw Stele apparently sat in a room where a ritual feast was held with the deceased ancestor, Ktmw. See the studies of Eudora J. Strubble and Virginial Rimmer Herrmann, “An Eternal Feast at Samʾal: The New Iron Age Mortuary Stele from Zinc̨irli in Context,” BASOR 356 (November, 2009): 15–49; Dennis Pardee, “A New Aramaic Inscription from Zinc̨irli,” BASOR 356 (November, 2009): 51–71; Andre Lemaire and Benjamin Sass, “The Mortuary Stele with Sam’alian Inscription from Ordekburnu near Zinc̨irli,” BASOR 369 (2013): 57–136; and Seth L. Sanders, “The Appetites of the Dead: West Semitic Linguistic and Ritual Aspects of the Katumuwa Stele,” BASOR 369

302

John T. Strong

Beit-Arieh that Qitmit was an Edomite shrine – exclusively so, which served the cultic purposes of Edomite settlements such as Ḥorvat ʿUza, Tel Malḥata, and Tel Aroer, which emerged in the late seventh century bce, and whose allegiances were to Edom, its national deity Qaus, and its holy mountain, Mt. Seir. Others have challenged Beit-Arieh’s interpretation, among these being Israel Finkelstein and Christoph Uehlinger.77 Finkelstein has argued that Qitmit, which he compares directly to Kuntillet Ajrud,78 cannot be defined as an Edomite shrine, but rather it was an ancient isolated shrine, that served extramural groups, such as pastoral nomads, caravaneers and miners, among whom were Edomites who lived among the Judahite population in the seventh century bce.79 These were Arab traders, according to Finkelstein, whose caravans aided and supported the economic and imperial interests of, first, Assyria and then Egypt.80 Similarly, Uehlinger argued that Qitmit was a multi-cultural regional shrine, serving the farmers and herdsmen of an area, without connection to a (2013): 35–55. In regard to Dan, Andrew Davis has argued that the side rooms to the west of the main altar and podium at Dan were used for family feasts and worship in the Iron Age II, while the main podium and altar at Dan were reserved for sacrifices and rites for the national deity (Andrew R. Davis, Tel Dan in Its Northern Cultic Context, SBLABS 20 [Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013], 79–87, and 95–107. Drawing upon these studies, I posit that Structure B was likewise used for family celebrations. In this area was found animal bones, an oven, and other evidence for cooking. The circular Locus 114, which parallels animal pens in the desert regions, sat just to the southwest, between Structures A and B (cf., Ḥorvat Qitmit, 24). Additionally, the maṣṣebahstanding at the southern edge of the courtyard represented the deity or ancestor attending the meal. Beit-Arieh’s caution is well founded, but as a footnote, I present this scene for heuristic purposes. Structure A, with the bamah and altar enclosures where figurines representing worshippers in abstentia were placed, may have been used for veneration of the national deity or deities. 77 Israel Finkelstein, “Ḥorvat Qiṭmīt and the Southern Trade in the Late Iron Age II,” Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins (1953–) 108 (1992): 156–70; and Christoph Uehlinger, “Arad, Qiṭmīt – Judahite Aniconism vs. Edomite Iconic Cult? Questioning the Evidence,” in Text, Artifact, and Image: Revealing Ancient Israelite Religion, eds. Gary Beckman and Theodore J. Lewis, Brown Judaic Studies 346 (Providence, R. I.: Brown University Press, 2006), 80–112. 78 Finkelstein, “Ḥorvat Qiṭmīt and the Southern Trade,” 163. I cannot concur with Finkelstein’s equation. Ze’ev Meshel, the excavator at Kuntillet , argues that this was a religious site at which priests and Levites officiated, and blessed caravaneers and travelers by Yahweh and his Asherah of Samaria and Teman (see Kuntillet ʿAjrud, (Ḥorvat Teman): An Iron Age II Religious Site on the Judah-Sinai Border, ed. Liora Freud [Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2013], 65–9). Deferring to Meshel at this time, I still have my doubts about his interpretation, and lean toward the theory, held by many, that it was a caravanserai. Nevertheless, even accepting Meshel’s interpretation, Kuntillet ʿAjrud differs from Qitmit in significant ways. Kuntillet ʿAjrud had towers, substantial walls, gates, storehouses, and its size was significantly larger than Qitmit’s. Moreover, no altar area or bamah was found at Kuntillet ʿAjrud. Indeed, Meshel himself states: “Cultic practices, such as the burning of incenses, the pouring of libations, sacrifices, etc., apparently did not take place at the site, as no traces were found of any of the objects or vessels that would have been used for such activities, such as altars, incense burners, idols or figurines” (68). 79 Finkelstein, “Ḥorvat Qiṭmīt and the Southern Trade,” 159 and 163. 80 Ibid. 164–5.

The Conquest of the Land and Yahweh’s Honor before the Nations in Ezekiel

303

national deity (as was true of Fortress Arad), nor to any specific ethnic group.81 Uehlinger also harshly criticizes Beit-Arieh use of the Biblical texts to interpret Qitmit.82 Ultimately, both Finkelstein and Uehlinger diverge with Beit-Arieh’s interpretation of Qitmit because they begin with different premises.83 Central to the premises of both Finkelstein and Uehlinger is the contrast between Arad, an outpost authorized and supported by the central administration of Judah, and Qitmit, which they presumed was locally built and supported.84 In my view, their criticisms of Beit-Arieh’s understanding of Qitmit fail on two counts. First, as just stated, both Finkelstein and Uehlinger assume that Qitmit was not supported by central authorities in Edom, a mistaken notion, in my view. It should not be ignored that the orientation of the site pointed worshippers southward – not westward, as was typical of this period. This orientation kept Qaus, the national deity of Edom, and his abode, Mt. Seir, in the forefront of the worshippers’ minds. Such an orientation does not seem to be that of farmers and herders who wanted to live between national identities. Also, while it is true that Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis (INAA) of the vessels demonstrate that the anthropomorphic figurines and stands were locally produced, the sand of the cooking pots stems from central Edom, demonstrating Edomite support.85 The only theophoric inscriptions found at the site refer to Qaus, Edom’s national 81 Regarding the multi-cultural nature of Qitmit, see Uehlinger’s critique of Pirhiya Beck, “Arad, Qitmit,” 104–10. Hence, he rejects any ethnic attribution to the site, and critiques Finkelstein for trading the Edomite identification for Arab, Kenite, and the like (94–5). His suggestion that farmers and herdsmen used the site signifies a population that lived between the Judahite garrison and Edomite raiders, and kept to their own business without any allegiance to a particular nationality or ethnic identity (111). 82 “Arad, Qitmit,” 110, and also 99. 83 See Uehlinger’s statement: “… my interpretation is thus largely dependent upon [BeitArieh and Beck’s] presentation of the finds, although it comes to different conclusions by rearranging the material to some extent, by putting it into a broader regional and socio-cultural context, and not least by operating with a different conceptual framework. … Readers will have to make up their own mind whether the alternative I shall suggest sounds acceptable to them or not …” (“Arad, Qitmit,” 100). Finkelstein does not base his premises on a sociological model, but rather on the conclusion that “the Edomites could not possibly control the Judahite Negeb, or part of it, from their remote and isolated strongholds on the Transjordanian plateau” (“Ḥorvat Qiṭmīt and the Southern Trade,” 158). 84 See Finkelstein, “Ḥorvat Qiṭmīt and the Southern Trade,” 162; and Uehlinger, “Arad, Qitmit,” 86. 85 Pirhiya Beck, Ḥorvat Qitmit, 189–90, and Liora Freud and Beit-Arieh, Ḥorvat Qitmit,, 254–5; Jan Gunneweg and Hans Mommsen, Ḥorvat Qitmit, 280–6, and see Table 7.1, 281; Beit-Arieh, “Preliminary Report,” 107; and idem, “The Edomites in Cisjordan,” in You Shall Not Abhor an Edomite for He is Your Brother: Edom and Seir in History and Tradition, ed. Diana Vikander Edelman, SBLABS 3 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 36. In this regard, it is reasonable that the anthropomorphic vessels, which represented the worshippers, would be locally made, since these vessels served to keep the human worshippers before the gods while the worshippers would be away from Qitmit working and living their lives. The cooking bowls, however, to be handled by priests, would have been brought to the site from Edom, perhaps sanctified in the official cult in Edom.

304

John T. Strong

deity. And in regard to the social, political, and historical context, Beit-Arieh has noted that this desert region of the northeastern Negev was inhospitable and neither easily nor naturally settled. The rise of fortresses and settlements in the northeastern Negev in the seventh century, be they Judahite or Edomite, required the resources of the central administration of a state, and were founded by “an intentional royal initiative.”86 This would have been true of Qitmit as well as Arad,87 which leads me to my second point. Both Finkelstein and Uehlinger regard Qitmit as remote.88 Certainly, Qitmit feels quite remote today, but not so much in the late seventh and early sixth century bce. To the east, Ḥorvat ʿUza, which had a sizeable external settlement (Site 24), was only ten kilometers away – perhaps a two hour hike. To the west lay Tel Malḥata, only five kilometers away, and Aroer of the Negev, about a two hour walk from Qitmit (see map of the Arad-Beersheba Valley). Evidence from each of these sites suggests an Edomite occupation at the end of the seventh and beginning of the sixth century bce. At Malḥata, Kochavi estimated that 25 % of the pottery dating to this period in Malḥata’s history was Edomite.89 More significantly, two clay figurines were found at Malḥata, one playing a double-flute that Beit-Arieh stated was in terms of technique “absolutely identical to the head of the goddess” (Qitmit figurine Number 68), and which he claims was manufactured in the same workshop as many of the locally Edomite figurines.90 In the seventh century, Aroer achieved its period of densest occupation, and according to the excavator, Avraham Biran, served as the main administrative center of this area of the Negev just prior to the Babylonian conquest. Dating to that time period at Aroer, Biran found a significant quantity of Edomite ware, as well as an 86 Beit-Arieh, Ḥorvat ʿUza and Ḥorvat Radum, 332. Elsewhere Beit-Arieh stated: “A considerable increase in settlement in the Judaean Negev has been disclosed by archaeological research. However, contrary to the view of some scholars that this indicates a florescence of regional settlement, it in fact represents the construction of new military outposts and forts and not civilian enterprises” (Tel ʿIra: A Stronghold in the Biblical Negev, Tel Aviv University Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 15 [Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology, Tel Aviv University, 1999], 177). 87  Finkelstein has described the architectural remains at Qitmit as “shabby” (“Ḥorvat Qiṭmīt and the Southern Trade,” 159). Granted, after roughly 2,500 years without any maintenance or repairs, the place has pretty much gone to seed. However, it may be difficult to determine the state of the cult site when it first opened its doors. Modern interpreters must bear in mind the work involved in manufacturing plaster (Beit-Arieh excavated many samples that coated the bamah and other surfaces), moving stones into place to form foundations for walls, and transporting in wood for ceilings, joists, and doors. This would have taken initiative – in my mind, royal initiative – not the efforts of farmers and herdsmen who donated materials and their labor on their days off. 88 See Finkelstein, “Ḥorvat Qiṭmīt and the Southern Trade,” 159, and 163; and Uehlinger, “Arad, Qitmit,” 86 (and note 92, below). 89 Moshe Kochavi, “Tel Malḥata,” in NEAEHL 3: 934. 90 See his statements in Ḥorvat Qiṭmīt, 315, fig. 9.4; idem, “Malḥata, Tel,” in NEAEHL 5: 1917–1918; “Edomites Advance into Judah,” BAR [1996]: 35; and idem, “Edomites in Cisjordan,” 37.

The Conquest of the Land and Yahweh’s Honor before the Nations in Ezekiel

305

inscription reading lqosa (“belonging to Qosa”), and so, bearing the theophoric name Qaus.91 According to the historical reconstruction that I am building here, a sizeable Edomite population had moved into the area and resided in fortresses and fortified settlements. Their incursion required an investment of financial and military resources supplied by central Edomite authorities, who would have expected a return in trade revenue. These authorities then would have been highly motivated to keep these citizens well connected and loyal to the central Edomite national cult and royal dynasty. Qitmit may have been small in stature, but far from being a remote, isolated shrine serving the pious needs of the popular religion of the countryside, it was every bit a nationally supported cult site with a “strong institutional link to the center of” Edom.92 Further to the west sit Tel ʿIra and the small fortress, Tel Masos, which lies just over 2 kilometers to the southwest from the main, larger Tel ʿIra. Beit-Arieh often includes these two settlements along with ʿUza and Radam, Qitmit, Malḥhata, and Aroer in his lists of excavations evidencing an Edomite presence in the late seventh and early sixth centuries bce. While I continue to support Beit-Arieh and others who are persuaded that the data from ʿIra and Masos indicate an Edomite presence, I do not believe that these two sites were ever actually controlled and occupied by Edomites – a claim, I hasten to clarify, Beit-Arieh does not actually make. Concerning Tel ʿIra, Beit-Arieh dates stratum VII possibly to the end of the eighth century and continuing on to the middle of the seventh. Stratum VI, he dated to the second half of the seventh century through to roughly 600, or perhaps early sixth century bce.93 A layer of ash and destruction closed off both strata.94 However, while even some of the pottery types found in strata VII and VI paralleled those of Malḥata, Qitmit, and ʿUza, analysis actually re91 Avraham Biran, “Aroer (in Judea),” NEAEHL 1: 90–1; idem, “And David Sent Spoils … to the Elders in Aroer” BAR 9/3 (1983): 28–37; and David Ilan, “ʿAroʿer,” OEANE 1:211–12. See also Steven Feldman, “Return to Aroer,” BAR 28/1 (2002): 51–4. 92 I am appropriating here the words of Christoph Uehlinger for the purpose of serving my own counter-thesis to his argument. He stated regarding Arad and Qitmit: “‘National’ religion probably had a relatively strong impact in the capitals of the Iron Age so-called territorial states, and in the centers of national administration as well. The more one left the center, other factors would become important in the constitution of the religious symbol-system – unless one would get to an outpost of the Judahite state. Administration such as the fortress of Arad, where the geographically conditioned national fade-out would be counter-balanced by the strong institutional link to the center of the state. Where such a link did not exist, as in Qiṭmīt, one should not expect to find national defined ‘Edomite religion’ but rather ask how this particular set of evidence operated in its primary regional context.” (“Arad, Qitmit,” 86, Uehlinger’s emphasis). 93 Itzhaq Beit-Arieh, Tel ʿIra: A Stronghold in the Biblical Negev, Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University, 15 (Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University, 1999), 174, 176–7. 94 See Tel ʿIra, 176 for a summary statement, and 76–7, 81–2, 87, 122 for discussion of specific loci assigned to Stratum VII, and 45 and 49, and 115, for evidence found in particular loci assigned to Stratum VI.

306

John T. Strong

vealed relatively little Edomite pottery in these two layers.95 On the other hand, Cahill stated that the rosetta stamp seals found in strata VI are Judahite royal seals, dating to the reign of Jehoiakim, indicating in her view that Judah was in control of ʿIra until the end of the seventh century.96 Other evidence from ʿIra also indicates to me Judahite control of the fortified city throughout the seventh century, and until its final Iron Age destruction.97 Only two kilometers southwest from Tel ʿIra, Tel Masos sits on the cliffs on the north bank of the Nahal Beersheba. Tel Masos features a large mound containing the ruins of an Iron Age I site, but beyond these, to the southwest and closer to the cliffs, sits a small fortress, which dates to the end of the Iron Age. Volkmar Fritz, who co-directed the excavations, suggested that this fort at Tel Masos may have served as a fortified outpost for the settlement of Tel ʿIra, similar to how Ḥorvat Radum may have served Ḥorvat ʿUza.98 While this small outpost contained some Edomite ware, the pottery assemblage more generally resembled Judahite types, as well as three ostraca bearing Hebrew names.99 Edom’s incursion into the northeastern Negev in the late seventh, early sixth century bce was not without its precedent, or a connection to broader Edomite designs. Prior to expanding into the Arad-Beersheba valley, evidence suggests that Edom first expanded south and westward across the Arabah, capturing Elath on the Gulf of Aqaba (2 Kgs 16:6). This opened up for Edom a trade route that led to an ocean port, and potentially new trading partners.100 Edom’s second expansion at the end of the seventh century, then, was just Edom taking advantage of another opportunity to open up a new trade route. It had held one route granting it access to the Indian Ocean in the south, now it sought one to the Liora Freud, in Tel ʿIra, 226–7. M. Cahill, in Tel ʿIra, 363–4.   97 Evidence that stands out prominently to me are figurines found in Stratum VII that contrast with styles found at Qitmit (cf. Tel ʿIra, 385); pithoi found in the storehouse in the gate area, which were manufactured in the Jerusalem (cf. ibid., 354); and Ostracon No. 1, which was a list of Hebrew names, some with Yahwistic theophoric elements (cf. ibid., 403–5). The excavators are appropriately cautious and vague in their interpretation of this data. I am suspicious that there was an Edomite attack on the city, which accounts for the destruction layer at the end of Stratum VII. This attack, however, was successfully repulsed by the Judahite defenders, and the fort continued under Judahite control. Beit-Arieh and others (“Ḥorvat ʿUza: A Fortified Outpost,” 128) have suggested that Ramat Negev, mentioned in Arad Ostracon 24 as the recipient of reinforcements, should be identified with ʿIra. It may be that these reinforcements succeeded in repelling the Edomite forces. The destruction layer of Stratum VI may be evidence of the first Babylonian assault on Judah, dating to 597 bce. The evidence, however tantalizing, does not in the end allow for such precision, as the excavators were well aware.   98 See Volkmar Fritz, “Meshash, Khirbet El-,” ABD IV: 710. Fritz suggests, however, that more than a military outpost, this installation may have been a caravanserai.   99 Aharon Kempinski, “Masos, Tel,” NEAEHL 3: 986–9; and also Volkmar Fritz, “Masos, Tel,” OEANE 3: 439. 100 See the discussion of Beit-Arieh (Qitmit, 303, 312, 314), who cites the excavations of Crystal M. Bennett at ʿUmm el-Biyara and Tawilan, and those of Nelson Glueck at Tell elKheleifeh, at the Gulf of Eilat.   95 See

  96 Jane

The Conquest of the Land and Yahweh’s Honor before the Nations in Ezekiel

307

Mediterranean in the west. The southern region on the west of the Arabah may have actually been the location of Seir,101 and therefore, Edom’s first acquisition may have set it upon territory that was considered by Jerusalem’s Yahwists, such as Ezekiel, the ancient dwelling of Yahweh. Such a background would explain why Qitmit was oriented to the south, toward the region west of the Arabah, and not eastward toward Bozrah, or even southeast, if Seir was located west of the Arabah. It also makes more sense of Ezekiel, who claims that Seir is jealous of Israel’s claim to be the possession of Yahweh (Ezek 35.11) – but I am getting ahead of my argument. To summarize, a very interesting picture emerges from this review of the archaeological results, one that presents the Nahal Beersheba as forming a new border separating the late seventh-early sixth century states of Judah and Edom. To the north of the wadi, the fortresses of Arad, ʿIra, and Masos stood guard, fending off any northern push by Edom. To the south, Edom forcibly occupied the sites at ʿEn Ḥaṣeva, Ḥorvat ʿUza and Ḥorvat Radam, Tel Malḥata, and Aroer, fortresses and settlements once under the control of Judah.102 And to fortify the political and cultic needs of these settlements, above all, to keep them loyal to Edom, Qitmit was built and maintained, perhaps by no accident in close proximity to Arad. All of this activity, the archaeological record allows, took place while Ezekiel was still in Jerusalem.103 He would have watched it all at close range and heard the 101 See Diana Vikander Edelman, “Edom: A Historical Geography,” in You Shall Not Abhor an Edomite for He is Your Brother: Edom and Seir in History and Tradition, ed. Diana Vikander Edelman, SBLABS 3; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 1–11. She argues that Edom’s original homeland was centered on Bozrah, and the red-colored high plateau east of the Arabah, with the Wadi el-Ḥasa marking its northern boundary and Ras en-Naqb the southern. She locates Seir west of the Arabah, in the southern region of the Sinai Peninsula and the Wilderness of Paran (9). In the seventh century, according to Edelman, Edom moved west across the Arabah, acquiring the region of Seir. See also Bert Dicou, Edom, Israel’s Brother and Antagonist: The Role of Edom in Biblical Prophecy and Story, JSOTSup 69 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 137–54; 167–81. 102  While many scholars will argue for a peaceable Edomite migration into the vacuum left in the wake of Babylon’s conquest of Jerusalem (e. g. Bert Dicou, Edom, Israel’s Brother and Antagonist, 186–7; 199), I concur with Beit-Arieh who concluded: “… it seems most likely that the Edomite penetration was of an aggressive nature based on economic motives while exploiting the political instability in this region at the time” (Ḥorvat ʿUza, 333). The concurrent destruction layers found at sites throughout the Arad-Beersheba valley testify to military activity, as does Arad Inscription #24. A military campaign would also explain why Edom and Babylon are coupled together (Psa 137), or Edom is associated with the fall of Jerusalem (Lam 4.21–22). I am not so certain that mere survival sufficiently explains the castigations of Edom in the literature. 103 In contrast, Greenberg asks (Ezekiel 21–37, AB 22A [New York: Doubleday, 1997], 725): “Did reports of intent to grab land reach the prophet and did he fashion the statements?” He ponders whether during the exile the depiction of Edom’s interest in the land did not actually represent the anxiety the exiles had over losing claim to the land. Because I believe that with his oracle in Ezek 35 the prophet addressed a very real historical situation in which Edom acquired

308

John T. Strong

official reports coming in from the Judah’s northeastern Negev region. He would have surely been a part of the discussions within the temple precinct as to what this all meant. How would such a Jerusalem temple priest and theologian of the late seventh, early sixth century interpret such a territorial invasion? How would he have understood the construction of a shrine dedicated to Qaus and directed toward Seir within sight of Arad? Surely Ezekiel read these events as a challenge to Yahweh’s honor and an attempt to acquire territory that traditionally belonged to Yahweh, and which he had granted to his people, Israel. Just as surely, such an affront recalled to Ezekiel’s mind the days of Israel’s first conquest.

3. The Next Conquest According to Ezekiel I submit for consideration that Ezek 35.1–6, 8b–12aα and 36.1–2, 6a–bα, 8–9, 11 contain the earliest layer of the text, and therefore Ezekiel’s announcement of the second conquest.104 As commonly noted in the commentaries, Ezek 35* and Ezek 36* are companion pieces, providing both sides of the same coin – the defeat of the Edomites inhabiting the land, and the accompanying settlement of Israel.105 In regard to chapter 35, the material following the recognition formulae in v. 11b–12aα lacks both the proof-saying structured by ‫לכן־יען‬, as well as an oath formula, which structured vv. 5–9 and 10–12a. An additional messenger formula appears in v. 14. Also, the recognition formula in v. 15 now appears in the third-person plural. And suddenly, Seir / ​Edom is judged for blaspheming Yahweh (v. 13), not for its encroachment upon the land. For these reasons, I view all of vv. 12aβ–15 as secondary. Verses 7–8a shifts from second person to third person objects, and seems to represent a later gloss.106 Since my discussion will

formerly Judahite territory, I do not believe that Ezekiel initially intended Edom symbolically to represent the other nations opposing Israel, but that this was a later development. See Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 314; and Dicou, Edom, Israel’s Brother and Antagonist, 48–9. 104 As illustrations of how commentators often treat Ezek 35, see the views of Fohrer (Ezechiel, HAT 1, Reihe, 13 [Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr / ​Paul Siebeck, 1955], 197–200), who divides the text into four independent oracles (2–3aα, 3aβ–4; 5, 6, 8–9; 10–12aα; and 12aβ–15), attributed to Ezekiel. Zimmerli (Ezekiel 2, 232–4) understands vv. 2–15 as stemming from the hand of Ezekiel, though the individual units (vv. 3–4; 5–9; 10–13; and 14–15) may have been at one time independent of one another. Sedlmeier’s interests lean to theological issues in the text, and do not focus on the development of this particular text. He views Ezek 35 as being formed out of four units, composed at different times (Das Buch Ezechiel: 25–48, Neuer Stuttgarter Kommentar Altes Testament 21/2 [Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2013], 179). 105 See, e. g., Lawrence Boadt, “Rhetorical Strategies in Ezekiel’s Oracles of Judgment,” Ezekiel and His Book (ed. Johan Lust; Leuven: University Press; 1986), 182–200; and also Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 309–10; and Bert Dicou, Edom, Israel’s Brother and Antagonist, 44. 106 See Anja Klein, Schriftauslegung im Ezechielbuch: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Ez 34–39, BZAW 391 (New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2008), 303; and Fohrer, Ezechiel, 197.

The Conquest of the Land and Yahweh’s Honor before the Nations in Ezekiel

309

focus on chapter 35, and I will only reference particular terms in the oracle in 36.1–15, I here reconstruct Ezek 35.1–6, 8b–12aα alone, which reads as follows: 1

The word of Yahweh came to me: 2“Ben-Adam: Set your face against Mount Seir; Prophesy against it;

3Say

to it: ‘Thus says the Sovereign Lord Yahweh “I, I am against you, O Mount Seir. I am raising my hand against you. I will make you a devastation and destruction. 4 Your cities, as a ruin I will set. You will be a devastation. Then you will know that I am Yahweh.”

5

“Because … you possess an eternal enmity (‫)איבת עולם‬. You turned the sons of Israel over to the power of a sword at the time of their calamity, at the time of their eschatological iniquity.” 6 Therefore: “as I live,” says the Sovereign Lord Yahweh, “since blood did not repulse you, blood will pursue you. 8a In your hills, your valleys, and all of your watercourses, shall those slain by the sword fall. 9 An eternal devastation I will make you. Your cities will not be inhabited. Then you will know that I am Yahweh.”

10

“Because you said: ‘The two nations, the two lands will belong to me, let us possess it / ​them,’ (even though Yahweh was there)107 11 Therefore: As I live,” says the Sovereign Lord Yahweh, “I will do to you according to your anger, according to your jealousy, Just as you did with them from out of your hatred. I will be known among them in the many ways by which I judge you. 12 Then you will know that I am Yahweh.”

As noted above, scholars often read Ezek 35 as four independent oracles, and hence, do not seek an overall, uniting structure.108 In my view, however, the messenger formulae found in 35:2 and 36:2 introduce larger prophetic complexes 107 This note is often viewed as a later theological gloss, and it certainly could be such. I nevertheless believe that it rings true to the radical theocentrism of the prophet, and I have elected to maintain it here. Similarly, see C. A. Strine, Sworn Enemies: The Divine Oath, the Book of Ezekiel, and the Polemics of Exile. (BZAW 436; Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 2013), 201–2. 108 See Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 169; Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 722 (“This loosely organized, repetitive oracle …”); Fohrer, Ezechiel, 197–200; Sedlmeier, Das Buch Ezechiel 25–48, 179; and Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 232. Ezekiel 35 is arranged into two parts by the two messenger formulae in vv. 3 and 14, and vv. 3–13 presents “a sequence of three separate oracles”). Block, on the other hand, argues for a chiastic structure for all of vv. 1–15 (Ezekiel 25–48, 314).

310

John T. Strong

that should be read together. Moreover, the repetition of the recognition formula in vv. 11b–12aα, in the first instance indicating the revelation of Yahweh to Israel, and then to Edom in the second, closes off this first complex oracle. The way that the recognition formula is shaped here reflects the message of Ezek 35–36 overall, and appears to me to be an appropriate, original transition to Ezek 36.1–15*. Actually, the repetition of the recognition formula throughout helps to structure this passage into three parts: 1) an introduction and basic statement of Yahweh’s coming judgment (vv. 1–4); 2) an initial tripartite proof-oracle, complete with a ‫ לכן־יען‬pair, closed with the recognition formula (vv. 5–9), focused on Edom’s eternal enmity toward Israel (Edom’s motivations); 3) a second tripartite prooforacle (vv. 10–12a), focused on the possession of land (Edom’s actions). This structure numbers Seir’s misdeeds at two, specifying them as its “eternal enmity” (35.5), and its desire to possess the two lands (35.10). Ezek 36.1–15*, the sister oracle to Ezek 35.1–12a*, combines both felonies in its motive clause, “The enemy has said about you (the mountains of Israel), ‘Hah! The eternal high places (‫)במות עולם‬109 belong to us as a possession’” (v. 36.2). As is typical of his elevated rhetoric, Ezekiel has here stirred together the terms ‫עולם‬, ‫איבת‬, and ‫ במות‬into a rich theological stew. The ancient enmity felt by Seir, feelings defined in v. 11 as ‫“( אף‬anger”), ‫“( קנאה‬jealousy”), and ‫“( שנאה‬hatred”), concerns the possession110 of eternal shrines, of sacred territory. Note, however, that Ezekiel never loses his focus, and the subject of this ancient enmity, the one seeking sacred territory, is never Edom, Esau, or Bozrah, or any cypher for a political or ethnic entity, but rather Mount Seir. Curiously, it is this mountain that is jealous. Scholars commonly ascribe the selection of this synonym for Edom to the symmetry of Mount Seir in chapter 35, over against the mountains of Israel, in chapters 36.111 I suspect that Ezekiel’s word choice here ran deeper than a nifty turn of phrase, and should direct us to his particular interpretation of Edom’s incursion into the southeastern Sinai region. Note, 109 It appears that here the translators of the LXX may have inserted a theological correction, and translated ἒρημα (“wasteland”) for MT’s ‫במות‬. I follow the MT, and reject the suggestion ‫ שממת‬by the editors of BHS for 36.2. The translators, nevertheless, raise an interesting point. Here, Ezekiel may have been quite comfortable with high places in the land. So, in his accusation in Ezek 36.2, Seir’s transgression was that it sought to possess high places, implying that they were legitimately places of Yahweh worship within the land. In this regard, Milgrom has argued that the Holiness Code, with which Ezekiel had a close connection (e. g., Lyons, From Law to Prophecy), permitted multiple shrines (Leviticus 17–22, 1503–14). For another view, see Risa Levitt Kohn, New Heart and A New Soul: Ezekiel, the Exile and the Torah, JSOTSup 358 (London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 89, 95. Should multiple legitimate Yahweh-shrines be the context in which to read 11.16? 110 Into his stew, Ezekiel also stirs the forms from the root ‫“( ירש‬to possess”; in vv. 35.10 and 36.2), as well as the concept of possession, in the construction ‫ היה‬+ ‫ל‬, in 35.5 (where it is not territory that is possessed, but rather Seir holds onto its enmity), and 36.2. 111 See, by way of examples, Dicou, Edom, Israel’s Brother and Antagonist, 49; Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 311; Klein, Schriftauslegung im Ezechielbuch, 323; Odell, Ezekiel, 437; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 232.

The Conquest of the Land and Yahweh’s Honor before the Nations in Ezekiel

311

for example, that according to my historical-critical analysis of Ezek 35–36, the political designation “Edom” never appears. In contrast, Ezek 25.12–14 lacks the name Seir, but instead is directed against Edom.112 I contend that the context of Ezek 35 should lead us to search for a theological coloration of Ezekiel’s pronouncement.113 The miscreant in Ezekiel’s oracle, Mount Seir, is well known from other texts as an ancient dwelling of Yahweh’s, and evidence survives in the Biblical texts of early traditions of Yahweh’s march from the south.114 In Deut 33.2, Moses sings “Yahweh came from Sinai. He shone upon us from Seir. He beamed forth from Mount Paran.” Again, in the old victory song in Judg 5.4, Israel celebrates “O Yahweh, when you came out from Seir, when you marched from the fields of Edom, the earth shook, and even the heavens poured, yea, clouds poured out water.” These texts suggest that the worship of Yahweh may have its early origins with the nomadic tribes of the desert regions, whose traditions continued to shape the cultic worship of Yahweh into the monarchical periods, and even to the time of Ezekiel.115 Edom’s early expansion west of the Arabah in essence marked the 112 This difference is often explained on historical-critical grounds. See Karin Schöpflin, “Die Tyrosworte im Kontext des Ezechielbuches,” in Israeliten und Phönizier: Ihre Beziehungen im Spiegel der Archäologie und der Literatur des Alten Testaments und seiner Umwelt, eds. Markus Witte and Johannes F. Diehl, OBO 235 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008), 203–5; Karl-Friedrich Pohlmann, „Synchrone und diachrone Texterschließung im Ezekchielbuch,“ Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 1 (2012): 261–8; Klein, Schriftauslegung im Ezechielbuch, 312–14; 351–3; and see her extremely helpful chart, 409. I date both Ezek 25 and Ezek 35–36 at some time after the fall of Jerusalem, perhaps shortly after. The difference in addressee of each oracle, Seir versus Edom, has to do more with the theological coloring of each oracle, in my view, than with different historical settings or authorship. In contrast, Block deems Ezek 35 to be more at home with Ezek 25–26 on account of its Schadenfreude, and may have been developed in light of Ezek 28.24–28 (Ezekiel 25–48, 314–15). 113 Commentators often underscore the theological quality of Ezek 35. See, e.g, the comments of Sedlmeier, Das Buch Ezechiel 25–48, 178, 180–1; Klein, Schriftauslegung im Ezechielbuch, 324. Klein has noted that the personification of both the mountains of Israel and Mount Seir has received too little scholarly attention. She concludes that the mountains can stand for both the land and also the people of Israel (Schriftauslegung im Ezechielbuch, 329–32). In further developments, Zion traditions were applied to the mountains (Schriftauslegung im Ezechielbuch, 334–6, 348; and see her essay in this volume). 114 See Mark S. Smith, The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987), 50; Patrick D. Miller, The Religion of Ancient Israel (Library of Ancient Israel; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2000), 1; and Erhard Gerstenberger, Theologies in the Old Testament, trans. John Bowden (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002), 140–4. Frank Moore Cross states: “The archaic hymns of Israel are of one voice: Yahweh came from Teman, Mt. Paran, Midian and Chushan (the Song of Habakkuk); the Song of Deborah sings of Yahweh going forth from Seir, marching forth from Edom; the Blessing of Moses states that Yahweh came from Sinai, beamed forth from Seir, shone from Mount Paran.” (“Reuben, First-Born of Jacob,” ZAW 100 [1988; Supplement]: 59). In contrast to my conclusion above, Cross is adamant that Seir was located east of the Arabah, not west, in the southern Sinai. 115 See Trygvve Mettinger’s argument in No Graven Image. There, he argued that the material / ​empty-space aniconic worship of Yahweh was not a late development, but rather an early development that had its roots with the nomadic tribes that traversed the southern desert

312

John T. Strong

possession of an early mountain of Yahweh, Mount Seir. Its further intrusion into the northeastern Negev, especially the shrine at Qitmit, signaled Qaus’ approach toward Zion. The southerly direction of the shrine at Qitmit implied Qaus’s placement on Seir. Ezekiel had explained the fall of Jerusalem and its temple easy enough; Yahweh had abandoned a Jerusalem that had been defiled by the people’s abominations, and Babylon was his tool (Ezek 8–11). Edom, however, posed a different sort of problem. For Edom to have possessed Seir and then directed the worship of Qaus at Qitmit toward it, this would have been viewed by Ezekiel as a siege upon an ancient and traditional dwelling of Yahweh. Edom’s actions in Ezekiel’s day, which were as much directed by Qaus as were Israel’s by Yahweh, imitated the march of Yahweh in ancient times – a march from the south into the land, the acquisition of new territory by a deity and his nation. What a direct challenge to Yahweh’s honor, indeed! And thus is the threefold repetition of the recognition formula explained. The question to be asked in regard to the recognition formula in Ezek 35, or any foreign nation oracle, is what exactly does Ezekiel expect Edom to learn about Yahweh, given the fact that Yahweh will transform Edom into “eternal wastelands” (‫ ;שממות עולם‬v. 35.9)?116 Zimmerli argued that the point of the recognition formula was “… the adoration that kneels because of divinely inspired recognition, and orientation toward the one who himself says ‘I am Yahweh …’” and he adds that while the majority of the statements are directed toward Israel, nevertheless “… the same recognition is expected from the rest of the world’s nations.”117 Similarly, Paul Raabe has more recently opined: “When the nations experience the upcoming disaster, they will know and acknowledge that the one who afflicted them is Yahweh, the God of Israel. They will discover and experientially know that the one who really deserves to be treated as god, the one who in fact defeats them, rules over them and judges them is Israel’s God.”118 These conclusions certain seem reasonable given, as Zimmerli pointed out, that the recognition formula appears unaltered both in oracles directed to Israel and in the foreign nation oracles. Still, in an encounter with Yahweh, is it reasonable for Ezekiel to have expected the same response from a people never covenanted to Yahweh, whom he often denigrates as “uncircumcised” (e. g., Ezek regions. See his, No Graven Image? Israelite Aniconism in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context, ConBibOT 42 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1995), 135–97; especially his discussions on 174 and 195–7. 116 See in this regard my essay, “Ezekiel’s Use of the Recognition Formula in His Oracles against the Nations.” PRSt 22/2 (1995): 115–34. 117 Walther Zimmerli, “Knowledge of God According to the book of Ezekiel,” in I am Yahweh” (ed. Walter Brueggemann; trans. Douglas W. Stott; Atlanta: John Knox, 1982; original German, 1969), 88. 118 “Transforming the International Status Quo: Ezekiel’s oracles against the Nations,” in Transforming Visions: Transformations of Text, Tradition, and Theology in Ezekiel, eds. William A. Tooman and Michael A. Lyons, PTMS 127 (Eugene, Ore.: Pickwick, 2010), 202.

The Conquest of the Land and Yahweh’s Honor before the Nations in Ezekiel

313

31.18; 32: 19, 21; 44.7, 9), as the response from his own people, Israel? Moreover, oracles against the nations were uttered to the prophets’ own people, and not to the foreign nations named in the subject line.119 What would be the point of summoning a foreign nation to kneel in adoration to Yahweh, if they were not present to receive Ezekiel’s “alter call”? In the ensuing paragraphs, I will answer these questions by arguing that, far from eliciting worship, confession, or experiential knowledge from Edom, the recognition formula in Ezek 35 promised the defense and display of Yahweh’s honor before the world of nations.120 Ezekiel 36.22–23a speaks directly to the question of what precisely foreign nations should learn about Yahweh from his actions: “It is not for your sake that I act, O House of Israel, but rather for that of my holy name, which you defiled among the nations, to which you went. I will sanctify my great name which you defiled among the nations, which you defiled in their midst. Then the nations will know that I am Yahweh.” The syntax of these lines dictates that we read the concluding recognition formula, with the nations as the subject of ‫ידע‬, in a causative relationship with Yahweh’s actions.121 That is to say that Yahweh’s acting has two purposes. First, Yahweh must sanctify his great name (‫ ;וקדשתי את שמי הגדול‬v. 23a), thereby reversing the damage done to his holy name by the House of Israel. Second, Yahweh acts in order that the nations will come to know Yahweh. The content of this knowledge is the revelation of Yahweh’s name, which appears in the parallel expression “for the sake of my holy name” (‫ ;לשם־קדשי‬v. 22). In both instances, when Yahweh’s name is mentioned in these two verses, the defilement of Yah119 See Ronald E. Clements, Prophecy and Tradition (Atlanta: John Know, 1975), 61–2. Along these same lines, see Karin Schöpflin’s comments regarding the rhetorical nature of the recognition formula in the five foreign nation oracles in Ezek 25.1–26.6, which are actually addressed to the prophet’s own people (“Die Tyrosworte im Kontext,” 195). 120 The ancient Near Eastern context of honor and shame is critical for reading Ezekiel as a whole, and the recognition formula specifically. See the following selected studies: Lyn M. Bechtel, “Shame as a Sanction of Social Control in Biblical Israel: Judicial, Political, and Social Shaming,” JSOT 49 (1991): 47–76; Saul M. Olyan, “Honor, Shame, and Covenant Relations in Ancient Israel and Its Environment,” JBL 115 (1996): 201–18; Victor H. Matthews and Don C. Benjamin, “Introduction: Social Sciences and Biblical Studies,” in Honor and Shame in the World of the Bible, eds. Victor H. Matthews and Don C. Benjamin, Semeia 68 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), 7–21; Jacqueline E. Lapsley, Can These Bones Live? The Problem of the Moral Self in the Book of Ezekiel, BZAW 31 (New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2000); idem, “Shame and Self-Knowledge: The Positive Role of Shame in Ezekiel’s View of the Moral Self,” in The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives, eds. Margaret S. Odell and John T. Strong, SBLSS 9 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000), 143–73; and Margaret S. Odell, “The Inversion of Shame and Forgiveness in Ezekiel 16.59–63,” JSOT 56 (1992): 101–112. 121 The sequence of verbs in these verses are as follows: participle construction with ‫עשה‬ (v. 22), followed by two weqatalt verbs (‫ קדש‬in v. 23a, and ‫ ידע‬in v. 23bα). See the discussion in Thomas O. Lambdin, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1971), § 132, specifically his discussion of point 1c (163). Waltke and O’Connor, IBHS, § 37.7.2a, see examples #3 and #4.

314

John T. Strong

weh’s name by the exile of the House of Israel is placed prominently before the reader. What needs reparation is Yahweh’s honor. Ezekiel 20 illuminates the content of the recognition formula in foreign nation oracles, for there is found the expression ‫ לשמי‬and ‫“( למען שמי‬for the sake of my name”), which parallels the recognition formula here in vv. 36.22–23bα. In chapter 20, Yahweh’s defense of his honor before the nations of the world directs his action at each step according to Ezekiel’s revision of the exodus-settlement process. Initially, already in the midst of Egypt, Yahweh elected Israel, and made himself known (‫ )ואודע להם‬to the seed of Jacob, saying “I am Yahweh your God” (‫ ;אני יהוה אלהיכם‬v. 5). The first generation rebelled while still in Egypt, and then again in the wilderness (vv. 8, 13). In both cases, as Ezekiel constructed his story, Yahweh restrained his wrath only on account of his concern for his honor before the nations (vv. 9, 14), using the same language as he did in 36:22, ‫ואעש למען‬ ‫שמי … לעיני הגוים‬. Likewise, when the second generation rebelled, still in the wilderness, Yahweh restrained his wrath only on account of his concern for his honor before the nations (v. 22), again using the same language as he did in 36.22. With many commentators, I deem vv. 20.27–29 to be secondary,122 which means that Ezekiel leaves Israel in the wilderness. That is to say, in Ezekiel’s version of the exodus, Yahweh leads Jacob directly from Egypt into exile. In Ezek 20, Ezekiel never envisioned a conquest or settlement, at least not yet. In defending Yahweh’s honor in chapter 20, Ezekiel merely appropriated a sub-plot within the theological tradition of the exodus.123 In Exod 5.2, when Moses asks that the nation be allowed to go out for a three day journey to worship Yahweh their God, Pharaoh asks: “Who is Yahweh that I should heed him?” Pharaoh asks this question because he does not recognize Yahweh, and specifically, he does not honor Yahweh. The plagues present Yahweh’s power to Pharaoh and the Egyptians on this point, demanding Pharaoh’s honor. In Exod 7.5, Yahweh explains to Moses that he will multiply his signs and strike Pharaoh and the Egyptians, so that Egypt will know that he is Yahweh – note the use of the recognition formula. And – why does Yahweh toss Pharaoh and his army into the chaotic waters of the Reed Sea? According to Exod 14.18, so that they will know that he is Yahweh – again, note the appearance of the recognition formula. From the perspective of the texts in Exod 7.5 and 14:18, Pharaoh’s death was simply the last and most severe of answers to Pharaoh’s question in Exod 5.2. At this point, one wonders what exactly a dead Pharaoh and his drowned army were really capable of knowing about Yahweh, lying dead as they were at the bottom of 122 See, e. g., Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 404 (“a clumsily introduced appendix”), and 412; Sedlmeier, Das Buch Ezechiel 1–24, 270–1, 293–4. 123 See also my discussion in “Israel as a Testimony to Yhwh’s Power: The Priests’ Definition of Israel,” in Constituting the Community: Studies on the Polity of Ancient Israel in Honor of S. Dean McBride, Jr., eds. John T. Strong and Steven S. Tuell (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 89–107.

The Conquest of the Land and Yahweh’s Honor before the Nations in Ezekiel

315

the Yam Suph. Silly as this observation is, it underscores the fact that what is at stake here in the text is the display of Yahweh’s honor as a powerful deity before Pharaoh, the nations, and by extension, before Chaos. Pharaoh’s response, or that of the Egyptian officials and soldiers, is actually irrelevant. The point of the text was never for a foreign nation to gain experiential knowledge of Yahweh, rather it was always to display Yahweh’s honor to an Israelite audience. Theirs were the knees that should kneel in adoration. Returning to Ezek 20, the prophet’s restructured telling of the exodus event retained the same theological goal of making Yahweh’s honor known to the other nations. And his theological point in chapter 20 only states in narrative form the purpose behind Yahweh’s saving acts at the end of the exile, stated in oracular form in Ezek 36.22–23a. Yahweh acted for the sake of his honor before the foreign nations. Further, as the reverse side of the page, the content of the recognition formula in Ezek 35.4, 9, and 12a conveys likewise that Yahweh will conquer Mount Seir, this ancient holy mountain, in order to gain honor for himself.

4. Conclusions and Final Reflections By way of review, Ezek 35.1–12a* interprets the historical encroachment of Edom into the southern Arabah and northeastern Negev regions theologically as an encroachment on Yahweh’s sacred possession, and consequently, as the defaming of Yahweh himself. As a counter, Ezek 35.1–12a* affirms that Yahweh will again possess the land, and in so doing, win honor for himself. The twinned notions of possession and Yahweh’s honor were alloyed together in the conquest traditions of ancient Israel. Ezekiel utilized this conquest dogma as a part of his complex theological program of restoration of his fellow exiles as the people of Yahweh. In regard to language, Ezekiel’s oracle lacks the conquest formulations discussed earlier, now found in the Torah. In particular, the various lists of seven, six, or five nations do not appear; they have all been replaced by a single exemplar  – Seir / ​Edom. This situation reflects the fact that Ezekiel was faced with an actual historical problem, not one ritualized and celebrated in the cult.124 Ezekiel’s language and the form of his critique, therefore, took on the genre of prophetic oracle, of a tripartite proof-saying. Such language was used by prophets to advise kings about how to proceed in real, historical events, transpiring on this earth.125 Still, the two critical theological elements remained. One, Yahweh would settle his elected people on his land, or as Daniel Block has correctly discussed 124 See the proposal by Duane L. Christensen, “Nations,” ABD IV: 1037–8; and Deuteronomy 1–11, 46–7; 157. 125 See Robert R. Wilson, Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 89–134.

316

John T. Strong

this theological notion, Yahweh’s estate.126 Two, in the process, Yahweh’s honor would be displayed for the world to behold. I want to recall from the discussion of the recognition formula that in his revisionist narrative of the exodus, Ezekiel never portrayed Israel’s settlement in the land, he never portrayed the conquest. And yet, he still affirmed Yahweh’s kingship (20.33). Now, here, in his judgment on Edom’s construction of a trade route to the Mediterranean Sea, Ezekiel finally sets the other bookend of the exodus-conquest in place. Ezekiel’s theological program, then, ultimately understood the exile as one more step in the process of filtering out the impurities within the people, by which a pure, elect nation would be settled on the land. This nation was the exile community. So, it is only with them that Ezekiel promises a conquest. Consequently, it is here, finally, that he affirms Yahweh’s honor through the threefold repetition of the recognition formula. Finally, Ezekiel’s use and application of conquest concepts only really works from the perspective of the exiles, from those outside of the land who will in the future move into it. As such, Ezekiel’s use of conquest ideology here is actually an extension of his focus on the exiles as the new elect of Israel.127 The propriety of Ezekiel’s appropriation of conquest traditions for the exiles is seen even more clearly when contrasted with the tradition used by those remaining in the land, who claim a right to inherit the land from Abraham (“Abraham was only one man, … the land is surely give us to possess”; 33.24). Surely Ezekiel produced this quote in order to pejorate the land claims of the survivors. This observation only highlights, however, the two ideologies for possessing the land, inheritance or conquest. His theologically driven preference for the exiles directed him to the conquest ideology as the means by which the exiles, the elect of Israel, would again possess an all new land, once it had enjoyed its Sabbaths (cf. Lev 26.34–35).

Bibliography Aharoni, Yohanon. “Arad: Its Inscriptions and Temple,” Biblical Archaeologist 31 (1968): 2–32. – Arad Inscriptions. Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society, 1981. – “The Solomonic Temple, the Tabernacle, and the Arad Sanctuary.” Pages 1–8 in Orient and Occident: Essays Presented to Cyrus H. Gordon on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Edited by Harry A. Hoffner, Jr. Neukirchener-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1973. Ahn, John. “Psalm 137: Complex Communal Laments,” Journal of Biblical Literature 127 (2008): 267–289. Allen, Leslie. Ezekiel 1–19. Word Biblical Commentary 28. Dallas: Word, 1994. – Ezekiel 20–48. Word Biblical Commentary 29. Dallas: Word, 1990. 126 See

127 See

Block, The Gods of the Nations, 74–97; and Ezekiel 25–48, 310. Dalit Rom-Shiloni, Exclusive Inclusivity, 139–97.

The Conquest of the Land and Yahweh’s Honor before the Nations in Ezekiel

317

Barstad, Hans M. The Myth of the Empty Land: A Study in the History and Archaeology of Judah During the ‘Exilic’ Period. Symbolae Osloenses Fasciculi Suppletorii XXVIII. Oslo: Scandinavian University, 1996. Bartlett, John R. “The Brotherhood of Edom.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 4 (1977): 2–27. – Edom and the Edomites. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, vol. 77. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989. – “Edom and the Fall of Jerusalem, 587 B. C.” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 114 (1982): 13–24. – “Yahweh and Qaus: A Response to Marten Rose (JSOT 4 [1977]: 28–34).” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 5 (1978): 29–38. Bechtel, Lyn M. “Shame as a Sanction of Social Control in Biblical Israel: Judicial, Political, and Social Shaming.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 49 (1991): 47–76. Beit-Arieh, Itzhaq. Ḥorvat ʿUza and Ḥorvat Radum: Two Fortresses in the Biblical Negev. Tel Aviv University Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 25. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology, 2007. – “A Literary Ostracon from Ḥorvat ʿUza.” Tel Aviv 20 (1993): 55–65. – “The Edomite Shrine at Ḥorvat Qitmit in the Judean Negev: A Preliminary Report.” Tel Aviv 18 (1991): 93–116. – “Edomites Advance into Judah.” Biblical Archaeology Review 22/6 (1996): 29–36. – “The Edomites in Cisjordan.” Pages 33–40 in You Shall Not Abhor an Edomite for He is Your Brother: Edom and Seir in History and Tradition. Edited by Diana Vikander Edelman. Society of Biblical Literature Archaeology and Biblical Studies 3. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. – Tel ʿIra: A Stronghold in the Biblical Negev. Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University, no. 15. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University, 1999. Beit-Arieh, Itzhaq, Bruce C. Cresson. “Ḥorvat ʿUza: A Fortified Outpost on the Eastern Negev Border,” Biblical Archaeologist 54/3 (September, 1991): 126–135. – “An Edomite Ostracon from Ḥorvat ʿUza.” Tel Aviv 12 (1985): 96–101. Beit-Arieh, Itzaq and Liora Freud. Tel MalḤata: A Central city in the Biblical Negev, 2 volumes. Tel Aviv University / ​Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 32. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2015. Beit-Arieh, Itzhaq, Pirhiya Beck, and Liora Freud. Ḥorvat Qitmit: An Edomite Shrine in the Biblical Negev. Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University, no. 11. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University, 1995. Ben Zvi, Ehud. “Total Exile, Empty Land and the General Intellectual Discourse in Yehud.” Pages 155–168 in The Concept of Exile in Ancient Israel and its Historical Contexts. Edited by Ehud Ben Zvi and Christoph Levin. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 404. New York: De Gruyter, 2010. Biran, Avraham. “Aroer (in Judea).” Pages 90–1 in vol. 1 of The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Edited by Ephraim Stern. 5 vols. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Carta, 1993. – “And David Sent Spoils … to the Elders in Aroer” Biblical Archaeology Review 9/3 (1983): 28–37. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. “The Bible, Archaeology and Politics; or The Empty Land Revisited.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 27/2 (2002): 169–87.

318

John T. Strong

– Ezekiel. Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1990. Block, Daniel I. Beyond the River Chebar: Historical, Literary, and Theological Studies in the Book of Ezekiel. Eugene, Ore.: Cascade Books, 2013. – The Book of Ezekiel 1–24. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. – The Book of Ezekiel 25–48. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. – By the River Chebar: Historical, Literary, and Theological Studies in the Book of Ezekiel. Eugene, Ore.: Cascade Books, 2013. – “The God Ezekiel Wants Us to Meet: Theological Perspectives on the Book of Ezekiel.” Pages 162–92 in The God Ezekiel Creates. Edited by Joyce and Rom-Shiloni (see full citation in this bibliography). – The Gods of the Nations: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern National Theology. Evangelical Theological Society Monograph Series No. 2; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1988. – “Transformation of Royal Ideology in Ezekiel.” Pages 208–46 in Tooman and Lyons, Transforming Visions. (See full citation in this bibliography below.) Blomquist, Tina Haettner. Gates and Gods: Cults in the City Gates of Iron Age Palestine. An Investigation of the Archaeological and Biblical Sources. Coniectanea Biblica: Old Testament Series 46. Lund: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1999. Boadt, Lawrence. “Rhetorical Strategies in Ezekiel’s Oracles of Judgment.” Pages 182–200 in Ezekiel and His Book. Edited by Johan Lust. Leuven: University Press; 1986. Christensen, Duane. Deuteronomy 1–11. Word Biblical Commentary 6a. Dallas: Word, 1991. Clements, Ronald E. God and Temple. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1965. – Ezekiel. Westminster Bible Companion. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996. – Isaiah 1–39 (New Century Bible. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1980. – “The Prophets and the Nations.” Pages 58–72 in Prophecy and Tradition. Growing Points in Theology. Atlanta: John Knox, 1975. Cohen, Rudolph. “The Fortresses at ʿEn Ḥaṣeva.” Biblical Archaeologist 57/4 (December 1994): 203–14. Cohen, Rudolph, and Yigal Yisrael. “The Iron Age Fortresses at ʿEn Ḥaṣeva.” Biblical Archaeologist 58/4 (December 1995): 223–35. Cresson, Bruce C. “The Condemnation of Edom in Postexilic Judaism.” Pages 125–48 in The Use of the Old Testament in the New and Other Essays: Studies in Honor of William Franklin Stinespring. Edited by James M. Efird. Durham, N. C.: Duke University Press; 1972. Cross, Frank Moore. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1973. – “An Ostracon in Literary Hebrew from Ḥorvat ʿUza.” Pages 111–13 in The Archaeology of Jordan and Beyond: Essays in Honor of James A. Sauer. Edited by Lawrence e. Stager, Joseph A. Greene, and Michael D. Coogan. Studies in the Archaeology and History of the Levant 1. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2000. – “Reuben, First-Born of Jacob.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentlische Wissenschaft 100/ Supplement (1988): 46–65. Davis, Andrew R. Tel Dan in Its Northern Cultic Context. Society of Biblical Literature Archaeology and the Bible Series 20. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013.

The Conquest of the Land and Yahweh’s Honor before the Nations in Ezekiel

319

Dicou, Bert. Edom, Israel’s Brother and Antagonist: The Role of Edom in Biblical Prophecy and Story. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 169. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Edelman, Diana. “Edom: A Historical Geography.” Pages 1–11 in You Shall Not Abhor an Edomite for He is Your Brother: Edom and Seir in History and Tradition. Society of Biblical Literature Archaeology and the Bible Series 3. Edited by Diana Vikander Edelman. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. Faust, Avraham. Judah in the Neo-Babylonian Period: The Archaeology of Desolation. Society of Biblical Literature: Archaeology and Biblical Studies 18. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010. Finkelstein, Israel. “Ḥorvat Qitmit and the Southern Trade in the Late Iron Age II.” Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins (1953–) 108 (192): 156–70. Fohrer, Georg. Ezechiel. Handbuch zum Alten Testament, Erste Reihe, 13. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr / ​Paul Siebeck, 1955. Fritz, Volkmar. “Masos, Tel.” Pages 437–9 in volume 3 of The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East. Edited by Eric M. Meyers. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. Gerstenberger, Erhard S. Leviticus. Trans. Douglas W. Stott. Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996. – Theologies in the Old Testament. Translated by John Bowden. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002. Greenberg, Moshe. Ezekiel 1–20. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Bible 22. Garden City N. Y.: Doubleday & Company, 1983. – Ezekiel 21–37. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Bible 22A. Garden City N. Y.: Doubleday & Company, 1997. Hals, Ronald M. Ezekiel. Forms of the Old Testament Literature XIX. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989. Ishida, Tomoo. “The Structure and Historical Implications of the Lists of Pre-Israelite Nations.” Biblica 60 (1979): 461–90. Joosten, Jan. People and Land in the Holiness Code. Vetus Testamentum Supplements 67. New York: Brill, 1996. Kelle, Brad E. “Dealing with the Trauma of Defeat: The Rhetoric of the Devastation and Rejuvenation of Nature in Ezekiel.” Journal of Biblical Literature 128/3 (2009): 469–490. Kempinski, Aharon. “Masos, Tel.” Pages 986–9 in volume 3 of The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Edited by Ephraim Stern. New York: Israel Exploration Society and Carta, Jerusalem, 1993. Klein, Anja. Schriftauslegung im Ezechielbuch: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Ez 34–39. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 391. New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2008. Kochavi, Moshe. “Tel Malḥata.” Pages 934–6 in volume 3 of The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Edited by Ephraim Stern. New York: Israel Exploration Society and Carta, Jerusalem, 1993. Lapsley, Jacqueline E. Can These Bones Live? The Problem of the Moral Self in the Book of Ezekiel. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentlische Wissenschaft, Band 31. New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2000. – “Shame and Self-Knowledge: The Positive Role of Shame in Ezekiel’s View of the Moral Self.” Pages 143–73 in The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives. See below under Margaret S. Odell, John T. Strong.

320

John T. Strong

Lemaire, Andre, and Benjamin Sass, “The Mortuary Stele with Sam’alian Inscription from Ordekburnu near Zinc̨irli,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 369 (2013): 57–136. Leuchter, Mark “Why Is the Song of Moses in the Book of Deuteronomy?” Vetus Testamentum 57 (2007): 295–317. Lipschits, Oded. “The Rural Settlement in Judah in the Sixth Century BCE: A Rejoinder.” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 136/2 (2004): 99–107. Lust, Johan. “‫ יהוה ינדא‬in Ezekiel and its Counterpart in the Old Greek.” Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses 76 (1996): 138–45. Lust, Johan ed. Ezekiel and His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and their Interrelation. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium LXXIV. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1986. Lyons, Michael A. From Law to Prophecy: Ezekiel’s Use of the Holiness Code. Library of Hebrew Bible / ​Old Testament Studies 507. New York: T & T Clark, 2009. – “Transformation of Law: Ezekiel’s Use of the Holiness Code (Leviticus 17–26).” Pages 1–32 in Transforming Visions: Transformations of Text, Tradition, and Theology in Ezekiel. Edited by Tooman and Lyons (see full citation in this bibliography). Matthews, Victor H. and Don C. Benjamin. “Introduction: Social Sciences and Biblical Studies.” Pages 7–21 in Honor and Shame in the World of the Bible. Edited by Victor H. Matthews and Don C. Benjamin. Semeia 68. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996. Mayes, A. D. H. Deuteronomy. New Century Biblical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979. Mettinger, Trygvve N. D. No Graven Image? Israelite Aniconism in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context. Coniectanea Biblica: Old Testament Series 42. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1995. Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 3. New York: Doubleday, 1991. – Leviticus 17–22: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Yale Bible 3A. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000. – Leviticus 23–27: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Yale Bible 3B. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001. Miller, Patrick D. The Religion of Ancient Israel. Library of Ancient Israel. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2000. Nelson, Richard D. Deuteronomy. Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster / ​John Knox, 2002. Odell, Margaret S. Ezekiel. Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary. Macon, Ga.: Smyth & Helwys, 2005. – “The Inversion of Shame and Forgiveness in Ezekiel 16.59–63.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 56 (1992) 101–112. Odell, Margaret S., and John T. Strong, eds. The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives. SBL Symposium Series 9. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000. Olyan, Saul M. “Honor, Shame, and Covenant Relations in Ancient Israel and Its Environment.” Journal of Biblical Literature 115 (1996): 201–18. Pardee, Dennis. “A New Aramaic Inscription from Zincirli,” BASOR 356 (November, 2009): 51–71. Pohlmann, Karl-Friedrich. Das Buch des Propheten Hesekiel (Ezechiel): Kapitel 1–19. Das Alte Testament Deutsch 22/1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996.

The Conquest of the Land and Yahweh’s Honor before the Nations in Ezekiel

321

– Das Buch des Propheten Hesekiel (Ezechiel): Kapitel 20–48. Das Alte Testament Deutsch 22/2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001. – Ezekielstudien: Zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Buches und zur Frage nach den ältesten Texten, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 202. New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1992. – „Synchrone und diachrone Texterschlieβung im Ezekchielbuch.“ Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 1 (2012): 246–70. – „Zur Frage nach den ältesten Texten im Ezechielbuch – Erwägungen zu Ez 17, 19, 31.“ Pages 150–72 in V. Fritz, K.-F. Pohlmann, and H.-C. Schmitt, Prophet und Prophetenbuch. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 185. New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1989. Raabe, Paul. “Transforming the International Status Quo: Ezekiel’s oracles against the Nations.” Pages 187–207 in Transforming Visions: Transformations of Text, Tradition, and Theology in Ezekiel. Edited by William A. Tooman and Michael A. Lyons. Princeton Theological Monograph Series 127. Eugene, Ore.: Pickwick, 2010. Rad, Gerhard von. “The Form-Critical Problem of the Hexateuch.” Pages 1–78 in The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays. Trans. E. W. Trueman Dicken. London: SCM, 1966 (original German publication, 1938). Rainey, Anson F. “Hezekiah’s Reform and the Altars at Beer-sheba and Arad.” Pages 333–54 in Scripture and Other Artifacts: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Honor of Philip J. King. Edited by Michael D. Coogan, J. Cheryl Exum, and Lawrence E. Stager. Louisville: Westminster / ​John Knox, 1994. Robertson, David A. Linguistic Evidence in Dating Early Hebrew Poetry. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 3. Missoula, Mont.: Society of Biblical Literature, 1976. Rom-Shiloni, Dalit. Exclusive Inclusivity: Identity Conflicts between the Exiles and the People Who Remained (6th to 5th Centuries bce). Library of Hebrew Bible / ​Old Testament Studies 543; New York: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2013. – “Ezekiel and Jeremiah: What Might Stand Behind the Silence?” Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 1/2 (2012): 203–30. – “Ezekiel as the Voice of the Exiles and Constructor of Exilic Ideology.” Hebrew Union College Annual 76 (2005): 1–45. Sanders, Seth L. “The Appetites of the Dead: West Semitic Linguistic and Ritual Aspects of the Katumuwa Stele,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 369 (2013): 35–55. Schöpflin, Karin. “Die Tyrosworte im Kontext des Ezechielbuches.” Pages 191–213 in Israeliten und Phönizier: Ihre Beziehungen im Spiegel der Archäologie und der Literatur des Alten Testaments und seiner Umwelt. Edited by Markus Witte and Johannes F. Diehl. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 235. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008. – Theologie als Biographie im Ezechielbuch: Ein Beitrag zur Konzeption alttestamentlicher Prophetie. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 36. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. Sedlmeier, Franz. Das Buch Ezechiel, Kapitel 1–24. Neuer Stuttgarter Kommentar Altes Testament 21/2. Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2002. – Das Buch Ezechiel, Kapitel 25–48. Neuer Stuttgarter Kommentar Altes Testament 21/2. Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2013. Smith, Mark S. The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987.

322

John T. Strong

Strong, John T. “Egypt’s Shameful Death and the House of Israel’s Exodus from Sheol (Ezekiel 32.17–32 and 37.1–14),” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 34 (2010): 475–504. – “Ezekiel’s Use of the Recognition Formula in his oracles against the Nations.” Perspectives in Religious Studies 22/2 (1995): 115–34. – “Israel as a Testimony to Yhwh’s Power: The Priests’ Definition of Israel.” Pages 89–107 in Constituting the Community: Studies on the Polity of Ancient Israel in Honor of S. Dean McBride, Jr. Edited by John T. Strong and Steven S. Tuell. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2005). Strubble, Eudora J., and Virginial Rimmer Herrmann. “An Eternal Feast at Samʾal: The New Iron Age Mortuary Stele from Zincirli in Context,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 356 (November, 2009): 15–49. Sweeney, Marvin A. “The Ezekiel that G-d Creates.” Pages 150–61 in The God Ezekiel Creates. Edited by Joyce and Rom-Shiloni (see full citation in this bibliography). Thiessen, Matthew. “The Form and Function of the Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32:1– 43),” Journal of Biblical Literature 123 (2004): 401–24. Tigay, Jeffrey H. Deuteronomy. The JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996. Uehlinger, Christoph. “Arad, Qitmit  – Judahite Aniconism vs. Edomite Iconic Cult? Questioning the Evidence.” Pages 80–112 in Text, Artifact, and Image: Revealing Ancient Israelite Religion. Edited by Gary Beckman and Theodore J. Lewis. Brown Judaic Studies 346. Providence, R. I.: Brown Judaic Studies, 2006. Ussishkin, David. “The Date of the Judean Shrine at Arad.” Israel Exploration Journal 38 (1988): 142–57. Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy 1–11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary Anchor Bible 5. New York: Doubleday, 1991. – Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972. – The Promise of the Land: The Inheritance of the Land of Canaan by the Israelites. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993. Wenham, Gordon J. Leviticus. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979. Wilson, Robert R. “The Death of the King of Tyre: The Editorial History of Ezekiel 28.” Pages 211–18 in Love and Death in the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of Marvin H. Pope. Edited by John Marks, and Robert Good. Guilford, Ct.: Four Quarters publishing, 1987. – “Ezekiel.” Pages 652–94 in Harper’s Bible Commentary. Edited by James L. Mays. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988. – “An Interpretation of Ezekiel’s Dumbness.” Vetus Testamentum 22 (1972): 91–104. – Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980. – “Prophecy in Crisis.” Interpretation 38 (1984): 117–30. Wong, Ka Leung. The Idea of Retribution in the Book of Ezekiel. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 87. Boston: Brill, 2001.

Reading Ezekiel 36.16–38 in Light of the Book: Observations on the Remembrance and Shame after Restoration (36.31–32) in a Synchronic Perspective Tobias Häner Gathering from the nations, returning to the land, cleansing from defilement, gifting of a new heart and a new spirit, fecundity of the trees and fields. In Ezek 36.16–38, the reader of the book of Ezekiel encounters an unprecedented accumulation of salvation promises to the “House of Israel.” In this context, the prediction of the remembrance of the iniquities committed by Israel in the past and the command to be ashamed in vv. 31–32 might seem to be somehow out of place.1 1  As the title of the paper suggests, the following analysis is methodologically based on a reader-oriented perspective, concentrating textually on the MT, without intending by this approach to take a position with regard to the textual critical questions concerning 36.23bβ–38 (and the sequence of the pericopae in Ezek 36–39) – questions relating to which extended research has been dedicated lately by Ashley Crane, Israel’s Restoration: A Textual-Comparative Exploration of Ezekiel 36–39, VTSup 122 (Leiden: Brill, 2008); Michael Konkel, “Das Ezechielbuch zwischen Hasmonäern und Zadokiden,” in Juda und Jerusalem in der Seleukidenzeit. Herrschaft – Widerstand – Identität. Festschrift für Heinz-Josef Fabry, ed. Ulrich Dahmen and Johannes Schnocks, BBB 159, (Göttingen: Athenäum Hain Hanstein, 2010), 59–78; Ingrid E. Lilly, Two Books of Ezekiel: Papyrus 967 and the Masoretic Text as Variant Literary Editions, VTSup 150 (Leiden: Brill, 2012); Johann Lust, “Ezekiel 36–40 in the Oldest Greek Manuscript,” CBQ 43 (1981): 517–533; idem., “Major Divergences between LXX and MT in Ezekiel,” in The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible: The Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered, ed. Adrian Schenker, SBLSCS 52 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2003), 83–92; idem., “Ezekiel’s Utopian Expectations,” in Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and other early Jewish Studies in honor of Florentino García Martínez, ed. Anthony Hilhorst, Émile Puech, and Eibert Tigchelaar, JSJSup 122; (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 403–419; Silvio S. Scatolini Apóstolo, “Ezek 36, 37, 38 and 39 in Papyrus 967 as Pre-Text for Re-Reading Ezekiel,” in Interpreting Translation. Studies on the LXX and Ezekiel in Honour of Johan Lust, ed. Florentino García Martínez, and Marc Vervenne, BETL 192 (Leuven: Peeters, 2005), 331–357; Peter Schwagmaier, “Untersuchungen zu Textgeschichte und Entstehung des Ezechielbuches in masoretischer und griechischer Überlieferung” (PhD diss., Universität Zürich 2004); and Michaël N. van der Meer, “A New Spirit in an Old Corpus? Text-Critical, Literary-Critical and Linguistic Observations regarding Ezekiel 36:16–38,” in The New Things: Eschatology in Old Testament Prophecy, ed. Ferenc Postma, Klaas Spronk, and Eep Talstra, ACEBT 3 (Maastricht: Shaker, 2002). Concerning redaction critical questions, a thorough study on Ezek 34–39 has been done recently by Anja Klein (Schriftauslegung im Ezechielbuch. Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Ez 34–39, BZAW 391 [Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008]). For an extended study on 36.16–38 with particular focus on the concept of alliance (cf. Carlos Granados García, La

324

Tobias Häner

On the contrary, the following analysis accumulates evidence that the two verses fit surprisingly well in their context in the pericope, when the latter is viewed in light of its references to passages in preceding parts of the book. As I will try to show, vv. 31–32 are of particular importance to the process of reading the book as a whole. They summarize the result to which the act of reading Ezekiel should lead. The analysis of the text will start with some observations on the position of vv. 31–32 in the context of vv. 16–38. Second, I will examine the references to previous sections of the book within vv. 17–30 and their influence on the reading process of the pericope. Third, the parallels to vv. 31–32 in Ezekiel will be analyzed. Finally, I will briefly discuss the outcome of the examination in the context of the research on shame in the book of Ezekiel.

1. The Position of 36.31–32 in the Salvation Oracle 36.16–38 For a profound analysis of the structure of 36.16–38 I refer to the paper offered by William Tooman in this volume and limit myself to some remarks concerning the position of vv. 31–32 in the MT of the pericope in a reader-oriented perspective. After the word-event formula (v. 16), the oracle begins with a private message to the prophet (vv. 17–21). In v. 22, the command to the prophet to speak (‫)אמר‬, the naming of the addressee (‫)בית ישראל‬, and the change to the 2nd person plural indicate the beginning of a direct speech to the exiles.2 The following textual signals indicate that vv. 31–32 is the conclusion of the direct address:3 –– While the repetition of the messenger formula in vv. 33 and 37 indicates the continuation of the address to the ‫בית ישראל‬, after v. 32 the signals of direct nueva alianza como recreación. Estudio exegético de Ez 36,16–38, AnBib 184 [Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute Press, 2010]). 2 In difference to the foregoing oracles within Ezek 34–37, the command to speak (‫ )ואמרת‬is missing in the introductory section of 36.16–38 (cf. 34.2; 35.3 and 36.1, 3 and 6). 3 Granados García, La nueva alianza, 57–59, and Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 343, 351, discern in vv. 22–32 a tripartite structure: vv. 22–23, 24–30 and 31–32; Granados García, besides mentioning the framing terms ‫ קדש‬and ‫( גוים‬vv. 22–23), resp. ‫ גוים‬and ‫( לקח‬vv. 24 and 30), resp. ‫( דרך‬vv. 31–32), particularly points out the change to the 2nd person plural in vv. 31–32 as distinguishing the last two verses from the foregoing part of the section (see La nueva alianza, 57–59). H. Van Dyke Parunak, “Structural Studies in Ezekiel” (PhD diss., Harvard University, 1978), 472, and Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 22A (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 733–734 (cf. also Leslie C. Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, WBC 29 [Waco: Word, 1990], 179) by proposing a chiastic structure of vv. 17–32 (A: vv. 17–19; B: vv. 20–21; B’: vv. 22–23; A’: vv. 24–32), do not take this change into account. Florian Markter, Transformationen. Zur Anthropologie des Propheten Ezechiel unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Motivs „Herz“, FzB 127 (Würzburg: Echter, 2013), 484–490, discerns in vv. 28–29a, 29b–30 and 31–32 a threefold consequence of the inner recreation of Israel announced in vv. 26–27.

Reading Ezekiel 36.16–38 in Light of the Book

325

address are sharply reduced. Only in vv. 22–32 we find verbs in the 2nd person plural with the subject “house of Israel.”4 Also, the use of the pronominal suffix in the 2nd person plural is to a large extent limited to this section of the pericope (28 occurrences in vv. 22–32, compared to three in vv. 33–36).5 In contrast, in vv. 37–38 the ‘House of Israel’ is referred to in the 3rd person. –– ‫ בית ישראל‬and ‫ לא למענכם אני עשה‬form an inclusio to vv. 22–32. The conclusion of the section is further highlighted by the final position of the term ‫בית‬ ‫( ישראל‬which frames vv. 17–21). –– Instead of announcements of divine deeds, vv. 31–32 are marked by predictions of the effects on the ‘house of Israel’ that will result from the salvation promised in vv. 22–30. While within vv. 22–30 only vv. 27b, 28 and 30b foretell what will be the result of the salvific acts of Yhwh, vv. 31–32 focus entirely on the reaction of Israel after the return from exile. This prediction of the reaction on the part of Israel is intensified by the concluding imperatives in v. 32b.6 –– Finally, vv. 31–32 are distinguished from the previous part of the pericope insofar as they go beyond the reversal of the situation that has led to the defilement of Yhwh’s name and, consequently, has elicited the acts of restoration of Israel. As v. 30b confirms, the cause of the defilement of the divine name – the scorn of the nations cited in v. 20 – will be ended. Beyond that vv. 31–32 indicate an ultimate result of restoration. We can thus state that vv. 31–32 have a conclusive function within vv. 21–32, pointing to the final result of the acts of salvation predicted in the pericope. In the next section, I demonstrate how the reader is led to the prediction of ‘remembering’ (‫זכר‬, v. 31a), ‘self-loathing’ (‫ קוט‬Niph, v. 31b) and ‘being ashamed’ (​ / ‫בוש‬ ‫ כלם‬Niph, v. 32b) by taking into account the references to previous passages of the book.

2. References to Previous Sections of the Book within 36.17–30 Before 36.31–32, the pericope exhibits a dense cluster of references to preceding sections of the book. In the following analysis, I focus on those that show a 4 The 14 verbs in 2nd pers. plur. in vv. 22–32 are: ‫חללתם‬, ‫( באתם‬v. 22); ‫( חללתם‬v. 23); ‫וטהרתם‬ (v. 25); ‫תלכו‬, ‫תשמרו‬, ‫( עשיתם‬v. 27); ‫ישבתם‬, ‫( הייתם‬v. 28); ‫( תקחו‬v. 30); ‫וזכרתם‬, ‫( ונקטתם‬v. 31), ‫( בושו והכלמו‬v. 32). 5 V. 33a, where the pronominal suffix in the 2nd person plural is used twice, serves as a resumption of v. 25 at the beginning of the new section, while v. 36 in a similar way takes up the recognition formula of v. 23, combining it with the motif of the ‘rest of the people around’ (‫ )שארית הגוים אשר מסביב‬of vv. 3 and 4. 6 Apart from the summons to listen (6.3; 13.2; 16.35; 18.25; 21.3; 25.3; 34.7, 9; 36.1, 4; 37.4), in Ezekiel, imperatives are used rarely within the prophetic speech: the call to repent recurs three times (14.6; 18.30–32; 33.11) and is taken up again in 45.8 (in a different wording and limited to the ‘princes of Israel’).

326

Tobias Häner

direct connection to 36.31–32, and therefore I do not treat explicitly the parallels to 5.5–17 and 11.14–21.7 2.1 Similarities to 36.17–19 and 24.13–14 Let us look now at the first section in the pericope (36.17–19), which is framed by the syntagm ‫ דרך‬+ ‫ עלילה‬and to which 36.31–32 are linked by the (re)use of ‫דרך‬ (vv. 31 and 32) and ‫( מעלל‬v. 31).8 In the first three verses after the introductory word-event formula, we notice a series of similarities to the section 24.13–14, which concludes the oracles of judgment in Ezek 4–24.9 The following textual elements link 36.17–19 to 24.13–14: –– The root ‫ טמא‬occurs three times in 36.17–19, while in 24.13 we find twice the noun ‫טמאה‬. As in 24.13–14 (and in the whole pericope vv. 3–14), the opposition of impurity and cleansing is an important motif in 36.16–38, recurring again in vv. 25 and 29a.10 –– The syntagm ‫ דרך‬+ ‫( עלילה‬vv. 17 and 19) was used previously in the book in 14.22–23, 20.43–44, and 24.14, but only in 24.14 and 36.19 is it accompanied

  7 Regarding the parallels between 5.5–17 and 36.29, 30 and 36 and between 11.14–21 and 36.24–30 cf. Tobias Häner, Bleibendes Nachwirken des Exils. Eine Untersuchung zur kanonischen Endgestalt des Ezechielbuches, HBS 78 (Freiburg: Herder, 2014), 414–416 and 419–420.   8 The use of the noun ‫ מעלל‬in v. 31 instead of ‫ עלילה‬is – like other linguistic features in vv. 23bβ–38 as the occurrence of the long form of the 1st person pronoun (‫ אנכי‬v. 28), the expression ‫( תחת אשר‬v. 34) and the pronoun ‫( הלזו‬v. 35) – unique in Ezekiel. It might indicate a close relation to the Deuteronomistic stratum of the book of Jeremiah (cf. Frank-Lothar Hossfeld, Untersuchungen zu Komposition und Theologie des Ezechielbuches, FzB 20 [Würzburg: Echter 1977], 323; Stefan Ohnesorge, Jahwe gestaltet sein Volk neu. Zur Sicht der Zukunft Israels nach Ez 11,14–21; 20,1–44; 36,16–38; 37,1–14.15–28, FzB 64 [Würzburg: Echter, 1991], 238–241): the male noun ‫ מעלל‬occurs 17 times in Jer, while the female word ‫ עלילה‬is missing; however, as van der Meer (“A New Spirit,” 155) points out, variations between feminine and masculine lexemes can be found in Ezekiel also in other cases, cf. e. g. the use of ‫ חק‬and ‫ חקה‬and the masculine and feminine forms of ‫עצם‬.   9 24.13–14 summarize in a double way the judgment on Judah and Jerusalem announced in Ezek 4–24: on the one hand, the two verses exhibit parallels to most of the concluding verses of the oracles of judgment in the first half of the book; on the other hand, 24.14 sums up the logic of Yhwh’s impending judgment by underlining the double correspondence between announcement and fulfillment (‫ דברתי באה ועשיתי‬v. 14a) and between the misdeeds of Israel and the divine retribution (‫ כדרכיך וכעלילותיך שפטוך‬v. 14b); cf. Häner, Bleibendes Nachwirken, 247–252. The last pericope in that part of the book (24.15–27) is centered on the announcement of the imminent fall of Jerusalem (cf. v. 21). 10 Apart from the occurrences in 24.11 and 13 and in 36.17, 25 and 29, the noun ‫ טמאה‬is found in the book only in 22.15 and 39.24; half of the 30 uses of the verb ‫ טמא‬and three out of five of the respective adjective occur within Ezek 20–24; in 24.15–36.15 the stem ‫ טמא‬appears only once (in 33.26), while the stem ‫טהר‬, which is used 16 times in Ezekiel (verb: 12 times; adjective: 3 times; noun: once [44.26 ‫)]טהרא‬, does not occur at all in the pericopes that are situated between 24.1–14 and 36.16–38.

Reading Ezekiel 36.16–38 in Light of the Book

327

by the verb ‫שפט‬. In fact, 36.19b appears to be almost a verbal repetition of 24.14b.11 –– As in 24.13, according to 36.18 the ‘impurity’ entails Yhwh’s ‘pouring out his fury’ (‫שפך חמה‬, cf. 24.13 ‫ נוח חמה‬Hiph). In consequence, the ‘bloodshed’ (‫שפך‬ ‫ )חמה‬mentioned in 36.18 may be seen in connection to the ‘woe to the bloody city’ (‫ )אוי עיר הדמים‬in 24.6 and 9. –– In total, 36.17–21 resumes the leitmotifs of the last part of the oracles of judgment against Israel and Judah (Ezek 20–24): “purify / ​defile” (‫ טהר‬/ ​‫)טמא‬, “desecrate / ​sanctify” (‫ חלל‬/ ​‫ )קדש‬and “pour out fury / ​blood” (‫ דם‬/ ‫)שפך​חמה‬.12 –– Finally, the lexemes ‫( טמאה‬vv. 17, 25, 29), ‫( טמא‬vv. 17 and 18), and ‫גלולים‬ (vv. 18 and 25) – like ‫( תועבות‬v. 31) and ‫( עון‬vv. 31 and 33) – belong to the core of the vocabulary of the judgment oracles in Ezek 4–24.13 Yet, the paragraph 36.17–21 by no means simply repeats the announcement of judgment. It looks back to the divine judgment from an altered perspective: –– In retrospective, Yhwh’s concern is about the “soil” (‫ אדמה‬v. 17, cf. v. 24) and “land” (‫ הארץ‬v. 18, cf. vv. 20, 28, 34 and 35) that is defiled by the misdeeds of the “house of Israel.”14 Accordingly, Israel, the source of the impurity, is thrown out of the land and exiled. –– Secondly, the topic of the nations (‫ גוים‬vv. 19–21, cf. vv. 22–24, 30, 36) comes to the foreground. By being scattered among the nations, Israel experiences their scorn (v. 20b), which finally leads to the desecration of Yhwh’s name.15 –– Finally, the relentlessness of judgment (24.14a) is not mentioned again. On

11 Textual criticism may suggest the correction of the 3rd pers. plural in 24.14b (‫ )שפטוך‬to the 1st pers. sing. (‫)שפטיך‬, as the majority of commentaries does (cf. e. g. Walther Zimmerli, Ezechiel, 2nd ed., BK 13 [Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchner Verlag, 1979], 559); Greenberg (Ezekiel 21–37, 503), sticking to the MT, proposes to identify, as in 23.45, “the foreigners to be brought by God against Judah” as the subject of the verb. According to Paul M. Joyce, (Ezekiel: A Commentary [LHBOTS 482; London: Bloomsbury, 2007], 203), 36.19b can be regarded as “a retrospective summary of Ezekiel’s judgement theology.” 12 These motifs are developed in Ezek 20 and recur throughout Ezek 21–24, cf. Häner, Bleibendes Nachwirken, 238–45. 13 32 of the 39 uses of ‫גלולים‬, 36 of the 43 uses of ‫ תועבות‬and 28 of the 44 uses of ‫ עון‬in the book fall within Ezek 4–24. 14 The focus on the ‘soil’ resp. the ‘land’, in which the ‘House of Israel’ will ‘dwell secure’ (‫ישב‬ ‫ )לבטח‬is characteristic of Ezek 33–39, (cf. Häner, Bleibendes Nachwirken, 362). Granados García (La nueva alianza, 90–96, 103–5, 125–27) recognizes in the retrospective on Israel’s history of guilt in the context of the (broken) alliance indications for a cosmic significance of the misdeeds of Israel, pointing out in particular the defilement of the soil (cf. Gen 4.9–12) and the bloodshed (cf. Gen 6.3, 11 and 13). 15 In vv. 19–21, a concentric structure can be recognized with the expression ‫גוים אשר באו‬ ‫שם‬, the verb ‫ חלל‬and the term ‫ שם־קדשי‬as framing elements that center the citation of the scorn of the nations in v. 20b and the divine reaction to it, the ‘feeling concern’ (‫ ;)חמל‬cf. Granados García, La nueva alianza, 57.

328

Tobias Häner

the contrary, 36.21 foretells that Yhwh will “feel concerned” (‫)חמל‬, not about Israel but about “my holy name” (‫)שם קדשי‬.16 In short, we can conclude that the section 36.17–21 formulates a new interpretation of the judgment predicted in Ezek 4–24. On the one hand, the point of view of the exiles is now taken, for whom the judgment did not mean extermination (as in 24.14a) but exile (36.19a). On the other hand, it is the negative consequences of that measure of judgment for Yhwh (not for the exiles) that comes to the fore (vv. 20–21) and on which the announcements of restoration following in vv. 22–38 are grounded. 2.2 The Phrase “It is not for your Sake that I will Act” (36. 22 and 32) and the Background of the Parallels between Ezekiel 20 and 36.17–21. Besides the similarities to 24.13–14, the reinterpretation of the judgment on the “house of Israel” in 36.17–21 is marked by parallels to Ezek 20, which continue up to 36.32.17 In the present chapter I concentrate on the accentuation of the phrase ‫ לא למענכם אני עשה‬in 36.22 and 32 against the background of Ezek 20. The review of the exodus in 20.5–29 shows a threefold repetition of the same pattern in vv. 5–9, 10–14 and 15–22, which is concluded each time with the menace of “pouring out the fury” (‫ )שפך חמה‬and the withholding of it “for the sake of the name” (‫ואעש למען שמי‬, cf. v. 44: ‫ )בעשותי אתכם למען שמי‬that it should not be “defiled” (‫ חלל‬Niph) “in the eyes of the nations” (‫)לעיני הגוים‬. As 36.18 confirms, the judgment has been executed.18 Yhwh has poured out his fury (‫ואשפך חמתי‬, 36.18), hence his name has been defiled among the nations 16 The phrase ‫ לא־תחוס עיני ולא־אחמול‬is in varying forms repeated six times within Ezek 4–11 (5.11; 7.4, 9; 8.18; 9.5, 10) and taken up again in 24.14, without the verb ‫ חמל‬used in 36.21. 17 Regarding the relations between Ezek 30 and 36.16–23bα in respect of the composition of the book cf. Rolf Rendtorff, “Ez 20 und 36,16 ff im Rahmen der Komposition des Buches Ezechiel,” in Ezekiel and his Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and their Interrelation, ed. Johan Lust; BETL 74 (Leuven: Peeters, 1986), 260–265. In a synchronic perspective, the parallels to Ezek 20 in 36.16–38 present themselves as a reprise: reading the book from its beginning, the reader has already knowledge of Ezek 20 when he comes to our pericope. In a redactioncritical view, according to H. Simian(‑Yofre) (Die theologische Nachgeschichte der Prophetie Ezechiels. Form‑ und traditionskritische Untersuchung zu 6; 35; 36, FzB 14 [Würzburg: Echter, 1974], 33), 36.16–23bα is dependent on Ezek 20, while Thomas Krüger (Geschichtskonzepte im Ezechielbuch, BZAW 180; [Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989], 441–44), Karl-Friedrich Pohlmann (Ezechielstudien. Zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Buches und zur Frage nach den ältesten Texten, BZAW 202 [Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992], 79–84); cf. Das Buch des Propheten Hesekiel (Ezechiel). Kapitel 20–48 (Mit einem Beitrag von T. A. Rudnig), ATD 22 [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001], 485–487) and Klein (Schriftauslegung, 154–161) argue for the priority of Ezek 36.16–23bα; concerning the textual relations between Ezek 20 and 36.16–38 cf. also the paper of Penelope Barter in this volume. 18 36.19 repeats the same locution as 20.23 to describe the exiling (‫ זרה בארצות‬Piel; ‫פוץ בגוים‬ Hiph), cf. also 20.34, 41. Within the book, the same double formula is found in 22.15; 29.12; 30.23, 36.

Reading Ezekiel 36.16–38 in Light of the Book

329

(vv. 20a, 21b, 22b, 23a). Consequently, just as Yhwh originally had taken Israel to the Promised Land withholding his fury for the sake of his name, now he will restore Israel (vv. 24–38) for the same reason, i. e. for the sake of his name (v. 22).19 Therefore, against the background of Ezek 20, with the phrase ‫לא למענכם אני‬ ‫ עשה‬in 36.22 and 32, the reader is reminded of the ceaseless rebellion of Israel that had signed already the exodus out of Egypt and led finally to exile. The framing of the announcement of restoration by the repeated declaration, that it is not by their own merit that the exiles will be restored to their land, contrasts the promise of salvation with the persistent rebelliousness of Israel against Yhwh. As a conclusion, in 36.32 the effect of this contrary acting of Yhwh is evidenced: Israel ought to be ashamed and dismayed. We will now look at this double command in light of the parallels to vv. 31–32 in the book.

3. Parallels to 36.31–32 in Ezekiel There are two foregoing passages in the book that, like 36.31a, speak of the “remembering of the ways” (‫ )זכר דרך‬of Israel: 16.61 and 20.43.20 By comparing 36.31–32 to these two passages, I will try to demonstrate that there are further parallels with these two passages and that these previous sections, together with 6.8–10, have an influence on the reading process of 36.31–32, illuminating the understanding of the “remembering” and “being ashamed” in consequence of Israel’s restoration. Finally, we will also treat briefly the two passages after 36.31–32 that foretell shame after restoration (39.26 and 43.10–11). 3.1 Ezekiel 36.31–32 against the Background of Ezekiel 16 In the final section of Ezek 16, apart from the phrase ‫זכר דרך‬, also the roots ‫כלם‬ and ‫ בוש‬that conclude 36.32 occur, respectively, once and twice (‫ כלם‬v. 61, ‫בוש‬ and ‫ כלמה‬v. 63). Thus, we assert again a combination of the “memory of the ways” and shame. In addition, as in 36.31–32, in Ezek 16 the double process of remembering the misdeeds and feeling shame is effected by the restorative actions of Yhwh.

19 This is in distinction from Ezek 20.9, 14, 22, but in accordance to 20.39, the ‘name’ (‫)שם‬ is specified in 36.20–22 as ‘name of my holiness’. In a redaction-critical perspective, Klein (Schriftauslegung, 141–68 and 368–72) identifies 36.16–22 and 39.23–29* as the (originally consecutive parts of the) core of prophecies in the book, that evidence the divine name with respect to its defilement before the nations as the central motive for Israel’s restoration. 20 The verb ‫ זכר‬occurs 21 times in the book, but only in 16.61; 20.43 and 36.31 it is followed by the noun ‫ דרך‬as direct object; the remembrance of guilt of the past is mentioned also in 21.28 (‫ )מזכיר עון‬and in 23.19 (‫)לזכר את־ימי נעוריה‬.

330

Tobias Häner

Let us now look at the use of the stems ‫ זכר‬and ‫ כלם‬in Ezek 16.21 Right before the prediction of “remembering the ways” in v. 61, in v. 60 the verb ‫ זכר‬is used also to announce the restoration of Jerusalem. The emphatic prediction ‫וזכרתי‬ ‫ אני את־בריתי אותך בימי נעוריך‬reminds the reader of the similar formulation that is repeated in 16.22 and 43, blaming Jerusalem for failing to “remember the days of her youth” (‫)לא זכרת את־ימי נעוריך‬. In this way, the promise that Yhwh will “remember the alliance” (v. 60) calls to mind the course of the allegory of Ezek 16. There the salvific deeds of Yhwh in favor of the foundling Jerusalem (16.1–14) in the ‘days of her youth’ were followed by the unfaithfulness of Jerusalem (vv. 15–34) and her judgment (vv. 35–58).22 Also the root ‫ כלם‬is used several times in Ezek 16: –– In v. 27, the “Philistine daughters” feel ashamed because of the iniquities of Jerusalem. –– Then, in v. 52, Jerusalem herself is urged to be ashamed, as her wicked sisters Sodom and Samaria to appear moral in comparison with her. –– Finally, in v. 54 the restoration of the two sisters should make Jerusalem feel ashamed. –– Yet, only Yhwh’s restorative act in favor Jerusalem herself will lead the city to be ashamed (vv. 61 and 63). Thus, in Ezek 16 a series of divine interventions is announced that should cause Jerusalem to feel ashamed, but the intended effect will occur only after her restoration.23 Returning to 36.31–32, we can conclude that Ezek 16 serves as background that helps to understand why the salvific acts announced in 36.24–30 are followed by the announcements of the effects that these divine actions will have on the “House of Israel”: –– The remembrance of the iniquities predicted in v. 31 will result from the sharp contrast between Yhwh’s “remembering of the alliance” and the alliancebreaking misdeeds of Israel, who failed to remember Yhwh’s salvific actions in the time of her distress.

21 Both stems are used conspicuously often in the allegory of Ezek 16: 5 out of 21 recurrences of the verb ‫ זכר‬and 6 out of 19 uses of the stem ‫ כלם‬in the book occur in Ezek 16. 22 On the course of the allegory in Ezek 16 and the conclusive function of vv. 59–63 cf. Martin Mark, “Ewiger Bund als radikalisierte Treue. Zur rhetorischen Strategie von Ezechiel 16,” in Gottes Wege suchend. Beiträge zum Verständnis der Bibel und ihrer Botschaft: Festschrift für Rudolf Mosis zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Franz Sedlmeier (Würzburg: Echter, 2003), 203–251, and Häner, Bleibendes Nachwirken, 212–214. 23 Cf. Jacqueline E. Lapsley, Can These Bones Live? The Problem of the Moral Self in the Book of Ezekiel, BZAW 301 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000), 148–150.

Reading Ezekiel 36.16–38 in Light of the Book

331

–– The shame that according to v. 32 should follow the act of remembering appears as a consequence of this contrast that has marked Israel’s history up to the exile. In summary, the allusions to Ezek 16 underline that 36.31–32 predict the enduring effect of Yhwh’s judgment and restoration of Israel. After the return to the land, restored Israel will finally become aware of the contrast between her continued infidelity and Yhwh’s repeated acts of salvation, and this awareness will lead Israel to a new perception of herself as is expressed in the stems ‫ בוש‬and ‫כלם‬. 3.2 Ezekiel 36.31–32 in the Light of 20. 40–44 After 16.61, the phrase ‫ זכר דרך‬is used also in 20.43. In fact, in the conclusive section of Ezek 20 we find elements that are very similar to those that 36.31–32 and 16.59–63 have in common: –– Following the “remembering of the ways,” again a sort of shame is predicted. The locution ‫ קוט‬Niph + ‫ בפניהם‬/ ​‫ בפניכם‬+ ‫ אל‬/ ​‫ על‬/ ​‫( ב‬to loathe oneself) is only used three times in the book: 6.9; 20.43; and 36.31.24 –– As in Ezek 16 and in Ezek 36, the “remembering” follows the announcement of Israel’s restoration. Only after being brought back, Israel will become aware of her long history of infidelity that is narrated in 20.1–32. This drives us to the conclusion that the parallels to 20.40–44 are reinforced by the evocation of Ezek 16. 3.3 Parallels Between 36.31–32 and 6.8–10 Finally, there is a third passage that exhibits remarkable agreements with 36.31– 32. In 6.8–10, the fate of those few that escape the judgment on the “mountains of Israel” is predicted.25 Like the restored Israel in 16.61–63, 20.43, and 36.31–32, 24 Outside of Ezekiel, the verb ‫ קוט‬is used only five times in the Hebrew Bible (Job 8.14; 10.1; Ps 95.10; 119.158; 139.21). The locution ‫ קוט‬+ ‫ פנים‬is found only in Ezekiel: as H. Schmoldt (“‫קוט‬,” ThWAT 6: 1236) states, ‫ פנים‬probably stands here for the reflexive pronoun, the locution ought to be therefore synonymous to ‘be ashamed’, cf. Lapsley, Can These Bones Live?, 138–139, and Ruth Poser, Das Ezechielbuch als Trauma-Literatur, VTSup 154 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 532–533. 25 Ezek 6.8–10 belongs to the passages that in the textual order of the book’s final form stand before the report about Jerusalem’s capture (33.21), but chronologically look out beyond that date; some of these particularly foretell the fate of the remnant, i. e. those few that survive the fall of the city (5.3–4; 6.8–10; 7.16; 12.16; 14.22–23) while others announce salvation for Israel after the judgment (11.14–21; 16.59–63; 17.22–24; 20.40–44). Zimmerli (Ezechiel, 154) vaguely characterizes the passages 5.4; 12.16; 14.21–23 and 20.32–44 as “Weiterführungen des Prophetenwortes über die Schwelle von 587 hinweg.” Pohlmann (Hesekiel, 97, 107, 174–175, 204–206) instead draws a sharp redaction critical distinction between passages that affirm the exceptional position (“Sonderstellung”) of the first Gola (14.21–23; 20.33–44) and the sections that, in his view, are to be counted to the diaspora oriented redaction (5.3–4; 6.8–10; 12.15–16).

332

Tobias Häner

these escapees also will “remember” (‫ )זכר‬and “loathe themselves” (‫ קוט‬Niph + ‫ בפניהם‬/ ‫ בפניכם‬+ ‫ אל‬/ ​‫ על‬/ ​‫)ב‬.26 However, different to the exiles brought back to the land, these effects on the escapees will not follow restoration, nor will the escapees remember their iniquities but Yhwh (‫)אותי‬. In fact, only at the end of the first vision of the temple, when the prediction of judgment comes to its first conclusion, the return from exile is promised for the first time (cf. 11.16–21). In 6.8–10, the prediction concerning the escapees underlines that no one will be spared in the judgment. Also, those that escape will feel the effect of judgment when their hearts will be broken and they will loathe themselves.27 3.4 Shame after Restoration in 39.26 and 43.10–11 The prediction of shame after restoration is repeated again in 39.26 with the locution “they will bear their shame” (‫)ונשו את־כלמתם‬.28 Despite the fact that the root ‫ זכר‬is lacking in the section 39.21–29, the content that is to be remembered is recalled in vv. 23–24. As opposed to 36.31–32, the final aim of the process of feeling ashamed after remembering the iniquities of the past is emphasized here: the renewed knowledge of Yhwh, expressed in the recognition formula in 39.28. Also before, in 16.62 and 20.44, the prediction of shame after restoration

Moshe Greenberg (Ezekiel 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 22 [New York: Doubleday, 1983], 140–141 and 262), in a synchronic (resp. holistic) perspective, sees within these predictions a development in the prophecy of Ezekiel: as the first expectation of the prophet that the catastrophe would provoke remorse (as described in 6.9–10) on the side of at least some of the survivors was disappointed, the function of the remnant motif in Ezekiel’s prophecy became oriented to the exiles (cf. 14.22–23) and consequently the motif of remembrance (of past wickedness) and remorse was passed to the latter (cf. 16.61–63; 20.43; 36.31–32). Thomas Renz (The Rhetorical Function of the Book of Ezekiel, VTSup 76 [Leiden, Boston 1999], 162–177) finally analyses the passages in a rhetorical perspective. In consequence, in his view they serve to motivate the exiles to turn away from the Old Israel that is destined to be subjected to judgment and to adhere instead to the New Israel that will be restored to the land. However, it seems that in a reader-oriented perspective these passages function also in the way as to make the reader perceive the functional unity of the doom and the salvation prophecies in the book, i. e. the concurrence of Yhwh’s acts of judgment and restoration, which only in this sequential combination will finally provoke remembrance and remorse (cf. Häner, Bleibendes Nachwirken, 289–305). 26 The succession of ‫ זכר‬and ‫ קוט‬in 6.9; 20.43 and 36.31 is unique in the HB, cf. Granados García, La nueva alianza, 195. 27 In a similar way, also 7.16 alludes to the effects of judgment for the surviving remnant. 28 More precisely, according to 39.26 Israel will feel ashamed after Gog’s defeat following Israel’s restoration, as pointed out by Julie Galambush, “Necessary Enemies: Nebuchadnezzar, Yhwh, and Gog in Ezekiel 38–39,” in Israel’s Prophets and Israel’s Past: Essays on the Relationship of Prophetic Texts and Israelite History in Honor of John H. Hayes, ed. Brad E. Kelle and Megan Bishop Moore, LHBOTS 446 (London: Bloomsbury, 2006), 263. Only after the defeat of Gog, Israel’s worst enemy who, according to Galambush (ibid., 254–267), is to be identified with Nebuchadnezzar, will Yhwh’s vindication be complete. In that sense, the Gog oracle completes the prophecy of 36.16–38 (cf. ibid., 263–64).

Reading Ezekiel 36.16–38 in Light of the Book

333

is followed by the recognition formula;29 but in 39.28, this knowledge of Yhwh is explicitly linked to the divine acts of leading Israel into exile and bringing it back to the land. It is through the reading process of the whole book of Ezekiel that the reader is brought to the recognition that exile and return are in fact deeds of Yhwh and that these deeds will have an enduring effect on Israel, leading her to a new self-perception expressed as shame in the passages we compared. This new self-perception finally enables Israel to ‘know’ Yhwh, i. e. to recognize that Israel’s existence is depending on Yhwh alone.30 The motif of shame after restoration turns up again in the second temple vision.31 However, whereas in 43.10 shame appears as a consequence of the promise of restoration manifest in the prophet’s report about the ‘house’ (‫)בית‬, i. e. the ideal temple described in Ezek 40–42, in 43.11 shame seems to be determined as a condition for the prophet’s message (‫)ואם־נכלמו‬. But even without an emendation of the MT32 or a redaction-critical separation of the two verses,33 43.10–11 need not be understood as contradictive. With Lapsley,34 the command to the prophet to “speak about the house” in v. 10 may be referred to a 29 The locution ‫ יודע לכם‬in 36.32 possibly also derives from the recognition formula, cf. Granados García, La nueva alianza, 199. 30 According to Lapsley (Can These Bones Live?, 185–189), the renewed knowledge of Yhwh evoked by shame implicates in particular the formation of a new moral self: “Instead of viewing shame as an innate and unavoidable part of the human condition (…), Ezekiel sees the Israelites as utterly devoid of this experience, and this inability to feel shame has led to moral failure. This ‘positive’ type of shame leads to a profound understanding of oneself as seen by an Other (always Yahweh for Ezekiel). Yahweh alone has the capacity to bestow this transforming experience of shame upon the people – and thus shame itself becomes a divine gift that makes possible a new and properly functioning moral self” (Can These Bones Live?, 186). 31 Besides 43.10–11, within Ezek 40–48 the stem ‫ כלם‬is used also in 44.13. However, in 44.13 ‘bearing shame’ (‫ )נׂשא כלמה‬is not only restricted to the Levites, but it also does not follow immediately the promise of restoration, but the announcement of their punishment, i. e. their exclusion from priesthood (‫)ולא־יגׂשו אלי לכהן לי‬. Therefore, Lapsley (Can These Bones Live?, 179 n. 60) rightly remarks that this type of shame is to be considered as “a form of public disgrace” and is similar to the shame which in 32.24–25, 30 is attributed to Elam and the Sidonians and which, according to 34.29 and 36.6, Israel had to bear (before her restoration). Martin A. Klopfenstein (Scham und Schande nach dem Alten Testament. Eine begriffsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu den hebräischen Wurzeln bôš, klm und hpr, AThANT 62 [Zürich: Theologische Verlag, 1972], 154) even suggests translating ‫ כלמה‬here with ‘Degradierung’. 32 Hartmut Gese, Der Verfassungsentwurf des Ezechiel (Kap. 40–48) traditionsgeschichtlich untersucht, BHTh 25 (Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1957), 40; Zimmerli, Ezechiel, 1073; Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 243); Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 586–587 suggests emending ‫ ואם־נכלמו‬to ‫והם יכלמו‬ (so LXX). 33 Michael Konkel (Architektonik des Heiligen. Studien zur zweiten Tempelvision Ezechiels (Ez 40–48), BBB 129 [Berlin: Philo, 2001], 80–82), rejecting an emendation in 43.11, discovers in the verse (and in v. 12) a redactional addition: “43:11a übernimmt (…) eine redaktionelle Funktion, indem die Tempelbeschreibung Ez 40–42 mit den in Ez 44–46 folgenden ‘Satzungen und Weisungen’ für den Kult verbunden wird.“ (ibid., 81; cf. Janina Maria Hiebel, “The Vision Accounts in the Book of Ezekiel as Interrelated Narratives: A Redaction-Critical and Theological Study” [Ph.D diss., Murdoch University, 2013], 222–223). 34 Can These Bones Live?, 177–179.

334

Tobias Häner

“global overview of the temple,” whereas in v. 11 he is told to reveal “the details of the temple blueprint.”35 Alternatively, the sequence of feeling ashamed and the command to “make known” and “write down” the form and ordinances of the temple in v. 11 may be seen in parallel to the sequence of “being ashamed” and “measuring” (the temple plan) in v. 10.36 Therefore, if (with Stiebert) shame may be defined as “self-judgment in terms of some ideal that is one’s own,”37 in 43.10 Israel will feel shame after “it has come to know and internalize the ideal of Yhwh’s plan with it.”38

4. Shame after Restoration in Ezekiel Up to now, we have come to see that, structurally, 36.31–32 stand in a highlighted position, being situated at the conclusion of the core of the oracle (vv. 22–32) and addressed directly to the audience – and implicitly, as we will see in the conclusion (5.0), to the reader. Further on, after the review of the judgment on Israel in perspective of the exiles (vv. 17–21), the phrase “it is not for your sake that I will act” (vv. 22 and 32) that is framing the central part of the oracle, foregrounds the contrast between the misdeeds of Israel that provoked Yhwh’s judgment on the one hand and the initiative of salvation described in vv. 24–30 on the other hand. Moreover, the act of awareness of this contrast, which is verbalized as the reaction of Israel to her restoration in vv. 31–32, is illuminated by previous passages in the book that exhibit the same pattern of remembering (‫)זכר‬, feeling shame (‫קוט‬ Niph / ​‫ בוש‬/ ​‫ כלם‬Niph) and knowing (‫ )ידע‬Yhwh (6.8–10; 16.59–63; 20.40–44): The remembrance of the (bad) ways evoked by the restoration includes the consciousness of the contrast between Yhwh’s care for Israel and the latter’s withdrawal from Yhwh that signed the relation between God and his people from the beginning, as the course of Ezek 16 and 20 reveals. Therefore, the shame announced in 36.32 (and in the parallel passages treated above) appears as a positive phenomenon, marking the turning-point in the (up to now) failed relationship between Yhwh and his people by enabling Israel to become (finally!) aware of her rebelliousness and thereby of herself in relation to Yhwh. This positive type of shame, which is particular to 6.9; 16.61, 63; 20.43; 36.32; 39.26 and 43.10–11, has rarely been treated in research on Ezekiel or on shame 35 Ibid.,

179; emphasis by Lapsley. 43.11, Franz Sedlmeier, Das Buch Ezechiel. Kapitel 25–48, NSKAT 21/2 (Stuttgart: Herder, 2013) states: “Die Beschämung über die eigenen Taten macht Israel bereit und hellhörig für die Verkündigung, die Ezechiel weiterzugeben hat” (298). In this sense, as in v. 10 the measuring of the temple outline follows in consequence to shame, so in v. 11 shame enables Israel to accommodate the prophetic teaching. 37 Johanna Stiebert, “Shame and Prophecy: Approaches Past and Present,” BibInt 8/3 (2000): 256; emphasis by Stiebert. 38 Hiebel, “Vision Accounts,” 354. 36 Concerning

Reading Ezekiel 36.16–38 in Light of the Book

335

in the HB. However, it has been noted frequently,39 and it has been highlighted particularly by Stiebert40 that shame vocabulary is (apart from the Psalter) remarkably concentrated in the prophetic books.41 As Klopfenstein points out in his semantic analysis of the roots ‫בוש‬, ‫ כלם‬and ‫חפר‬II, in prophetic texts shame appears mainly in a forensic context. In prophetic court speeches shame is foretold as an instrument revealing guilt, while the promise of the end of shame turns up in salvation oracles.42 According to Bechtel,43 in HB literature shame functions as a sanction on a wider scale (in political, judicial and social contexts) and therefore is to be seen as a means of social control different to punishment of guilt.44 Bechtel also notes that particularly in deuteronomic theology shame becomes an important tie between God and his people in the context of the covenant, the latter implying protection or deliverance from shame.45 That (in ancient Israel and 39 Cf. Klopfenstein, Scham und Schande, 58, 140; Horst Seebass, “‫בוׁש‬,” ThWAT 1: 570–571; Angelo Borghino, La “nuova alleanza” in Is 54. Analisi esegetico-teologica, TGST 118 (Rome: Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 2005), 157. On the topic of shame in biblical texts and their environment see also vol. 68 (1994) of Semeia, which is devoted entirely to honor and shame. 40 In fact, based on the density of shame vocabulary in prophetic literature, Stiebert focuses her study (“Shame and Prophecy”; idem., The Construction of Shame in the Hebrew Bible: The Prophetic Contribution, LHBOTS 346 [London: Bloomsbury, 2002]) to shame in the Major Prophets. 41  As regards the root ‫בוש‬, out of 167 occurrences in the HB, 99 are found in the Prophets, 42 in the Psalter; the root ‫ כלם‬occurs 69 times in the HB: 39 times in the Prophets, 13 times in the Psalter; a similar finding can be attested regarding the root ‫ חרף‬II / ​‫ חרפה‬and the far less frequent verb ‫ חפר‬II, cf. Klopfenstein, Scham und Schande, 28–29, 116–118, 171–172; Stiebert, “Shame and Prophecy,” 255; Borghino, La “nuova alleanza”, 155–157. 42 According to Klopfenstein (Scham und Schande, 48, 87, 206), the original ‘Sitz im Leben’ of the root ‫ בוש‬is the realm of sexuality, whereas in prophetic literature “wird (…) aus der Beschämung als Symptom der Schuld ein Instrument in Jahwes Hand zur Schuldaufdeckung, zur Verurteilung und zum Strafvollzug” (ibid., 87). However, his reconstruction of the history of the shame terms remains hypothetical. Concerning the root ‫בוש‬, its forensic connotation is underlined also by J. W. Olley, “A Forensic Connotation of bôš,” VT 26 (1976): 230–234. 43 Bechtel’s first study on shame in biblical texts appeared under the name of Huber: Lyn M. (Bechtel‑)Huber, “The Biblical Experience of Shaming: The Social Experience of Shame / ​ Shaming in Biblical Israel in Relation to its Use as Religious Metaphor” (PhD diss., Drew University, 1983). Later on, she took up the subject in two articles under the name Bechtel: “Shame as a Sanction of Social Control in Biblical Israel: Judicial, Political and Social Shaming,” JSOT 49 (1991): 47–76; idem., “The Perception of Shame within the Divine-Human Relationship in Biblical Israel,” in Uncovering Ancient Stones. Essays in Memory of H. N. Richardson, ed. L. M. Hopfe (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 79–92. 44 The distinction of shame culture and guilt culture in social anthropology is briefly discussed by Margaret S. Odell, “An Exploratory Study of Shame and Dependence in the Bible and Selected Near Eastern Parallels,” in The Biblical Canon in Comparative Perspective, ed. K. Lawson Younger and William W. Hallo, Scripture in Context 4 (Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 1991), 218–219; and Stiebert, “Shame and Prophecy,” 258–259; idem., Construction of Shame, 14–23. Whereas Odell considers the distinction as helpful in interpreting ancient texts, it is rejected by Stiebert. 45 “In contrast to shame stemming from divine abandonment, people in the ancient Near East believed that it was the responsibility of the gods to protect and deliver their subjects from general affliction and shame. YHWH’s obligation to protect the people from shaming (…) is

336

Tobias Häner

its environment) honor and shame have to be seen predominantly in the context of covenant dynamics is stressed by Olyan46, who points out that the omission to honor a covenant partner would mean to shame him and might even to break the covenant.47 The connection between covenant and shame is described by Bovati48 and Granados García in a different way.49 Based on the study of the former on the rîb-structure, they underline the forensic context of shame (following Klopfenstein50) and interpret the feeling of shame as confession of guilt and / ​or acceptance of punishment.51 Surely, the connection both to guilt and to the Sinaitic Covenant52 is evident in 36.16–38 and the reflections on shame that have been briefly summarized up to now do very well apply for a more or less extended spectrum of occurrences of shame vocabulary in biblical prophecy. However, they do not account properly for the specific type of shame in 36.31–32 and the parallel passages in Ezekiel mentioned above. In recent research Odell, Lapsley, Stiebert, Schwartz, Poser and Ortlund have offered proposals for the interpretation of this specific use of shame language.53 never stated directly in any of the covenants but it is assumed, particularly in deuteronomic theology. (…) The assumption is that if people were righteous and obedient to YHWH’s way (the statutes of Deuteronomy), they would prosper and be protected from unwarranted shaming by the community.” (Bechtel, “Perception of Shame,” 84–85). 46 Saul M. Olyan, “Honor, Shame, and Covenant Relations,” JBL 115 (1996): 201–218. As an example of a narrative text illustrating the straight connections between honor, shame and the dynamics of covenant relations, Olyan (208–11) refers, among others, to 2 Sam 19.1–9. 47 However, Olyan admits that “in human treaty contexts, prescriptive statements requiring honor are extremely rare”, and therefore concludes that “[i]t would seem that honor was frequently an implicit requirement in covenant relations. Most of the evidence for the relationship of honor to covenant is found not in prescriptive contexts but in narrative materials making reference to the state of covenant relations between two parties” (“Honor,” 218). 48 Pietro Bovati, Ristabilire la giustizia. Procedure, vocabolario, orientamenti, AnBib 110 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute Press, 1986), 90, 341–342. 49 Nueva alianza, 198–202. Granados García interprets 36.32 in close parallel to Jer 31.19. However, he fails to notice the clear difference between Jer 31.19, where, as he states, the objective situation of dishonor (‫ )חרפת נעורי‬is provoking the subjective experience of shame (‫בשתי‬, ‫ )נכלמתי‬and Ezek 36.30, where the end of objective dishonor (‫ )לא תקחו עוד חרפת רעב בגוים‬is announced before the call to feel ashamed (36.32). 50 Scham und Schande, 48, 56–57, 85–89. 51 Bovati, Ristabilire la giustizia, 342 summarizes “[N]el mondo biblico, la vergogna esprime direttamente la sconfitta giuridica, con un significato non molto dissimile dall’esperienza stessa della morte.” 52 The importance of the concept of the ‘eternal alliance’ (37.26) in the composition of Ezek 36–37 is evidenced by Michael Konkel, “Bund und Neuschöpfung. Anmerkungen zur Komposition von Ez 36–37,” in Für immer verbündet. Studien zur Bundestheologie der Bibel, ed. Christoph Dohmen and Christian Frevel, SBS 211 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2007), 123–132. 53 An evaluation of Odell’s, Lapsley’s, Stiebert’s and Schwartz’s studies concerning shame after restoration is provided by Eric Ortlund, “Shame in Restoration in Ezekiel,” Scandinavian Evangelical e-Journal 2/1 (2011): 9–13. The theses of Lapsley and Stiebert are also briefly discussed by Poser, Ezechielbuch, 525–529.

Reading Ezekiel 36.16–38 in Light of the Book

337

Schwartz54 interprets the predictions of shame after restoration as a kind of punishment, which should compensate for the wrong that Israel committed to Yhwh by failing to show the expected repentance after the judgment on Jerusalem.55 Schwartz convincingly demonstrates the importance of the shame motif within the predictions of restoration in Ezekiel, his interpretation of its function, however, is questionable.56 Based on the assumption that the locution ‫ פתחון פה‬in 16.63 alludes to a ritual of complaint, Odell argues that the shame announced in 16.63 underlines the point that because it was Yhwh alone who was faithful to the covenant in Ezek 16, there is no ground for the exiles to complain about their fate when they suffer humiliation.57 Concerning 36.31–32, she adds that the command to be ashamed “calls attention to Yahweh’s reliability and Israel’s unreliability.”58 Yet, apart from the fact that the ritual background to 16.63 remains hypothetical, her interpretation does not fully explain why shame is situated temporally after restoration. Like Odell, Stiebert focuses on Ezek 16, but in distinction from the former she appeals to the concept of anti-language and concludes that the inculcation of shame in Ezekiel might be understood as a way “to subvert and resist the values of a ruined culture and to construct an alternative counter-reality.”59 Beyond that, 54  Baruch J. Schwartz, “Ezekiel’s Dim View of Israel’s Restoration,” in The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives, ed. Margaret S. Odell and John T. Strong, SBLSS 9 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2000), 43–67; idem., “The Ultimate Aim of Israel’s Restoration in Ezekiel,” in Birkat Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature, and Postbiblical Judaism Presented to Shalom M. Paul on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, ed. Chaim Cohen, Victor Avigdor Hurowitz, Avi Hurvitz, Yochanan Muffs, Baruch J. Schwartz, and Jeffrey H. Tigay (Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, 2008), 305–319. Schwartz’s thesis is partly backed by Galambush (“Necessary Enemies”), who underlines that “Yhwh’s primary goal, after all, is not Israel’s welfare but his own exaltation” (263), and by Moshe Greenberg, “Salvation of the Impenitent ad Majorem Dei Gloriam: Ezek 36:16–32,” in Transformations of the Inner Self in Ancient Religions, ed. Jan Assmann and Guy G. Stroumsa, SHR 83 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 263–271, who concludes in light of Ezek 36.16–32 that in Ezekiel’s theocentric view Israel’s restoration would be “necessary for saving God’s reputation” (271). 55 “(…) the eschatological remorse upon which he [= Yhwh] insists so adamantly is a compensation for the lack of remorse in the wake of the destruction and Exile.” (Schwartz, “Ultimate Aim,” 316). 56 For a more extended discussion of Schwartz’s thesis, see Ortlund, “Shame in Restoration,” 12–13; Häner, Bleibendes Nachwirken, 491–492. 57 Margaret S. Odell, “The Inversion of Shame and Forgiveness in Ezekiel 16:59–63,” JSOT 56 (1992): 101–112 (105–112); idem., Ezekiel, Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2005), 195–198. 58 Odell, Ezekiel, 442. 59 Stiebert, “Shame and Prophecy,” 267–272; idem., Construction of Shame, 129–162 (162). Stiebert’s interpretation is partially shared by Poser, who states that it might be possible, “die Schamaufforderungen als Anweisung zum (Wieder‑)Erlangen von schützender, (über‑)lebenswichtiger Initimitäts-Scham zu begreifen. So gewendet, ließe sich die (…) Einschärfung von Scham hier tatsächlich auch im Sinne des antilanguage-Konzepts (Stiebert) verstehen, bei dem es letztlich darum geht, mit den gewalttätigen Beschämungen des Krieges zu brechen und diese radikal ‘um-zu-sprechen’ .” (Poser, Ezechielbuch, 540–541, Poser’s emphasis).

338

Tobias Häner

shame after restoration to her view appears “to be an important part of restoration, possibly an inward correlative to the external purging and cleansing.”60 The positive function of shame after restoration is explored more extensively by Lapsley and Poser.61 Both distinguish between ‘false’ shame and a ‘right’ or ‘positive’ type of shame in Ezekiel. The former is felt by Israel before the nations because of their mockeries and finally eliminated by Yhwh through the judgment on the nations and the restoration of Israel, which removes the causes of mockeries of the neighboring nations.62 Only after being freed from that ‘false’ shame (i. e. destructive shame) in restoration, Israel is able to experience ‘right’ shame, which Poser (recalling the six forms of shame delineated by sociologist S. Marks63) identifies as a kind of “Gewissens-Scham,” to which Israel is enabled by the gift of the divine ‫( רוח‬cf. 36.27).64 In a very similar way, Lapsley describes the ‘right’ type of shame, the experience of which is finally “paving the way for the people’s identity to be shaped in a new way by the self-knowledge that results from the experience of shame.”65 Against Lapsley, however, Poser insists that this experience of a positive, beneficial kind of shame does not only lead to a renewed knowledge of oneself and of God, but also to a renewed action according to the Torah.66 Finally, Ortlund points out two characteristics that distinguish the passages in Ezekiel, in which shame is mentioned in the context of promises of salvation, from other occurrences of shame vocabulary in the book and in the OT in general: (1) Israel will not feel ashamed in front of the nations, but in relation to Yhwh; and (2) it is not failure that will cause Israel to be ashamed, but on the

60 Stiebert,

Construction of Shame, 133.

61 Jacqueline E. Laspley, “Shame and Self-Knowledge: The Positive Role of Shame in Ezekiel’s

View of the Moral Self,” in The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives, ed. Margaret S. Odell and John T. Strong, SBLSS 9 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000), 143–174; idem., Can These Bones Live?, 129–157, 177–179; Poser, Ezechielbuch, 528–541. 62 Poser (Ezechielbuch, 538) notes that it is Yhwh who puts shame on the nations who have shamed Israel with their mockery, disrupting the vicious circle of shaming and counter-shaming. 63 Cf. Poser, Ezechielbuch, 519–525. 64 The different conceptions of ‫ רוח‬in the composition of Ezek 36–37 are analyzed by J. Schnocks, “‘Und ich werde meinen Geist in euch geben’ (Ez 37,14). Konzeptionen der Rede vom Geist in Ez 36–37,” in Heiliger Geist, ed. Jörg Frey and Dorothea Sattler, JBTh 24 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchner Verlag, 2011), 31–52. Markter (Transformationen, 495–505), instead, emphasizes the central importance of the transformation of the human ‘heart’ (‫ )לב‬in 36.16–38. 65 Can These Bones Live?, 142–157 (145). In difference to Poser, Lapsley refers to C. Schneider’s distinction of discretion-shame and disgrace-shame (cf. Lapsley, Can These Bones Live?, 137–139) and therefore identifies the ‘right’ type of shame in Ezekiel as a sort of disgraceshame. 66 Ezechielbuch, 539–540. It has to be noted, however, that also Lapsley (Can These Bones Live?, 180–182) is considering the role of action in the new self, induced by the experience of shame, although she puts emphasis primarily on knowledge.

Reading Ezekiel 36.16–38 in Light of the Book

339

contrary its full restoration.67 Further on, Ortlund draws attention to the fact that shame in restoration is associated repeatedly with foregoing remembrance (‫)זכר‬ of Israel’s former sinful conduct and with successive recognition (‫ )ידע‬of Yhwh.68 As he rightly explains, behind this linkage a convincing logic is discernable: The restored community apparently cannot fully know (‫ )ידע‬Yhwh without remembering their sinful past from which he has saved them – and cannot truly remember without being ashamed before Yhwh because of that past. Without such shame, Yhwh cannot fully be known in that intimate and profound way which the recognition formula is meant to designate. (…) In Ezekiel’s book, the new knowledge of Yhwh himself, in his own person, which his action in judgment and salvation in history creates is inevitably tinged with shame.69

Here the observations of Ortlund meet with the results of our analysis of 36.31– 32 in the context of vv. 16–38 and of parallels to similar passages in the book: as we have seen, the first section of the pericope (vv. 17–21) offers a review on Israel’s sinful past and (as its consequence) Yhwh’s judgment, summarizing the judgment oracles of Ezek 4–24 and highlighting at the same time Yhwh’s concern for his name of holiness as reason to restore Israel. Consequently, the phrase “it is not for your sake that I will act” (vv. 22 and 32) which frames the core of the announcements of restoration in the pericope, by referring back to the course of Ezek 20 points out the gap that is kept open between Israel’s infidelity and God’s unilateral loyalty to the alliance with Israel. It is not Israel’s remorse or repentance that makes Yhwh fulfill salvation promises. Rather, as a result of the gap kept open between Israel’s rebellious past and Yhwh’s unilateral initiative of salvation, back in her land Israel’s memory of the past will finally awake and consequently induce shame, which will enable Yhwh’s people to truly recognize their God.

5. Conclusion The aim of the present study was to evidence the role of 36.31–32 in the reading process of the book as a whole by examining the references to previous sections 67 Ortlund (“Shame in Restoration,” 4–8) identifies six passages in Ezekiel mentioning shame in restoration: 16.61, 63; 20.43; 36.31; 39.26; 43.10–11 and 44.10–14. However, as discussed above, ‫ ונשאו כלמתם‬in 44.13 is not situated in the immediate context of restoration, but of punishment, and therefore does not fit into the list; the passage 6.8–10 instead, even if it does not enter into the context of restoration either, foreshadows the process of remembrance, shame and knowledge of Yhwh predicted in 16.59–63 and 20.40–44 and similarly in 36.31–32 and 39.21–29. 68 “Shame in Restoration,” 13–16. The theme of remembrance in Ezekiel is carefully analyzed by Simon J. de Vries, “Remembrance in Ezekiel: A Study of an Old Testament Theme,” Int 16 (1962): 58–64. 69 Ortlund, “Shame in Restoration,” 14.

340

Tobias Häner

of the book within vv. 17–30 and their influence on the reading process of the pericope and by analyzing the parallels to vv. 31–32 in Ezekiel. In conclusion, we can state that the two verses bring to the fore the continuing effect of Yhwh’s initiative of judgment and salvation of Israel, describing a threefold process of remembrance (‫)זכר‬, shame (‫ קוט‬Niph / ​‫ בוש‬/ ​‫ כלם‬Niph) and recognition (‫)ידע‬ of Yhwh that is foreshadowed in regard to survivors of invasion of Jerusalem in 6.8–10, and repeated in 16.59–63; 20.40–44 and (without the verb ‫ )זכר‬in 39.21–29. The fact that, in distinction from 16.62; 20.44 and 39.28, the recognition formula is lacking here, reveals that the central element of the process, the experience of shame, is stressed in 36.31–32, as the triple occurrence of shame vocabulary (v. 31: ‫ קוט‬Niph, v. 32: ‫ בוש‬and ‫ כלם‬Niph, both imperatives) confirms. In the course of the two sections vv. 17–21 and 22–32, the contrast is highlighted between Yhwh’s judgment which is executed according to Israel’s misdeeds (see 36.19b), and his successive acts of restoration that are initiated in sharp contrast (‫ לא למענכם‬v. 22.32) to Israel’s ongoing failure to fulfil the covenant stipulations. It is this contrastive action of Yhwh that evokes Israel’s self-knowledge, i. e. her remembrance of her sinful conduct in the past and of her being continuingly caught up in her own guilt. Shame in 36.31–32 and in the correspondent passages (6.9; 16.61, 63; 20.43; 39.26; 43.10–11) conveys this process of self-knowledge before Yhwh. Based on the fact that remembrance and shame are provoked by the sequence of Yhwh’s judgment and restoration, which are both summarized in 36.17–30, we can conclude that vv. 31–32 tie together the major parts of the book – judgment (Ezek 4–24/32) and salvation (Ezek 33–39/48). The sequence of Yhwh’s punishing and saving action which produces the enduring effect foretold in 36.31–32, coincides with the overall structure of the book, and it is particularly in 36.17–38 and in the passages announcing shame after restoration throughout the book that its two halves – judgment and salvation – are skillfully merged. This said, we can conclude that it is the book itself, by recalling the turning points in the history of Israel in the 6th century BCE, presenting them as powerful deeds of Yhwh and centering the dramaturgy of the entire book on the capture of Jerusalem (cf. 33.21), is set to enable the reader to undergo the same process, which was foretold in 36.31–32 (and its parallel passages). The section 36.31–32 therefore is summarizing the outcome to which the reader is led by the course of the book.70 The process of remembrance, shame and recognition of Yhwh is situated in the 70 Even if reading Ezekiel might constitute an individual act, nevertheless the reader is a member of a receptive community. In fact, given that the ‘House of Israel’ in Ezekiel is a collective character, the experience of shame has to be understood as a communal process, as Hiebel (“Vision Accounts,” 354) points out: “Israel’s shame for their past transgressions indicates that, as a people, they will have internalized YHWH’s laws and acquired a new moral consciousness” (emphasis Hiebel). Regarding collective remorse and shame, cf. also Daniel L. Smith-Christopher, A Biblical Theology of Exile, OBT (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002), 120–123.

Reading Ezekiel 36.16–38 in Light of the Book

341

time after Israel’s return to her land – this reflects the perspective of the reader up to today. We can conclude that, as far as the readers are ready to follow the affirmation presented in the book, it is due to Yhwh’s powerful acts that Israel was exiled and returned to the land. By the course of the book they are enabled to re-experience the process of reshaping of Israel’s identity after exile (as intended by the dramaturgy of the book) in the triple process of ‘remembering’, ‘feeling ashamed’ and ‘knowing’ Yhwh. The passage 36.31–32, therefore, is of crucial importance in the reading process of the book of Ezekiel.

Bibliography Allen, Leslie C. Ezekiel 20–48. Word Biblical Commentary 29. Waco: Word, 1990. (Bechtel‑)Huber, Lyn M. “The Biblical Experience of Shaming: The Social Experience of Shame / ​Shaming in Biblical Israel in Relation to its Use as Religious Metaphor.” PhD diss., Drew University, 1983. Bechtel, Lyn M. “Shame as a Sanction of Social Control in Biblical Israel: Judicial, Political and Social Shaming.” JSOT 49 (1991): 47–76. –. “The Perception of Shame within the Divine-Human Relationship in Biblical Israel.” In Uncovering Ancient Stones. Essays in Memory of H. N. Richardson, 79–92. Edited by L. M. Hopfe. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1994. Block, Daniel I. The Book of Ezekiel, Chapters 25–48. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Borghino, Angelo. La “nuova alleanza” in Is 54. Analisi esegetico-teologica. Tesi Gregoriana. Serie Teologia 118. Rome: Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 2005. Bovati, Pietro. Ristabilire la giustizia. Procedure, vocabolario, orientamenti. Analecta Biblica 110. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute Press, 1986. Crane, Ashley S. Israel’s Restoration: A Textual-Comparative Exploration of Ezekiel 36–39. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 122. Leiden: Brill, 2008. de Vries, Simon J. “Remembrance in Ezekiel: A Study of an Old Testament Theme.” Interpretation 16 (1962): 58–64. Galambush, Julie. “Necessary Enemies: Nebuchadnezzar, Yhwh, and Gog in Ezekiel 38–39.” In Israel’s Prophets and Israel’s Past: Essays on the Relationship of Prophetic Texts and Israelite History in Honor of John H. Hayes, 254–267. Edited by Brad E. Kelle and Megan Bishop Moore. Library of Hebrew Bible / ​Old Testament Studies 446. London: Bloomsbury, 2006. Gese, Hartmut. Der Verfassungsentwurf des Ezechiel (Kap. 40–48) traditionsgeschichtlich untersucht. Beitrage zur Historischen Theologie 25. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1957. Granados García, Carlos. La nueva alianza como recreación. Estudio exegético de Ez 36,16–38. Analecta Biblica 184. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute Press, 2010. Greenberg, Moshe. Ezekiel 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 22. New York: Doubleday, 1983. –. Ezekiel 21–37: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 22A. New York: Doubleday, 1997.

342

Tobias Häner

–. “Salvation of the Impenitent ad Majorem Dei Gloriam: Ezek 36:16–32.” In Transformations of the Inner Self in Ancient Religions, 263–271. Edited by Jan Assmann and Guy G. Stroumsa. Studies in the History of Religions 83. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Häner, Tobias. Bleibendes Nachwirken des Exils. Eine Untersuchung zur kanonischen Endgestalt des Ezechielbuches. Herders Biblische Studien 78. Freiburg: Herder, 2014. Hiebel, Janina Maria. “The Vision Accounts in the Book of Ezekiel as Interrelated Narratives. A Redaction-Critical and Theological Study.” PhD diss., Murdoch University, 2013. Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar. Untersuchungen zu Komposition und Theologie des Ezechielbuches. Forschung zur Bibel 20. Würzburg: Echter 1977. Joyce, Paul M. Ezekiel: A Commentary. Library of Hebrew Bible / ​Old Testament Studies 482. London: Bloomsbury, 2007. Klein, Anja. Schriftauslegung im Ezechielbuch. Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Ez 34–39. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 391. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008. Klopfenstein, Martin A. Scham und Schande nach dem Alten Testament. Eine begriffsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu den hebräischen Wurzeln bôš, klm und hpr. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 62. Zürich: Theologische Verlag, 1972. Konkel, Michael. Architektonik des Heiligen. Studien zur zweiten Tempelvision Ezechiels (Ez 40–48). Bonner Biblische Beiträge 129. Berlin: Philo, 2001. –. “Bund und Neuschöpfung. Anmerkungen zur Komposition von Ez 36–37.” In Für immer verbündet. Studien zur Bundestheologie der Bibel, 123–132. Edited by Christoph Dohmen and Christian Frevel. Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 211. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2007. –. “Das Ezechielbuch zwischen Hasmonäern und Zadokiden.” In Juda und Jerusalem in der Seleukidenzeit. Herrschaft – Widerstand – Identität. Festschrift für Heinz-Josef Fabry), 59–78. Edited by Ulrich Dahmen and Johannes Schnocks. Bonner Biblische Beiträge 159. Göttingen: Athenäum Hain Hanstein, 2010. Krüger, Thomas. Geschichtskonzepte im Ezechielbuch. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 180. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989. Lapsley, Jacqueline E. Can These Bones Live? The Problem of the Moral Self in the Book of Ezekiel. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 301. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000. –. “Shame and Self-Knowledge: The Positive Role of Shame in Ezekiel’s View of the Moral Self.” In The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives, 143–174. Edited by Margaret S. Odell and John T. Strong. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 9. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000. Lilly, Ingrid E. Two Books of Ezekiel: Papyrus 967 and the Masoretic Text as Variant Literary Editions. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 150. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Lust, Johann. “Ezekiel 36–40 in the Oldest Greek Manuscript.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 43 (1981): 517–533. –. “Major Divergences between LXX and MT in Ezekiel.” In The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible: The Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered, 83–92. Edited by Adrian Schenker. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 52. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2003. –. “Ezekiel’s Utopian Expectations.” In Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and other early Jewish Studies in honor of Florentino García Martínez, 403–419. Edited by Anthony

Reading Ezekiel 36.16–38 in Light of the Book

343

Hilhorst, Émile Puech, and Eibert Tigchelaar. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 122. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Mark, Martin. “Ewiger Bund als radikalisierte Treue. Zur rhetorischen Strategie von Ezechiel 16.” In Gottes Wege suchend. Beiträge zum Verständnis der Bibel und ihrer Botschaft: Festschrift für Rudolf Mosis zum 70. Geburtstag, 203–251. Edited by Franz Sedlmeier. Würzburg: Echter, 2003. Markter, Florian. Transformationen. Zur Anthropologie des Propheten Ezechiel unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Motivs „Herz“. Forschung zur Bible 127. Würzburg: Echter, 2013. Odell, Margaret S. “An Exploratory Study of Shame and Dependence in the Bible and Selected Near Eastern Parallels.” In The Biblical Canon in Comparative Perspective, 217– 233. Edited by K. Lawson Younger, Jr., William W. Hallo, and Bernard F. Batto. Scripture in Context 4. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1991. –. “The Inversion of Shame and Forgiveness in Ezekiel 16:59–63.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 56 (1992): 101–112. –. Ezekiel. Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2005. Ohnesorge, Stefan. Jahwe gestaltet sein Volk neu. Zur Sicht der Zukunft Israels nach Ez 11,14–21; 20,1–44; 36,16–38; 37,1–14.15–28. Forschung zur Bibel 64. Würzburg: Echter, 1991. Olley, J. W. “A Forensic Connotation of bôš.” Vetus Testamentum 26 (1976): 230–234. Olyan, Saul M. “Honor, Shame, and Covenant Relations.” Journal of Biblical Literature 115 (1996): 201–218. Ortlund, Eric. “Shame in Restoration in Ezekiel.” Scandinavian Evangelical e-Journal for New Testament Studies 2/1 (2011), 1–17. Parunak, H. Van Dyke. “Structural Studies in Ezekiel.” PhD diss., Harvard University, 1978. Pohlmann, Karl-Friedrich. Ezechielstudien. Zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Buches und zur Frage nach den ältesten Texten. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 202. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992. –. Das Buch des Propheten Hesekiel (Ezechiel), Kapitel 20–48 (Mit einem Beitrag von T. A. Rudnig). Das Alte Testament Deutsch 22. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001. Poser, Ruth. Das Ezechielbuch als Trauma-Literatur. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 154. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Rendtorff, Rolf. “Ez 20 und 36,16 ff im Rahmen der Komposition des Buches Ezechiel.” In Ezekiel and his Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and their Interrelation, 260–265. Edited by Johan Lust. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 74. Leuven: Peeters, 1986. Renz, Thomas. The Rhetorical Function of the Book of Ezekiel. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 76. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Scatolini Apóstolo, Silvio S. “Ezek 36, 37, 38 and 39 in Papyrus 967 as Pre-Text for ReReading Ezekiel.” In Interpreting Translation: Studies on the LXX and Ezekiel in Honour of Johan Lust, 331–357. Edited by Florentino García Martínez and Marc Vervenne. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 192. Leuven: Peeters, 2005. Schmoldt, H. “‫קוט‬.” In Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament, vol. 6, 1234–1237. Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1989.

344

Tobias Häner

Schnocks, J. “‘Und ich werde meinen Geist in euch geben’ (Ez 37,14). Konzeptionen der Rede vom Geist in Ez 36–37.” In Heiliger Geist, 31–52. Edited by Jörg Frey and Dorothea Sattler. Jahrbuch für Biblische Theologie 24. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchner Verlag, 2011. Schwagmaier, Peter. “Untersuchungen zu Textgeschichte und Entstehung des Ezechielbuches in masoretischer und griechischer Überlieferung.” PhD diss., Universität Zürich, 2004. Schwartz, Baruch J. “Ezekiel’s Dim View of Israel’s Restoration.” In The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives, 43–67. Edited by Margaret S. Odell and John T. Strong. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 9. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2000. –. “The Ultimate Aim of Israel’s Restoration in Ezekiel.” In Birkat Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature, and Postbiblical Judaism Presented to Shalom M. Paul on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, 305–319. Edited by Chaim Cohen, Victor Avigdor Hurowitz, Avi Hurvitz, Yochanan Muffs, Baruch J. Schwartz, and Jeffrey H. Tigay. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2008. Seebass, Horst. “‫בוש‬.” In Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament, vol. 1, 568–580. Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1973. Sedlmeier, Franz. Das Buch Ezechiel. Kapitel 25–48. Neuer Stuttgarter Kommentar Altes Testament 21/2. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2013. Simian(‑Yofre), H. Die theologische Nachgeschichte der Prophetie Ezechiels. Form‑ und traditionskritische Untersuchung zu Ez 6; 35; 36. Forschung zur Bibel 14. Würzburg: Echter, 1974. Smith-Christoper, Daniel L. A Biblical Theology of Exile. Overtures to Biblical Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002. Stiebert, Johanna. “Shame and Prophecy: Approaches Past and Present.” Biblical Interpretation 8/3 (2000): 255–275. –. The Construction of Shame in the Hebrew Bible: The Prophetic Contribution. Library of Hebrew Bible / ​Old Testament Studies 346. London: Bloomsbury, 2002. van der Meer, Michaël N. “A New Spirit in an Old Corpus? Text-Critical, LiteraryCritical and Linguistic Observations regarding Ezekiel 36:16–38.” In The New Things: Eschatology in Old Testament Prophecy, 147–158. Edited by Ferenc Postma, Klaas Spronk, and Eep Talstra. Amsterdamse cahiers voor exegese van de Bijbel en zijn traditites: Supplement Series 3. Maastricht: Shaker, 2002. Zimmerli, Walther. Ezechiel. 2nd ed. Biblischer Kommentar 13. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchner Verlag, 1979.

Burgeoning Holiness: Fecundity Let Loose in Ezekiel 34–36 Stephen L. Cook Nature looms large in Israelite prophecy from the time of the exilic crisis. The era saw the emergence of some deep understandings of nature’s centrality in the divine plans. It saw the advent of some fantastic visions of environmental transformation.1 Texts in Ezek 34–36, in particular, offer staggering visions of nature permanently enhanced. This essay grapples briefly with these visions as well as with some modern misreadings of them. When the subject is nature exploding in joy with bounty, the poetry of Second Isaiah usually comes to mind. Ezekiel, however, also takes up the motif of preternatural fecundity, albeit in a somewhat different manner. The theology and style of Ezekiel diverge noticeably from the Isaianic texts, and fecundity therefore appears with several interestingly distinctive nuances in the exiled Zadokite priest’s work. Instead of drawing on the Priestly Torah (PT) like Second Isaiah,2 Ezekiel’s 1 The understanding of nature and the environment in the Hebrew Scriptures is currently of great interest to many. Good introductions to the relationship of the biblical texts to agrarian and environmental concerns include Ellen F. Davis, Scripture, Culture, and Agriculture: An Agrarian Reading of the Bible (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009); Richard Bauckham, Bible and Ecology: Rediscovering the Community of Creation, Sarum Theological Lectures (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2010); William P. Brown, The Seven Pillars of Creation: The Bible, Science, and the Ecology of Wonder (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010); and Patricia K. Tull, Inhabiting Eden: Christians, the Bible, and the Ecological Crisis (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2013). 2  For arguments detailing how the theology of Second Isaiah is rooted in the Scriptures of PT, see Stephen L. Cook, Conversations with Scripture: 2 Isaiah, Anglican Association of Biblical Scholars Study Series (Harrisburg, PA: Morehouse, 2008). In my monograph, I rename the PT source the “Reverence School” (RS) and present evidence that the school’s members were Aaronide priests. Also see idem, “The Fecundity of Fair Zion: Beauty and Fruitfulness as Spiritual Fulfillment,” in Daughter Zion: Her Portrait, Her Response, ed. Mark J. Boda, Carol J. Dempsey, and LeAnn Snow Flesher, Ancient Israel and Its Literature 13 (Atlanta: SBL, 2012), 77–100. For the Priestly Torah, God’s appearance on earth as the divine ‫( כבוד‬NRSV: “glory”) is nonanthropomorphic, entailing a transient spectacle of opaque clouds, smoke, pure light, and burning flames (e. g., Exod 24.15–18; Lev 9.23–24; 10.2; 16.2 all PT). Likewise, Second Isaiah insists that God has no form or body comparable to anything in earthbound experience (Isa 40.18, 25; 44.7–8; 45.18; 46.5; 66.1). The Holy One is so entirely other, in fact, that divinity, rising sheer above the human realm (e. g., Isa 40.22; 42.5; 44.24; 55.9), works to submerge the human ego, and, ultimately, paves the way for human recognition of finitude and frailty (Isa 40.6–8; 41.14; 51.2, 12; 53.2; 57.15; 66.2). Israel’s relationship with a numinous, hidden God fosters reverence

346

Stephen L. Cook

book leans on the Pentateuch’s Holiness School (HS) and its alternate theological intuitions and spirituality.3

1. Ezekiel 36.16–38 Ezekiel’s strain of anthropomorphic “holiness” theology emphasizes the ideal of God’s bodily indwelling of Israel’s land.4 Ezekiel takes God’s promise in Lev 26.12 (HS) to represent the best of all possible worlds: “I will walk among you, and will be your God, and you shall be my people.” Until that perfect world is realized, God’s ‫( כבוד‬NRSV: “glory”), the divine “body,” purposes to situate itself tangibly amid the tribes of Israel arrayed about it (Exod 25.8; 29.45, 46, all HS; Ezek 37.27; 43.7, 9; cf. Zech 2.10).5 God’s bodily presence cannot help but powerfully impact God’s land and people. It creates a vitally pure land arrayed about a holy center (Num 5.3; 35.34 among the people, a virtue that squelches pride and uplifts the humble and vulnerable (persistent values in texts such as Isa 42.3, 7; 50.4, 6; 53.12; 61.1–2). 3 A theology alternative to that of Second Isaiah and oriented on sanctification undergirds the theology of the Holiness School (HS) and Ezekiel. For an introduction to the HS strand, see Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 3 (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 1–2, 13–42, 48; idem, Leviticus 17–22: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 3A (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 1319–1443; Israel Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995); idem., The Divine Symphony: The Bible’s Many Voices (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2003). Current scholarly investigation is demonstrating that much priestly Pentateuchal law precedes Ezekiel’s book, which is often dependent on it. Michael A. Lyons has convincingly demonstrated how legal material in the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26) predates Ezekiel. See his From Law to Prophecy: Ezekiel’s Use of the Holiness Code, LHBOTS 507 (New York: T & T Clark, 2009). Recent papers delivered at the 2014 SBL meetings in San Diego offered multiple examples of Ezekiel’s book drawing on HS (as well as cases suggesting the relationship of the two literatures is not simply one-directional). See John S. Bergsma, “Ezekiel, H, and ‘Z’: The Relationship of Ezekiel to the Holiness Code and ‘Zion Theology’”; Christophe Nihan, “Ezekiel’s Torah and Moses’ Torah: Parallel Legal Traditions in Post-Monarchic Israel”; Nathan MacDonald, “Priestly Prerogatives in Numbers 18 and Ezekiel 44,” papers presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, San Diego, CA, November 22, 2014. 4 In HS’s anthropomorphic stream of thinking, God desires to be tangibly present to Israel and so attaches the divine self to the people’s central shrine, calling it “my sanctuary” (Lev 19.30; 20.3; 26.2 all HS; Ezek 5.11; 8.6; 9.6; 23.39; 37.28). Sin and impurity remain a threat to God’s presence, but God definitively purposes to occupy the central temple bodily (Exod 25.8; 40.35 HS; Ezek 9.3; 10.4; 11.23). As a uniquely tangible presence, God’s ‫( כבוד‬NRSV: “glory”) is nothing less than God’s embodied self (note the syntax of Exod 24.16 HS; Ezek 10.20). Unapologetically anthropomorphic, holiness texts describe God at the temple smelling the smoking fat (Lev 17.6; 26.31 HS) and consuming sacrifices as food (Lev 21.6; Num 28.2 both HS; Ezek 44.7). 5 In understanding divine embodiment in the book of Ezekiel, I am indebted to Benjamin D. Sommer, who has worked out insightful new rubrics for investigating God’s nature and presence in the biblical texts. See especially Sommer’s The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009).

Burgeoning Holiness: Fecundity Let Loose in Ezekiel 34–36

347

both HS; Ezek 39.12, 16; cf. Zech 2.12).6 The center exudes holiness, envisioned as a sort of communicable plasma (Lev 6.18 [MT v. 11]; Num 17.3, both HS; Ezek 44.19; 46.20),7 which extends itself to contact all inhabitants and offer them sanctification, fruitfulness, and ennoblement (Exod 31.13; Lev 20.8; 21.8; 22.32, all HS; Ezek 37.27–28).8 Within HS, Lev 26.9 specially emphasizes the blessing of fertility. This perspective means that the coming of fecundity to the world looks different in Ezekiel than it does in Isaiah and the PT source. It intertwines itself with a vital, energized landscape,9 understood as a graded, or stepped, matrix interconnected with a holy temple housing the divine body.10  6  As Joseph Blenkinsopp notes, a focal concern of Ezekiel’s book is the “land / ​soil of Israel” (‫)אדמת ישראל‬, a phrase that occurs eighteen times in Ezekiel and nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible: “The soil of Israel is personified and addressed directly (7.2; 21.2–3; 36.6), its fate is a matter of the deepest concern, and the promise of restoration is first and foremost the promise of return to it [20.42; 37.12]” (Ezekiel, Interpretation [Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1990], 152). The idea of a particular territory as a unique, “truly pure land” to the gods is attested in the ancient world already in second-millennium Hittite prayers. We find it, for example, around 1430 bce in the prayers of the Hittite royal couple Arnuwanda I and Asmunikal. See Ahmet Ünal, “Gebet des Königspaares Arnuwanda I . und Asmunikal wegen der kriegerischen Überfälle der Kaskäer, CTH 375,” in Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testament, vol. 2, Orakel, Rituale Bau‑ und Votivinschriften Lieder und Gebete, ed. Otto Kaiser (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1989–1991), 799–802 (799–800). In the Hebrew Bible, the specific phrase “holy land” occurs first in Zechariah, a Zadokite follower of Ezekiel (see Zech 2.12). Already at Ezek 21.2 (MT: 21.7), however, Ezekiel speaks of God’s “sanctuary” and “land” in the same breath. The two intertwine, although in a hierarchical manner: the sanctuary is “sacred” while the land is “pure.”   7 As Jan Joosten puts it, in holiness theology “the holy and the impure are dynamic qualities which may under certain circumstances extend their influence over the profane and the pure respectively; both holiness and impurity are ‘contagious’” (People and Land in the Holiness Code: An Exegetical Study of the Ideational Framework of the Law in Leviticus 17–26, VTSup 67 [Leiden: Brill, 1996], 124).   8 Joosten aptly describes how God’s holiness “may radiate outwards to human beings (or objects) who can thereby become holy in a derived sense.” Obediently imitating the God in their midst, the Israelites “absorb some of the holiness proceeding from the godhead in his sanctuary and thus become holy themselves” (People and Land, 128).  9  Thus, Anja Klein correctly notes that in Ezekiel’s book Israel’s “mountains” represent a continuation and transformation of the motif of a holy Zion. They become a colorful character with a personal relationship with God, partaking of Zion’s cosmic nature but spreading its qualities out over the entire land. Ezekiel, however, neither employs the term “Zion” nor places his hopes in Jerusalem. See Anja Klein, “Ezekiel 6.1–7 and 36.1–15: The Idea of Mountains in the Book of Ezekiel,” in this volume. So too, Joosten writes that in holiness thinking “the entire land should be viewed as an extension of the temple.” God’s “holy presence radiates outward from the sanctuary throughout the entire land and imposes its demands on all the inhabitants” (Joosten, People and Land, 177). In contrast to texts such as Deut 14.21, even non-Israelites resident in the land stand encumbered by God’s tangible presence (Exod 12.49; Lev 18.26, both HS; People and Land, 72, 190). 10 In Ezekiel’s hierarchical world, God’s tangible presence within Israel creates a tiered lattice of holiness. The spiritual world of the Zadokites consisted of “concentric circles of diminishing holiness” (Joosten, People and Land, 178, cf. 131–132). See also Stephen L. Cook and Corrine Patton, “Introduction: Hierarchical Thinking and Theology in Ezekiel’s Book,” in Ezekiel’s Hi-

348

Stephen L. Cook

Verses 16–21 of Ezek 36 disclose key suppositions about Israel’s habitat. They reveal something going on in Ezekiel beyond a typical instance of the ancient belief that a three-way relationship obtains between a deity, his land, and his people. The thought of such a triadic, god-land-people relationship was a common Near Eastern construct for conceptualizing territory,11 and would count as nothing unique in Ezekiel. Most English translations understand Ezek 36.20 on the basis of the triadic pattern, in which peoples saw their deity as their land’s protector. Verse 20, in this view, is saying that the exile has made God look weak, unable to defend Israel’s land. The NLT, taking this tack, translates: “These are the people of the Lord, but he couldn’t keep them safe in his own land!” (cf. CEB, NJPS, NIV).12 Verse 20, however, is susceptible of another compelling reading. In this alternate sense, it is not about the power of a “national” deity but about what sort of human transformation would have to be expected given a localized incarnation of divinity. The very land of Israel itself, an extension of the temple where God dwells, rippling with the influence of God’s immanent presence, demands moral purity and transformation of its inhabitants.13 Our passage would entertain the reality of a preternatural habitat, displaying a miraculous fruitfulness and sanctifying power. Would not God’s personal habitat on earth be an Eden realm, a larger-than-life orchard (Ezek 31.8–9) with a sacred river imputing life and healing to the land (Ezek 47.1–12; Zech 14.8)? Such an understanding of God’s land as the divine orchard would explain why 36.35 mentions Eden, evoking a landscape teaming with life and blessing. It would explain as well why Zech 12.10–13.1, drawing on Ezek 36, speaks of purifying waters released from the Beyond, mercy and prayer poured into supple new hearts.14 In a new Eden, humans become interconnected with both gardener and garden. The orchard’s luxuriant harmony embraces and erarchical World: Wrestling with a Tiered Reality, ed. Stephen L. Cook and Corinne L. Patton, SBLSS 31 (Atlanta: SBL, 2004), 1–23. 11 See Daniel I. Block, The Gods of the Nations: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern National Theology, Evangelical Theological Society Monograph Series 2 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1988), 21–153; John Strazicich, Joel’s Use of Scripture and Scripture’s Use of Joel: Appropriation and Resignification in Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity, Biblical Interpretation Series 82 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 169. 12 Moshe Greenberg quotes Joseph Kara’s (1065–1135 CE) version of this generally held interpretation: “The nations do not say that [Israel’s] iniquities are the cause [of the exile], but rather that ‘God’s hand is inadequate to save.’” See Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 22A (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 729. 13 See note 9 above and, esp., Num 35.34 HS. 14 On Ezek 36.16–38 as a key inspiration behind Zech 12.10–13.1, see Katrina J. A. Larkin, The Eschatology of Second Zechariah: A Study of the Formation of a Mantological Wisdom Anthology, Contributions to Biblical Exegesis & Theology 6 (Kampen, Netherlands: Kok Pharos, 1994), 161–162, 166–170; Paul L. Redditt, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, NCB (Grand Rapids.: Eerdmans, 1995), 134; Rex A. Mason, “The Use of Earlier Biblical Material in Zechariah 9–14: A Study of Inner Biblical Exegesis,” in Bringing Out the Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusion in Zechariah 9–14, ed. Mark J. Boda and Michael H. Floyd, JSOTSup 370 (London and New York:

Burgeoning Holiness: Fecundity Let Loose in Ezekiel 34–36

349

transforms God’s people. As Mason writes, “Ideas of fertility and cleansing appear … intermingled.” In Ezekiel and Zechariah, God “is the ‘fountain of life’ whose water brings both cleansing and newness of life.”15 Ezekiel 36.20, on this reading, advocates the belief that God’s indwelling, if real, should configure the land to foster holiness in its inhabitants. The sin and uncleanness of the exiles, however, has undermined belief in a miracle-land of God on the part of the nations. What sort of Eden-land would spawn such miscreants? How could a people, fresh from a wondrous land of God, be this depraved? No, this land and its God stand discredited! To paraphrase this sense of v. 20, earth’s nations are saying: “These sorry specimens are the Lord’s people [ha!], and it is from his land [ha!] that they have gone into exile!” The LXX, for its part, interprets the text in this way; it reads: “These are a people of the Lord, and it is out of his land that they have come” (cf. NJB, REB).16 Although this alternative sense of 36.20 represents only one meaning of a poetically ambiguous verse,17 it does align with earlier language in Ezek 12.15–16 and 14.22–23. It aligns as well with the immediately preceding text in 36.17–18, which unambiguously understands God’s land as powerfully interactive with its inhabitants. In these verses, God’s land is a pristine, pure realm for people committed to holiness, but also the housing of a volatile, numinous presence highly challenging to contain. As Sommer has aptly observed, God’s indwelling represents the presence of the tremendum, that which will always remain unsettled, unnerving, and unsafe.18 God’s presence in a particular land is “dangerously inappropriate,” making the habitat at once both potent with spiritual power and highly reactive to incidents of defilement. In Holiness thinking, the land is an easily-upset stomach that will vomit out unclean inhabitants (Lev 18.25).19 One might jump to think that the metaphor of a queasy land entails an impersonal, cause-and-effect understanding of judgment, but the thought is premature. God’s land is finicky, but in the HS texts the exile of offenders is God’s Sheffield Academic Press, 2003), 163, 168–170; M. Delcor, “Un Problème de Critique Textuelle et d’Exégèse: Zach XII.10, Et aspicient ad me quem confixerunt,” RB 58 (1951): 189–199. 15 Mason, “Use of Earlier Biblical Material,” 168. 16 In discussing Ezekiel 36 in Papyrus 967, Scatolini Apóstolo notes that 36.20 appears to claim that the dispersed of God’s people “have continued sinning abroad,” even as they lived as exiles (cf. Ezek 14.22–23). See S. S. Scatolini Apóstolo, “Ezek 36, 37, 38 and 39 in Papyrus 967 as Pre-Text for Re-Reading Ezekiel,” in Interpreting Translation: Studies on the LXX and Ezekiel in Honour of Johan Lust, ed. Florentino García Martínez and Marc Vervenne, BETL 192 (Leuven: Peeters, 2005), 344 (331–357). 17 Greenberg concludes that probably “the suggestion of both [senses] was intentional” (Ezekiel 21–37, 729). 18 Sommer, Bodies of God, 97, 120–121. 19 Thus, far from discrediting the power of God’s land, the dispersal of miscreant exiles among the nations proves the land’s uniquely configured spiritual character. As Joseph Kara put it, “The gentiles regard this as a fault but it is really a virtue. For the land is pure and cannot tolerate inhabitants who defile it.” See Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 740.

350

Stephen L. Cook

personal undertaking (see Lev 26.33). The land is personified as queasy to bring out its dynamic interactivity and to show it a vibrant object of God’s attachment. God cares about this land, and ejects offenders so it can “rest and enjoy its sabbath years” (Lev 26.34).20 It is worth pausing to underline the unusual anthropomorphic attachment of God to the land of Israel in HS and Ezekiel. When God speaks in the fire of divine jealousy about “my land” in Ezek 36.5 or when God defends Jerusalem against Tyre in Ezek 26.2, God is a patriot attached to a singular dwelling place (cf. Lev 25.23 HS). For Ezekiel, God has a personal stake in this particular land, which alone seeps with a divine holiness uniquely attendant on God’s personal presence. Verses 22–38 of Ezek 36 prophesy restoration for the exiles, based on the divine concern for the holy name. The vassal covenant of the Holiness School will be restored, and the people will again enjoy the land God promised their ancestors. From v. 23c to the end of the chapter, we have material present in the MT but missing in Papyrus 967.21 The majority scholarly view at present is that these verses expand an originally shorter passage through an allusive style drawing on a variety of earlier Ezekiel texts.22 Whether the expansive material (the MT-plus material) stems from Ezekiel’s school or simply sounds like authentic Ezekielian material due to an anthologizing process,23 Zadokite language and theology are highly visible. Verse 25 echoes Num 8.7; 19.20 (both HS); v. 27 draws on Lev 26.3 (HS); v. 28 repeats Lev 26.12

20 As Joosten writes, “The personal dimension is important as well [as the spatial]… It is probably no exaggeration to say that the personal dimension is projected into the spatial. When YHWH acquired for himself a people of worshippers, he intended them to dwell around his earthly abode” (People and Land, 128). 21 The section is also lacking in the Old Latin Codex Wirceburgensis. For an introduction to Papyrus 967 and its significance for interpreting Ezekiel, see Scatolini Apóstolo, “Ezek 36, 37, 38 and 39,” 336–340; Ingrid E. Lilly, Two Books of Ezekiel: Papyrus 967 and the Masoretic Text as Variant Literary Editions, VTSup 150 (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2012). Lilly argues that p967 represents a cohesive, alternate literary form of Ezekiel’s book, probably reflecting an early edition of a variant Hebrew text. Additional scholarly accounts of p967 appear in the bibliography cited in the two succeeding notes. 22 Lilly rightly discerns the MT-plus in 36.23c–38 to be an anthology of Ezekielian expressions (Two Books of Ezekiel, 125, 205). Paralleling Greenberg’s sage assessment (Ezekiel 21–37, 739), Block finds the heavy borrowing within the passage to befit its lofty significance as the theological “zenith” of Ezekiel’s book. See Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 340. 23 For critiques of 36.23c–38 as a late intrusion into MT Ezekiel, see: Hector M. Patmore, Adam, Satan, and the King of Tyre: The Interpretation of Ezekiel 28:11–19 in Late Antiquity, Jewish and Christian Perspectives 20 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 137–146; Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 338–343; Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 738–740. I concur with Block on at least two counts: (1) internal disjunctions preclude a late whole-cloth composition, and (2) the text of 36.23c–38 is “thoroughly Ezekielian” (Ezekiel 25–48, 341, 343).

Burgeoning Holiness: Fecundity Let Loose in Ezekiel 34–36

351

(HS; also Exod 6.7 HS); and v. 30 reflects Lev 23.40 and 26.4 (HS).24 Verses 23c– 38 bear Zadokite diction and theology and bring Ezekiel’s restoration hopes to full development. Without these verses and their echo in 37.23, where in Ezekiel’s book is Israel’s cleansing from impurity (Ezek 5.11; 14.11; 36.17), an expected reversal within Ezekiel’s restoration hope (see Ezek 22.24; 24.13)? Ezekiel’s early followers directly allude to this very reversal in Zech 12.10–13.1 (also cf. Zech 3.5). Zech 13.1 even repeats the specific language of Ezek 36.17, 25, 33, speaking precisely of cosmic water that cleanses Israel’s impurity (‫)נדה‬.25 Significantly, in the MT-plus material language about nature’s re-creation accompanies language of a restored humanity. In God’s new world, impressive fecundity with abundant grain harvests precludes famine (v. 29). The land no longer embarrasses Israel, since God makes “the fruit of the tree and the produce of the field abundant” (v. 30). The holistic vision embraces the land and its produce as well as people, describing both as infused with a truly numinous new life and fertility due to God’s indwelling presence. As Jacqueline Lapsley puts it, “An appropriately abundant land is newly minted for a newly created people, who will have distinctly new moral attributes.” The new land “hearkens back to that first garden where God and humans communed together.”26 Verse 30’s reference to God multiplying the “fruit of the tree” reverberates with God’s word in Eden about the “fruit of the tree” producing seed, supplying humankind with food (Gen 1.29).27 Reference to “fruit of the tree” reverberates as well with Zadokite language in Lev 23.40 and 26.4 (both HS). Closer inspection shows the former HS reference to be especially interesting. Leviticus 23.40 speaks of gathering ‫“( פרי עץ‬fruit of the tree,” meaning “foliage” NASB, “branches”, NIV, NET, NLT) for use in the Festival of Booths. Nahmanides (Ramban, 1194–1270 CE) argued that this festival fruit was linked 24 Ezek 36.17–18, 25 appears to have an especially strong link with Num 19, which contains much HS content and editing. Num 19 contains four occurrences of the keyword “impurity” (‫ )נדה‬in Ezek 36.17 as well as two occurrences of the key verb “sprinkle” (‫ )זרק‬in Ezek 36.25. In contemporary Judaism, Ezek 36.16–38 is paired with Num 19.1–22 as the haftarah portion for Shabbat Parah, the rituals of which purify the faithful for Passover. Ashley S. Crane notes that this is one of the earliest lectionary pairings in the Synagogue, perhaps dating from Second Temple times (Israel’s Restoration: A Textual-Comparative Exploration of Ezekiel 36–39, VTSup 122 [Leiden: Brill, 2008], 78 n. 107). 25 On how Zech 12.10–13.1 echoes Ezek 36.16–38, see note 14. Zechariah echoes the need for grace to be prevenient (Ezek 36.26, 31; Zech 12.10), for a new spirit (Ezek 36.26; Zech 12.10), and for cosmic water (Ezek 36.25; Zech 31.1) that cleanses both impurity and idolatry (Ezek 36.25; Zech 13.1–2) (Mason, “Use of Earlier Biblical Material,” 163). 26 Jacqueline E. Lapsley, Can These Bones Live? The Problem of the Moral Self in the Book of Ezekiel, BZAW 301 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000), 167, 168. 27 The Hebrew roots ‫ רבה‬and ‫ פרה‬appear earlier in v. 11 of chap. 36, which has other diction from Gen 1, including ‫יטב‬, ‫בהמה‬, ‫אדם‬, and ‫ראשה‬. Block grasps the transcendent scope here: “The land will be like paradise itself, and thus proclaim the mystery and presence of the divine person” (Ezekiel 25–48, 334). For more on v. 11, see note 32 below.

352

Stephen L. Cook

directly with the garden of Eden.28 Talmudic legend (Menahot 27a) says it bestows fertility and makes for “fragrant children.” Not merely fanciful Midrash, such legends can claim biblical resonances. Sukkot, a feast celebrating creation, fecundity, and God’s enthronement, does have innerbiblical resonances with Eden, with paradise regained. The trees supplying the Sukkot festival with foliage are to be “majestic” (NRSV), that is, “splendor trees” (‫עץ הדר‬, Lev 23.40). The term suggests the bountiful foliage of the temple precincts, an Eden realm. Thus, ‫הדר‬, “splendor,” is God’s special gift to Jerusalem according to Ezek 16.14. So too, Zechariah’s first vision includes splendor-trees: myrtles, a Sukkot species of dense foliage (see Neh 8.15).29 In Zech 1.8, the temple’s floral décor (1 Kgs 6.18, 29) and molten sea (1 Kgs 7.23) transfigure before Zechariah’s eyes to unveil Sukkot trees of Eden irrigated by the cosmic Deep (v. 8 NJPS). In books such as Zechariah, the Feast of Booths takes on special eschatological significance. Its associations with God’s enthronement at creation increasingly point to the endtime coming of God’s reign (cf. Zech 14.16). Thus, several inner-biblical valences of Ezek 36.30’s language point to Israel’s land transformed to an archetypal Eden realm. Ezekiel 36.33–36 and 36.37–38, each introduced with a messenger formula, elaborate in different ways on God’s regeneration of landscape and people. Verses 33–36 extend God’s restoration of Israel to include reclamation and renewal of environmental waste places. “The land that was desolate shall be tilled,” v. 34 proclaims. The Lord is a God who rebuilds  – God replants ruins devastated by war and abandonment, v. 36 echoes. Verses 37–38 end the prophecy with a striking ritual metaphor about the spiritual effect on the populace of the land’s numinous new fecundity. Both subsections move in an eschatological, even apocalyptic direction.30 Especially the appearance of the garden of Eden in v. 35 shows sacral fertility achieving archetypal, mythic proportions. The theme of numinous fecundity peaks when the verse declares that all who pass by Israel exclaim, “This land that was desolate has become like the garden of Eden.” Verse 8 of chapter 36 had earlier envisioned the highlands shooting out branches and yielding fruit to welcome the people to a numinous new home.31 Verse 11 had echoed the divine 28 Paul Morris, “Exiled from Eden: Jewish Interpretations of Genesis,” in A Walk in the Garden: Biblical, Iconographical and Literary Images of Eden, ed. Paul Morris and Deborah Sawyer; JSOTSup 136 (Sheffield, England: JSOT, 1992), 158 n. 85. 29 According to ancient rabbinical tradition (see Sukkah 32b) the ‫ עץ־עבת‬of Lev 23.40 refers to the myrtle. Neh 8.15 refers separately to the myrtle along with mention of ‫עץ־עבת‬, however, so perhaps the term ‫ עץ־עבת‬in HS applies generically to any tree of dense foliage (“leafy boughs,” Neh 8.15 REB). 30 An eschatological purview is clearest in Codex Alexandrinus, where 36.33 refers to the day of the Lord by employing the formula “in that day” (Crane, Israel’s Restoration, 80). 31 V. 8 does not yet mention Eden, but it does evoke elements of the Eden story in Gen 2–3

Burgeoning Holiness: Fecundity Let Loose in Ezekiel 34–36

353

word in Eden concerning fruitfulness and multiplication (see also Lev 26.9 HS).32 Even earlier, Ezek 34.20–31 had described the return of a peaceable and fearless Eden-like land, as will be discussed below. Now Eden arrives explicitly, with God present at the center of the action (Ezek 36.36). As in the first garden, the Lord God and humanity commune together once more. Verses 37–38 form a final subsection of Ezek 36.22–38. They elaborate upon the land’s new eschatological fecundity with an image of Jerusalem bustling with flocks during pilgrimage time: “Like the flock for sacrifices, like the flock at Jerusalem during her appointed festivals.” My international students from Africa tell me how invigorating it is to participate in such scenes, which they experience at open markets. One is electrified. One soaks up the energy of human community and mutuality. The dream of booming fecundity is deep-rooted in Africa and entails a longing for much more than biological propagation alone. Matungulu Otene, S. J., a Black African religious thinker, speaks of a non-biological, “spiritual fertility,” which entails persons “awakening” to fuller forms of life.33 In the case of making sacrifice at Ezekiel’s new temple, the voltage at Jerusalem would be multiplied immeasurably by God’s seeping holiness. The Hebrew ‫ צאן קדשים‬behind the NRSV’s phrase “flock for sacrifices” in v. 38 might better be rendered “consecrated flock” or even “sacred flock.” The LXX translates the phrase as “holy sheep”; the CEB speaks of a “holy flock”; and the REB declares the flock to be “holy gifts.” Purity and sanctity adhere to these sheep (cf. Lev 11.44; 19.2; 20.7–8, 26 HS)! The tenor of the image is “flocks of people,” so the Hebrew conjures the thought of sanctified multitudes burgeoning and teeming across the land of God’s indwelling.34 (see Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 719). A perduring tradition of Jewish interpretation sees the fecundity of v. 8 as the beginning of the messianic age (ibid., 720). 32 Ezek 36.11 likely alludes to both Gen 1 (PT) and Lev 26.9, inverting the order of the verbs ‫ פרה‬and ‫ רבה‬to mark a purposeful reference (Seidel’s law). The allusion to Lev 26 is assured, since, as Michael A. Lyons writes, “Ezekiel is aware of the context in H: the locution ‘I will turn to you’…, also from Lev 26.9, is found two verses earlier in Ezek 36.9” (“Marking Innerbiblical Allusion in the Book of Ezekiel,” Biblica 88 [2007]: 246 n. 5). An allusion to Gen 1 is also likely, as the evidence in v. 27 above suggests. As Block writes, “The phrase they will increase and be fruitful is an obvious echo of the divine blessing of beasts in Gen 1.22 and humans in 1.28 as well as 9.1, 7. This new fertility will exceed anything the land has experienced in history” (Ezekiel 25–48, 334). Cf. also Paul M. Joyce, Ezekiel: A Commentary, LHBOTS 482 (New York: T & T Clark, 2007), 203. 33 Celibacy and the African Value of Fecundity, trans. Louis C. Plamondon, S. J., Spearhead 65 (Eldoret, Kenya: Gaba, 1981), 2. 34 Lapsley nicely grasps the rhetorical genius of the text: “The prophet’s thinking about human moral identity is powerfully shaped by the priestly images and motifs that he has inherited. Just as he used the imagery of ritual filth and cleansing to describe and to rectify the problem of human moral identity …, Ezekiel again employs language from the ritual sphere in order to reconstruct the moral identity of the people. As the problem of human depravity is symbolically conceived in ritual terms, so the solution is also offered in those same terms” (Lapsley, Can These Bones Live, 169). William A. Tooman (privately) has pointed out to me that the rhetoric here is likely an extension of the motif of “God’s people as holy objects” that seems to be present

354

Stephen L. Cook

By his turn of phrase, Ezekiel conveys an idea of holy fecundity (cf. Ezek 47.1–12). God’s presence on Israel’s highlands seeps into God’s people, sanctifies them, and makes them bubble with life, abound in mutuality. The holiness swells, pushing out beyond Jerusalem’s confines. The land’s waste and desolate places become filled to overflowing. The land finds fresh, authentic life and eschatological ennoblement in the realization of its ancient promised destiny. In Lev 26.9 (HS) God had promised, “I will … make you fruitful and multiply you; and I will maintain my covenant.”35 Zechariah’s book picks up where Ezek 36.37–38 leaves off. Zechariah 2.1–5 speaks of a new Jerusalem too big for walls because of the multitudes teeming within. Significantly, these multitudes include beasts as well as humans, a “multitude of people and animals” (Zech 2.8). God’s glory dwelling amid people and their animals, encompassing them, electrifies the bustling city (v. 5). God’s land has realized the destiny of which HS and Ezekiel speak (Lev 26.9–12; cf. Exod 29.45; 40.34–35, all HS).

2. Ezekiel 34.20–31 Ezekiel 36.37–38 is in dialog with an earlier passage, Ezek 34.25–31. Like the conclusion of Ezek 36, Ezek 34.31 describes God’s redeemed Israel as both “flock” (‫ )צאן‬and “human” (‫)אדם‬.36 No biblical texts other than Ezek 34.31; 36.37, 38 describe Israel with this unique diction. Ezek 34 is of special interest for this essay, since the chapter especially celebrates wild nature. Reading Ezek 36 in isolation, the erroneous impression may have arisen that holiness thinking despises wilderness and wild things. Ezek 36 and Zech 2, drawing upon it, orient themselves strongly on domestic, cultivated life, ignoring the wild and woolly. God replants waste fields specifically so that humans can work them (Ezek 36.34). also in Ezek 20.40–41. Tooman notes that if we read the bêt on ‫( בריח‬20.41) as a bêt essentia, then the people are themselves the offering: “then I will accept you … as a pleasing aroma.” 35 Whereas in PT’s creation story multiplying people on earth was a human task, Ezekiel’s new creation follows HS at Lev 26.9 in having God take the initiative even in this regard (Ezek 36.11, 36). Cf. Lapsley, Can These Bones Live, 168; Michael A. Lyons, “1. Transformation of Law: Ezekiel’s Use of the Holiness Code (Leviticus 17–26),” in Transforming Visions: Transformations of Text, Tradition, and Theology in Ezekiel, ed. William A. Tooman and Michael A. Lyons, PTMS 127 (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2010), 27. 36 Scatolini Apóstolo, “Ezek 36, 37, 38 and 39,” 345, citing an analysis by Johan Lust. The question of direction of textual dependence is problematic, since the phrase “you are human” is missing in all Greek manuscripts of 34.31. Greenberg, often conservative on such matters, regards the phrase as a gloss here (Ezekiel 21–37, 704), but v. 31 appears instead to be using the term ‫ אדם‬artfully in a play on the covenant formula (see Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 307–308, and the rendering in the NET). See the discussion below and in note 43. Buttressing this interpretation, note how Ezek 36.12 employs ‫ אדם‬in apposition to the phrase “my people,” a usual and basic element of the covenant formula.

Burgeoning Holiness: Fecundity Let Loose in Ezekiel 34–36

355

Verses 20–31 of Ezek 34 are especially eco-focused.37 These eco-friendly ver­ ses, in canonical dialog with Ezek 36, impel a reconsideration of the impression that ch. 36 is unfriendly towards wild nature. Actually, the latter text never condemns what is uncultivated, undeveloped. It merely assumes it heartrending when people’s homes become rubble and their farmlands, invested with backbreaking labor, go to ruin. The focal problem here is aridity that impedes life, sterility that blocks abounding fecundity.38 The final verses of Ezek 34, which are introduced by a messenger formula in v. 20, expand on God’s salvation as laid out in the chapter. God becomes Israel’s shepherd once more, restoring the people on God’s land as sheep on a pasture (v. 31). Verses 25–31 anticipate a “covenant of peace,” using language adopted from Num 25.12 (HS).39 They state that God’s coming shalom includes orchards and fields yielding bumper crops and everyone living free and safe (vv. 26–27). The phraseology of blessing in Lev 26.1–13 (HS) strongly shapes the rhetoric, including language of “showers in their season” (Lev 26.4; Ezek 34.26); “land yielding its produce” (Lev 26.4; Ezek 34.27); “trees yielding their fruit” (Lev 26.4; Ezek 34.26)40; living “securely” (Lev 26.5; Ezek 34.25, 27); “no one making afraid” (Lev 26.6; Ezek 34.28); an end of slavery (Lev 26.13; Ezek 34.27); and God’s breaking “the bars of your yoke” (Lev 26.13; Ezek 34.27).41 God’s land will soon be renowned for lavish harvests (v. 29), but wild nature will also rise to glory alongside cultivated nature. A new harmony in the ecosystem will allow people to camp safely in the wild. Verse 25 promises that people will “sleep in the woods securely.” Moreover, beyond affirming a free and fearless wild nature, God’s covenant of peace entails a truly numinous transformation of Israel’s environs. Verse 26 makes this explicit in an interpretive comment that it adds in citing Lev 26.4 (HS). The comment insists that God will shower blessings on the new Israel, not merely rain.42 37 Regrettably, these verses are mostly omitted from the widely used Protestant Revised Common Lectionary, which draws few texts from Ezekiel but does include 34.11–24. 38 On the moral and spiritual dimensions of human fecundity here, see notes 33 and 34 above. 39  Bernard F. Batto suggests two reasons why Ezekiel may have drawn on the covenant with Phinehas in Num 25.10–15. First, Phinehas’ actions purified Israel for entering Canaan. Second, God takes the initiative in reaching out to Phineas once the divine anger abates. Batto writes, “Perhaps the author employed …[this] expression because of its connotations of cessation of divine wrath and restoration of harmony between God and humanity” (Batto, “The Covenant of Peace: A Neglected Ancient Near Eastern Motif,” CBQ 49 [1987]: 188 n. 3). The presence of many allusions to Lev 26 (HS) in Ezek 34 suggests that the expression “covenant of peace” also echoes Lev 26.6, “I will put peace in the land” (see Lyons, “Transformation of Law,” 24). 40 I noted above that Lev 26.4 (HS) also stands behind Ezek 36.30. Here as well as in 36.30, Ezekiel inverts the ordering of earth and trees found in Lev 26.4, thereby signaling a conscious allusion to an earlier text (Seidel’s law). See Lyons, “Marking Innerbiblical Allusion,” 246. 41 That these final two images of enslavement in Lev 26.13 do not fit the actual experience of Babylonian exile again suggests the priority of HS over against Ezekiel’s allusion here. See Christophe Nihan, “Ezekiel 34–37 and Leviticus 26: A Re-evaluation,” in this volume. 42 The addition of the interpretive comment establishes that the HS text of Lev 26.4 is prior to

356

Stephen L. Cook

Ezekiel 34.25–31 surely describes a return to Eden, where Adam and Eve lived securely, without fear, in an untamed, unshackled environment. The rare diction of 34.31 refers to the new Israel, the sheep of God’s perfect pasture, specifically as the primordial Adam (‫)אדם‬, using language that would otherwise appear a needless gloss.43 Batto affirms that Ezekiel patterned this section on primordial motifs: “The eschatological conditions described are nothing short of a restoration of the idyllic conditions of Eden. … The heavens and the earth will cooperate in producing abundance.”44 Elsewhere in his book, Ezekiel imagines Eden as a wild, natural forest of magnificent trees, fit for a towering deity (Ezek 31.8–9). God’s garden is of divine proportion; Ps 104.16 similarly speaks of God gardening “trees of the Lord,” “cedars of Lebanon that he planted” (NLT). God’s orchard is feral nature itself, neither synthetic nor domesticated. It is among these trees that humans will now wish to sleep (Ezek 34.25). Should not untamed beasts be allowed in such an uncultivated, forest orchard? Do not wild animals get a bad deal in Ezek 34.25, where God appears to eliminate them? Julie Galambush argues that wild beasts here are “a hostile and threatening other to be excluded from Israel.”45 The meaning of Ezek 34.25, however, is not as first appears. As Richard Bauckham has shown, the biblical world differs from ours in that Israelites did not hunt carnivores but carnivores did endanger humans.46 Ezekiel’s HS source text is conscious of the danger posed by beasts that are malevolent (‫רע‬, Lev 26.6; NABR: “ravenous”; NJPS: “vicious”), and it parallels enemy armies and savage predators as twin threats to a peaceable land. A straight line runs backwards from the pairing of these threats in Ezek 34.28 to HS language about the removal of vicious predators along with enemy swords in Lev 26.6. Ezekiel thus merely repeats tropes in the HS source betokening the ideal peace of Eden, representing environs fully ignorant of all carnage.47 Ezekiel’s allusion to it in Ezek 34.26. On Ezekiel’s use of HS here, see Lyons, “Transformation of Law,” 25, and Christophe Nihan, “Ezekiel 34–37 and Leviticus 26.” 43  The NJB rendering conveys well how a pleonastic gloss would work: “the flock of my human pasture.” The term “Adam” does not appear in the Septuagint (see note 36 above) and is usually left untranslated in English versions (the NJPS, CEB, and NASB are notable exceptions). In support of a notion of a return to Eden here, note that creation motifs and diction lie behind the use of the term ‫ אדם‬in Ezek 36.11–14, which describes the fulfillment of the Genesis command that humanity be fruitful and multiply (Gen 1.28). See n. 32. 44 Batto, “Covenant of Peace,” 189. 45 Julie Galambush, “God’s Land and Mine: Creation as Property in the Book of Ezekiel,” in Cook and Patton, Ezekiel’s Hierarchical World, 94. 46 Bauckham, Bible and Ecology, 119, 121. Bauckham’s discussion is especially helpful in describing a nonviolent, peaceable “ecotopia,” where both humanity and nature are radically transformed and enhanced, reconciled with each other, and realize the potentials inherent in Scripture’s presentations of Eden. 47 Ezek 34.25 again signals conscious citation by inverting the order of “banish vicious beasts” and “live securely” found in Lev 26.5–6. See Lyons, “Marking Innerbiblical Allusion,” 246.

Burgeoning Holiness: Fecundity Let Loose in Ezekiel 34–36

357

The Zadokites neither wished to be slashed by swords nor eaten by vicious predators, but, amazingly, they were, contra Galambush, simultaneously committed to preserve a place in the world for wild nature. The Holiness Code in Lev 25.7 specifically depicts God assuring the life of wild animals along with livestock. The creatures at issue are not “vicious” (‫ )רע‬predators as in Lev 26.6 and Ezek 34.25, but they are wild beasts living within Israel along with cattle and flocks; their lives too should matter to humans. Ezekiel 34, then, presents us with a true ecotopia, not merely a utopia. In God’s new shalom, both human and non-human creation can flourish. This is God’s own garden-world, where God might step out from the temple’s safety. Such environs might see a fulfilment of Lev 26.12 (HS), where God commits to “walk around among” God’s people (CEB, cf. NLT). Here, God might get outside the adytum of Ezekiel’s temple for some fresh air. God might actually join humanity in enjoying the forests and trees of an Eden-world (Ezek 34.25), even sleeping safely in the woods (see Exod 31.17 HS). After all, why should only human beings get to enjoy wild, feral nature?

Bibliography Batto, Bernard F. “The Covenant of Peace: A Neglected Ancient Near Eastern Motif.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 49 (1987): 187–211. Bauckham, Richard. Bible and Ecology: Rediscovering the Community of Creation. Sarum Theological Lectures. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2010. Bergsma, John S. “Ezekiel, H, and ‘Z’: The Relationship of Ezekiel to the Holiness Code and ‘Zion Theology’.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, San Diego, CA, November 22, 2014. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Ezekiel. Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1990. Block, Daniel I. The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. –. The Gods of the Nations: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern National Theology. Evangelical Theological Society Monograph Series 2. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1988. Brown, William P. The Seven Pillars of Creation: The Bible, Science, and the Ecology of Wonder. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010. Cook, Stephen L. Conversations with Scripture: 2 Isaiah. Anglican Association of Biblical Scholars Study Series. Harrisburg, PA: Morehouse, 2008. –. “The Fecundity of Fair Zion: Beauty and Fruitfulness as Spiritual Fulfillment.” In Daughter Zion: Her Portrait, Her Response, 77–100. Edited by Mark J. Boda, Carol J. Dempsey, and LeAnn Snow Flesher. Ancient Israel and Its Literature 13. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012. Cook, Stephen L. and Corrine L. Patton. “Introduction: Hierarchical Thinking and Theology in Ezekiel’s Book.” In Ezekiel’s Hierarchical World: Wrestling with a Tiered Reality, 1–23. Edited by Stephen L. Cook and Corinne L. Patton. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 31. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004.

358

Stephen L. Cook

Crane, Ashley S. Israel’s Restoration: A Textual-Comparative Exploration of Ezekiel 36–39. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 122. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Davis, Ellen F. Scripture, Culture, and Agriculture: An Agrarian Reading of the Bible. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Delcor, M. “Un Problème de Critique Textuelle et d’Exégèse: Zach XII.10, Et aspicient ad me quem confixerunt.” Revue biblique 58 (1951): 189–199. Galambush, Julie. “God’s Land and Mine: Creation as Property in the Book of Ezekiel.” In Ezekiel’s Hierarchical World: Wrestling with a Tiered Reality, 91–108. Edited by Stephen L. Cook and Corinne L. Patton. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 31. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004. Greenberg, Moshe. Ezekiel 21–37: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 22A. New York: Doubleday, 1997. Joosten, Jan. People and Land in the Holiness Code: An Exegetical Study of the Ideational Framework of the Law in Leviticus 17–26. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 67. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Joyce, Paul M. Ezekiel: A Commentary. Library of Hebrew Bible / ​Old Testament Series 482. New York: T & T Clark, 2007. Klein, Anja. “Ezekiel 6.1–7 and 36.1–15: The Idea of the Mountains in the Book of Ezekiel.” Pages 54–65 in Ezekiel: Current Debates and Future Directions. Edited by William A. Tooman and Penelope Barter. Forschungen zum alten Testament 112. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017. Knohl, Israel. The Divine Symphony: The Bible’s Many Voices. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2003. –. The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. Lapsley, Jacqueline E. Can These Bones Live? The Problem of the Moral Self in the Book of Ezekiel. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 301. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000. Larkin, Katrina J. A. The Eschatology of Second Zechariah: A Study of the Formation of a Mantological Wisdom Anthology. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis & Theology 6. Kampen, Netherlands: Kok Pharos, 1994. Lilly, Ingrid E. Two Books of Ezekiel: Papyrus 967 and the Masoretic Text as Variant Literary Editions. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 150. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2012. Lyons, Michael A. From Law to Prophecy: Ezekiel’s Use of the Holiness Code. Library of Hebrew Bible / ​Old Testament Studies 507. New York: T & T Clark, 2009. –. “Marking Innerbiblical Allusion in the Book of Ezekiel.” Biblica 88 (2007): 245–250. –. “Transformation of Law: Ezekiel’s Use of the Holiness Code (Leviticus 17–26).” In Transforming Visions: Transformations of Text, Tradition, and Theology in Ezekiel, 1–32. Edited by William A. Tooman and Michael A. Lyons. Princeton Theological Monograph Series 127. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2010. MacDonald, Nathan. “Priestly Prerogatives in Numbers 18 and Ezekiel 44.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, San Diego, CA, November 22, 2014. Mason, Rex A. “The Use of Earlier Biblical Material in Zechariah 9–14: A Study of Inner Biblical Exegesis.” Pages 2–201 in Bringing Out the Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusion in Zechariah 9–14. Edited by Mark J. Boda and Michael H. Floyd. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 370. London and New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003.

Burgeoning Holiness: Fecundity Let Loose in Ezekiel 34–36

359

Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 3. New York: Doubleday, 1991. –. Leviticus 17–22: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 3A. New York: Doubleday, 2000. Morris, Paul. “Exiled from Eden: Jewish Interpretations of Genesis.” Pages 117–166 in A Walk in the Garden: Biblical, Iconographical and Literary Images of Eden. Edited by Paul Morris and Deborah Sawyer. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 136. Sheffield: JSOT, 1992. Nihan, Christophe. “Ezekiel 34–37 and Leviticus 26: A Reevaluation.” Pages 153–178 in Ezekiel: Current Debates and Future Directions. Edited by William A. Tooman and Penelope Barter. Forschungen zum alten Testament 112. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017. –. “Ezekiel’s Torah and Moses’ Torah: Parallel Legal Traditions in Post-Monarchic Israel.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, San Diego, CA, November 22, 2014. Otene, Matungulu, S. J. Celibacy and the African Value of Fecundity. Translated by Louis C. Plamondon, S. J. Spearhead 65. Eldoret, Kenya: Gaba, 1981. Patmore, Hector M. Adam, Satan, and the King of Tyre: The Interpretation of Ezekiel 28:11–19 in Late Antiquity. Jewish and Christian Perspectives 20. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Redditt, Paul L. Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. New Century Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. Scatolini Apóstolo, Silvio S. “Ezek 36, 37, 38 and 39 in Papyrus 967 as Pre-Text for ReReading Ezekiel.” In Interpreting Translation: Studies on the LXX and Ezekiel in Honour of Johan Lust, 331–357. Edited by Florentino García Martínez and Marc Vervenne. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 192. Leuven: Peeters, 2005. Sommer, Benjamin D. The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Strazicich, John. Joel’s Use of Scripture and Scripture’s Use of Joel: Appropriation and Resignification in Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity. Biblical Interpretation Series 82. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Tull, Patricia K. Inhabiting Eden: Christians, the Bible, and the Ecological Crisis. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2013. Ünal, Ahmet. “Gebet des Königspaares Arnuwanda I. und Asmunikal wegen der kriegerischen Überfälle der Kaskäer, CTH 375.” In Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testament, vol. 2, Orakel, Rituale Bau‑ und Votivinschriften Lieder und Gebete, 799–802. Edited by Otto Kaiser. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1989–1991.

Ezekiel’s Recovery of Premonarchic, Tribal Israel Stephen L. Cook The sixth-century prophet Ezekiel and his continuing school counted themselves among the Zadokite lineage in power at the temple.1 Given their role at the center of Israelite state power, it is startling to observe the Zadokites abandoning many elements of monarchic state society, pushing back the clock to old Israel’s village-based, lineage-based way of life. Most notably, integral to the group’s new utopia in Ezek 40–48 is a remarkable repristination of many core components of premonarchic, tribal society. Displacing Jerusalem and royalty off-center (Ezek 43.7, 9; 45.6–7), Ezekiel’s utopian temple vision reactivates Israel’s tribal lifestyle and organization of society. Here, in Ezek 40–48, an intricate new imaging of temple and land moves concretely to undo and prevent past abuses inflicted by monarchy. Israel’s tribal way of life resurfaces to replace and reverse the abuses of the pre-exile kingship era. Rainer Albertz puts it well: We can only be amazed at how serious an attempt is made here, in the planning of the new beginning after the exile, to revise the erroneous social developments of the period of the state and again take up the ideals of freedom from the pre-state period. Granted, the reformers did not deny the central institutions which had accrued to Israel during the monarchy … But they did reflect on how they could so separate and reorder this religious and political conglomerate of power with the help of their priestly pattern of thought and their hierarchical sacred precincts that these institutions could be integrated without any damage into the tribal social structure.2 1 Ezekiel’s priestly branch, the Zadokites, one of at least three major Israelite priestly lineages, controlled the preexilic chief priesthood in Jerusalem. For discussion and bibliography, see Mark Leuchter, The Polemics of Exile in Jeremiah 26–45 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 225 n. 12; F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973), 213–15; Deborah W. Rooke, Zadok’s Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012); Saul M. Olyan, “Zadok’s Origins and the Tribal Politics of David,” JBL 101 (1982): 177–93; Stephen L. Cook, review of Missing Priests: The Zadokites in Tradition and History, by Alice Hunt, CBQ 71 (2009): 372–73. On the unique Zadokite understandings of Ezekiel’s book, see Stephen L. Cook and Corrine L. Patton, “Introduction: Hierarchical Thinking and Theology in Ezekiel’s Book,” in Ezekiel’s Hierarchical World: Wrestling with a Tiered Reality, ed. S. Cook and C. Patton; SBL Symposium Series 31 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004), 11–12. 2 Rainer Albertz, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period, Volume 2: From the Exile to the Maccabees (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 436.

Ezekiel’s Recovery of Premonarchic, Tribal Israel

361

A gradual weakening of tribal and lineage-based power and custom generally accompanies the growth of centralized monarchy in a society.3 Mark S. Smith, among other scholars, has helpfully documented a “diminished lineage system” in the Israelite society of Ezekiel’s time. He rightly discerns a society “less embedded in traditional family patrimonies.” (Smith is mistaken, however, to associate the shift with the origins of biblical monotheism.)4 This weakening of family ties makes the turn in Ezek 40–48 back to pre-state social structures remarkable indeed, but far from inconceivable. Remnants of Israel’s older genealogical and tribal structures continued to subsist as a societal substratum through Ezekiel’s era. It was plausible to imagine them reinvigorated. Evidence in Ezekiel’s book indicates that he and his school were well aware of Israel’s village-based substratum. At various points he speaks of elements of this stratum as still extant in the homeland. The prophet names the advice of tribal elders alongside the visions of prophets and the instruction of priests as key societal supports (Ezek 7.26). He names the “people of the land” (elders of the homeland populace, cf. Ezek 33.2; Lev 20.2, 4 [HS]; rural gentry, cf. 2 Kgs 21.23–24; 23.30; 23.35) alongside “the king” and “the prince” as among those who will suffer in God’s coming judgment (Ezek 7.27). The “people of the land” (‫ )עם־הארץ‬bring God’s wrath down upon them in Judah (Ezek 12.19; 22.29), but will prove obedient in Judah’s promised future (Ezek 39.13). The group constitutes a premonarchic, tribal power base. During Israel’s late monarchic period, this remnant of tribal Israel’s decentralized power structures asserted its traditional authority at junctures of political chaos and anarchy.5 It is Israelite society’s decentralized, tribal substratum that Ezekiel’s book seeks to rehabilitate. The goal is to realize “the ideals of freedom from the pre-state 3 See, e. g., Gerhard Lenski, Human Societies: A Macrolevel Introduction to Sociology (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970), 242–43, 246, 285–86, 306; Stephen L. Cook, The Social Roots of Biblical Yahwism, SBL Studies in Biblical Literature 8 (Leiden: Brill; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004), 143–94. 4 Mark S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 164. Smith is correct that Ezekiel both stresses individual human accountability (see Ezek 18.4) and holds an individual deity, the Sovereign Lord, accountable for the cosmos (see, e. g., Ezek 17.24). The prophet never correlates the two themes as Smith does, however. Nor do these twin ideas even originate in Ezekiel’s era. God already holds individuals responsible for themselves in Ezekiel’s source texts (see Num 16.22–24 HS). (On the “HS” [“Holiness School”] strand and its relation to Ezekiel, see n. 8 below.) HS assumes that a God who owns “all lives” (Ezek 18.4), i. e., “the spirits of all flesh” (Num 16.22 HS), will surely allow innocent individuals to separate themselves from the group-whole and avoid judgment (Num 16.24 HS). Individual accountability is here distinct from communal accountability. So too, HS knows well God’s own unique accountability. When Ezek 17.24 articulates this accountability, it can do so using the self-revelation formula of HS (cf. Exod 7.5; 10.2; 14.18). For both HS and Ezekiel, the formula “I am the Lord” is pregnant with assumptions about God’s identity as sovereign over all emerging reality. 5 See Gerhard Lenski, Power and Privilege: A Theory of Social Stratification (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966), 230; Cook, Social Roots, 46–48, and the bibliography cited there.

362

Stephen L. Cook

period,” of which Albertz speaks. It is to undo the oppressions of monarchy, understood to include the claim of royal supremacy over the individual, the imposition of military service and forced labor, and the burdening of the populace with taxes and levies. As Volkmar Fritz writes, the rise of monarchy “transformed the conditions of property ownership and with them the social order.”6 Ezekiel’s book seeks to reverse the development, to undo the monarchy’s radical restructuring of land ownership and tenure. The circles behind the traditions of Deuteronomy and those behind Ezekiel differed on many points, but they agreed on this. Israel’s traditional kinship bonds and practice of local land tenure formed crucial material supports of covenantal ethics. Such traditions protected and nurtured bonds of mutuality that joined Israelites together as interdependent vassals of their divine suzerain. In pre-state, tribal Israel, the guaranteed tenure of tribes, kin-groups, and extended families on ancestral lands effectively established local justice and community. The security of kin-plus-land units blocked any process of property continually being concentrated in the hands of the few. It fostered caring life on the land, rather than selfish exploitation of people and nature. The social-scientific work of scholars such as Gerhard Lenski explains how central priests like those of the Ezekiel group prioritized the ethic of an older way of life, a bygone, tribal model of society. We can understand Ezekiel’s school as composed of those priestly leaders that Lenski describes as sometimes playing a “unique role among the privileged classes in agrarian societies.” Priests of his stripe could work to check the “massive flow of goods and services from the many to the few.”7 The traditions of the Holiness School (“HS”) particularly impressed themselves on the mind of the prophet Ezekiel and his priestly school.8 Ezekiel spoke 6 Volkmar Fritz, The City in Ancient Israel, Biblical Seminar 29 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 166; cf. Albrecht Alt, “Der Anteil des Königtums an der sozialen Entwicklung in den Reichen Israel und Juda,” in Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel, III, ed. M. Noth (Munich: Beck, 1959), 348–72. 7  Lenski, Power and Privilege, 266; cf. Kalinda Rose Stevenson, The Vision of Transformation: The Territorial Rhetoric of Ezekiel 40–48, SBLDS 154 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), 122. 8 For an introduction to the “Holiness School” (“HS”) strand of the Pentateuch, which I ascribe to the Zadokite priesthood, see Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 3 (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 1–2, 13–42, 48; idem, Leviticus 17–22: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 3A (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 1319–1443; Israel Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995); idem, The Divine Symphony: The Bible’s Many Voices (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2003). Along with Jonathan Klawans, I appreciate how “Knohl’s careful identification of H-sounding redactional material in various P texts is compelling” but disagree with Knohl’s developmental scheme, in which HS has evolved ethically beyond PT (Jonathan Klawans, Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism [New York: Oxford University Press, 2006], 51). On the temporal priority of HS over against Ezekiel’s book, see Michael A. Lyons, “Transformation of Law: Ezekiel’s Use of the Holiness Code (Leviticus 17–26),” in Transforming Visions:

Ezekiel’s Recovery of Premonarchic, Tribal Israel

363

of Judah’s full “end” – its imminent termination as a monarchic state – because his traditions pointed him exactly to that eventuality. The Holiness School understands that Israel’s vassal treaty with God – a “covenant” (‫ ;ברית‬Lev 26.9, 15, 25) – contains devastating sanctions for disobedience.9 Ezekiel, based on HS, pronounces Jerusalem doomed for becoming a “whore” (Ezek 16.15; cf. Lev 17.7; 19.29; 20.5–6), for invalidating the solemn covenant (‫ )ברית‬into which they both had entered (Ezek 16.8).10 HS contains many sanctions and threats, but explicitly excludes the threat of God permanently revoking Israel’s covenant (see Lev 26.40–45).11 Thus, the Ezekiel group did not understand the breaking of the covenant and the catastrophe of exile to end God’s relationship with Israel. Rather, the Zadokites envisioned the coming of a renewed land and people. Sin and defilement may repel the glory of the Lord, but God wills to vacate the land only temporarily.12 God is Transformations of Text, Tradition, and Theology in Ezekiel, ed. W. A. Tooman and M. A. Lyons, Princeton Theological Monograph Series 127 (Eugene: Pickwick, 2010), 1–32. Panelists at a recent SBL joint session on Ezekiel and Pentateuchal law identified good evidence of the book of Ezekiel’s dependence on law but no evidence of a reverse direction of dependence (cf. Stephen L. Cook, “Ezekiel 40–48 and Pentateuchal Legal Texts, a Response to Dale Launderville, William Tooman, and Carla Sulzbach” [paper presented at the joint Theological Perspectives on the Book of Ezekiel Section and Biblical Law Section at the Annual Meeting of the SBL, Baltimore, MD, November 24, 2013]).   9 Like typical vassal treaties of the ancient Near East, HS lists blessings for obedience (Lev 26.3–13; cf. Ezek 34.25–31; 36.29–30) and curses for infidelity (Lev 26.14–39). 10 On whoring as a metaphor for breaking God’s vassal covenant, see Ka Leung Wong, The Idea of Retribution in the Book of Ezekiel, VTSup 87 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 52. Frequent verbal echoes of HS in the book of Ezekiel signal that the curses of Israel’s vassal treaty with God were coming into effect. Ezekiel warns of “pestilence,” “famine,” and “sword” (Ezek 5.10; cf. 6.11–12; 7.15; 12.16; 14.21), threats linked as modes of destruction in Lev 26.25–26. God’s threat to “break the staff of bread” (Ezek 4.16; 5.16) comes straight out of Lev 26.26. So, as well, does the threat of destroying the “high places” (Ezek 6.3; Lev 26.30). On the land in Ezekiel as a delicate lattice of holiness that is highly sensitive to covenant betrayal, see Stephen L. Cook, “Cosmos, Kabod, and Cherub: Ontological and Epistemological Hierarchy in Ezekiel,” in Ezekiel’s Hierarchical World, 187–90. As Knohl writes, “Holiness … emerges from the Priestly center, radiating out to all sectors of society and to all walks of life” (The Sanctuary of Silence, 198). Cf. John F. Kutsko, Between Heaven and Earth: Divine Presence and Absence in the Book of Ezekiel, Biblical and Judaic Studies from the University of California, San Diego 7 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 126 n. 110. Additional mention of “oath” and “covenant” occurs in Ezek 16.59; 17.19. Scholars, however, continue to debate whether the covenant at issue in these verses is God’s or Nebuchadnezzar’s. 11 James W. Watts rightly notes that HS “explicitly excludes the ultimate threat of nullifying Israel’s covenant” (“Rhetorical Strategy in the Composition of the Pentateuch,” JSOT 68 [1995], 18). 12 See Klawans, Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple, 70–71, 95. Zadokite circles did not share the theology of an immovable divine commitment to Zion found in Jerusalem’s royal theology (the idea of unconditional grants and promises to Zion seen in texts such as 2 Sam 7.16; Pss 48.8; 89.28; Isa 8.10). The emphasis in HS and Ezekiel is on the bilateral, contingent nature of a vassal covenant (‫ )ברית‬between Israel and God (Lev 26.9, 15, 25; Ezek 16.8, 40; see Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 173–74). At the same time, HS affirms God’s permanent commitments to Israel’s ancestors (see Lev 26.42; cf. Ezek 16.60).

364

Stephen L. Cook

determined to maintain “direct contact” with Israel,13 to indwell God’s people tangibly, creating a “holy land.”14 This plan ensures that the land’s inhabitants will find blessing and sanctification (Ezek 37.27–28; Zech 2.10–12; see the HS texts at Lev 22.32; Num 5.3; 35.34). According to the Zadokites, from the midst of Israel God radiates holiness out to the entire land, progressively sanctifying every sector of society (Exod 31.13; Lev 20.8; 21.8, 15; 22.16, 32 all HS; Ezek 20.12; 37.28).15 No one will be left out of God’s work to heal and sanctify every nook and cranny of Israel (Ezek 34.4, 16). The goal of sanctifying the entire community is why both HS and Ezekiel stress not only the glory’s association with the temple but also its presence “in the midst” (‫ )בתוך‬of the Israelite people (Exod 25.8; 29.45–46; Lev 15.31; 26.12; Num 5.3; 16.3; 35.34; Ezek 11.23; 37.26, 28; 39.7; 43.7, 9; 48.8, 10, 21).16 God values the worth and holiness of all of God’s people, the whole congregation of the children of Israel (Lev 19.2; cf. Ezek 20.12; 37.28; 43.9). Ezekiel’s coming renewal of people and land would be no return to a monarchic state, but a repristination of the sort of theocracy that Israel had known in the Judges period. God will be physically present, embodied as ‫כבוד‬, enthroned as king (Ezek 43.7), rendering earthly monarchy irrelevant. The temple-building rhetoric of Ezek 40–48 thus presents the Lord’s claim to be king over Israel’s territory.17 Unlike in the “tribal” era, however, the blueprint envisions a secured presence of God’s glory. Now there will be a transfigured earthly shrine, which provides for humans a powerful and perpetual contact with heavenly reality.18 What were previously mere glimpses of divine reality now become constant. Extraordinary happenings such as those in Ezek 10.3 (where transcendent reality penetrates the temple to receive the incarnate ‫ )כבוד‬suddenly become the norm. 13 Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 173. “This closeness … makes possible the demand that the people should strive to resemble God.” 14 Hence, Ezekiel’s book refers to the holy land as the “mountains of Israel” (cf. 6.2, 3; 19.9; 33.28), marking all God’s territory, not just Zion, as God’s holy mountain paradise. 15 Baruch J. Schwartz, writing on Lev 6.18 (njps: 6.11, HS), aptly describes a holiness “conceived of as a contagious, dynamic effervescence of the deity’s Presence which renders whatever comes into contact with it holy” (“Introduction and Annotations to Leviticus,” in The Jewish Study Bible: Featuring the Jewish Publication Society TANAKH Translation, ed. Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler, College ed., [New York: Oxford University Press, 2004], 218). (Beyond Lev 6.18, Schwartz also cites Lev 6.27 [njps: 6.20]; Exod 29.37; 30.29; Num 17.1–4.) Whereas in Levite traditions, Israel is chosen by God as holy disciples, treasured exemplars of covenant faithfulness (e. g., Exod 19.5–6; Deut 7.6; 14.2, 21), in Zadokite thinking, God’s people grow in holiness through actively absorbing effusions of God’s immediate presence among them (e. g., see Exod 29.43 HS; Ezek 37.28). 16 Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence, 109; Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, The Dethronement of Sabaoth: Studies in the Shem and Kabod Theologies, trans. F. H. Cryer, ConBOT 18 (Lund: Gleerup, 1982), 96 n. 64. 17 Stevenson, Vision of Transformation, 115–19. 18 Stevenson characterizes Ezekiel’s vision as something entirely new in Israel’s experience, not a return to an ideal past but a veritable “transformation” (ibid., 149).

Ezekiel’s Recovery of Premonarchic, Tribal Israel

365

Ezekiel’s new temple contains fewer symbols of heavenly realities – fewer icons are necessary to help mortals peer into the Beyond. Where in Ezek 40–48 are the ark of the covenant and the cherub statues that were present in the preexilic temple? In their place, there is a profoundly real presence of God filling the temple (Ezek 43.5; cf. Isa 6.4).19 The stress in HS on holiness radiating from an indwelling God, profoundly present, is powerfully reflected in Ezekiel’s commitment to a literal rule of God on earth. Ezekiel’s book orients itself on HS’s vision of fulsome life effusing out of a sacred center through an ideal latticework of holiness. Center and periphery are linked in dynamic interconnectivity, empowering both smaller and larger aggregates of the populace. Life within every corner of the lattice is precious, to be uplifted and ennobled.20 The Holiness School understands God’s direct presence in Israel to uphold and empower every member of old Israel’s tribes. HS claims the people of Israel are God’s servants, not a king’s servants (Lev 25.23, 55; 26.12). It transfers to the populace standard monarchic prerogatives such as proclaiming a release from slavery and debts. Israel Knohl sees an example of HS backing away from monarchy in its converting the Mesopotamian concept of durarum (release from debts), a royal prerogative, into the Hebrew concept of ‫( דרור‬jubilee release), a function of the whole people.21 HS speaks of Israelite society using early Hebrew vocabulary, such as ‫מטה‬ (“tribe”), associated with sociopolitical life before the rise of a monarchic state (Num 1.49; 2.5, etc.). It describes human wielders of political authority in lineage-based terms: they are ‫“( נשיאים‬chieftains”), heads of the tribes (Num 10.4 HS). The authority of such chieftains is strictly bounded. They are quickly incinerated when they assault God’s latticework of holiness (Num 16.2, 35 HS). As elaborated below, texts such as Ezek 34.11–31 share HS’s tribal language and 19 See, e. g., Paul M. Joyce, Ezekiel: A Commentary, LHBOTS 482 (New York: T&T Clark, 2007), 225; Risa Levitt Kohn, A New Heart and a New Soul: Ezekiel, the Exile, and the Torah, JSOTSup 358 (London and New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 112; Rimon Kasher, “Anthropomorphism, Holiness, and Cult: A New Look at Ezekiel 40–48,” ZAW 110 (1998): 192–98. 20 HS purity rules symbolize this value system. They are a spiritual discipline and rule of life that aims to form Israel in accord with holiness values and virtues. See Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 43; Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence, 185–86. In this theology, in HS thinking, God’s land is a delicately organized lattice of holiness, an intricate system for delivering holiness to every sector of the land. Defiling any part of the land, God’s holy territory, constitutes an assault of impurity on the sacred center, God’s shrine (e. g., Lev 15.31; 19.30; 26.2; Num 5.3; 19.13; Ezek 8.6; 9.9). The system is supple and sensitive like an uneasy stomach, ready to vomit those who defile it (Lev 18.24–28). Ezek 36.16–19 insists that just such regurgitation has happened in the present generation’s experience. This must never happen again! Fixed gradations of holiness within the temple and land must safeguard the people’s safety with God’s burning glory sojourning among them (cf., e. g., Ezek 42.14; 44.19; 46.20). 21 Note how Lev 25.10 (HS) addresses the entire community in the second-person plural. See Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence, 217; idem, The Divine Symphony, 93.

366

Stephen L. Cook

leadership conceptions. There is no promise of a new King David in Ezek 34, but God declaring “I, the Lord, will be their God, and my servant David shall be nasi [‫ ]נשיא‬among them” (34.24). Following HS, Ezekiel is not interested in the political divisions of Israel’s monarchic-era state. To his way of thinking, the ideal Israel comprises the totality of the people’s ancient tribes. God’s coming salvation, Ezekiel holds, will reunify Joseph and Judah (see Ezek 37.15–28). The salvation is radically embracing, binding Jerusalem with a restored Samaria and even finding room for a relationship with Sodom, resurrected from a bygone, archaic era (Ezek 16.61)! Ezekiel’s book does not use the name “Israel” to distinguish the northern kingdom from the southern kingdom of Judah. North and South together form the “house of Israel.” When the prophet wants to describe the separate history of the two Israelite kingdoms, he refers to them by terms such as “Joseph,” “Ephraim,” and “Oholibah.” The rubrics “Joseph” and “Ephraim” are significant, since they are tribal names. For its part, the name “Oholibah” (“My [God’s] tent is in her”) recalls premonarchic times, when God had a tent shrine, not a temple. Oholibah is of one blood with her sister Oholah, the two women sharing parallel names, one mother (Ezek 23.2), and a single husband (Ezek 23.4). Ezek 37.22 bluntly states that God wills an undivided people, no longer separated into twin monarchies. Ezek 34.30–31 understands the redeemed House of Israel to be one flock, occupying a single pasture. Ezek 47.13–48.29 carefully allots the holy land as specifically tribal patrimonies. The text moves tribe-bytribe, giving each one unique, permanent security and standing. It wipes away all memory of royal chauvinism, of the monarchic state’s blurring of tribal divisions and powers. There is nothing here of the monarchy’s system of administrative districts (1 Kgs 4.7–19). As Jon D. Levenson writes, the new tribe-based allocation of the land is “a deliberate attempt to recreate the archaic period in Israel’s history.”22 The phenomenon of human royalty simply does not sit easily within HS’s and Ezekiel’s ideal hierarchical structure of holiness and empowerment. Hierarchical systems of all sorts have a natural vulnerability to the incursion of competing nuclei of power. When an alternative new nucleus forms off center, it may throw off the delicately balanced system. Extending its reach like a cancer, the new center may collapse the sensitive web of interconnectivity linking its tiered strata. This is the threat posed by monarchy to the Zadokites’ ideal world. 22 Jon D. Levenson, Theology of the Program of Restoration of Ezekiel 40–48, HSM 10 (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976), 112, cf. pp. 118, 121–22. Zech 12.7 will later echo the theme that Jerusalem and David’s dynasty must never again overshadow the countryside. Note that in Ezek 48, Judah, David’s tribe, becomes separate from the ideal land’s central district containing temple, priests’ lands, and new city. Judah, in fact, now moves north, joining with the northern tribes.

Ezekiel’s Recovery of Premonarchic, Tribal Israel

367

Respect and empowerment do not easily flow down to the outer layers of society in a centralized monarchic state. Monarchic systems tend to contradict the idea of an entirely hallowed land, where the humanity and value of every sector, even those at the periphery, is upheld. They tend instead to divest the land of its sacral character, focusing on militarizing state capitals and fortifying royal cities.23 In Israel, monarchic power seems inevitably to have worked against the HS ideal of permanent land tenure for each family on its ancestral homestead (e. g., Lev 19.35; 25.10, 23–24, 42 all HS). Thus, for Ezekiel, God’s ideal theocracy must push aside monarchy and all other political systems. From now on, the children of Israel are to be servants of God, not primarily of an earthly ruler (see Ezek 20.33, 40; 45.8; cf. Lev 25.55 HS). Ezekiel gives God’s promise in Lev 26.12 (HS) pride of place: “I will walk among you, and will be your God.” Students of Ezekiel have long noted the book’s distinctive term for Israel’s national leader, the nasi (‫נשיא‬, e. g., Ezek 34.24; 37.25; 44.3; 45.7–9). As mentioned above, HS employed the term ‫ נשיא‬prior to Ezekiel as a designation for Israel’s tribal chieftains before the people settled the land. Ezekiel’s book does not deny that Davidic leadership had long won a foothold within Israel’s destiny. But Ezekiel insists that this leadership should now wear the mantle of the servant nasi. Applying the rubric ‫ נשיא‬to a Davidic ruler is not completely idiosyncratic, as Iain Duguid has shown. In 1 Chr 2.10, the figure Nahshon is a ‫ נשיא‬with a proto-Davidic role.24 In Ezekiel, the term ‫ נשיא‬designates a constrained, “tribal” Davidic head. Ezek 34.23–24 uses the term to restrict Israel’s future leaders to the role of “undershepherd.” Ezek 40–48 carefully integrates the nasi into a new, tribally organized people of God. He is fully subordinate to the Lord. He possesses no sacral kingship, no divine sonship (Ezek 46.2). He acts as the people’s representative (Ezek 46.10), not their exploiter.25 Humble before God, such a chief or head is a sprig, a tender twig (Ezek 17.22). Or, as a later follower of Ezekiel will put it, he is lowly, riding only on a donkey (Zech 9.9; cf. Ps 33.16–17; Zech 10.5b). Levenson rightly observes, “The origins of that Davidid are not regal but humble; he is a …‘low tree’ awaiting his exaltation.”26 Exaltation of the ‫ נשיא‬is not the agenda of Ezek 40–48; reversing the wrongs of the past and securing the future is. Thus, in the visionary landscape of these chapters, the nasi no longer possesses the temple; he will never again preside over a state cult, a royal shrine.27 The nasi also loses his entrenched bureaucracy (see Cook, Social Roots, 51–52; Fritz, The City, 162. M. Duguid, Ezekiel and the Leaders of Israel, VTSup 56 (Leiden and New York: Brill, 1994), 14–16. 25 Albertz, A History of Israelite Religion, 434; Stevenson, Vision of Transformation, 112– 14, 122. 26 Levenson, Theology of the Program of Restoration, 95; cf. pp. 67–68, 88. 27 Albertz, A History of Israelite Religion, 432; Stevenson, Vision of Transformation, 112– 14. 23 See

24 Iain

368

Stephen L. Cook

Ezek 46.16–17). And, most definitively, he loses all power to evict Israelites from their ancestral farms (Ezek 45.8–9; 46.18; cf. 22.27). Society’s periphery becomes secure and strong.28 Relying on the HS strand (e. g., Lev 25.10, 23–24, 41), Ezekiel’s goal is for all family lines to dwell in perpetuity on their own patrimonies, for the entire land to be valued as sacral. In Ezekiel’s new age of redemption, the formerly “royal” city of Jerusalem will not regain its former status. No one will even call it “Jerusalem” anymore. At least, the book nowhere gives that name to the new city of Ezekiel’s special central strip of territory (cf. Ezek 48.35).29 In their blueprint for the future, the Ezekiel school relocates “the city” south and away from the temple. It is not even part of the sacred district (‫ )תרומת הקדש‬housing the temple. Rather, it sits “alongside the portion set apart as the holy district” (Ezek 45.6).30 Further, it now belongs to “the whole house of Israel,” not just to royal officials and nobles (cf. Ezek 48.31). All the fields around the city and directly below the holy district are the property of Israel as a tribal whole, not a ruler’s private domain. “The workers of the city, from all the tribes of Israel [‫]שבטי ישראל‬, shall cultivate it” (Ezek 48.19). In the final and concluding verse of Ezek 40–48, the name YHWH Shammah appears as the new city’s special designation. The name has a deictic ring, as if pointing in the Lord’s direction from a position spatially removed from the Lord. “YHWH is there – that is, not here.” This stance of distance from the Lord would fit the perspective of Ezekiel’s compatriots. The divine glory is at some distance from their own position in Babylonia, exiled from God’s land (Ezek 11.18; 40.1). The text, however, nowhere specifies a perspective outside the homeland for interpreting Ezek 48.35. Instead, Ezek 48 offers a perspectival context of the Israelite tribes back in their land. Verses 30–35 zero in on the city itself. Spoken within the city, the name YHWH Shammah suggests that God is elsewhere than inside it. Ezek 43.1–13 clarifies the deixis, leaving no doubt that YHWH is in the temple building, not out in Israel’s land or even in the city.31 28 Levenson, Theology of the Program of Restoration, 114; Steven Shawn Tuell, The Law of the Temple in Ezekiel 40–48, HSM 49 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), 110. 29  As Stevenson rightly highlights, just as the new ruler of Ezek 40–48, the nasi, is not called “king,” so also the new chief city is not named “Jerusalem” (Vision of Transformation, 122). 30 The word ‫ עמה‬is here employed of two things beside each other, corresponding to each other (cf. Ezek 48.13, 18–21). The ceb translation of Ezek 48.20 is instructive: “The entire portion that you will set aside [a “‫ ”תרומה‬in a broader sense] is 7.1 miles by 7.1 miles, a square; it includes the holy portion in addition to the city property.” 31 I wish to thank William A. Tooman for helping me clarify the importance of perspective in interpreting Ezek 48.35. There may be intentional innerbiblical dialog in 48.35 with contrasting prophetic texts that also give the new city theophoric names but envision a restoration of the monarchy and the divine presence to the city. Jer 33.14–18 renames Jerusalem “The Lord is our Righteousness” and foresees an ideal Davidic king, the “Branch,” reigning there, executing justice and righteousness on earth. Jer 23.5–6 gives the same new name to the Davidic ruler himself. Jer 3.17 calls Jerusalem “the throne of the Lord” in a context describing an advent of God’s presence there that renders icons such as the ark of the covenant irrelevant (v. 16). Isa 60.14 glorifies the eschatological Jerusalem as “the City of the Lord, the Zion of the Holy One”;

Ezekiel’s Recovery of Premonarchic, Tribal Israel

369

The adverb “there” within the city’s name is spelled specifically as ‫ ;שמה‬there is a locative-h present (48.25). The h-ending stands out; it is not a morphological necessity. A name using the simple adverb ‫שם‬, without a locative-h, appears in Isa 34.12, where Edom receives the new name “No Kingdom There (‫( ”)שם‬see nrsv, ceb, njps). The extra syllable that the mah-ending adds to YHWH Shammah bolsters the wordplay on Yerushalayim (the older name of the city). Something more significant than paronomasia, however, is likely at play. With the locative-h added, the deictic connotation of the city name takes on an especially dynamic force: “the Lord is thither.” When used in texts such as Gen 19.20, 22; 21.13; Jer 18.2, the Hebrew ‫שמה‬ points to a place one anticipates visiting, a destination. The name of Ezekiel’s city may thus suggest it is the rendezvous point for those actively in search of the divine presence. The Lord whom you seek is “that-a-way” – the new city is a key waypoint or port of call for pilgrims seeking to draw near to God.32 More significant for the present discussion, the context of ‫ שמה‬in Ezek 48.35 emphasizes that even upon arrival at the gates of the new city, the Lord will still remain thither, beyond the city. In other words, those within the city’s walls will themselves still confess “YHWH Shammah,” pointing up and north as they speak.33 Having rejected metropolitan life and moved to a more holy dwelling, the glory is resident within another complex. It now rests within the massive fortifications of the temple compound, set amid the large portion of land to the city’s north known as the holy district (‫)תרומת הקדש‬. Together with the “holy portion” of land containing the temple complex, the city forms a square central district – a “‫ ”תרומה‬broadly conceived. Here in the lower, southern portion of the square, pilgrims camp within a liminal realm of transition. As Soo J. Kim states, The city functions as “the way of transition”, “a transition from the profane world to the holiest realm.” Again, Kim writes, “The City in Ezekiel’s Vision Report helps its pilgrims by acting as a gate to the holy presence.”34 the preceding verse (v. 13) declares that the Lord’s feet rest there (cf. Ps 132.7). V. 21 of the same chapter ascribes the royal motifs of Isa 11 to the new Jerusalem’s inhabitants. Isa 62.2–4 names Zion “Hephzibah / ​My Delight Is in Her” (cf. v. 12), because God lavishes Jerusalem with all the enthusiastic attention of a new husband and the city becomes a faithful bride (cf. Isa 1.26). Finally, Zech 8.3 calls Jerusalem “the faithful city,” “the holy mountain,” and describes God’s tangible return to dwell in its midst. All of these texts stand in tension with the rhetoric of Ezek 48.35. On Zechariah’s relationship with Ezekiel, however, see n. 36 below. 32 For the idea of Ezekiel’s new city as a site of pilgrimage, see John L. Berquist, “Spaces of Jerusalem,” in Space and Construction II: The Biblical City and Other Imagined Spaces, ed. J. L. Berquist and C. V. Camp (New York: T&T Clark, 2007), 40–52. 33 The vision of the ideal temple includes vertical gradations of holiness, so that holiness increases as one ascends the temple’s “very high mountain” (Ezek 40.2; cf. the “steps” of 40.22, 26). The new city lies to the south of the temple complex, lower on the mountain’s slope. 34 Soo J. Kim, “YHWH SHAMMAH: The City as Gateway to the Presence of YHWH” JSOT 39 (2014): 193.205)

370

Stephen L. Cook

According to Gen 43.30, the patriarch Joseph entered a private room, not far from his brothers, and “there [‫ ]שמה‬he wept” (Gen 43.30 njb). The brothers are excluded from the chamber – in their perspective, it is “thither.” Just so in Ezek 48.35 God’s glory has dynamically taken up position “just over there,” not far from the new city. From “up there” in the temple compound God’s holiness radiates out to the city, whose occupants dare not approach much closer for any extended period, and to all God’s people in the holy land. For a similar sense of ‫שמה‬ elsewhere in scripture, pointing to a locale where someone or something else might go, but which remains spatially removed in the perspective of the speaker / ​ narrator / ​reader, see Gen 24.6, 8; 42.2; Ps 76.3 (MT: v. 4); Isa 34.15; Ezek 47.9. In sum, the presence of the locative-h helps distinguish Ezek 48.35 from texts such as Isa 1.26; Jer 3.17; Zech 2.10–11; 8.3, and even from Isa 60.14. In contrast to these passages, Ezekiel’s visionary utopia separates temple and city, so that Israel no longer has a holy royal city housing a sacral king. The Lord dwells in an isolated complex, from whence God turns toward a city of pilgrim brothers and sisters to bless them, a city rightly bearing a name indicative of God’s closeness.35 The promise of God to dwell among the people (Ezek 37.26–28; Exod 29.45–46 HS) is thus realized, but in a manner specifically excluding notions of a holy seat of monarchy claiming possession of a royal shrine.36 Wielding a hermeneutic of suspicion, some may reconstruct ulterior motives in Ezekiel’s creative resurrection of old lineage and tribal norms. Skeptics will imagine Ezekiel twisting Israel’s traditional genealogical values to his own group’s ends. Is his repristinating program not an ideal justification for the Zadokites to assert their phratry’s rights at the temple and for the exile group as a whole to assert rights to lands taken over by those who remained in Judah (cf. Ezek 11.15; 33.24; Ezra 2.59; Neh 7.61)? 35 We still have here the distinctive “five square city” pattern of ancient holy cities, which were often shaped as a square with four corners and which also had a temple as a fifth focal point. In this new conceptualization, however, the fifth focal point lies outside the city’s horizontal plane: it lies visible, but transcendent, elevated up and north of the city. See Kim, “YHWH SHAMMAH,” 198–99; cf. Margaret S. Odell, Ezekiel, Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary 16 (Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2005), 490; James Daugherty, The Fivesquare City: The City in Religious Imagination (Indianapolis: University of Notre Dame Press, 1980), 1–22. 36 The cautions against the abuses of monarchy remind us that Ezek 40–48 has the genre of literary utopia rather than, say, a dualistic apocalyptic vision. A literary utopia keeps at least one foot in the problematic world of the present. (Contrast the much more dualistic vision of John of Patmos in Rev 7.15–17; 21.15–27.) Chps. 40–48 of Ezekiel constitute a “teaching picture” of the purity and holiness that befit God’s temple rather than a prophecy of the future or a model or blueprint for an actual historical community to replicate. The original island of Utopia described by Sir Thomas More in his book of 1516 c.e. was not futuristic or eschatological but an imagistic critique of contemporaneous medieval England (Thomas More, Utopia, ed. G. M. Logan and R. M. Adams [Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989]).Thus, the school of Ezekiel might not have to insist that in God’s actual restoration of Israel God’s temple and the city of Jerusalem must necessarily be separate. Zechariah, a proponent of Ezekiel’s theology, has no problem with a Jerusalemite temple.

Ezekiel’s Recovery of Premonarchic, Tribal Israel

371

Several pieces of evidence converge against a hypothesis of sectarian selfpromotion in Ezekiel. In contrast to all other Israelite groups, the Zadokites are barred from inheriting and possessing land in the vision of Ezek 40–48 (see 44.28–30; Num 18.20–24 HS). Instead, their sole privilege, which actually endangered their lives (cf. Lev 10.6–11 HS), is temple access.37 Do not underestimate the restrictive import of this provision. In advanced agrarian societies, a chief enticement of political power was its potential to multiply income from land. On the heels of power came increased wealth, brought forth from the soil. As Lenski writes, “The leading office holders … were usually the chief land-holders as well, and in these societies land was the most important economic resource.”38 Ezek 47.13–48.29 envisions a new, equitable allotment of the Promised Land, not a reinstatement of old holdings. The territory of Judah moves north, above Benjamin, the temple, and the Levites. All Judean exiles must now receive new landed patrimonies. The aim is tribal balance and a dampening of sectionalism, not the privileging of one faction. Ezekiel does not prioritize the exiled “remnant” in the restoration; he proffers no mounting sectarianism.39

Bibliography Albertz, Rainer. A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period, Volume 2: From the Exile to the Macabees. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994. Alt, Albrecht. “Der Anteil des Königtums an der sozialen Entwicklung in den Reichen Israel und Juda.” Pages 348–72 in Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel, III. Edited by M. Noth. Munich: Beck, 1959. Berquist, John L. “Spaces of Jerusalem.” Pages 40–52 in Space and Construction II: The Biblical City and Other Imagined Spaces. Edited by J. L. Berquist and C. V. Camp. New York: T&T Clark, 2007. Cook, Stephen L. “Cosmos, Kabod, and Cherub: Ontological and Epistemological Hierarchy in Ezekiel.” Pages 179–198 in Ezekiel’s Hierarchical World: Wrestling with a Tiered Reality. Edited by Stephen L. Cook and Corrine L. Patton. SBL Symposium Series 31. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004. –. “Ezekiel 40–48 and Pentateuchal Legal Texts, a Response to Dale Launderville, William Tooman, and Carla Sulzbach.” Paper presented at the joint Theological Perspectives on the Book of Ezekiel Section and Biblical Law Section at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, Baltimore, MD, November 24, 2013. 37 Thomas Renz, The Rhetorical Function of the Book of Ezekiel, VTSup 76 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 244; Stevenson, Vision of Transformation, 87–89. 38 Lenski, Human Societies, 263. 39 Renz, The Rhetorical Function, 221, 227; Levenson, Theology of the Program of Restoration, 93, 118. Cf. how Zechariah, whose theology closely follows that of Ezekiel, insists that what is left of the northern kingdom is still a part of God’s saving plans (Zech 8.13; cf. 1.19). He accepts without challenge an assumption of those who remained in the land that they are integral within God’s people (Zech 7.5; 8.18–19).

372

Stephen L. Cook

–. Review of Missing Priests: The Zadokites in Tradition and History, by Alice Hunt. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 71 (2009): 372–73. –. The Social Roots of Biblical Yahwism. SBL Studies in Biblical Literature 8. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Cook, Stephen L., and Corrine L. Patton, eds. Ezekiel’s Hierarchical World: Wrestling with a Tiered Reality. SBL Symposium Series 31. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004. Cook, Stephen L., and Corrine L. Patton. “Introduction: Hierarchical Thinking and Theology in Ezekiel’s Book.” Pages 1–23 in Ezekiel’s Hierarchical World: Wrestling with a Tiered Reality. Edited by Stephen L. Cook and Corrine L. Patton. SBL Symposium Series 31. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004. Cross, F. M. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973. Daugherty, James. The Fivesquare City: The City in Religious Imagination. Indianapolis: University of Notre Dame Press, 1980. Duguid, Iain M. Ezekiel and the Leaders of Israel. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 56. Leiden; New York: Brill, 1994. Fritz, Volkmar. The City in Ancient Israel. Biblical Seminar 29. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. Joyce, Paul M. Ezekiel: A Commentary. Library of Hebrew Bible / ​Old Testament Studies 482. New York: T & T Clark, 2007. Kasher, Rimon. “Anthropomorphism, Holiness, and Cult: A New Look at Ezekiel 40–48.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 110 (1998): 192–208. Kim, Soo J. “YHWH SHAMMAH: The City as Gateway to the Presence of YHWH.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 39 (2014): 187–207. Klawans, Jonathan. Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. Knohl, Israel. The Divine Symphony: The Bible’s Many Voices. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2003. –. The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. Kutsko, John F. Between Heaven and Earth: Divine Presence and Absence in the Book of Ezekiel. Biblical and Judaic Studies from the University of California, San Diego 7. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2000. Lenski, Gerhard. Human Societies: A Macrolevel Introduction to Sociology. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970. –. Power and Privilege: A Theory of Social Stratification. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966. Leuchter, Mark. The Polemics of Exile in Jeremiah 26–45. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Levenson, Jon D. Theology of the Program of Restoration of Ezekiel 40–48. Harvard Semitic Monographs 10. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976. Levitt Kohn, Risa. A New Heart and a New Soul: Ezekiel, the Exile, and the Torah. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 358. London; New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. Lyons, Michael A. “Transformation of Law: Ezekiel’s Use of the Holiness Code (Leviticus 17–26).” Pages 1–32 in Transforming Visions: Transformations of Text, Tradition, and Theology in Ezekiel. Edited by W. A. Tooman and M. A. Lyons. Princeton Theological Monograph Series 127. Eugene: Pickwick, 2010.

Ezekiel’s Recovery of Premonarchic, Tribal Israel

373

Mettinger, Tryggve N. D. The Dethronement of Sabaoth: Studies in the Shem and Kabod Theologies. Translated by F. H. Cryer. Coniectanea biblica: Old Testament Series 18. Lund: Gleerup, 1982. Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 3. New York: Doubleday, 1991. –. Leviticus 17–22: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 3A. New York: Doubleday, 2000. More, Thomas. Utopia. Edited by G. M. Logan and R. M. Adams. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989. First published in 1516 by More. Odell, Margaret S. Ezekiel. Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary 16. Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2005. Olyan, Saul M. “Zadok’s Origins and the Tribal Politics of David.” Journal of Biblical Literature 101 (1982): 177–93. Renz, Thomas. The Rhetorical Function of the Book of Ezekiel. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 76. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Rooke, Deborah W. Zadok’s Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Schwartz, Baruch J. “Introduction and Annotations to Leviticus.” Pages 203–80 in The Jewish Study Bible: Featuring the Jewish Publication Society TANAKH Translation. College ed. Edited by Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. Smith, Mark S. The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Stevenson, Kalinda Rose. The Vision of Transformation: The Territorial Rhetoric of Ezekiel 40–48. SBL Dissertation Series 154. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996. Tuell, Steven S. Ezekiel. New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2009. –. The Law of the Temple in Ezekiel 40–48. Harvard Semitic Monographs 49. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. Watts, James W. “Rhetorical Strategy in the Composition of the Pentateuch.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 68 (1995): 3–22. Wong, Ka Leung. The Idea of Retribution in the Book of Ezekiel. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 87. Leiden: Brill, 2001.

Part 4

Trauma and its Effects

The Proliferation of Grotesque Bodies in Ezekiel: The Case of Ezekiel 23 Jacqueline E. Lapsley In Ezekiel there are a large number of bodies, mostly dead, that are often referred to as ‫חללים‬, “the pierced ones.”1 As David Garber has shown, Ezekiel interweaves this term throughout the book with a homophone from another root, ‫ חל״ל‬I “to profane,” as part of his vocabulary of trauma.2 Garber suggests that Ezekiel uses ‫ חל״ל‬I “to profane” as an articulation of his priestly worldview, whereas ‫ חל״ל‬II “to pierce” is an expression of victimization. In a previous article I have argued that Ezekiel deliberately creates a wordplay on these roots in order to show the connection between the death of human bodies which are “pierced,” in Ezek 6, for example, and the “death” of the temple “body,” which is described as profaned or “pierced” in Ezek 7, and is then literally pierced by the prophet himself in Ezek 8 when he climbs through the wall.3 The human bodies, and the temple “body” that so concern Ezekiel throughout the book, and which are the subject of his wordplays, can be helpfully categorized in two ways, drawing on categories from artistic and literary theory. “Grotesque” bodies protrude, bulge, sprout, and in Ezekiel, are “pierced,” that is, punctured. The other type of body is “classical.” It is whole, smooth, and complete. It has 1 HALOT

has ‫ חל״ל‬II “to pierce,” occurring 90 times, 34 times in Ezekiel. G. Garber, Jr., “A Vocabulary of Trauma in the Exilic Writings,” in Interpreting Exile: Displacement and Deportation in Biblical and Modern Contexts, (eds. Brad E. Kelle, Frank Ritchel Ames, Jacob L. Wright; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 309–322. Carol Newsom also observes the semantic play between ‫ חל״ל‬II (“to pierce, slay”) and ‫ חל״ל‬I (“to profane, pollute”) in the context of chapter 28: “It is precisely the frustration of the reader’s expectation of a form of the word ‘to slay’ that makes one attend to the implications of the unexpected reference to pollution.” Carol A. Newsom, “A Maker of Metaphors: Ezekiel’s Oracles Against Tyre,” in This Place is Too Small for Us: The Israelite Prophets in Recent Scholarship (ed. Robert P. Gordon; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 199. 3 Jacqueline E. Lapsley, “Body Piercings Revisited: Piercings and Profanations of ‘Bodies’ and the Character of God in Ezekiel,” in The Unrelenting God: God’s Action in Scripture. Essays in Honor of Beverly Roberts Gaventa (eds. David J. Downs and Matthew L. Skinner; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 1–14. In ch. 8 the root is not used, but the temple is entered by the prophet (the digging through the wall scene), and the scenes are ones of profanation. A propos of the prophet digging through the wall, Bakhtin observes: “Mountains and abysses, such is the relief of the grotesque body: or speaking in architectural terms, towers and subterranenan passages” (emphasis added). Mikhail Bakhtin, Rabelais and His World, trans. H. Iswolsky (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1984), 318. 2 David

378

Jacqueline E. Lapsley

no open orifices or wounds, at least none that are presented.4 These categories are perhaps best known from Mikhail Bakhtin’s work on Rabelais’ Gargantua and Pantagruel, entitled Rabelais and His World, but they are widely discussed elsewhere as well. In Ezekiel’s world, a world flying apart into chaos and confusion on account of the Babylonian invasion and the resulting exile, the grotesque body is a peculiarly appropriate literary image for the prophet to take up, because, as Wolfgang Kayser, another theorist of the grotesque, explains, with the grotesque the “world […] ceases to be reliable, and we feel that we would be unable to live in this changed world. The grotesque instills fear of life rather than fear of death. Structurally, it presupposes that the categories which apply to our world view become inapplicable.”5 One has the sense reading Ezekiel that it is worse to live in the world that the prophet describes, the world of imminent invasion, with the bodies piling up, and a temple abandoned by God, than it is to die in it. Grotesque bodies, bodies that are distorted and distended, with outsize orifices and appendages, or ones that have holes in them, these bodies symbolically represent the disordered world of the exile, the world brought about by disobedience and idolatry. Kayser helps to sharpen the Bakhtinian categories of “grotesque” and “classical” for the context of Ezekiel because, whereas Bakhtin is focused on the comic function of the grotesque, Kayser sees the ways in which the grotesque serves to terrify and disorient. The classical bodies in Ezekiel – the whole, smooth, complete ones – are represented by the undefiled Temple, and also by the body of the priest, at a time before the fall of Jerusalem and Judah into idolatry and exile. These classical bodies are, in effect, mostly present through their absence – they are almost ghosts from the past and visions of an eschatological future. They appear from time to time in a shimmering fashion, and then more powerfully at the end, in the Temple vision (Ezek 40–48), as the classical body of the Temple reappears, and as, to a lesser extent, the classical body of the priest reappears as well. As I have argued previously, the violations of the “body” of the temple in Ezek 8 mirror the violations of Ezekiel’s own priestly body in Ezek 4 and 5. Ezekiel’s body and

4 Mikhail Bakhtin provides his now famous definition of the classical body as one that “presents an entirely finished, completed, strictly limited body, which is shown from the outside as something individual. That which protrudes, bulges, sprouts, or branches off … is eliminated, hidden, or moderated. All orifices of the body are closed. The basis of the image is the individual, strictly limited mass, the impenetrable facade” Bakhtin, Rabelais and His World, 320. 5 There have a number of different ways of approaching the grotesque, but for my purposes in looking at Ezekiel, Kayser’s approach is particularly useful because it gets at the terrifying nature of the grotesque. Wolfgang Kayser, The Grotesque in Art and Literature, trans. Ulrich Weisstein (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1963), 185.

The Proliferation of Grotesque Bodies in Ezekiel

379

the temple body are pierced and profaned in parallel fashion, and their classical bodies give way to a plethora of grotesque, dead bodies as the book progresses.6 In this essay, I will examine the bodies in chapter 23 to see whether they might shed light on the other classical and grotesque bodies in the book, and their apparent function. I will suggest that chapter 23 is particularly redolent with imagery of grotesque bodies, and that we can see this grotesque imagery on three levels: first, at the level of the human body imagery in the text: the bodies, both the male lovers, and Oholibah, display grotesque features; secondly, at the level in which the temple “body” is profaned and so made grotesque (23.39, ‫ חל״ל‬I); and finally, building on the work of Tracy Lemos, Brad Kelle, and others, I will consider the ways in which the rhetoric of Ezekiel 23 is symbolically feminizing of Ezekiel’s audience. Here the questions will be: “How does feminization work with respect to Ezekiel’s audience?” and “In what way is this feminization grotesque?” By Ezekiel’s standards, I will suggest, a male body that has become female is one that has become grotesque. For Ezekiel, the grotesque is a site of transgression, disorder, death, and destruction, and its presence is marked in this chapter. The extended metaphor of Oholibah thus serves Ezekiel’s purposes well in symbolizing how the formerly classical bodies of Jerusalem and the temple have become grotesque – and thus now represent only death and decimation. Finally, I will consider the punishment language in the passage in light of recent theories about the function of pain and punishment in biblical texts.

1. Level 1: Grotesque Human Bodies To begin with the first level, the human bodies in the passage display grotesque features. Bakhtin observes that there are “three main acts in the life of the grotesque body: sexual intercourse, death throes […], and the act of birth.”7 In a way, Ezek 16 better represents this level of the grotesque because all three of these elements are present in that chapter, whereas in ch. 23 the birth imagery is absent. Yet the sheer excessiveness of the sexual activity in Ezek 23 intensifies the grotesque nature of its imagery. Each time one of the sisters, especially Oholibah (Jerusalem), is described as sating her lust with one of her lovers, there’s no pause before she’s off to the next “to increase her whorings” with the next lover around the corner (e. g., Ezek 23.17–19). And there are what might be described as “death throes” when Jerusalem is described as drinking the cup of her sister Samaria: “you will gnaw its shards and you will tear out your breasts,” (v. 34; see also v. 47 “they shall stone them and with their swords they shall cut [reading 6 Jacqueline E. Lapsley, “Body Piercings: The Priestly Body and the ‘Body’ of the Temple in Ezekiel,” HeBAI 1/2 (2012), 231–245. 7 Bakhtin, Rabelais and His World, 353.

380

Jacqueline E. Lapsley

‫ב״תק‬, batoq] them down”), a “brutal act of self-mutilation,” as Amy Kalmonofsky observes.8 Bakhtin notes that dismembered body parts are especially good representatives of the grotesque, for they mock the classical body’s pretensions to completeness.9 And Ezekiel specializes in dismembered body parts. As just mentioned, there are the torn breasts in 23.34, but other body parts appear in this chapter as well.10 In v. 25, Oholibah has her nose and ears removed in punishment for her behavior (‫)אפך ואזניך יסירו‬, and while this is an echo of what the Assyrians actually did to their conquered enemies for treaty violations, it also participates in the grotesquing of her body.11 While it is not a “piercing” or puncturing of the body per se, that characterized so many grotesque bodies earlier in Ezekiel, it is a defacement that is close to piercing. The removal of her nose and ears renders her body grotesque in that it is no longer whole or complete. The final aspect of this first level of the grotesque concerns not the female, but male body parts, namely the Egyptians’ genitalia, which are described as excessively large and protruding, like those of donkeys, with their discharge akin to horses’ discharge (Ezek 23.20).12 Safwat Marzouk has discussed this image in some detail as one that participates in the grotesque. He concisely re-states what Bakhtin and others observe: “The amalgamation of a human being with animalized sexual characteristics creates a grotesque image.”13 In fact, this fragment reads somewhat like a grim version of Rabelais’ 16th century work, Gargantua and Pantagruel, where there were giant body parts and lots of sex, but in Rabelais it was supposed to be a romp. Notably, Gargantua and Pantagruel was Bakhtin’s exemplar for the comic literary grotesque in his work, Rabelais and His World.14

  8 Amy Kalmonofsky, “The Dangerous Sisters of Jeremiah and Ezekiel,” JBL 130/2 (2011): 311–12.   9 Bakhtin, Rabelais and His World, 318. 10 Ezek 23.47 is a bit tricky because of the textual problem of ‫ וברא‬which many emend to ‫תקבו‬. 11  Margaret S. Odell, Ezekiel, Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary (Macon, GA: Smith & Helwys, 2005), 304. 12 Tracy Lemos goes too far in reading the enlarged Egyptian penis positively. The evidence from 1 Kgs. 12 (“my little thing”) is thin biblical evidence, though there is considerable ancient Near Eastern evidence for the positive evaluation of large genitalia. In particular, I do not see Ezekiel’s priestly sensibilities evaluating large genitalia positively in the context of this chapter. T. M. Lemos, “The Emasculation of Exile: Hypermasculinity and Feminization in the Book of Ezekiel,” in Interpreting Exile: Displacement and Deportation in Biblical and Modern Contexts, ed. Brad E. Kelle, Frank Ritchel Ames, and Jacob L. Wright; Ancient Israel and its Literature 10 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 382. 13 Safwat Marzouk, “Not a Lion but a Dragon: The Monstrification of Egypt in the Book of Ezekiel,” (PhD diss., Princeton Theological Seminary, 2012), 231: “… the combination of human and animal traits is, as we know, one of the most ancient grotesque forms.” Bahktin, Rabelais and His World, 316. 14 Bahktin, Rabelais and His World.

The Proliferation of Grotesque Bodies in Ezekiel

381

2. Level II: Temple Body Profaned The second level of grotesque imagery concerns the way in which the temple “body” is profaned in v. 39 (‫ חל״ל‬I), and so made grotesque. Most commentators understand the language of sexual humiliation in Ezek 23 at least partly as a trope for political humiliation. Judah and Israel are humiliated for their covenantal faithlessness to Adonai in seeking out political alliances – their “lovers” – with whatever neighbor happened to have some power, in a desperate attempt to save themselves from political threats: the Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Babylonians. Then they invited these lovers into the Temple in Jerusalem, where they defiled it with the worship of their foreign gods. Their unfaithfulness is thus of both a religious and a political nature. So in the extended metaphor they are sexually, that is, politically, humiliated in front of these former lovers, that is, political allies. To describe what happens to the Temple when these foreign influences are permitted entry, Ezekiel uses a number of turns of phrase, but the one of particular interest here is “to profane” (‫ חל״ל‬I) in 23.39, which describes the people’s actions: “When they slaughtered their children to their dung ball / ​idols (‫)ובשחטם את־בניהם לגלוליהם‬, they came to my sanctuary on that same day to profane it (‫)ויבאו אל־מקדשי ביום ההוא לחללו‬.” Ezekiel plays on the profanation of the Temple (‫ חל״ל‬I) and the piercing of bodies (‫ חל״ל‬II) earlier in the book, as I have argued elsewhere.15 Both are body piercings, but the former has a more symbolic quality. While he uses the explicit term ‫ חל״ל‬only once in chapter 23 to refer to the profanation of the Temple (and once in the previous verse to decry the profanation of the sabbaths), it is clear that the Temple’s status as profaned is referred to repeatedly in other ways. Julie Galambush, for example, convincingly argues that the Temple is metaphorized as a sexually violated woman’s body in 23.39–44.16 As Nancy Bowen grimly observes, “The Temple has essentially become ‘The Best Little Whorehouse in Jerusalem’.”17 And this sexual connection is not isolated: Cynthia Chapman observes à propos of Neo-Assyrian aesthetics that in both texts and reliefs victims are depicted by conquerors as “pierced or bored through,” and in the reliefs, this depiction is sometimes represented in a “clearly sexual way.”18 The Temple has been penetrated and profaned and its classical body rendered grotesque.

15 Lapsley,

“Body Piercings Revisited.” Galambush, Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel: The City as Yahweh’s Wife, SBLDS 130 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1992), 117–123. 17 Nancy R. Bowen, Ezekiel, Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries (Nashville: Abingdon, 2010), 142. 18 Cynthia Chapman, “Sculpted Warriors: Sexuality and the Sacred in the Depiction of Warfare in the Assyrian Palace Reliefs and in Ezekiel 23:14–17,” in Aesthetics of Violence in the Prophets, ed. Chris Franke and Julia M. O’Brien, LHBOTS 517 (New York: T & T Clark, 2010), 11. 16 Julie

382

Jacqueline E. Lapsley

3. Level III: Symbolic Feminization Finally, the third level of the grotesque imagery looks at the question of the symbolic feminization or emasculation of Ezekiel’s audience, a topic that has been discussed by a number of scholars in connection with Ezekiel 16 and 23. I will look at the discussions of two scholars, Tracy Lemos and Brad Kelle, before pursuing my own argument about the connection between symbolic feminization and the grotesque in Ezekiel 23. Feminist interpretation of these passages over the last several decades has contributed a great deal to our understanding of the patriarchal bias of the texts, and especially of the patriarchal bias inherent in interpretation of the texts. It is no longer acceptable to say, as one commentator did as recently as fifteen years ago, that the women depicted in the narratives are “not to be pitied.”19 Tracy Lemos suggests, however, that focusing on the pornographic aspects of the language in Ezek 23 is a red herring, and asks instead, “what purpose does this graphic language serve for Ezekiel?”20 She draws instead on the work of Cynthia Chapman and other scholars of the ancient Near East in her approach to these difficult texts. Chapman examines the ancient Near Eastern context of warfare from a gendered perspective, and argues that in the Neo-Assyrian period (934–609 BCE) an “Assyrian king discredited a male rival through images of feminization.”21 A king would go to great lengths to discredit the masculinity of rivals, and enemies were referred to as “effeminate weaklings.”22 To be conquered was to be emasculated. Picking up on the work of Chapman and others who see emasculation as a quasi-typical experience for conquered men, Lemos argues that the intensity of the sexual language in Ezek 23 expresses the symbolic emasculation of the male population of Judah. “Unable to satisfy their own standards of masculinity,” Lemos says, “the Israelite exiles, in the mind of Ezekiel, are effectively men no more.”23 Ezekiel’s rhetorical point in these chapters is to convince his male audience that though they are shamed and symbolically turned into women by their conquering former allies, their God has not been “vanquished and debased along with them” but rather theirs is “a justified shaming executed by the hand of

19 Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel, Chapters 1–24, New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 733. 20 Lemos, “The Emasculation of Exile,” 379. 21 Cynthia Chapman, The Gendered Language of Warfare in the Israelite-Assyrian Encounter, HSM 62 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2004), 59. 22 Ramesses II refers to his enemies as “effeminate weaklings.” Quoted in Lemos, “The Emasculation of Exile,” 388. 23 Lemos, “The Emasculation of Exile,” 377.

The Proliferation of Grotesque Bodies in Ezekiel

383

[Adonai].”24 So, for Lemos, it is Ezekiel himself and also his exilic audience who are emasculated: they are “conquered men.”25 But is Ezekiel targeting the exilic community with this scorching imagery? Dalit Rom-Shiloni suggests that Ezekiel’s audience in these chapters is not his fellow exiles, but those who remained in the land. … but above all, the repeated designation by which Ezekiel refers to those who remained is through the metonymy of “Jerusalem” – as the sinful city, the adulterous wife (Ezek. 16.1–43, 44–58; 23.1–49; 24.1–15), and the major target of judgment throughout chaps. 1–24, 33.26

For Rom-Shiloni, Ezekiel opposes the two groups: the “Jehoiachin exiles,” those removed in the deportation of 597, on the one hand, and those who remained in the land, on the other. On behalf of the former group, Ezekiel marshals the exodus narrative and the covenant traditions to argue that they are the ones chosen by God. It is almost exclusively those who remained in the land, often labeled “Jerusalem,” who are the focus of his judgment language.27 Although this is not the place to consider the details of Rom-Shiloni’s argument, her discussion helpfully draws attention to the way in which Ezekiel posits distinct implied audiences. Brad Kelle takes this a step further. He builds on the insights of Gale Yee, Alice Keefe, and others who have stressed the emasculating function of the rhetoric for a male audience. But he argues that it is not the entire audience who is emasculated but “the ruling houses and their powerful elites” in these capital cities (in Ezekiel 16 and 23) who “would have typically been all male,” and it is they who, in the metaphor, “are cast as physically threatened and sexually violated females.”28 Kelle states: “In this prophetic discourse, these 24 Lemos, “The Emasculation of Exile,” 390. Gale Yee also looks at Ezekiel 23 through the lens of trauma, and sees Ezekiel’s audience as emasculated, but her focus is more on the way Ezekiel presents a revisionist history of Israel in the chapter. By doing so he and “the elite class to which he belongs avoid blame for the nation’s fall by concealing themselves behind the bodies of women.” Gale A. Yee, Poor Banished Children of Eve: Woman as Evil in the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), 134. Tamar Kamionkowski reads chap 23 in contradistinction to chap 16: in chap 16 the woman actively usurps the male role, but in chap 23 her crime is to “give her loyalties to the wrong man and threaten the masculinity of her primary male.” Kamionkowski sees the woman in chap 23 as a relatively passive figure and the gender roles as comparatively unchallenged. S. Tamar Kamionkowski, Gender Reversal and Cosmic Chaos: A Study on the Book of Ezekiel, JSOTSupp 368 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003), 134. 25 Lemos, “The Emasculation of Exile,” 389. 26 Dalit Rom-Shiloni, “From Ezekiel to Ezra-Nehemiah: Shifts of Group Identities within Babylonian Exilic Ideology,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid: Negotiating Identity in an International Context, ed. Oded Lipschits, Gary N. Knoppers, and Manfred Oeming (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 127–151 (140). See also, Dalit Rom-Shiloni, “Ezekiel as the Voice of the Exiles and Constructor of Exilic Identity,” HUCA 76 (2005): 1–24. 27 Rom-Shiloni, “From Ezekiel to Ezra-Nehemiah,” 141. 28 Brad E. Kelle, “Wartime Rhetoric: Prophetic Metaphorization of Cities as Female,” in Writing and Reading War: Rhetoric, Gender, and Ethics in Biblical and Modern Contexts, ed. Brad E. Kelle and Frank Ritchel Ames, SBLSymS (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008),

384

Jacqueline E. Lapsley

capital cities serve most likely as metonyms specifically for the ruling houses and political elite who sat on their thrones and not simply for an urban, wealthy societal class or local ruling functionaries.”29 Thus it seems it is not the entire audience who is feminized, but the political ruling elites alone.30 This rhetorical strategy taps into the ancient honor / ​shame codes in the hope that Ezekiel’s audience will revile the ruling houses that have brought about the current disaster. According to the ancient codes, women who engage in the kind of sexual behavior depicted in chapter 23 are to be cast off, and if the prophet is equating the ruling houses to these women in the metaphor, then Ezekiel’s disgusted audience should cast off these emasculated rulers.31 So, on Kelle’s rather “populist” reading, deliberate distance is generated “between the general population and the political rulers whose actions defy,” in the prophet’s opinion, “YHWH’s will for the community.”32 While Rom-Shiloni is helpful in distinguishing Ezekiel’s audiences, Kelle advances the discussion further by accounting for Ezekiel’s pervasive judgment language against leaders. Kelle’s “populist” reading is compelling because it coheres with Ezekiel’s fierce criticism elsewhere, and especially just prior to the passage under discussion, of the ruling elites, namely, his frequent criticism of princes, and their failures specifically to lead the people (e. g., Ezek 21.12 [against princes]; 22.6–12 [against princes]; and especially 34 [indictment of Israel’s kings and ruling elites]). The intense feminization of a male elite works well with Tamar Kamionkowski’s reading of Ezek 23 in which she sees the woman as particularly passive as compared to the hyper-virile males depicted. This is in contradistinction to the metaphorical woman in chapter 16 that she interprets as much more assertive and as challenging conventional gender roles.33 It remains to be seen in what way the feminizing of the elites in chapter 23 constitutes a grotesque image. Margaret Miles in her work on the grotesque in art and literature of the medieval period discusses at length the way in which the female body is associated with the grotesque. Particularly pertinent here is the discussion of the prostitute’s body and its permeability: Some women were seen as personifications of the grotesque … prostitutes, for example, epitomized the penetrable body, the body shaped by lust, the permeable body that pro95–111 (107). See also, Brad E. Kelle, Ezekiel: A Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition, New Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 2013), 181–182. 29 Kelle, “Wartime Rhetoric,” 107. 30 Unlike Gale Yee, who takes the female personification of the city as a general metonym for the nation of Israel as a whole (Yee, Poor Banished Children of Eve, 117). For Yee, the male, priestly elites aim to change their feelings of defeat, shame, and emasculation in war into a more appropriate female object. It is projection. Chapters 16 and 23 foresee the elites’ restoration as remasculation – it is a means of taking control of their degrading circumstances. 31 Kelle, “Wartime Rhetoric,” 108–109. 32 Kelle, “Wartime Rhetoric,” 108. 33 Kamionkowski, Gender Reversal and Cosmic Chaos.

The Proliferation of Grotesque Bodies in Ezekiel

385

duces juices and smells. The prostitute’s body is opposite to the closed, self-contained, controlled male body, and the opposite of that of some virtuous women, especially of virgins, who were ‘gardens enclosed.’34

The association of female bodies, and especially prostitutes, with the grotesque is suggestive, but her work dates to a later period, so we need to get closer to the ancient context for a better sense of whether symbolic feminization of males, especially the feminization into a prostitute, constitutes a grotesque image in Ezekiel 23. Fortunately there is some evidence from the ancient Near East that suggests that defeated enemies were sometimes portrayed as prostitutes, as for example in this Akkadian curse found in a Neo-Assyrian treaty between Ashurnirari and Mati’ilu of Arpad found at Nineveh, cited in Claudia Bergmann’s article, ““We Have Seen the Enemy, And He is Only a ‘She’”: The Portrayal of Warriors as Women”: “If Mati’ilu sins against this treaty of Ashurnirari, king of Assyria, may Mati’ilu become a prostitute and may his warriors become women. Like prostitutes, may they receive their reward in the squares of their city.”35 Presumably, to receive one’s reward like a prostitute implies sexual intercourse; thus symbolic feminization of the male warriors involves the penetration of their bodies – a grotesquing of the classically whole male body. As Cynthia Chapman observes, “The conquered soldier could not be contrasted more vividly [with the victorious king] as the one … whose status is that of a prostitute before his conqueror.”36 A second text of interest comes from the Alalakh tablets, in which Ishtar is invoked to pursue the evildoer and change him into a woman: “Whoever shall change the settlement that Abdael made … may Ishtar deliver him into the hands of those who pursue him; may Ishtar … impress feminine parts into his male parts.”37 It is not entirely clear what it means to impress feminine parts into male parts, though Speiser takes it to mean changing a man into a woman. Even if Speiser’s confidence is a bit overplayed, it does seem to envisage a feminizing act in the context, and one that bears with it grotesque imagery as it fuses female 34 Margaret Miles, “Carnal Abominations: The Female Body as Grotesque,” in The Grotesque in Art & Literature:Theological Reflections, ed. James Luther Adams and Wilson Yales (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 92. 35 From Simo Parpola and Kazuko Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths, SAA 2 (Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1988), 12. Cited in Claudia D. Bergmann, ““We Have Seen the Enemy, and He is Only a ‘She’”: The Portrayal of Warriors as Women,” in Writing and Reading War, ed. Kelle and Ames, 135. 36 Chapman, The Gendered Language of Warfare, 57. 37 From Ephraim Speiser, “The Alalakh Tablets,” JAOS 74 (1954): 23. Cited in Bergmann, “We Have Seen the Enemy,” 137. In Isa 19.16 it says: “In that day the Egyptians will be like women. They will shudder and be afraid …” But this does not have any grotesque imagery. Cf. Jer 50.36–37; 51.30; Nah. 3.13. Although it is possible that the Nahum citation “the gates of your land are wide open to your enemies” is an allusion to the enemies overrunning them – like women.

386

Jacqueline E. Lapsley

and male parts into a person with hybrid sexual attributes, which creates a grotesque figure. To sum up this third section, then, Ezekiel invites his audience to gaze upon a grotesque image: the sight of male political ruling elites who have been transformed from males into a female, and worse, into a prostituted female who has been repeatedly penetrated by foreigners, and who will be punished in the same manner by one of those same foreign armies. As Cynthia Chapman has shown, both the iconography and the texts of the ancient Near East suggest that piercing the enemy, boring them through with weapons, and sexually penetrating them, are often symbolically elided.38

4. Piercing and Pain These categories of “classical” and “grotesque” can only ever be heuristic tools in thinking with Ezekiel about all the bodies in his book. But they help get at the meaning of some of his language and imagery of piercing and penetration of human bodies and the temple body. In this section, I offer a few ways of thinking about why Ezekiel may have found pierced bodies to be symbolically powerful. Elaine Scarry’s work on pain, and its relation to the biblical material, has had considerable influence on the work of biblical scholars. Scarry argues that pain, when deliberately inflicted, has the capacity to destroy the world of the sufferer – it unmakes the world that the sufferer has constructed. But divinely inflicted pain also serves another function: to make an invisible God “real” to the sufferer. Throughout the writings of the patriarchs and the prophets, we again and again and again return to a scene of wounding. It is a scene that carries emphatic assurance about the “realness” of God, but one that (for the participants inside) contains nothing that makes his “realness” visible except the wounded human body. The powerful God does not have the power of selfsubstantiation. The body is not simply an element in a scene of confirmation; it is the confirmation. Apart from the human body, God himself has no material reality except for the countless weapons that he exists on the invisible and disembodied side of.39

Thus scenes of inflicted pain, such as the one under discussion, are not only about disobedience and punishment; they are also about doubt, a failure of belief. Divine punishment is thus fundamentally about making God real to a doubting people. For Ezekiel, along with some other prophetic voices in the Hebrew Bible, the pain inflicted by the Babylonians is, in reality, pain inflicted by God. Thus it is crucial for the prophet to connect the experience of pain not with the Babylonians, who 38 Cynthia

Chapman, “Sculpted Warriors,” 11. Body in Pain: The Making and Unmaking of the World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985), 200. 39 Elaine Scarry, The

The Proliferation of Grotesque Bodies in Ezekiel

387

appear to be the agents, but to God who is the real agent. Speaking of those subject to divine punishment in biblical discourse, Scarry observes: “Unable to apprehend God with conviction, they will … apprehend him in the intensity of the pain in their own bodies, or in the visible alteration in the bodies of their fellows.”40 A dynamic correspondence between sin and punishment emerges: in its very form, the punishment gives the lie to the unbelief that prompted it. Scarry stresses the ways in which punishment – torture, really – destroys the world of the sufferer. Yet, that is not the only function of intentionally inflicted pain, as Ariel Glucklich argues. In Sacred Pain, Glucklich is curious to explore why so many religious believers in diverse cultural milieus find pain to have positive benefits (he explains why masochism and related explanations are unsatisfactory). His investigation leads him to claim: “[P]ain strengthens the religious person’s bond with God and with other persons. Of course, since not all pain is voluntary or self-inflicted, one mystery of the religious life is how unwanted suffering can become transformed into sacred pain.”41 For some religious sufferers, self-inflicted pain, especially, but also unsolicited pain, can have salutary effects. The most significant of these effects is the possibility of a new identity: Modulated pain weakens the individual’s feeling of being a discrete agent; it makes the “body-self” transparent and facilitates the emergence of a new identity. Metaphorically, pain creates an embodied “absence” and makes way for a new and greater “presence.” [Simone] Weil … describes this as emptying ourselves of the “false divinity with which we were born.”42

Through his examination, Glucklich historicizes the modern analgesic approach to pain: the modern understanding of pain is unequivocally negative, and Glucklich shows that this view is peculiar to modernity. Understandings of pain are highly contextual. Glucklich should not be misunderstood (and neither should I) as advocating the experience of pain – let alone torture – for anyone. Rather, he seeks to understand the function of pain for religious sufferers. How might Ezekiel’s portrayal of inflicted pain in chapter 23 be understood through such a lens? Elsewhere I have argued that Ezekiel seeks to eradicate entirely the old identity of Israel in order to re-create a new identity from scratch.43 For Ezekiel the infliction of pain on Jerusalem, the piercing of its bodies, both human and temple, can be understood as part of this eradication of the old identity and the creation of a new one. Ezekiel envisions a new identity in which the “false divinity” of self is replaced by a new identity in which Yhwh is at the center. As many feminist interpreters have The Body in Pain, 201. Glucklich, Sacred Pain: Hurting the Body for the Sake of the Soul (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 6. 42 Glucklich, Sacred Pain, 207. 43 Jacqueline E. Lapsley, Can These Bones Live? The Problem of the Moral Self in the Book of Ezekiel, BZAW 301 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000), 175–185. 40 Scarry, 41 Ariel

388

Jacqueline E. Lapsley

observed, we do not hear the voice of the metaphorized woman in Ezek 16 or 23, and therefore do not know how the pain is experienced (though not “real” pain, even within the extended allegory it is vital to observe the distinction between the experience of the perpetrator over against that of the victim). We can only posit how Ezekiel might have hoped such pain would function in creating a new identity for Israel.

5. Piercing, the Profane, and the Grotesque What is it within the old identity that makes for the “false divinity” that hinders the believer from knowing God? In his work on the grotesque, Kayser suggests that one of the functions of the grotesque is to “attempt to control and exorcise the demonic elements in the world.” 44 If Jacob Milgrom is right that the priestly worldview replaced the demonic with human sin, then it would seem that Ezekiel is trying to control and exorcise human sin with his use of grotesque imagery.45 The grotesque imagery is intense throughout the book, as pierced and penetrated bodies pile up, including that of the profaned temple, until the final vision in Ezek 40–48, where human sin is finally completely exorcised and the classical body of the temple is re-asserted – with its clean and controlled, precise lines and measurements. What is the overall rhetorical effect of so many grotesque bodies piling up? To read only the first half of Ezekiel’s book is to believe that God has abandoned the people, as indeed Ezekiel’s audience seems to believe. It is to believe, perhaps, that Ezekiel is a misanthrope, that he is done with Israel, that he abhors humanity itself, which is seemingly beyond redemption. As Tracy Lemos observes, it is exceedingly rare to have a text from the ancient world written by what she terms a “vanquished, debased man” for “an audience of vanquished, debased people.”46 The texts of the victors are usually the ones that survive. Yet Ezekiel does something remarkable through his devastating words: instead of allowing the Babylonians to wield ultimate power over Judah’s fate, he turns the theological tables upside down by placing the entire trauma under the sovereignty of Adonai. As discussed above regarding Scarry’s view of pain as destroyer of worlds, pain destroys the illusion that God is not present, active, and in charge of present events. As Brad Kelle says in his work on Ezekiel’s nature imagery, “Ezekiel denies the Babylonians power over the victims and rhetorically reshapes Israel’s identity from defeated warriors to survivors who continue to live under divine 44 Cited in Philip Thomson, The Grotesque, The Critical Idiom 24 (London: Methuen, 1972),

18.

45 Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus: A Book of Ritual and Ethics, A Continental Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004), 15. 46 Lemos, “The Emasculation of Exile,” 391.

The Proliferation of Grotesque Bodies in Ezekiel

389

sovereignty.”47 Through his grotesque imagery, through the pierced bodies and profaned temple, he exorcises the demonic, the human sin, and through the work of pain, seeks to forge a new, God-centered identity. Even as one must take issue with Ezekiel’s method, one can also appreciate that this is the hardest theological work there is: he brings a word of hope to a traumatized people even as he himself is among those traumatized.

Bibliography Bakhtin, Mikhail. Rabelais and His World. Translated by H. Iswolsky. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1984. Bergmann, Claudia D. ““We Have Seen the Enemy, and He is Only a ‘She’”: The Portrayal of Warriors as Women.” Pages 129–142 in Writing and Reading War: Rhetoric, Gender, and Ethics in Biblical and Modern Contexts. Edited by Brad E. Kelle and Frank Ritchel Ames. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 42. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008. Block, Daniel I. The Book of Ezekiel, Chapters 1–24. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Bowen, Nancy R. Ezekiel. Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries. Nashville: Abingdon, 2010. Chapman, Cynthia R. The Gendered Language of Warfare in the Israelite-Assyrian Encounter. Harvard Semitic Monographs 62. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2004. –. “Sculpted Warriors: Sexuality and the Sacred in the Depiction of Warfare in the Assyrian Palace Reliefs and in Ezekiel 23:14–17.” Pages 1–17 in Aesthetics of Violence in the Prophets. Edited by Chris Franke and Julia M. O’Brien. Library of Hebrew Bible / ​Old Testament Studies 517. New York: T&T Clark, 2010. Galambush, Julie. Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel: The City as Yahweh’s Wife. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 130. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1992. Garber, David G., Jr. “A Vocabulary of Trauma in the Exilic Writings.” Pages 309–322 in Interpreting Exile: Displacement and Deportation in Biblical and Modern Contexts. Edited by Brad E. Kelle, Frank Ritchel Ames, and Jacob L. Wright. Ancient Israel and its Literature 10. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. Glucklich, Ariel. Sacred Pain: Hurting the Body for the Sake of the Soul. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Kalmonofsky, Amy. “The Dangerous Sisters of Jeremiah and Ezekiel.” Journal of Biblical Literature 130/2 (2011): 299–312. Kamionkowski, S. Tamar. Gender Reversal and Cosmic Chaos: A Study on the Book of Ezekiel. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 368. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003. Kayser, Wolfgang. The Grotesque in Art and Literature. Translated by Ulrich Weisstein. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1963. Kelle, Brad E. “Dealing with the Trauma of Defeat: The Rhetoric of the Devastation and Rejuvenation of Nature in Ezekiel.” Journal of Biblical Literature 128/3 (2009): 469–490. 47 Brad E. Kelle, “Dealing with the Trauma of Defeat: The Rhetoric of the Devastation and Rejuvenation of Nature in Ezekiel,” JBL 128/3 (2009): 489.

390

Jacqueline E. Lapsley

–. Ezekiel: A Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition. New Beacon Bible Commentary. Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 2013. –. “Wartime Rhetoric: Prophetic Metaphorization of Cities as Female.” Pages 95–111 in Writing and Reading War: Rhetoric, Gender, and Ethics in Biblical and Modern Contexts. Edited by Brad E. Kelle and Frank Ritchel Ames. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 42. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008. Lapsley, Jacqueline E. “Body Piercings: The Priestly Body and the ‘Body’ of the Temple in Ezekiel.” Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 1/2 (2012): 231–245. –. “Body Piercings Revisited: Piercings and Profanations of ‘Bodies’ and the Character of God in Ezekiel.” Pages 1–14 in The Unrelenting God: God’s Action in Scripture. Essays in Honor of Beverly Roberts Gaventa. Edited by David J. Downs and Matthew L. Skinner. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013. –. Can These Bones Live? The Problem of the Moral Self in the Book of Ezekiel. Beheifte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 301. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000. Lemos, T. M. “The Emasculation of Exile: Hypermasculinity and Feminization in the Book of Ezekiel.” Pages 377–394 in Interpreting Exile: Displacement and Deportation in Biblical and Modern Contexts. Edited by Brad E. Kelle, Frank Ritchel Ames, and Jacob L. Wright. Ancient Israel and its Literature 10. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. Marzouk, Safwat. “Not a Lion but a Dragon: The Monstrification of Egypt in the Book of Ezekiel.” PhD diss., Princeton Theological Seminary, 2012. Miles, Margaret. “Carnal Abominations: The Female Body as Grotesque.” Pages 83–112 in The Grotesque in Art & Literature: Theological Reflections. Edited by James Luther Adams and Wilson Yales. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus: A Book of Ritual and Ethics. A Continental Commentary. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004. Newsom, Carol A. “A Maker of Metaphors: Ezekiel’s Oracles Against Tyre.” Pages 191–204 in This Place is Too Small for Us: The Israelite Prophets in Recent Scholarship. Edited by Robert P. Gordon. Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 5. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1995. Odell, Margaret S. Ezekiel. Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary. Macon, GA: Smith & Helwys, 2005. Parpola, Simo and Kazuko Watanabe. Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths. State Archives of Assyria 2. Helsinki: University of Helsinki Press, 1988. Rom-Shiloni, Dalit. “Ezekiel as the Voice of the Exiles and Constructor of Exilic Identity.” Hebrew Union College Annual 76 (2005): 1–24. –. “From Ezekiel to Ezra-Nehemiah: Shifts of Group Identities within Babylonian Exilic Ideology.” Pages 127–151 in Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid: Negotiating Identity in an International Context. Edited by Oded Lipschits, Gary N. Knoppers, and Manfred Oeming. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011. Scarry, Elaine. The Body in Pain: The Making and Unmaking of the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985. Speiser, Ephraim. “The Alalakh Tablets.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 74 (1954): 18–25. Thomson, Philip. The Grotesque. The Critical Idiom 24. London: Methuen, 1972. Yee, Gale A. Poor Banished Children of Eve: Woman as Evil in the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003.

Deconstructing Terror in Ezekiel: The ‘Valley of Bones’ Vision as Response to Trauma Daniel L. Smith-Christopher The young and the old are lying on the ground in the streets; my young women and my young men have fallen by the sword; in the day of your anger you have killed them, slaughtering without mercy – Lamentations 2.21

1. Ezekiel 37.1–14 in Recent Scholarship In much of the existing scholarship on the famous Vision of the Dry Bones in Ezekiel 37, a number of interpretive ideas recur. First, there is frequent comment about the ‘anatomical’ sequence of the revival of human beings in Ezekiel’s vision. In Ezekiel 37.8, 10, we find the notion that there was no life in the bones, sinews, and skin without “the breath” (‫)הרוח‬. This has reminded many commentators of the Yahwist creation narrative, which portrays God forming Adam from the dust of the ground, and then breathing: “into his nostrils the breath of life (‫ ;)נשמת חיים‬and the man became a living being.” Thus, the significance of the Spirit as the final ingredient for life suggests the connection between Ezekiel 37 and Genesis 2 – a connection that is widely cited.1 John Kutsko has added the interesting comparison with the sequence for the production of idols in Mesopotamian contexts, where a final ceremony enlivens the idol, which is only then believed to be fully representative of the god in question.2 Also widely noted is the proposed connection between this passage and Jeremiah 8.1–42: At that time, says the LORD, the bones of the kings of Judah, the bones of its officials, the bones of the priests, the bones of the prophets, and the bones of the inhabitants of 1 Corrine L. Carvalho and Paul V. Niskanen, Ezekiel, Daniel, The New Collegeville Bible Commentary 16 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2012), 96; Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 22A (New York: Doubleday, 1977) 744; Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, trans. James D. Martin, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), 261; Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 379; Walther Eichrodt, Ezekiel, trans. Cosslett Quin, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1970), 508. 2 John Kutsko, Between Heaven and Earth: Divine Presence and Absence in the Book of Ezekiel, Biblical and Judaic Studies 7 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 67.

392

Daniel L. Smith-Christopher

Jerusalem shall be brought out of their tombs; (2) and they shall be spread before the sun and the moon and all the host of heaven, which they have loved and served, which they have followed, and which they have inquired of and worshiped; and they shall not be gathered or buried; they shall be like dung on the surface of the ground. (3) Death shall be preferred to life by all the remnant that remains of this evil family in all the places where I have driven them, says the LORD of hosts. (4) You shall say to them, Thus says the LORD: When people fall, do they not get up again? If they go astray, do they not turn back?3

Although it is normally the first two verses that are cited as significant,4 Jer 8.4 is also rather suggestive in this passage of judgment from Jeremiah. The passage is also certainly a reminder of the cultural significance of “bones” as representative symbols of the people – in this case, the corrupt leadership whom Jeremiah blames for the Babylonian conquest. That the bones represent the people, and thus have significant meaning for identity and a sense of historical presence in the land, is not an insignificant point, and there are contemporary analyses of the significance of “bones” and their handling in modern Israel that relate directly to such symbolic importance.5 Launderville, in his monograph on the role of the Spirit in Ezekiel, also makes a suggested comparison of the numbers of dead at the invasion of Gog in Ezek 39.6 Finally, a discussion of how this vision relates to Israelite beliefs about resurrection is de rigueur, typically arguing that the vision speaks of a hopeful future for the Israelite people, but is no basis for suggesting that beliefs in bodily resurrection are already evidence in 6th or 5th Century Israelite thought.7 Although Block seems to agree,8 he is more cautious in an extended discussion of the resurrection motif, nonetheless he does not seem to argue for an early Israelite development of bodily resurrection here either.9 Lang is characteristically creative in suggesting that perhaps a kind of literal resurrection is precisely what is intended here, an idea that he believes may have influenced Ezekiel from Zoroastrian thought encountered in the Persian period.10   3 All biblical quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version unless otherwise noted.

 4  Joseph Blenkinsopp, Ezekiel, Interpretation (Louisville: John Knox, 1990), 171; contrast Keith W. Carley, The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel (CBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974), 55.   5 Alex Weingrod, “Dry Bones, Nationalism and Symbolism in Contemporary Israel,” Anthropology Today 11/6 (1995): 7–12.   6 Dale F. Launderville, Spirit and Reason: The Embodied Character of the Ezekiel’s Symbolic Thinking (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2007), 28, 334–338.   7 Eichrodt, Ezekiel, 509; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 264; Brad Kelle, Ezekiel: A Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition (New Beacon Bible Commentary; Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 2013), 301.   8 Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 372.   9 Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 383–387. 10 Bernard Lang, “Street Theater, Raising the Dead, and the Zoroastrian Connection in Ezekiel’s Prophecy,” in Ezekiel and his Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and Their Interrelation, ed. J. Lust (BETL 24; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1986), 297–316.

Deconstructing Terror in Ezekiel

393

2. Ezekiel 37.1–14 as a Response to Imperial Terror: The Military Context of the Vision This study aims to contribute to the discussion about resurrection motifs in Ezekiel 37 by suggesting that a reading from the perspective of trauma studies may indicate yet further ways to appreciate the radical intentions – even the politics – of Ezekiel’s vision. The argument presented here, however, first needs to take note of one more commonly held viewpoint with regard to Ezekiel 37.1–14. While it is frequently suggested that the valley of bones is intended to be understood as a battle field (the bones are sometimes suggested to be a “fallen army”, or at least the dead from the Babylonian invasion),11 it is even more interesting to note how often this possibility is seen to be “incidental” to the meaning of the vision itself (“the allusion is quite incidental and is not a central element of the image”, so Zimmerli;12 “not central”; Lind agrees13). Indeed, possible military connotations are entirely ignored in many commentaries. In this study, we will argue that the military context of the conquest of Jerusalem and Judea is absolutely central to a fuller appreciation of the imagery of Ezekiel 37.1–14.

3. Two Preliminary Observations This study is offered as a development of two observations on Ezekiel 37.1–14 that are separated by over 1700 years. I then offer three proposed contexts for rethinking Ezekiel’s vision, also drawn from both ancient, and much more recent, history. The first observation, really an “interpretation”, of Ezekiel comes from the portrayal of this vision on the walls of the famous third century CE synagogue at Dura-Europas. Among the decorative scenes (now in the Damascus Museum), is a strikingly graphic portrayal of Ezekiel’s vision. As Lang also noted,14 in this ancient painting the body parts are not presented as desiccated bones, but rather as actual, and recently, dismembered body parts – in forms that suggest recent tortures, most strikingly including a number of heads featuring complete faces, rather than merely skulls – surely a reminder of violence that resulted in dismembered people (which is to say, the faces remind us of the reality of the people who suffered). 11 Launderville, Spirit and Reason, 335; Paul M. Joyce, Ezekiel: A Commentary (LHBOTS 482; New York: T&T Clark, 2007), 209; Julie Galambush, “Ezekiel”, in The Oxford Bible Commentary, ed. John Barton and John Muddiman (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 558; Joseph Blenkinsopp, Ezekiel, 171. 12 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 262. 13 Millard C. Lind, Ezekiel (Believers Church Bible Commentary; Scottdale: Herald, 1996), 298. 14 Lang, “Street Theater”, 314.

394

Daniel L. Smith-Christopher

In fact, it can be argued that this ancient rendering of the vision makes it hard to avoid a striking sense of trauma in these dismembered bodies, making the scenes of revived bodies that follow all the more definite in suggesting resurrection themes. This interpretation rendered in the third century CE can also be compared to suggestions uniquely offered in Greenberg’s classic commentary. First, he suggested that the imagery of Ezekiel 37.1–14 consisted of “counter-metaphors”: “The despondency of the exiles, betokened by their drastic death and burial metaphors, is met by the prophet’s stunning counter-metaphors of resurrection and disinterment”.15 Furthermore, Greenberg suggested that Ezekiel may have adapted Mesopotamian “motifs” of (mostly Neo-Assyrian) royal annals which described grisly scenes of massacre. Greenberg seems to suggest that Ezekiel’s familiarity may have been predominantly a literary influence – not an especially unusual suggestion for a generation of biblical scholars before the rise of trauma theory in Biblical Studies. While it may be possible that the prophet knew Babylonian written materials, in fact Ezekiel need not have “read” any Mesopotamian texts – he was all too familiar with the stark realities of Mesopotamian military cruelties, and therefore also what we now know to be the expected concomitant trauma, throughout history. Having taken note of these two observations, I wish to propose three new contexts for re-reading the vision.

4. Three “Contexts” for Re-reading Ezekiel 37.1–14 Interpretation of biblical texts is always related to the presuppositions and interests brought to the task. Because it is arguably the case that some presuppositions can actually illuminate readings of ancient (and modern) texts, this study will proceed with an explicit discussion of a few “presuppositions and interests” offered for a new reading of Ezekiel 37. It remains for the reader to assess this disclosure as illuminating or distracting, but what can never be argued is that readings can occur without presuppositions or interests. In order to suggest that a full appreciation of the impact of the vision comes from the military context of that vision (and thus the memories of the recent traumas of imperial conquest), there are two contemporary contexts, and one ancient context, for the re-reading of Ezekiel 37 that are suggested here. The first “context” comes from Native American experience, and refers to the important issue of Native repatriation of remains – especially those taken in battles and massacres – but also those excavated in the 19th and 20th centuries.16 Ezekiel 21–37, 747. it must be said that in many cases, the term: “excavated” gives a good deal of amateur treasure hunting too much honor. 15 Greenberg, 16 Although

Deconstructing Terror in Ezekiel

395

Devon Mihesuah, in his “Introduction” to an important collection of essays on the controversies about repatriation, tells the story of a Kansas resident in 1930 who reacted to the discovery of a field of bones in quite a different manner than did Ezekiel.17 Upon discovering the remains of over 140 Caddo Indians, he sold them to a local businessman who treated them with shellac, built a cover over them, and charged the public $3.50 apiece to view them. As Pawnee repatriation activist James Riding In has indicated, the context for the debates about repatriation of grave remains (both bones and objects) is the history of political subordination and oppression of Native peoples, summed up in what he calls “imperial archaeology.”18 How does the story of Ezekiel’s vision relate to this proposed reading context? Poet Wendy Rose of Hopi / ​Miwok ancestry) wrote a poem in response to reading an old museum invoice for the sale of Native American bones and artifacts. The invoice totaled $ 3,000.00. Her poem, “Three Thousand Dollar Death Song” was originally published in 1979.19 Particularly striking images include the following: … Invoiced now It’s official how our bones are valued That stretch out pointing to sunrise, Or are flexed into one last fetal bend, That are removed and tossed about, Catalogued, numbered with black ink … We watch our bones auctioned With our careful quillwork, Beaded medicine bundles, even the bridles of our shot-down horses. You have priced us … … How one century has turned Our dead into specimens, Our history into dust Our survivors into clowns.

After reflecting on the insults of being divided and “priced” in this way, Rose proposes a startling image for these “museum specimens”: Picture the mortars, the arrowheads, the labrets shaking off their labels like bears suddenly awake to find the seasons ended while they slept.

17 Devon Mihesuah, “Introduction”, in Repatriation Reader: Who Owns American Indian Remains?, ed. Devon Mihesuah (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2000), 1–15. 18 James Riding In, “Repatriation: A Pawnee’s Perspective”, in Mihesuah (ed.), Repatriation Reader, 106–121; see also Kathleen S. Fine-Dare, Grave Injustice: The American Indian Repatriation Movement and NAGPRA (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2002). 19 Wendy Rose, Bone Dance: New and Selected Poems 1965–1993 (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1994), 20–21.

396

Daniel L. Smith-Christopher

Watch them touch each other, measure reality, march out the museum door! Watch as they lift their faces And smell about for us. Watch our bones rise to meet them and mount the horses again!

Rose’s poetic vision, whether intended to be in an unmentioned dialogue with Ezekiel’s famous vision of the dry bones or not, nevertheless effectively suggests the basis for a reassessment of the social and political significance of Ezekiel’s vision. The poem’s Native American context presents an image of reversing conquest by reanimating the conquered (e. g. Greenberg’s “counter-metaphor”). Trauma, in short, is reversed and undone. The point is effectively made by Rose’s poem, however, that the reassembly is revolutionary because of the original disassembly. How and why the “specimens” were disjointed is hardly “incidental” to the meaning of the reassembly, it is central to the issue.20 A second context is the recent publication, and public display, of photographs of lynching in American history. In 2000, a private collection of historical lynching photographs was published, with commentary from Congressman John Lewis (a veteran of the Civil Rights movement in the USA) and Professor Leon Litwack.21 Many of the photographs also circulated in a travelling exhibition around the United States. The result, not surprisingly, was a significant reaction in the media. Some public officials and journalists argued against mounting such an exhibition at all, while others, including Lewis and Litwack, argued that it was essential to face this difficult aspect of very recent American racial history. The photographs represented less than 100 of the nearly 4000 illegal and horrendous killings in recent US history called “lynchings,” even though over 70 % of the victims were African American men.22 The subsequent literature itself, not to mention the photographs, is deeply disturbing. Even in academic narrative, the descriptive details of horrific maiming and dismemberment that accompanied these despicable murders are important to keep in mind when considering Ezekiel’s vision of dismembered bones (cf. Greenberg, who refers to a “sea of disjointed bones”).23 Furthermore, this recent historical display of murderous 20 One is reminded of the return of Cheyenne skulls to the Southern Cheyenne in 2000 as an example of the large issue of Indian demands for repatriation of remains. This was particularly meaningful for me to watch the television news stories of this event, as my friend Lawrence Hart was among the Cheyenne tribal representatives who travelled to Washington DC to receive them, and then rebury them in Cheyenne land in present day Oklahoma. See Ron Jackson, “Chief’s Battle to Reclaim Past Continues”, The Oklahoman (June 5, 2000). An estimated 1 million remains are yet to be reclaimed from public institutions, so Mihuseuah, “Introduction”, 1. 21 James Allen (ed.), Without Sanctuary: Lynching Photography in America (Santa Fe: Twin Publishers, 2000). 22 Korintha Mitchell, Living with the Lynching: African American Lynching Plays, Performance, and Citizenship, 1890–1930 (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2011), 1. 23 Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 742.

Deconstructing Terror in Ezekiel

397

theatre (what Rushdy has called “spectacle lynching”24) is all-too reminiscent of the martial language and iconography of conquest typical of especially the Neo-Assyrian propaganda – but also implied in Ezekiel’s own narrative describing the Babylonian conquests. In a striking discussion of taking body parts as “souvenirs” (a common accompaniment to lynching) in the case of the lynching of George Ward, Young argues that these “souvenirs,” while collected for negative reasons, can be seen to contain memories of the living man. The lynching spectacle … stages the transformation of the living body into a set of lifeless parts to be collected; the spectacle becomes materiality. In the case of George Ward, his lynching enacts his disappearance. The person, and indeed, the body (as a whole) recognized as Ward vanishes in the moments surrounding his death. However, these same moments also mark the rebirth of a dismembered Ward … His death creates souvenirs of his life. Their presence, as a consequence of his absence, bestows meaning, value, and the perception of power upon them. More interestingly, these material remains testify to the lynching victim’s former living status. They continually evoke the victim’s body through a repeated underscoring of its absence … … Whereas the spectator might have used the souvenir to remember her experience at the scene of the event or to represent her determination to prevent the social ascendency of African Americans, I employ it to gain access not only to a particular historical moment, but also the embodied experience of a specific person within that moment. In the case of George Ward … it renders the body whole again and, in so doing, offers a perspective into the lynching event that ended his life …”25

Young proposes a vision of reassembly in asserting that “parts” once severed as torture can be reinterpreted as memorials and reminders of the living. The further importance of this proposed “context” is to remind the modern reader that Ezekiel 37 has its basis in the lived experience of conquest, destruction, and deportation by Mesopotamian regimes for whom narrative, and even illustrated carvings, about their brutalities survive (Olmstead famously called these ancient memories examples of Assyrian “calculated frightfulness”26). It is precisely the ‘calculation’ that is the point here, just as the discussion surrounding the 2000 display of lynching photographs in the USA is also particularly significant. Recent discussions of lynching in late 19th and early 20th century American history has chosen to call attention to execution as public performance.27 The controversial publication of lynching photographs served to not only remind Rushdy, American Lynching (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012), 78. Young, “The Black Body as Souvenir in American Lynching,” Theatre Journal 57 (2005): 655, 657. 26 A. T. Olmstead, “The Calculated Frightfulness of Ashur Nasir Apal,” JAOS 38 (1918): 209–263. 27 Robyn Wiegman, “The Anatomy of Lynching,” Journal of the History of Sexuality 3 (1993): 445–467; Michael Hatt, “Sculpting and Lynching: The Making and Unmaking of the Black Citizen in Late Nineteenth-Century America,” Oxford Art Journal 24, (2001): 3–22; Dora Apel, “On Looking: Lynching Photographs and Legacies of Lynching after 9/11,” American Quarterly 55 (2003): 457–478; Rushdy, American Lynching; Anne P. Rice (ed.), Witnessing Lynching: 24 Ashraf

25 Harvey

398

Daniel L. Smith-Christopher

modern readers / ​viewers of the horrendous tortures endured by those whom the crowds executed, but Mitchell notes how profoundly this modern viewing of the photographs implicate moderns who are forced into the strange position of voyeur by observing the photos, joining the often thousands of white faces turning – indeed proudly posing – before the black and white cameras, clearly proud of their murderous accomplishments: Such images unmistakably marked who was a citizen and who was not. In harmony with the nation’s rhetoric, the pictures tolerated an acknowledgement of blacks’ corporeal existence but required a denial of African American citizenship and familial bonds. It is no accident that the black figure is always surrounded by whites … no grieving loved ones in sight.28

To appreciate the power of Ezekiel’s vision, we must arguably first have some sense of the horror of the original setting and its imperial context. There is one further insight from this disturbing context. Recently, some notable historical work has begun on the “Lynching dramas” written by African American playwrights beginning already at the beginning of the 20th century, and therefore in the midst of the serious years of American lynching.29 Mitchell, for example, is not only interested in these plays as protest – which would mean that the plays were directed to whites – but also as visual presentations directed within to the African American community itself. She asks: “How did blacks help each other cope while lynching remained a reality?”30 Her analysis of the lynching plays argues that the plays created counter-representations. She considers it a key that many African Americans chose to write plays in one-act form, so that they could be easily performed in homes and churches. What was created was thus an alternative theatre. That is to say, image was pitted against image. By portraying the families, and the sorrows of the families of the murdered, the plays presented a vision of life as a counterpoint to the theatres of death. This is suggestive for us. An essential aspect of the perspective on Ezekiel 37 presented here, then, is to emphasize the visionary presentation of counter-images. Massacre and conquest is visually reversed, as it was visually perpetuated. We can point to the insight of Greenberg’s “counter-metaphors”, but also Lang’s emphasis on visual performance, to recall that Ezekiel must be read, on occasion, as “street theatre” in order to capture something of the importance of this “counter”-visual material.31 Furthermore, Mitchell notes that the lynching plays focused on the grieving American Writers Respond (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2003); Young, “The Black Body.” 28 Mitchell, Living with Lynching, 30. 29 Judith Stephens, “Racial Violence and Representation: Performance Strategies in Lynching Dramas of the 1920s,” African American Review 33 (1999), 655–671. 30 Mitchell, Living with Lynching, 31. 31 Lang, “Street Theater”, esp. 307–315.

Deconstructing Terror in Ezekiel

399

families, not the actual tortuous acts, and thus humanizing the people. Similarly, Ezekiel’s vision focusses on the life of those fallen, not their death. Finally, we have at least one important ancient case where Ezekiel’s vision is later cited in the context of explicit Imperial brutality in a later age in the book of 4 Maccabees (1st century BCE–1st century CE?). In the context of describing their deceased father’s lessons, the famous mother of seven martyred sons corroborates that their father “… confirmed the query of Ezekiel, ‘Shall these dry bones live (τὰ ὀστᾶ τὰ ξηρὰ ταῦτα)?’” (4 Macc. 18.17). What is notable about this reference is the previous detail of grisly dismemberment, or what Anderson calls “… theatric descriptions of the horrendous tortures,”32 including descriptions of the dismemberment of each of the sons during their martyrdom. Here, the reference to Ezekiel’s vision seems to suggest an explicit reversal of detailed imperial tortures. In all these cases, what Greenberg calls “counter-metaphors” are given their power and significance in the context of imperial conquests and traumas. How does this lead to a re-reading of Ezekiel 37.1–14?

5. Trauma and the Imperial Context of Ezekiel There are a number of indications in the passage of the military and / ​or traumatic context of the vision. 5.1 The Hand of Yahweh It is often noted that the phrase “hand of Yahweh” serves to connect the vision of chap 37 with Ezekiel (1.3; 3.22; 37.1; 40.1); that is, it is typical for introducing God’s action with the prophet. One could compare this to 2 Kings 3.15 (‫עליו‬ ‫)יד־יהוה‬, where the phrase is used of the presence of the Spirit of God with Elisha. However, beyond this, it is important to note that the predominant use of “hand of Yahweh” is a reference to God’s destructive power and intentions (Exod 9.3, among the “plagues”; Deut 2.15; Josh 4.24; Judges 2.15; 1 Sam 5.6, 9; Once in Isa 19.16 and 25.10, note Isa 66.14 against God’s enemies). God’s mighty and militant power is the wider context for Ezekiel’s vision, suggesting God’s “counter power” to the powers that led to the scene of destruction in Ezekiel’s view. It could be argued that we ought to read the reference to the “hand of Yahweh” in the same sense that we read a phrase like “gird up your loins,” a phrase indicating a test of strength and potential violence. God prepares for a “counter battle,” in this case by giving life. 32 H. Anderson, “Four Maccabees,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Vol. 2 (James H. Charlesworth ed.; New York: Doubleday, 1985), 453.

400

Daniel L. Smith-Christopher

5.2 Bones, Skin, and Flesh As we have noted, the mention of “bones” is often compared to Jer 8.1, but more widely, it is notable how frequently any mention of bones is associated with judgment, destruction and / ​or military defeat. Jeremiah 50.17 Israel is a hunted sheep driven away by lions. First the king of Assyria devoured it, and now at the end King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon has gnawed its bones. Psalm 53.5 There they shall be in great terror, in terror such as has not been. For God will scatter the bones of the ungodly; they will be put to shame, for God has rejected them. 2 Kings 23.14 He broke the pillars in pieces, cut down the sacred poles, and covered the sites with human bones. Psalm 141.7 Like a rock that one breaks apart and shatters on the land, so shall their bones be strewn at the mouth of Sheol. Ezekiel 6.5 I will lay the corpses of the people of Israel in front of their idols; and I will scatter your bones around your altars. Ezekiel 32.27 And they do not lie with the fallen warriors of long ago who went down to Sheol with their weapons of war, whose swords were laid under their heads, and whose shields are upon their bones; for the terror of the warriors was in the land of the living.

When further terms are used in close context, such as sinews, flesh, or skin, the context becomes even more compelling, as in Ezek 37.6, 8. Descriptions of anatomy using, for example, “flesh” (‫ )בשר‬and “skin” (‫)עור‬, are often associated with ritual slaughter (Exod 29.14; Lev 4.11, 8.17; 9.11; 16.27; Num 19.5) or examination for purity (Lev 13.11, 24). This has led a number of commentators to suggest that Ezekiel’s knowledge of anatomy informing his vision comes from his priestly duties.33 However, the same imagery can be used of despair and frailty, as in Job (7.5; 10.11; 19.20) and particularly in Lam 3.4. “He has made my flesh and my skin waste away, and broken my bones …” Furthermore, an entirely different sentiment can be seen in Micah, where the ‘anatomy lesson’ is firmly in the context of abuse and oppression: Micah 3.2–3 … you who hate the good and love the evil, who tear the skin off my people, and the flesh off their bones; who eat the flesh of my people, flay their skin off them, break their bones in pieces, and chop them up like meat in a kettle, like flesh in a caldron.

5.3 God’s chariot? Ezekiel 37.7 “So I prophesied as I had been commanded; and as I prophesied, suddenly there was a noise, a rattling …”. This term is ‫( רעש‬cf. Ezek 3.12–13, chariot wheels of God?; ‫)רעש גדול‬, which is also a sound of judgment in Ezek 33 Zimmerli,

Ezekiel 2, 260; Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 376.

Deconstructing Terror in Ezekiel

401

38.19. Particularly interesting is Nahum 3.2, which suggests a comparison with the sound of military chariots: “The crack of whip and rumble of wheel, galloping horse and bounding chariot!” Once again, there is a possibility of associating the vision with God’s “counter-war”. 5.4 A Massacre Reversed? At v. 9, the bones are from those who were killed (‫“ = הרוגים‬the murdered”?). Throughout Ezekiel, the term refers to those cut down with the sword (21.16; 23.10, 47; 26.6, 8, 11, etc.). Finally, of course, Ezekiel sees a “multitude” (‫)חיל‬ arise, which is to suggest, an army! (cf. Exod 14.28, Deut 3.18, Nahum 2.3; but in military context especially in Jeremiah 32.2; 34.21, 35.11; 37.7, 10, 11; 38.3). The military associations, allusions, and direct references, seem to suggest that the military and traumatic context are not “incidental” to our reading of Ezekiel’s famous vision. Much more can be said, but if Ezekiel 37.1–14 is read as a response to trauma, there are aspects of this vision that become more suggestive than simply treating this as a vision of “spiritual restoration” of a people. This long-range spiritualized / ​eschatological view represents a tradition notable from Jerome in the 4th–5th centuries CE (e. g. his Commentary on Ezekiel, 11.37.1–14), and an eschatological interpretation that is still vigorously defended by some moderns.34 However, the important context of Ezekiel as a whole remains the trauma of the Neo-Babylonian context coming after a series of traumas from Mesopotamian regimes in Palestine.

6. The Context of Mesopotamian Conquest Although the historical impact of the Babylonian conquest of Judah was debated in the 20th century,35 it seems clear that this historical-critical debate has been settled in favor of a conclusion that the conquest of Jerusalem in 587/6 BCE was indeed catastrophic, and is perhaps the major turning point of the Israelite people in the first millennium BCE. For example, at the outset of his recent summary of exilic period biblical literature, Albertz writes: Of all the eras in Israel’s history, the exilic period represents the most profound caesura and the most radical change. Its significance for subsequent history can hardly be overstated. Here the religion of Israel underwent its most severe crisis, but here too was laid the foundation for its most sweeping renewal.36 W. Jenson, Ezekiel (BTCB; Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2009), 284–285. debate summarized in Andrew Mein, Ezekiel and the Ethics of Exile (OTM; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), esp. 56–75. 36 Rainer Albertz. Israel in Exile: The History and Literature of the Sixth Century B. C. E. (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 1. 34 Robert 35 A

402

Daniel L. Smith-Christopher

Similarly, Mein began his recent study of Ezekiel as follows: The early sixth century BCE was a time of almost unparalleled crisis for the Jewish people, as successive Babylonian invasions left Judah devastated and Jerusalem in ruins. The book of Ezekiel forms a commentary on these events …37

Furthermore, Lipschits, working from a survey of the archaeological data, is no less comprehensive in his summary observations: The conclusion that must be drawn from the data … is that the Babylonian campaign brought about complete destruction in Jerusalem and its immediate environs. The region was almost completely emptied of its population and remained so until the beginning of the Persian Period …38

When Greenberg referred to “counter-metaphors,” he referred to Mesopotamian rhetoric. It is important to remind ourselves of samples of this historical literature of brutality, beginning with Shalmaneser III (853–852 BCE) in the Kurkh Monolith: I razed, destroyed and burned the city … I felled with the sword 300 of their fighting men. I made a pile of heads in front of his city … I laid waste his cities. I filled the wide plain with the corpses [lit. “defeat”] of his warriors. I piled them in ditches and filled the extensive plain with the corpses of their warriors. Like wool, I dyed the mountains with their blood … I made a pile of heads in front of his city … I rained down upon them a devastating flood. I spread out their corpses and I filled the plain … I made their blood flow in the wadis … The field was too small for laying flat their bodies …39

Ninurta-Kudurri-Usur-Suhu Annals #2: I captured those who attempted to escape. I caused their blood to flow like waters or a river. The road with their corpses was visible to the eagles and vultures. I filled the mountains and wadis with their skulls like mountain stones … When I killed him, my heart calmed down. Having stripped off his skin like the skin of a sheep, I set it in front of the gate of Al-gabbari-bani …40

The Great “Summary” Inscription (Khorsabad, Sargon II): I burned Qarqar. Him I flayed. I killed the rebels in the midst of those cities …41 Ezekiel and the Ethics of Exile, 1. Lipschits, The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem (Winona Lake: Eisenbrowns, 2005), 237. 39 W. Hallo and K. L. Younger (eds.), The Context of Scripture, Vol. 2, Monumental Inscriptions from the Biblical World (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 261–264. 40 Hallo and Younger, Monumental Inscriptions, 279–282. 41 Hallo and Younger, Monumental Inscriptions, 296–297. 37 Mein, 38 Oded

Deconstructing Terror in Ezekiel

403

Kuhrt writes of reliefs depicting its kings reclining near the severed heads of enemies, as well as Assyrian inscriptions boasting of the dead rebels draped on their city walls, or rebellious rulers entrapped in cages with wild animals that are then suspended at the entrance to cities. The King, she writes: … was awe-inspiring; the fear that filled his enemies was the terror of those knowing that they will be ruthlessly, but justly, punished. The royal power to inspire fear was visualizes as a shining radiance … a kind of halo, that flashed forth from the royal face … it made him fearsome to behold and it could strike his enemies down, so that they fell to their knees before him, dazzled by the fearful glow …42

Are these merely repetitions of Mesopotamian “literary motifs”? Are they simply borrowed from Mesopotamian tropes of boasting in conquest narratives?43 The point, however, is not whether these are always and in every case descriptions of actual battlefield tactics. Even if many of these images are for rhetorical impact – they are hardly literary tropes that can be construed to communicate aspects of imperial rule that are otherwise, or in reality, anything other than tyrannical and brutal. We run a serious risk of misreading exilic and post-exilic texts, I would argue, when many of these themes of human suffering are reduced (and often thus dismissed) as “merely” literary motifs. Furthermore, arguing for a chronological distance of Ezekiel from the Neo-Assyrian period (from which most of our examples of the worst rhetoric derive) simply won’t do. First, we can certainly document Neo-Babylonian atrocities. Writing of “The Fury of Babylon”, Lawrence Stager summarized the “scorched-earth” policy of the Neo-Babylonian Empire as evident in the remains of Ashkelon. Stager observed that Nebuchadnezzar’s policy created “a veritable wasteland west of the Jordan River”, and notes evidence of fiery destruction: “Archaeology cannot be so precise as to date the destruction of Ashkelon to 604 BCE, but the Babylonian Chronicle leaves little doubt that the late seventh-century destruction we found all over the site, followed by a 75–80 year gap in occupation until the Persian Period, was the work of Nebuchadnezzar in 604 BCE.”44 Secondly, however, the Assyrian experience can arguably be considered relevant as well. Lipshits, among others, points to the significance of memories of Sennacherib’s destructive campaign in Palestine, referring to the: “… intense trauma inflicted on the kingdom by Sennacherib’s campaign of 701 BCE”.45 Such memories were certainly alive in the minds of those who faced the Babylonian 42 Amelie Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East c. 3000–330 BC, vols. 1 and 2, (Routledge History of the Ancient World; New York: Routledge, 1995–1997), 517. 43 A. Latto, “Assyrian Propaganda and the Falsification of History in the Royal Inscription Sennacherib,” VT 45 (1995): 198–223. 44 Lawrence Stager, “The Fury of Babylon: Ashkelon and the Archaeology of Destruction,” BAR 22 (1996): 58–59, 76–77. 45 Lipschits, The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem, 10.

404

Daniel L. Smith-Christopher

onslaught of the early 6th Century BCE.46 Furthermore, in a recent compendium of essays discussing later “remembering” of earlier biblical figures, Russell Hobson writes: “The books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, which are primarily concerned with the Babylonian catastrophe, incorporated and reworked some of the same motifs that became associated with the Assyrian crisis …”.47 Even though Vanderhooft wants to carefully distance Neo-Babylonian inscriptions from the sheer cruelty of Neo-Assyrian rhetoric, he nonetheless refers in his study to the “brute facts of subjugation” and writes that the Neo-Babylonian Empire under Nebuchadnezzar II was, “at base, focused on domination and exploitation of non-Babylonian populations for the benefit of a ruling elite.”48 Lipshits refers to Nebuchadnezzar’s “desire to eliminate Jerusalam as a religious political center”.49 Biblical materials do not present a different picture. Wilkie, already in 1951,50 suggested that some of the themes of suffering in the so-called “Servant Songs” of Second Isaiah may reflect some of the exilic realities of the pre-Persian period. And, even in the context of legends, the suddenness of executions demanded by the ‘mad King’ is an essential element in the drama of the tales in Daniel 1–6, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Esther. Such literary tropes, once again, certainly communicate powerful memories of trauma. Recitations of what we know of historical military behavior, however, is not our only argument. In fact, we need not stray far from the imagery of the Book of Ezekiel itself (a point well made in Bowen’s reading of Ezekiel 37, where she insists that the descriptions of suffering in the early chapters of Ezekiel must not be forgotten when reading this vision51). A preliminary catalogue of horrors in the book of Ezekiel would only begin with the following: Ezekiel 5.10–13: Surely, parents shall eat their children in your midst, and children shall eat their parents; I will execute judgments on you, and any of you who survive I will scatter to every wind. 11Therefore, as I live, says the Lord GOD, surely, because you have defiled my sanctuary with all your detestable things and with all your abominations – therefore I will cut you down; my eye will not spare, and I will have no pity. 12One third of you shall die of pestilence or be consumed by famine among you; one third shall fall by the sword around you; and one third I will scatter to every wind and will unsheathe the sword after them. 13My anger shall spend itself, and I will vent my fury on them and satisfy myself; and they shall know that I, the LORD, have spoken in my jealousy, when I spend my fury on them. The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem, 70–71. Hobson, “The Memory of Sennacherib in Late Persian Yehud,” in Remembering Biblical Figures in the Late Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods by Diana V. Edelman and Ehud Ben Zvi (eds.) (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), 199–220. 48 David Vanderhooft, The Neo-Babylonian Empire and Babylon in the Latter Prophets, (HTM 59; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2000), 40, 106–107, 209. 49 Lipschits, The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem, 80. 50 J. M. Wilkie, “Nabonidus and the later Jewish Exiles,” JTS 2 (1951): 36–44. 51 Nancy R. Bowen, Ezekiel (AOTC; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2010), 227. 46 Lipschits, 47 Russell

Deconstructing Terror in Ezekiel

405

Ezekiel 6.5–7: I will lay the corpses of the people of Israel in front of their idols; and I will scatter your bones around your altars. 6Wherever you live, your towns shall be waste and your high places ruined, so that your altars will be waste and ruined, your idols broken and destroyed, your incense stands cut down, and your works wiped out. 7The slain shall fall in your midst; then you shall know that I am the LORD. Ezekiel 7.14–15: They have blown the horn and made everything ready; but no one goes to battle, for my wrath is upon all their multitude. 15The sword is outside, pestilence and famine are inside; those in the field die by the sword; those in the city – famine and pestilence devour them. Ezekiel 11.6–8: You have killed many in this city, and have filled its streets with the slain. 7 Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: The slain whom you have placed within it are the meat, and this city is the pot; but you shall be taken out of it. 8You have feared the sword; and I will bring the sword upon you, says the Lord GOD.

7. Ezekiel and Trauma Studies The evidence suggests that we are not out of line to propose that we are dealing with a traumatized prophet, or at the very least a document written by many who are in trauma on some level. Caroline Gorst-Unsworth, who works on treatment of terror and torture victims, defines contemporary “state sponsored terrorism” as follows: … essentially the act of a state against an individual or group, with the aim of achieving specific psychological changes (directly) in their victims and often (indirectly) in their communities … the survivor of torture has not merely been the accidental victim of physical injury or threat of death such as might occur, for example in a natural disaster or accident … He or she has received the focussed attention of an adversary determined to case the maximal psychological change … Neither is it the individual who suffers. For every person tortured there are mothers and fathers, wives, husbands and children, friends and relatives who wait in uncertainty and fear … Torture has effects on communities and on whole societies …52

In the light of this, in previous work,53 I have been interested in using the sociopsychological concept of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, and now drawing on 52 Caroline Gorst-Unsworth, “Psychological Sequelae of Torture: A Descriptive Model,” The British Journal of Psychiatry 157 (1990): 475–76. 53 Daniel L. Smith-Christopher, “Ezekiel on Fanon’s Couch: A Postcolonist Critique in Dialogue with David Halperin’s Seeking Ezekiel,” in Peace and Justice Shall Embrace: Power and Theopolitics in the Bible: Essays in Honor of Millard Lind, ed. Ted Grimsrud and Loren L. Johns (Telford, PA: Pandora Press, 1999), 108–144; idem., “Ezekiel in Abu Ghraib: Rereading Ezekiel 16:37–39 in the Context of Imperial Conquest,” in Ezekiel’s Hierarchical World: Wrestling with a Tiered Reality, ed. Steven L. Cook and Corrine L. Patton (SBLSym 31; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002), 141–158; idem., “Reading War and Trauma: Suggestions Toward a Social Psychological Exegesis of Exile and War in Biblical Texts,” in Interpreting Exile: Displacement and Deportation in Biblical and Modern Contexts, ed. Brad E. Kelle, Frank Ritchel Ames, Jacob

406

Daniel L. Smith-Christopher

Trauma Studies more generally, in order to suggest new ways of assessing and thinking about, for example, the famous “sign actions” of Ezekiel. Reacting to previous suggestions about the psychological state of the writer of the work we know as Ezekiel, I have suggested that the destruction of Jerusalem in the early 6th Century may suggest that Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder could arguably be one of the most productive ways of thinking about some of the actions that are described in the book. A reading of The Empire of Trauma: An Inquiry into the Condition of Victimhood, by Fassin and Rechtman54 helps to explain why present work on trauma in relation to biblical texts cannot have arisen until recently. Fassin and Rechtman trace the development, medically and philosophically, of concepts of trauma in the 20th century, a development virtually paralleling 20th century historical-critical analysis of the Bible. In fact, it was only in 1980 that the widely cited Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) of the American Psychiatric Association listed a symptomology of “Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder”. Among the indications of PTSD appearing in the 2000 edition of DSM, we find: … recurrent and intrusive distressing recollections of the even, including images, thoughts, or perceptions … recurrent distressing dreams of the event … acting or feeling as if the traumatic event were recurring … includes a sense of reliving the experience, illusions, hallucinations …[and]… flashbacks … intense psychological distress at exposure to internal or external cues that symbolize or resemble an aspect of the traumatic event … efforts to avoid thoughts, feelings … associated with the trauma … feeling of detachment or estrangement from others …55

Such descriptions would seem, on the surface at least, to be highly suggestive for our further understanding of some of the famous “sign-acts” of Ezekiel, especially when read synoptically with a text like Lamentations: I. Ezekiel 3.22–27, Ezekiel sits confined in his home with his hands tied by cords Lamentations 3.7–9, images of confinement, and the language of chains. II. Ezekiel 4.1–3, the siege of Jerusalem and eating impure foods Lamentations 1.11; 2.12; 4.4, 9–10, hunger leading to cannibalism III. Ezekiel 5.1–17, the death of many categories of persons Lamentations 1.1, 2.21, “old dying …[and]… the young fallen by sword …” L. Wright (AIL 10; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 253–274; idem., “Trauma and the Old Testament: Some Problems and Prospects,” in Trauma and Traumatization in Individual and Collective Dimensions: Insights from Biblical Studies and Beyond, ed. Eve-Marie Becker, Jan Dochhorn and Else K. Holt (SANt 2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014), 222–242. 54 Didier Fassin and Richard Rechtman, The Empire of Trauma: An Inquiry into the Condition of Victimhood, trans. Rachel Gomme (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009). 55 John B. Murray, “Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: A Review,” Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs 118 (1992): 316.

Deconstructing Terror in Ezekiel

IV. V.

407

Ezekiel 12, Ezekiel relives the events of exile (“prepare an exile’s bag …”) Lamentations 1.3, 18, “Led into exile” (and Lamentations 2.8). Ezekiel 21, Babylonian forces are modeled by a sword. Lamentations 2.21 and, notably, 5.9, the “sword” and foreign rule

Furthermore, we have already argued that the historical context for a reading of Ezekiel in a context that includes Assyrian as well as Babylonian invasions. The fact of the matter is, this historical assertion is also backed by the literature paying attention to trauma crossing generations. In other words, the context of subordination, disaster, warfare, or political oppression (either individually or a group) has led in recent years to increased attention to PTSD, and now trauma, as having a transgenerational impact. That trauma can cross generations suggests that understanding this can also be a means of understanding cultural groups who suffer as entire peoples, and in Volkan’s terms, can even enter into cultural identities.56 For one thing, the reality of transgenerational trauma raises very serious questions indeed for older assumptions in Biblical Studies, especially in relation to methods associated with redaction criticism, where it has been a virtually unquestionable assumption that different writers and times must mean different historical issues. Not necessarily! In sum, Trauma Studies in relation to the Bible are becoming more skilled than this author’s halting suggestions which began over a decade ago. (For Ezekiel, see Bowen, Poser, and Kelle;57 regarding wider biblical literature, see Janzen, Ahn, and Carr;58 and in reference to Lamentations, see O’Conner, Lee, and Linafelt59). In fact, in recent years, interest in Trauma Studies and related psychological and sociological studies have increased dramatically, and the literature is already massive, and my citing of dozens of articles in my own previous studies are 56 Vamık Volkan, Bloodlines: From Ethnic Pride to Ethnic Terrorism (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1997); idem., Blind Trust: Large Groups and Their Leaders in Times of Crisis and Terror (Charlottesville, VA: Pitchstone Publishing, 2004); idem., The Third Reich in the Unconscious: Transgenerational Transmission and its Consequences (New York: Brunner-Routledge, 2002); E. Duran and B. Duran, Native American Postcolonial Psychology (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995); B. Bower, “Trauma Syndrome Traverses Generations,” Science News (May 18, 1996), 149–310; Teresa Evans-Campbell. “Historical Trauma in American Indian / ​Native Alaska Communities,” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 23 (2008): 316–338. 57 Bowen, Ezekiel, 269–270; Kelle, Ezekiel, 28–34, Ruth Poser, Das Ezechielbuch als Trauma-Literatur, (VTSup 154; Leiden: Brill, 2012). 58 David Janzen, The Violent Gift: Trauma’s Subversion of the Deuteronomistic History’s Narrative (LHBOTS 561; London and New York: T&T Clark, 2012); John Ahn, Exile as Forced Migrations: A Sociological, Literary, and Theological Approach on the Displacement and Resettlement of the Southern Kingdom of Judah (BZAW 417; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010), and see David Carr, Holy Resilience: The Bible’s Traumatic Origins (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014). 59 Kathleen M. O’Connor. Lamentations and the Tears of the World (New York: Orbis Press, 2002); Nancy C. Lee, The Singers of Lamentations: Cities Under Siege, from Ur to Jerusalem to Sarajevo (Leiden: Brill, 2002); idem., Lyrics of Lament: From Tragedy to Transformation (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2010); Tod Linafelt, Surviving Lamentations: Catastrophe, Lament and Protest in the Afterlife of a Biblical Book (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000).

408

Daniel L. Smith-Christopher

already out of date on the most recent literature, but summary articles citing further literature are helpful.60 Ezekiel 37 represents one of the most dramatic examples of counter-narrative in response to trauma in the book of Ezekiel, if not throughout the literature of the Bible dated to the postexilic period. Furthermore, that we work with texts, which is to say, with testimonies, is not necessarily a serious handicap. Speaking about the importance of counter-narratives in Truth and Reconciliation Commissions, for example, Teresa Phelps lists a number of reasons why “the enactment of storytelling, in a display akin to Bakhtin’s sense of carnival … overturns and disrupts an oppressive social order, [and] can restore a victim’s dignity”.61 In her description of the healing power of counter-narratives, Phelps uses language that is especially powerful in the context of our reconsideration of Ezekiel’s vision. She writes that the ability of victims to tell their stories is like a metaphor: … of being broken apart and of being put back together using language in a speech act that effects a kind of healing. Several events occur in this healing: the ‘severed’ past and present are reconnected; the victim ‘reconstructs’ herself as an actor in a ‘reconfigured’ life; the victim changes from object of violence to a subject in her own articulated story; traumatic memory is transformed into a ‘coherent narrative’; and the victim is ‘reintegrated’ into the world62

Finally, Phelps speaks of such contexts of storytelling as “sacramental”: Remembering pain, violence, and oppression, then, has an unavoidable double meaning, in that the remembering and telling of the story carries with it the remembering of that which was fragmented. The ritualistic retelling in a group in a space set aside for it symbolically allows for both sharing in the pain and putting the pieces of a broken life back together. Given an official space in which to speak and remember, shattered voices, lives, selves, families, communities and nations may be remembered.63

8. Preliminary Conclusions The resolution of the vision of Ezekiel 37 into a restored future Israel must not be too quick, especially in our analysis of the vision. In this study, using contemporary contexts to suggest a re-reading of Ezekiel 37, we are suggesting that a reading of this passage that hurries past the language of trauma – where the 60 Murray, “Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: A Review,” 315–338; Orla T. Muldoon and Robert D. Lowe, “Social Identity, Groups, and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder,” Political Psychology 33 (2012): 259–273. 61 Teresa Godwin Phelps, Shattered Voices: Language, Violence, and the Work of Truth Commissions (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004) 55. 62 Phelps, Shattered Voices, 57. 63 Phelps, Shattered Voices, 71.

Deconstructing Terror in Ezekiel

409

vision arguably begins  – would be like reading a lament without the opening verses which articulate pain. Read in the context of trauma, talk of reassembling bones means that, ultimately, Ezekiel 37 is a text that refuses to accept imperial realities. Ezekiel refuses to accept the dictated, militarized, terrorized version of reality in history. Finally, despite the frequent distancing of Ezekiel 37 from the New Testament in critical commentary literature, largely because of an understandable reticence to engage with clearly fundamentalist readings of Ezekiel’s vision, nevertheless more needs to be said on this score. In fact, as an act of political defiance of imperial power, there is indeed a very close association with the sentiment of the New Testament! In re-telling the story of Jesus, it is clear that there, also we too-often find a total silence with regard to the cross as a Roman form of “spectacle lynching.” Taking stock of such a context would force a reading of the resurrection narratives as bold challenges to Roman imperial realities! Reading the politics of Ezekiel’s vision should suggest reading the politics of the Resurrection in the Gospels. The Resurrection narratives, too, are “counter-narratives” to Roman attempts to dictate history. In the end, reading Ezekiel’s vision in chap 37, and the Resurrection narratives of the Gospels in the context of trauma, is frankly unsettling. This is because it might indict our attempts to too-quickly and comfortably identify with the reanimated Judean dead, or the risen Jesus, when the context of trauma in both of these examples might otherwise force us acknowledge our own imperial acts: Native bones on display, the lynched and dismembered minorities, and ultimately our own production of traumatized, drone-produced valleys of bones.

Bibliography Ahn, John. Exile as Forced Migrations: A Sociological, Literary, and Theological Approach on the Displacement and Resettlement of the Southern Kingdom of Judah. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 417. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010. Albertz, Rainer. Israel in Exile: The History and Literature of the Sixth Century B. C. E. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Allen, James, ed. Without Sanctuary: Lynching Photography in America. Santa Fe: Twin Palms Publishers, 2000. Anderson, H. “Four Maccabees.” Pages 531–564 in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Vol. 2. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. New York: Doubleday, 1985. Apel, Dora. “On Looking: Lynching Photographs and Legacies of Lynching after 9/11.” American Quarterly 55/3 (2003): 457–478. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Ezekiel. Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Louisville: John Knox, 1990. –. “Second-Isaiah: Prophet of Universalism.” Pages 186–206 in The Prophets: A Sheffield Reader. Edited by Philip R. Davies. The Biblical Seminar 42. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996.

410

Daniel L. Smith-Christopher

Block, Daniel I. The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Bowen, Nancy R. Ezekiel. Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2010. Bower, Bruce. “Trauma Syndrome Traverses Generations.” Science News (May 18, 1996): 149–310. Callahan, Allen Dwight, “Perspectives for a Study of African American Religion: From the Valley of Dry Bones.” Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions 7/1 (2003): 44–59. Carley, Keith W. The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel. The Cambridge Bible Commentary on the New English Bible. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974. –. Ezekiel Among the Prophets. London: SCM Press, 1975. Carr, David. Holy Resilience: The Bible’s Traumatic Origins. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014. Carvalho, Corrine L., and Paul V. Niskanen. Ezekiel, Daniel. The New Collegeville Bible Commentary 16. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2012. Duran, E., and B. Duran, Native American Postcolonial Psychology. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995. Edelman, Diana V. and Ehud Ben Zvi. Remembering Biblical Figures in the Late Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013. Eichrodt, Walther. Ezekiel. Translated by Cosslett Quin. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1970. Evans-Campbell, Teresa. “Historical Trauma in American Indian / ​Native Alaska Communities.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 23 (2008): 316–338. Fassin, Didier and Richard Rechtman. The Empire of Trauma: An Inquiry into the Condition of Victimhood. Translated by Rachel Gomme. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009. Fine-Dare, Kathleen S. Grave Injustice: The American Indian Repatriation Movement and NAGPRA. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2002. Galambush, Julie. “Ezekiel.” Pages 533–562 in The Oxford Bible Commentary. Edited by John Barton and John Muddiman. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Glerup, Michael and Kenneth Stevenson, eds. Ezekiel, Daniel. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Old Testament 8. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2008. Gorst-Unsworth, Caroline. “Psychological Sequelae of Torture: A Descriptive Model.” The British Journal of Psychiatry 157 (1990): 475–480. Greenberg, Moshe. Ezekiel 21–37: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 22A. New York: Doubleday, 1997. Greenspoon, Leonard J. “The Origin of the Idea of Resurrection.” Pages 247–322 in Traditions in Transformation: Turning Points in Biblical Faith. Edited by Baruch Halpern and Jon D. Levenson. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1981. Hallo, W., and K. L. Younger, eds. The Context of Scripture. Vol. 2, Monumental Inscriptions from the Biblical World. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Hals, Ronald M. Ezekiel. Forms of the Old Testament Literature 19. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989. Hatt, Michael. “Sculpting and Lynching: The Making and Unmaking of the Black Citizen in Late Nineteenth-Century America.” Oxford Art Journal 24 (2001): 3–22.

Deconstructing Terror in Ezekiel

411

Hobson, Russell. “The Memory of Sennacherib in Late Persian Yehud.” Pages 199–220 in Remembering Biblical Figures in the Late Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods. Edited by Diana V. Edelman and Ehud Ben Zvi. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013. Jackson, Ron. “Chief’s Battle to Reclaim Past Continues.” The Oklahoman (June 5, 2000). Janzen, David. The Violent Gift: Trauma’s Subversion of the Deuteronomistic History’s Narrative. Library of Hebrew Bible / ​Old Testament Studies 561. London and New York: T&T Clark, 2012. Jenson, Robert W. Ezekiel. Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2009. Joyce, Paul M. Ezekiel: A Commentary. Library of Hebrew Bible / ​Old Testament Studies 482. New York: T&T Clark, 2007. Kelle, Brad E. Ezekiel: A Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition. New Beacon Bible Commentary. Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 2013. Kuhrt, Amelie. The Ancient Near East c. 3000–330 BC. 2 vols. Routledge History of the Ancient World. New York: Routledge, 1995–1997. Kutsko, John. Between Heaven and Earth: Divine Presence and Absence in the Book of Ezekiel. Biblical and Judaic Studies 7. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2000. Lang, Bernard. “Street Theater, Raising the Dead, and the Zoroastrian Connection in Ezekiel’s Prophecy.” Pages 297–316 in Ezekiel and his Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and Their Interrelation. Edited by J. Lust. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 74. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1986. Latto, A. “Assyrian Propaganda and the Falsification of History in the Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib.” Vetus Testamentum 45 (1995): 198–223. Launderville, Dale F. Spirit and Reason: The Embodied Character of the Ezekiel’s Symbolic Thinking. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2007. Lee, Nancy C. The Singers of Lamentations: Cities Under Siege, from Ur to Jerusalem to Sarajevo. Leiden: Brill, 2002. –. Lyrics of Lament: From Tragedy to Transformation. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2010. Linafelt, Tod. Surviving Lamentations: Catastrophe, Lament and Protest in the Afterlife of a Biblical Book. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Lind, Millard C. Ezekiel. Believers Church Bible Commentary. Scottdale, PA: Herald, 1996. Lipschits, Oded. The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2005. Lust, J. Ezekiel and his Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and Their Interrelation. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 74. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1986. Mein, Andrew. Ezekiel and the Ethics of Exile. Oxford Theological Monographs. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Mihesuah, Devon A., ed. Repatriation Reader: Who Owns American Indian Remains? Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2000. Mitchell, Korintha. Living with Lynching: African American Lynching Plays, Performance, and Citizenship, 1890–1930. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2011. Muldoon, Orla T., and Robert D. Lowe. “Social Identity, Groups, and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.” Political Psychology 33 (2012): 259–273. Murray, John B. “Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: A Review.” Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs 118 (1992): 315–338. O’Connor, Kathleen M. Lamentations and the Tears of the World. New York: Orbis Press, 2002.

412

Daniel L. Smith-Christopher

Odell, Margaret. Ezekiel. Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2005. Olmstead, A. T. “The Calculated Frightfulness of Ashur Nasir Apal.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 38 (1918): 209–263. Phelps, Teresa Godwin. Shattered Voices: Language, Violence, and the Work of Truth Commissions. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004. Poser, Ruth. Das Ezechielbuch als Trauma-Literatur. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 154. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Provan, Iain. Lamentations. The New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991. Rice, Anne P., ed. Witnessing Lynching: American Writers Respond. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2003. Riding In, James. “Repatriation: A Pawnee’s Perspective.” Pages 106–120 in Repatriation Reader: Who Owns American Indian Remains? Edited by Devon A. Mihesuah. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2000. Rose, Wendy, Bone Dance: New and Selected Poems, 1965–1993. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1994. Rushdy, Ashraf. American Lynching. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012. Smith-Christopher, Daniel L. “Ezekiel on Fanon’s Couch: A Postcolonist Critique in Dialogue with David Halperin’s Seeking Ezekiel.” Pages 108–144 in Peace and Justice Shall Embrace: Power and Theopolitics in the Bible: Essays in Honor of Millard Lind. Edited by Ted Grimsrud and Loren L. Johns. Telford, PA: Pandora Press, 1999. –. “Ezekiel in Abu Ghraib: Rereading Ezekiel 16:37–39 in the Context of Imperial Conquest.” Pages 141–158 in Ezekiel’s Hierarchical World: Wrestling with a Tiered Reality. Edited by Steven L. Cook and Corrine L. Patton. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 31. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002. –. “Reading War and Trauma: Suggestions Toward a Social Psychological Exegesis of Exile and War in Biblical Texts.” Pages 253–274 in Interpreting Exile: Displacement and Deportation in Biblical and Modern Contexts. Edited by Brad E. Kelle, Frank Ritchel Ames, and Jacob L. Wright. Ancient Israel and Its Literature 10. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. –. “Trauma and the Old Testament: Some Problems and Prospects.” Pages 222–242 in Trauma and Traumatization in Individual and Collective Dimensions: Insights from Biblical Studies and Beyond. Edited by Eve-Marie Becker, Jan Dochhorn and Else K. Holt. Studia Aarhusiana Neotestamentica 2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014. Stager, Lawrence. “The Fury of Babylon: Ashkelou and the Archaeology of Destruction.” Biblical Archaeology Review 22 (1996): 58–59, 76–77 Stephens, Judith. “Racial Violence and Representation: Performance Strategies in Lynching Dramas of the 1920s.” African American Review 33 (1999): 655–671. Taylor, John B. Ezekiel: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1969. Terrell, Mary Church, “Lynching from a Negro’s Point of View.” The North American Review 178 (1904): 853–868. Turner, Stuart, and Caroline Gorst-Unsworth, “Psychological Sequelae of Torture: A Descriptive Model.” British Journal of Psychiatry 157 (1990): 157, 475–480. Vanderhooft, David. The Neo-Babylonian Empire and Babylon in the Latter Prophets. Harvard Semitic Monographs 59. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2000.

Deconstructing Terror in Ezekiel

413

Volkan, Vamık. Bloodlines: From Ethnic Pride to Ethnic Terrorism. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1997. –. Blind Trust: Large Groups and Their Leaders in Times of Crisis and Terror. Charlottesville, VA: Pitchstone Publishing, 2004. –. The Third Reich in the Unconscious: Transgenerational Transmission and its Consequences. New York: Brunner-Routledge, 2002. Weingrod, Alex. “Dry Bones, Nationalism and Symbolism in Contemporary Israel.” Anthropology Today 11/6 (1995): 7–12. Wiegman, Robyn. “The Anatomy of Lynching.” Journal of the History of Sexuality 3 (1993): 445–467. Wilkie, J. M. “Nabonidus and the later Jewish Exiles.” Journal of Theological Studies 2 (1951): 36–44. Young, Harvey, “The Black Body as Souvenir in American Lynching.” Theatre Journal 57 (2005): 639–657 Zimmerli, Walther. Ezekiel 1. Translated by Ronald E. Clements. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979. –. Ezekiel 2. Translated by James D. Martin. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983.

Part 5

Ezekiel’s Afterlife: Interpretation and Reception

Who Takes the Initiative? Reading Ezekiel in the Second Temple Period and Late Antiquity Michael A. Lyons

Cast away from yourselves all your transgressions which you committed, and make for yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. (Ezek 18.31)

I will give you a new heart, and I will put a new spirit within you, and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. (Ezek 36.26)

1. Introduction The last ten years have witnessed a notable proliferation of publications on the history of interpretation and reception of the book of Ezekiel.1 We can perhaps attribute this trend to the fact that the prophet and the book that bears his name have finally been rehabilitated: no longer do commentaries begin with remarks about the prophet’s supposed “sickness” (whether physical or mental) and the “bizarre” nature of his actions.2 In short, modern readers agree that the prophet 1 See Henk Jan de Jonge and Johannes Tromp, eds., The Book of Ezekiel and its Influence (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007); Paul M. Joyce and Andrew Mein, eds., After Ezekiel: Essays on the Reception of A Difficult Prophet, LHBOTS 535 (New York: T&T Clark, 2011); Paul M. Joyce, “Ezekiel,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Reception History of the Bible, ed. Michael Lieb et al. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 64–76. Note also studies limited to specific time periods or corpora: Florentino García Martínez, “The Interpretation of the Torah of Ezekiel in the Texts from Qumran,” in Qumranica Minora II: Thematic Studies on the Dead Sea Scrolls, STDJ 64, ed. Florentino García Martínez (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 1–12; Gary T. Manning, Jr., Echoes of a Prophet: The Use of Ezekiel in the Gospel of John and in Literature of the Second Temple Period, JSNTSup 270 (New York: T&T Clark, 2004); Sverre Bøe, Gog and Magog: Ezekiel 38–39 as Pre-text for Revelation 19:17–21 and 20:7–10, WUNT 2/135 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001); Beate Kowalski, Die Rezeption des Propheten Ezechiel in der Offenbarung des Johannes, SBB 52 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2004); Angela Russell Christman, What Did Ezekiel See? Christian Exegesis of Ezekiel’s Vision of the Chariot from Irenaeus to Gregory the Great, BAC 4 (Leiden: Brill, 2005). 2 See older works such as August Klostermann, “Ezekiel. Ein Beitrag zu besserer Würdigung seiner Person und seiner Schrift,” ThStKr 50 (1877): 391–439; Edwin C. Broome, Jr., “Ezekiel’s Abnormal Personality,” JBL 65 (1946): 277–92. To be sure, the book is still felt to be problematic, but for very different reasons: its language of divine wrath and its constructions of gender and community identity are what provoke responses from modern readers.

418

Michael A. Lyons

and the book, when properly contextualized, are understandable.3 In the spirit of these recent investigations, I want to inquire how early readers understood the book of Ezekiel with respect to the question of how spiritual transformation is achieved. Are humans able to “make a new heart” for themselves (Ezek 18.31), or must God give it to them (Ezek 36.26)? Who takes the initiative? Attempts to answer questions about human nature and about the relationship between divine and human agency have occupied a significant place in Jewish and Christian theological inquiry. What is notable is the extent to which the book of Ezekiel has played a role in this inquiry. In this essay I will not attempt a comprehensive reconstruction and comparison of theological positions. Rather, I want to investigate the history of how the book of Ezekiel has been read: did early readers perceive a tension within the book of Ezekiel (or between Ezekiel and other biblical books) regarding divine and human initiative? If so, how did they respond to this perceived tension? The answers to these questions will shed light on interpretive practices in antiquity.

2. The Outlook of Ezekiel In order to clarify the outlook on human nature and initiative in the book of Ezekiel, I will begin by answering the following four questions: 1) How are the prophet Ezekiel’s contemporaries characterized? 2) How is the prophet’s task described? 3) Does the book lead readers to expect any response or change from the prophet’s contemporaries? 4) How is the hoped-for restoration actually accomplished? First, the prophet Ezekiel’s contemporaries are characterized as “rebellious” (Ezek 2.3, 5–8; 3.9, 27; 12.2–3; etc.), stubborn (Ezek 2.4; 3.7), and as having a “heart of stone” (Ezek 11.19; 36.26). They “have eyes to see, but do not see” (Ezek 12.2). They are idolatrous (Ezek 5.11; 8.3–16; 14.1–3; 20.30–32), and they and their ancestors have “rejected God’s ordinances and have not walked in his statutes” (Ezek 5.5–7; 20.13, 16, 21, 24). Second, the description of Ezekiel’s commission in the opening chapters does not presume that his speeches will motivate the people to change (note Ezek 2.5a: “whether they listen or whether they refuse”). Rather, the commission report characterizes his activity in terms of vindicating God’s judgment of the people (v. 5b, “they will know that a prophet has been in their midst”). And while Ezekiel’s role is defined as that of a watchman who warns people (Ezek 3.17), the final statements in the four scenarios outlined in vv. 18–21 focus on the prophet’s 3 See e. g., Michael A. Lyons, An Introduction to the Study of Ezekiel (New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015), 14–17; Henry McKeating, Ezekiel, OTG (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995), 29.

Who Takes the Initiative?

419

culpability, not the people’s; in fact, these scenarios do not admit any possibility that a wicked person might repent. The rhetorical function of the watchman imagery is not to argue that repentance should be expected, but to defend God from the accusation that he never warned the people. Indeed, God is represented as explicitly telling Ezekiel that “the house of Israel will not be willing to listen to you, because they are not willing to listen to me” (Ezek 3.7). Third, no statement in the book accepts the possibility that Jerusalem’s fate can be averted by repentance. God will not “have pity or compassion” (Ezek 5.11; 7.4, 9; 9.5, 10; 24.14) on the city even when its inhabitants cry out (Ezek 8.18), the vision about Jerusalem’s destruction “will not be revoked” (Ezek 7.13), and no intercession would be accepted even if Noah, Daniel, and Job were present to attempt it (Ezek 14.13–21). When the prophet recounts Israel’s history to his audience, he depicts the people as apostate from the beginning (Ezek 20.8) and describes a recurring pattern of rebellion in subsequent generations (Ezek 20.10–29) – a pattern that his own generation also displays (Ezek 20.30). He concludes his “history lesson” with the comment, “Go on, serve your idols!” (Ezek 20.39a), betraying the conviction that change is not possible in the present, but only in the future (vv. 39b–44). The description of the exiles’ reaction to Ezekiel’s words gives no indication that repentance is a possibility. To them, the prophet is a source of entertainment, a maker of metaphors (Ezek 21.5 [ET 20.49]) similar to a popular singer (Ezek 33.30–32). People come to listen, “and they hear your [Ezekiel’s] words, but they do not do them” (Ezek 33.31, 32). This should come as no surprise to the reader after the language of obduracy at the beginning of the book (Ezek 3.7). All these passages reflect a belief that Ezekiel’s contemporaries are incorrigible – that they are not only unwilling to respond, but are actually unable to change. Fourth, this lack of any expectation for a positive response from the people has as its counterpart the argument that a change in the people’s moral disposition can only come about through God’s unilateral initiative, an argument expressed by the imagery that God will “remove their heart of stone,” give the people “a new heart and a new spirit,” and “put his spirit within them” so as to “make them walk in his ordinances” (Ezek 11.19–20; 36.24–27). Every description of restoration in the book is unconditional; not one is depicted as a response to a prior act of repentance.4 Moreover, when the motive for God’s restorative action is stated, it is described as a self-interested concern for his reputation (Ezek 36.21–22, 32). It therefore strikes the reader as odd to find three explicit appeals to repent in the book of Ezekiel: Therefore, say to the house of Israel, “Thus says Lord YHWH: Repent and turn away from your idols, and turn your faces from all your abominations.” (Ezek 14.6) 4 See Ezek 11.17–20; 16.53–55, 60–63; 17.22–24; 20.33–44; 28.25–26; 34.11–16, 23–24, 25–31; 36.8–12, 22–38; 37.12–14, 19–28; 39.25–29.

420

Michael A. Lyons

Therefore, I will judge each one of you according to his ways, O house of Israel – utterance of Lord YHWH. Repent and turn away from all your transgressions, so that iniquity will not become a stumbling block for you! Cast away from yourselves your transgressions by which you have transgressed, and make for yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! Why would you die, O house of Israel? For I do not take pleasure in the death of one who dies – utterance of Lord YHWH. So repent, and live. (Ezek 18.30–32) And you, son of man, say to the house of Israel: “This is what you have said: Our transgressions and our sins are upon us, and we are rotting in them; how can we live?” Say to them: “As I live – utterance of Lord YHWH – I do not take pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather, when a wicked man repents from his way, so that he lives. Repent, repent from your evil ways! For why would you die, O house of Israel?” (Ezek 33.10–11)

Modern commentators have explained these three passages in various ways.5 But modern readers operate with a descriptive, critical stance, seeking to understand how the prophet and / ​or the author and editors of the book were attempting to convince an ancient audience. In contrast, pre-critical readers understood these passages to embody universal theological and anthropological principles that were relevant for describing their own spiritual condition. How then did these early readers react to the presence of calls to repentance, given claims elsewhere in the book that the prophet’s audience is incorrigibly rebellious and that spiritual transformation will occur only through God’s initiative?

3. Evidence from Second Temple Period Judaism and Early Christianity Thanks to Josephus’ typology of Jewish schools of thought (Ant. 13.171–173; War 2.162–165), we have long been aware that there were differences in outlook on divine and human agency in Second Temple Period Judaism. The ancient scrolls recovered from sites in the Judean desert have greatly enriched our understanding of Jewish beliefs in this period. Deterministic statements attested in some of these scrolls (e. g., 1QS 3.13–4.26; 1QHa 9.7–20; 15.13–20; 20.4–13) have prompted investigations into the origins of these beliefs and their relation to ideas about human nature, responsibility, and repentance. In the last forty years, researchers

5 See Thomas M. Raitt, A Theology of Exile: Judgment / ​Deliverance in Jeremiah and Ezekiel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 36; Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 22 (New York: Doubleday, 1983), 341; idem, Ezekiel 21–37. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 22A (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 737 (see 735–38); Paul M. Joyce, Divine Initiative and Human Response in Ezekiel, JSOTSup 51 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1989), 57, 126, 128; Baruch J. Schwartz, “Repentance and Determinism in Ezekiel,” in Proceedings of the Eleventh World Congress of Jewish Studies: The Bible and its World (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1994), 123–30; Jacqueline E. Lapsley, Can These Bones Live? The Problem of the Moral Self in the Book of Ezekiel, BZAW 301 (New York: de Gruyter, 2000), 106, 120, 159.

Who Takes the Initiative?

421

have produced a rich harvest of studies on these topics.6 In some respects, then, we have a context in which to situate the earliest Jewish and Christian readers of the book of Ezekiel. 3.1 1QHodayot, the Gospel of John, and the Epistle to Titus There are a number of Second Temple Period Jewish texts and early Christian texts that use the book of Ezekiel to support a model of anthropological pessimism and to argue for the necessity of divine initiative in spiritual transformation. For example, the prayers of the Hodayot scroll draw on the Ezekielian metaphor of the “heart of stone” to depict the human condition (1QHa 21.11–13; cf. Ezek 11.19; 36.26). They also borrow from the book of Ezekiel the solution to this problem – the hope that God will “put his spirit” in humans to “cleanse” them and enable them to “know” (1QHa 5.22–25; 8.20–21; 20.11–13; 21 frg. 3.14; cf. Ezek 36.25, 27; 37.14).7 Likewise, the Gospel of John depicts Jesus as arguing that one must be “born from above” (γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν, John 3.3) in order to enter the kingdom of God – an image that obviously prioritizes divine agency.8 The 6 See Eugene H. Merrill, Qumran and Predestination: A Theological Study of the Thanksgiving Hymns, STDJ 8 (Leiden: Brill, 1975); Jean Duhaime, “Determinism,” EDSS 1:194–98; Magen Broshi, “Predestination in the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2006), 2:235–46; David Lambert, “Did Israel Believe That Redemption Awaited Its Repentance? The Case of Jubilees 1,” CBQ 68 (2006): 631–50; Russell C. D. Arnold, “Repentance and the Qumran Covenant Ceremony,” in Seeking the Favor of God. Volume 2: The Development of Penitential Prayer in Second Temple Judaism, ed. Mark J. Boda, Daniel K. Falk, and Rodney A. Werline (Atlanta: SBL, 2007), 159–75; John M. G. Barclay and Simon J. Gathercole, eds., Divine and Human Agency in Paul and his Cultural Environment, LNTS 335 (New York: T&T Clark, 2008); Jonathan Klawans, “Josephus on Fate, Free Will, and Ancient Jewish Types of Compatibilism,” Numen 56 (2009): 44–90; idem, “The Dead Sea Scrolls, the Essenes, and the Study of Religious Belief: Determinism and Freedom of Choice,” in Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls: An Assessment of Old and New Approaches and Methods, ed. Maxine L. Grossman (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 264–83; David Lambert, “Was the Dead Sea Sect a Penitential Movement?” in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. John J. Collins and Timothy H. Lim (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 501–13; Jason Maston, Divine and Human Agency in Second Temple Judaism and Paul, WUNT 2/297 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010); Miriam Brand, Evil Within and Without: The Source of Sin and Its Nature Portrayed in Second Temple Literature, JAJSup 9 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013); David S. Morlan, Conversion in Luke and Paul: An Exegetical and Theological Exploration, LNTS 464 (New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013); Preston M. Sprinkle, Paul and Judaism Revisited: A Study of Divine and Human Agency in Salvation (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013); Kyle Wells, Grace and Agency in Paul and Second Temple Judaism: Interpreting the Transformation of the Heart, NTSup 157 (New York: Brill, 2014); Mark A. Jason, Repentance at Qumran: The Penitential Framework of Religious Experience in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015). 7 See Maston, Divine and Human Agency, 75–123 (esp. 106–7); Sprinkle, Paul and Judaism Revisited, 111–15; Manning, Echoes of a Prophet, 48–51. 8 See also John 6.37, 44, 65; 17.2. Note that while the Gospel of John argues that a human response is necessary (John 1.12; 3.16; 8.24), it does not – unlike the Synoptic Gospels – use the term “repent” (μετανοέω) or its cognates to describe this response.

422

Michael A. Lyons

meaning of this statement is clarified in the following verses: “one must be born of water and the Spirit” (John 3.5).9 The Epistle to Titus makes a similar argument – that God “saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we have done, but according to his mercy, through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3.4–5). The imagery in these New Testament texts can be traced back to Ezekielian language of God cleansing uncleanness with clean water (Ezek 36.25), giving a new heart and new spirit (Ezek 36.26), and placing his spirit within people (Ezek 36.27) – not for their sake or because of anything that they have done, but for “the sake of his holy name” (Ezek 36.22, 32). All three of these texts, then, use Ezekiel to place emphasis on divine initiative rather than on human initiative. 3.2 4Q504 “Words of the Luminaries” While the outlooks attested in the texts cited above have been influenced by the book of Ezekiel, none of them display an explicit awareness of a possible tension in their source text. There is, however, a text that may display such an awareness – 4Q504, a second-century BCE liturgical composition entitled “Words of the Luminaries.”10 This composition contains prayers for each day of the week, culminating with a hymn of praise for the Sabbath day. In a 2007 essay, Esther Chazon identified certain features of penitential prayer in this text, though she also noted that it modifies traditional genre elements for new purposes.11 One innovation Chazon noted was “the liturgical reuse of Levitical and Deuteronomic covenant passages (Lev 26; Deut 28–30) commonly found in penitential prayer.”12 As an example, she pointed to a passage that draws on Lev 26.40–41 and seems to emphasize human agency (4Q504 19.5–7 frg. 1+2 vi recto): And now, on this day, with humble heart we seek atonement for our iniquities and the iniquities of our fathers, for our rebellion and continued hostility to You.13 Manning, Echoes of a Prophet, 186–89. Maurice Baillet, Qumrân grotte 4.III (4Q482–4Q520), DJD 7 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1982) 137–68; Esther G. Chazon, “4QDibHam: Liturgy or Literature?” RQ 15 (1992): 447–55; idem, “Scripture and Prayer in ‘The Words of the Luminaries,’” in Prayers that Cite Scripture, ed. James L. Kugel (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2006), 25–41; idem; “Words of the Luminaries”: A Liturgical Document from Qumran and Its Implications, STDJ (Leiden: Brill, forthcoming); Daniel K. Falk, Daily, Sabbath, and Festival Prayers in the Dead Sea Scrolls, STDJ 27 (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 59–94. 11 See Esther Chazon, “The Words of the Luminaries and Penitential Prayer in Second Temple Times,” in Seeking the Favor of God. Volume 2: The Development of Penitential Prayer in Second Temple Judaism, ed. Mark J. Boda, Daniel K. Falk, and Rodney A. Werline (Atlanta: SBL, 2007), 177–86. 12 Ibid., 182. 13 With one exception noted below, the reconstructions and translations of 4Q504 used here are taken from Donald W. Parry and Emanuel Tov, eds., Poetic and Liturgical Texts, DSSR 5 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 241–60. This edition contains Chazon’s improvements to the editio princeps.   9 See 10 See

Who Takes the Initiative?

423

There is, however, a feature in this composition that Chazon does not mention  – namely, the fact that repentance language is typically subordinated to arguments about divine initiative. Note for example the passage immediately preceding (4Q504 19.3–5, frgs. 1+2 vi recto): [You have hurl]ed all ou[r] transgressions fro[m] us, and pu[ri]fied us from our sins for Your own sake. Justice is Yours alone, O Lord, ‘for it is You who has done all these things.’ The first statement (“You have hurled all our transgressions from us”) is an allusion to Ezek 18.31, “Hurl from yourselves all your transgressions” – but the author of the prayer has modified the verb in the source text, transforming Ezekiel’s command directed at the people into a statement that God himself has removed the people’s sins. This argument about divine agency in 4Q504 is reinforced by another allusion in the following sentence (“for it is You who has done all these things”), a statement which is taken from Jer 14.22. What was the motivation for these textual allusions and modifications? It seems likely that the author of the prayer was influenced by the pessimistic perspective on human initiative found elsewhere in the book of Ezekiel, and by the book’s argument that restoration is the result of God’s action alone. For example: the author’s statement in lines 3–4 that God has “purified [‫ ]טהר‬us from our sins” is reminiscent of Ezek 37.23, where it speaks of the need for God to “purify” [‫ ]טהר‬the people because of the “sins” by which they have become unclean. The author’s confession in line 4 that God has done this “for Your own sake” is reminiscent of Ezek 36.22, 32, where God informs Israel that he is not transforming them “for your [= Israel’s] sake,” but rather “for the sake of My holy name.”14 The author of “Words of the Luminaries,” then, is changing one of the three statements about repentance in the book of Ezekiel to conform to the statements about divine initiative expressed elsewhere in this book. The composition’s focus on divine initiative is expressed in a similar way through its transformation of Deut 30.1–2 (“[when] you bring it back to your heart … and return to Yhwh your God and obey his voice”). In 4Q504 18.12–16 frgs. 1+2 v recto, the author modifies this scriptural source text by attributing the transformational activity to God, claiming that God was gracious to his people by “bringing it back into their heart to return to You and obey Your voice.” According to lines 16–18 (built from locutions taken from Isa 44.3 + 26.16), this was accomplished by the outpouring of God’s spirit – a divine initiative that precedes and enables human response.15 Two other passages also place special emphasis on divine initiative: 4Q504 5.11 frg. 4, which entreats God to “circumcise the 14 See

also the allusion to Ezek 36.23 in 4Q504 17.10–11 frgs. 1+2 iv recto. Brand, Evil Within and Without, 49–51; Wells, Grace and Agency, 98–101; Rob Kugler, “A Note on Lev 26.41, 43; 4Q434 1 II 3 and 4Q504 1–2 recto 5–6; and 1QS 8.3 (par. 4Q259 2.12): On Human Agency in the Divine Economy at Qumran,” in Prayer and Poetry in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature: Essays in Honor of Eileen Schuller on the Occasion of Her 65th Birthday, STDJ 98, ed. J. S. Penner, K. Penner, and C. Wassen (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 245–50. 15 See

424

Michael A. Lyons

foreskin of[ our heart]” (following Deut 30.6 rather than Deut 10.16), and 4Q504 15.14 frg. 1+2 ii recto, which states that God acts “t[o make] us [ret]urn with the whole heart and the whole soul and to plant Your Torah in our heart.”16 To sum up: 4Q504 admits the necessity of human repentance, but argues that God takes the initiative in the process – going so far as to re-word its scriptural source text in order to make its argument.

4. Evidence from Jewish and Christian Writings in Late Antiquity The Jewish sages of Late Antiquity held diverse opinions on the relationship between divine and human agency.17 If there is a trend amidst this diversity, it seems to be an increasing interest in the nature of repentance, its efficaciousness, its limitations, and its relation to the workings of divine justice.18 Moreover, there is evidence that the sages of the Tannaitic and Amoraic periods were aware of diversity in Scripture regarding the question of agency. For example, Lam. Rab. 5.21–22 depicts God as arguing (quoting Mal 3.7) that Israel must take the initiative to repent, while Israel is depicted as responding with the argument (quoting Ps 85.5) that God must take the initiative to turn Israel back to him – thereby explaining Lam 5.21, “Turn us to you, O Lord, and we shall be turned.” But to what extent did the book of Ezekiel figure into the sages’ perception of diversity in Scripture? We can see a clear example in the composition known as Sifra, a rabbinic commentary on the book of Leviticus.19 16 For 4Q504 15.14, I follow the reconstruction of James R. Davila, Liturgical Works, ECDSS (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 255. 17 See Ephraim Urbach, The Sages, trans. Israel Abrahams (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1979), 255–85; Abraham Joshua Heschel, Heavenly Torah: As Refracted Through the Generations, ed. and trans. Gordon Tucker and Leonard Levin (New York: Continuum, 2005), 216–19. Regarding the well-known dictum in m. Avot 3:15 (“all is seen, yet freedom of choice is granted”), see Urbach, The Sages, 257–60; Urbach argues that the original function of this statement was to encourage human moral action in light of divine observation. Only later did it come to be understood as a way to simultaneously affirm both human agency and divine foreknowledge. 18 See Solomon Schechter, Aspects of Rabbinic Theology (New York: Macmillan, 1909; repr., New York: Schocken, 1961), 313–43; Urbach, The Sages, 462–71; Heschel, Heavenly Torah, 179–84; Steven T. Katz, “Man, Sin, and Redemption in Rabbinic Judaism,” in The Cambridge History of Judaism. Volume 4: The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period, ed. Steven T. Katz (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 925–45 (esp. 938–43). 19 On the composition, date, and features of Sifra, see H. L. Strack and Günter Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, trans. and ed. M. Bockmuehl (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 259–65; Menahem I. Kahana, “The Halakhic Midrashim,” in Literature of the Sages. Second Part: Midrash and Targum, Liturgy, Poetry, Mysticism, Contracts, Inscriptions, Ancient Science and the Languages of Rabbinic Literature, CRINT, ed. Shmuel Safrai et al. (Assen: Van Gorcum; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006), 78–87; Azzan Yadin-Israel, Scripture and Tradition: Rabbi Akiva and the Triumph of Midrash (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014).

Who Takes the Initiative?

425

4.1 Sifra The relevant material in Sifra can be found in its comments on Leviticus 26, a text which contains traditional ancient Israelite covenant language: Lev 26.3–13 list blessings for obedience, and vv. 14–39 list punishments for disobedience. These punishments are framed as remedial and pedagogical in nature, and – anticipating the people’s persistent rebellion – they escalate in intensity and culminate in deportation and death or scattering. The following verses, however, contain a surprising reversal: restoration is possible if the people “confess,” or if “their uncircumcised heart is humbled,” and “they make amends for their iniquity” (vv. 40–41). According to Leviticus 26, then, the power to change is clearly within the realm of human possibility. If the people take the initiative, God will respond by “remembering the covenant” (v. 42). The composer of Sifra recognizes that Lev 26.40–42 promotes human initiative in the restoration process, and uses this text to define the nature of repentance, arguing that it can be understood either as an act of confession or as a response of humility:20 On the one hand, this is how things are with respect to repentance: as soon as they confess their iniquities, immediately I retract and have mercy on them, as it is said, “But if they confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers in their treachery which they committed against me [Lev 26.40]” . . . . On the other hand, this is how things are with respect to repentance: as soon as they humble their heart in repentance, immediately I retract and have mercy on them, as it is said, “if then their uncircumcised heart is humbled and they then make amends for their iniquity [Lev 26.41].”

What is remarkable is that in the middle of this discussion of repentance and human initiative, the composer of Sifra has inserted a passage from the book of Ezekiel that reflects a very different outlook: “and I brought them into the land of their enemies” [Lev 26.41]: This is a “good measure” for Israel, because Israel should not say, “Because we have gone into exile among the land of the Gentiles, let us act like them.” I will not let them, but I will appoint prophets against them, who will bring them back to the right way under my wings. From where [do we know this]? “And that which you are thinking about will not happen – what you are saying, “Let us be like the nations, like the tribes of the lands . . .” But “as I live, says the Lord Yhwh, surely with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, and with outpoured wrath, I will be king over you [Ezek 20.32–33].” Against your will, against your inclination, I will establish my dominion over you.

What was the motivation for inserting the passage from Ezekiel? While it may initially seem that the composer of Sifra was simply juxtaposing two contrasting outlooks on initiative from Leviticus and Ezekiel, I believe something different is going on here. First, I think it likely that the composer recognized the existing lit20 Sifra BeḤuqqotai, pereq 8. For the text of Sifra, see I. H. Weiss, ed., Sifra (Vienna: Schlossberg, 1862).

426

Michael A. Lyons

erary relationship between the books of Ezekiel and Leviticus.21 Second, I would argue that the composer of Sifra is reading Leviticus 26 in conjunction with the representation of Israel’s history as depicted in the book of Ezekiel. Repentance is possible, and was proclaimed as such (Lev 26.40–41), but it was rejected by Ezekiel’s contemporaries. Nevertheless, God’s purpose for the restoration of Israel was not frustrated; according to Ezek 20.32–33, he would restore his people even against their will. The composer of Sifra summarizes Ezekiel’s depiction of divine agency with the comment it places in God’s mouth: “Against your will, against your inclination, I will establish my dominion over you.” One way or another, Israel would be restored. Third, it seems likely that Sifra is presenting both Leviticus 26 and Ezekiel 20 as paradigmatic for the present. The composer of Sifra, then, does not see statements about human and divine agency in Leviticus and Ezekiel as conflicting alternatives, and does not read either statement about agency as if it superseded the other.22 Rather, he sees them as equally valid though temporally sequential possibilities. He does not argue that human initiative is impossible, merely that the failure to repent after the invitation to do so will not jeopardize God’s purpose. 4.2 Targum Jonathan on Ezekiel If the argument strategy in Sifra is made possible through a juxtaposition of texts, the Targum on Ezekiel takes a more intrusive approach – at least, in one passage.23 In the verses preceding the call to repent at Ezek 14.6, we see the sce21 It has long been recognized that Ezekiel and Leviticus 17–26 (the “Holiness Code”) share a remarkable number of locutions, and that their quantity and quality indicate a literary relationship. There is, however, no consensus on the direction of literary dependence; see e. g., S. R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, 6th ed. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1897), 145–52; Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, Hermeneia, trans. Ronald E. Clements (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 46–52; Klaus Grünwaldt, Das Heiligkeitsgesetz Leviticus 17–26: Ursprüngliche Gestalt, Tradition und Theologie, BZAW 271 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999), 349–51, 365–66; Christophe Nihan, From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch. A Study in the Composition of the Book of Leviticus, FAT 2/25 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 543–45; Michael A. Lyons, From Law to Prophecy: Ezekiel’s Use of the Holiness Code, LHBOTS 507 (New York: T&T Clark, 2009), 61–67, 124–27. Whatever the direction of literary dependence may be, it seems likely that one text is reacting to and offering an alternative outlook to the other; see Lyons, Law to Prophecy, 85–88 (though now I think it just as plausible that Lev 26.40–45 is reacting to Ezekiel). 22 See e. g., b. Makkot 24a, where a statement from Ezek 18.20 (arguing against intergenerational retribution) is understood as superseding an earlier principle articulated in Exod 20.5. 23 The Targum on Ezekiel preserves interpretive and theological traditions ranging from the 1st–5th centuries CE. On the dating of this Targum, see Samson H. Levey, “The Targum to Ezekiel,” HUCA 46 (1975): 139–58 (esp. 143); Paul V. M. Flesher and Bruce Chilton, The Targums: A Critical Introduction, SAIS 12 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 213–19 (esp. 217). For the text of Targum Jonathan to Ezekiel, see Alexander Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic. Volume 3: The Latter Prophets According to Targum Jonathan (Leiden: Brill, 1962); for an English translation, see Samson H. Levey, The Targum of Ezekiel, The Aramaic Bible 13 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1987).

Who Takes the Initiative?

427

nario of one who consults a prophet while simultaneously maintaining devotion to other deities. In the Hebrew text of Ezek 14.4, Ezekiel argues that God will “answer accordingly” (cf. vv. 7–8), with the goal of “taking hold of the hearts of the house of Israel” (v. 5). The Targum renders v. 5 rather differently: “in order to bring the house of Israel near, to put repentance in their hearts.” This interpolation seems to affirm the need for repentance while arguing that God takes the initiative to enable humans to repent. It should be noted, however, that this is the only passage which contains such an intrusion; the Targum does not pursue a similar strategy at Ezek 18.31 or 33.11. Moreover, the interpolation must be understood in light of a larger argument structure about restoration: first, the Targum consistently interprets the phrase “new heart” as “reverent heart” (Tg Ezek 11.19; 18.31; 36.26), and understands the command to “repent” as a command to “return to the worship of God” (Tg Ezek 14.6; 18.31; cf. 23.43). This seems to indicate that the Targum’s understanding of restoration lies in the realm of praxis, not ontology. Second, the Targum has in other places inserted repentance language into its translation in order to make two arguments: that the inhabitants of Jerusalem and their ancestors did not repent and were punished accordingly (e. g., Tg Ezek 7.13; 16.23, 27–28, 43; 21.18; 23.43; 24.6–7), and that God returned Ezekiel’s fellow exiles to the land of Israel because they did repent (Tg Ezek 39.28). 4.3 Augustine Christian positions on agency and initiative in Late Antiquity were just as diverse as Jewish positions.24 For example, Augustine (354–430) gave a rigorous defense for the priority of divine initiative and wrote numerous treatises exploring the relationship between human nature, human will, and divine agency. His position can be summed up in a well-known quote from his Confessions: “Give what you command, and command what you will.”25 In his treatise On Grace and Free Choice, Augustine asks: “If faith is due solely to free choice and is not given by God, why do we pray for those who are unwilling to believe that they might believe?”26 His answer is that “the Almighty God is able to turn to belief even perverse wills hostile to the faith.” To support this 24 With the exception of the interpreters discussed above, Lapsley (Can These Bones Live?, 17) correctly notes that “The problem we are addressing does not appear to have concerned the early Christian interpreters to any discernable degree. … the most obvious tension (between 18.31 and 11.19/36.26) went largely unremarked.” For an overview of patristic exegesis and a list of extant commentaries on the book of Ezekiel, see Charles Kannengiesser, Handbook of Patristic Exegesis. The Bible in Ancient Christianity (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 1:318–20. 25 “Da quod jubes, et jube quod vis”; see Augustine, Confessionum X, 29.40 in Sancti Aurelii Augustini Opera Omnia, PL 32, ed. J.-P. Migne (Paris: 1841), 796. See also De spiritu et littera 13.22 in Sancti Aurelii Augustini Opera Omnia, PL 44, ed. J.-P. Migne (Paris: 1865), 216: “Ac per hoc lege operum dicit Deus, Fac quod jubeo: lege fidei dicitur Deo, Da quod jubes.” 26 Augustine, De gratia et libero arbitrio 14.29–30, in Sancti Aurelii Augustini Opera Omnia, PL 44, ed. J.-P. Migne (Paris: 1865), 881–912; translation from “On Grace and Free Choice,” in

428

Michael A. Lyons

argument, he begins with Ezekiel’s “heart of stone” image (Ezek 11.19), which he explains as “signif[ying] precisely a will that is inflexible and completely hardened against God.” Noting that according to this passage, God will remove the “heart of stone” and give the people a “heart of flesh,” Augustine concludes: “how can we say without complete absurdity that the good deserts of a good will came first in a human being, so that this heart of stone might be taken away?” It is God, then, who must take the initiative in human restoration. Augustine notes that this divine initiative is also spelled out in Ezekiel 36, where God saves Israel not because of anything they do, but “for the sake of his holy name.”27 Yet Augustine believes that human will is a necessary component in the process of spiritual transformation, because Scripture depicts God appealing to humans to respond to him.28 Here he quotes Ezek 18.31–32, where Ezekiel issues the appeal to “make for yourselves a new heart and a new spirit … repent, and live.” At this point Augustine explicitly juxtaposes the conflicting passages in Ezekiel and attempts a resolution:29 Let us keep in mind that He Who says here “Make for yourselves a new heart and a new spirit” also says: “A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you” [Ezek 36.26]. How then does He Who says “Make yourselves” also say “I will give you”? Why does He bid it, if He is going to give it? Why does He give it, if a man is going to do it? The reason must be that He gives what He bids when he helps the one He bids to do it.

According to Augustine, then, God can issue commands for humans to act because he takes the initiative to enable human will. He concludes:30 It is certain that we act, when we act. But God brings it about that we act by furnishing our will with efficacious strength. He said: “I shall bring it about that you walk in my justifications, and you shall keep my judgments and carry them out” [Ezek 36.27]. When He says “I shall bring it about that . . . you shall . . . carry them out,” what else is He saying but: “I will take away from you the heart of stone” due to which you were not carrying them out, “and I will give you a heart of flesh” due to which you shall carry them out [Ezek 36.26]? And what is this but: I will take away your hard heart (due to which you were not carrying them out), and I will give you an obedient heart (due to which you shall carry them out)? God brings it about that we act.

Augustine. On the Free Choice of the Will, On Grace and Free Choice, and Other Writings, trans. and ed. Peter King (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 141–84 (here 164–65). 27 See also Augustine, Contra duas epistulas Pelagianorum 4.14–15, in Sancti Aureli Augustini Opera, CSEL 60, ed. Carol Urbas and Joseph Zycha (Vienna: F. Temsky, 1913), 534–38. 28 For a very clear statement on the necessity of human will (enabled, of course, by God), see Augustine’s Sermon 348A in François Dolbeau, “Le sermon 348A de saint Augustin contre Pélage: Édition du texte intégral,” Recherches Augustiniennes 28 (1995): 37–63; translation in Augustine, Sermons 341–400, The Works of Saint Augustine III/10, trans. Edmund Hill (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 1995), 96–100. 29 Augustine, De gratia 15.31–16.32 (“On Grace and Free Choice,” 166–67). 30 Augustine, De gratia 16 (“On Grace and Free Choice,” 168).

Who Takes the Initiative?

429

What motivated this reading of Ezekiel? While it is certainly the case that much of what Augustine argued about divine grace and human will reflects his controversy with Pelagius, it would be a mistake to say that his position was formed solely by this controversy.31According to Augustine’s own explanation, he arrived at the position that God gives what he requires after reading 1 Cor 4.7 (“for what do you have that you did not receive?”).32 But it also seems to be the case that Augustine’s starting point is an anthropological pessimism that is informed by – if not derived from – the “heart of stone” imagery in the book of Ezekiel itself. 4.4 John Cassian Augustine’s contemporary John Cassian (360–435) would take a different approach. Instead of prioritizing divine initiative and interpreting all human activity as God’s gift, Cassian (if we understand the words of “Abbot Chaeremon” as representing his position) seemed to allow for both divine response to human initiative and human response to divine initiative – though he admitted uncertainty as to how both could be true:33 Whence human reason cannot easily decide how the Lord gives to those that ask, is found by those that seek, and opens to those that knock [Matt 7.8], and on the other hand is found by those that sought Him not, appears openly among those who asked not for Him, and all the day long stretches forth His hands to an unbelieving and gainsaying people [Isa 65.1–2], calls those who resist and stand afar off, draws men against their will to salvation, takes away from those who want to sin the faculty of carrying out their desire, in His goodness stands in the way of those who are rushing into wickedness.

In some cases, Cassian believed that humans could take the initiative to reach out to God: “And when He sees in us some beginnings of a good will, He at once enlightens it and strengthens it and urges it on towards salvation, increasing that which He Himself implanted or which He sees to have arisen from our own efforts.”34 Cassian’s desire to recognize the possibility of both human and divine 31  On this matter, see Anthony Dupont, Gratia in Augustine’s Sermones ad Populum during the Pelagian Controversy: Do Different Contexts Furnish Different Insights?, BSCH 59 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), esp. 615–41; idem, Preacher of Grace: A Critical Reappraisal of Augustine’s Doctrine of Grace in his Sermones ad Populum on Liturgical Feasts and During the Donatist Controversy, SHCT 177 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 199–203. 32 See Augustine, De praedestinatione sanctorum 3.7, in Sancti Aurelii Augustini Opera Omnia, PL 44, ed. J. P. Migne (Paris: 1865), 964. 33 John Cassian, Conference 13.9 (De protectione Dei), in Joannis Cassiani Opera Omnia, PL 49, ed. J.-P. Migne (Paris: 1846), 914–15. The translations above are from The Conferences of John Cassian, NPNF 11, Series 2, trans. Edgar C. S. Gibson (Oxford: James Parker and Co., 1894), 422–35. 34 Cassian, Conference 13.8. The crucial question is how to interpret “some beginnings of a good will” (ortum quemdam bene voluntatis); the following clauses indicate that Cassian believed this could come either from God’s initiative (quam vel ipse plantavit) or from one’s own efforts (vel nostro conatu viderit emersisse).

430

Michael A. Lyons

initiative (and the complex interplay between human and divine action) seems to have arisen from his belief that Scripture itself embodied diverse perspectives on this matter. To support his position, he cited passages that contain appeals for human action (e. g., Isa 1.19; Rom 2.6; Jas 4.8; Prov 4.26) side-by-side with passages that depict divine initiative (e. g., Rom 9.16; Phil 2.13; Eph 2.8–9; John 6.44; Ps 5.9; 16.5 lxx). It is in this context that he quotes Ezekiel, and understands it as reflecting two different perspectives on initiative:35 What is it again that we are admonished: “Make you a new heart and a new spirit,” [Ezek 18.31] and what is this which is promised to us: “I will give them one heart and will put a new spirit within them” and “I will take away the stony heart from their flesh and will give them an heart of flesh that they may walk in Thy statutes and keep My judgments?” [Ezek 11.19–20] What is it that the Lord commands, . . . unless in all these there is a declaration of the grace of God and the freedom of our will, because even of his own motion a man can be led to the quest of virtue, but always stands in need of the help of the Lord?

Unlike Augustine, who argued for the necessity of human free will and explained the origin of this free will as the product of divine initiative, Cassian depicted God as working in diverse ways according to the orientation of individual humans:36 [God] assists some who are already willing and running, while He draws others who are unwilling and resisting, and forces them to a good will. But that, when we do not always resist or remain persistently unwilling, everything is granted to us by God, and that the main share in our salvation is to be ascribed not to the merit of our own works but to heavenly grace, we are thus taught by the words of the Lord Himself: “And you shall remember your ways and all your wicked doings with which you have been defiled; and you shall be displeased with yourselves in your own sight for all your wicked deeds which you have committed. And you shall know that I am the Lord, when I shall have done well by you for My own name’s sake, not according to your evil ways, nor according to your wicked deeds, O house of Israel [Ezek 20.43–44].”

He concludes: “how God works all things in us and yet everything can be ascribed to free will, cannot be fully grasped by the mind and reason of man.”37 It is important to note, though, that there is a boundary that Cassian is unwilling to cross:38 But let no one imagine that we have brought forward these instances to try to make out that the chief share in our salvation rests with our faith, according to the profane notion of some who attribute everything to free will and lay down that the grace of God is dispensed in accordance with the desert of each man: but we plainly assert our unconditional opinion that the grace of God is superabounding, and sometimes overflows the narrow limits of man’s lack of faith. Conference 13.9. Conference 13.18. 37 Cassian, Conference 13.18. 38 Cassian, Conference 13.16. 35 Cassian, 36 Cassian,

Who Takes the Initiative?

431

4.5 Theodoret of Cyrus Theodoret of Cyrus (c. 393–c. 460) would take yet another position on the question of initiative. In his commentary on Ezekiel, he clearly articulates two of his presuppositions regarding human spiritual transformation. First, God does not override human will, but cooperates with it.39 This is apparent in his repeated assertions that human free will (αὐτεξούσιος) is not removed or undermined when God acts. Second, God does not change human nature – at least not in the sense that Augustine claimed. Nevertheless, divine grace is essential for moral transformation. Note how Theodoret reads Ezek 11.19; 36.26–27 in light of these two presuppositions:40 I shall give them a different heart, and give them a new spirit (v. 19).41 Now, in this he indicated not a removal of independence [αὐτεξουσίου], but future support from him and assistance in the performance of good deeds, by new spirit referring to the drive towards the finer things of the soul. You see, since they had rushed headlong in the opposite direction, he used the term new spirit of the change for the better: just as by saying a different heart he indicated not a change in nature but a movement in attitude for the better, so too by a new spirit he suggested this same thing. And I shall give you a new heart, and I shall give you a new spirit (v. 26). In this he signaled the change in outlook: our heart will be inclined to the better, no longer having an inclination to worse things as was its former habit. Now the expression I shall give in no way undermines independence [αὐτεξουσίῳ]: by use of words and deeds and miracles beyond number he persuaded not only them but as well all the nations to make their way to the true religion, but did not oblige them; yet by persuasion and not force he in his own words says he gave souls an inclination to the better as the one responsible for it through what he said and what he did. I shall ensure that you walk in my ordinances, keep my judgements and carry them out [v. 27]. This is an effect of the Spirit’s grace: it cooperates with our independence [αὐτεξουσίῳ] to cause us to perform what has been said.

It is clear that Theodoret is reacting to Ezekiel’s language of divine agency and rejecting any explanation that would rule out human initiative. This is particularly apparent in his comment on Ezek 36.27, where Theodoret interprets the very forceful statement “I will make you walk in my ordinances” in terms of divine cooperation with human initiative. This interpretation is consistent with what we 39 Robert Hill remarks: “Always on the alert to clarify and nuance, Theodoret sees even the Lord respecting human free will, a vital principle for an Antiochene.  … An Antiochene will speak of God cooperating with us, not vice versa as a rule.” See Hill, Commentary on the Prophet Ezekiel. Theodoret of Cyrus: Commentaries on the Prophets, vol. 2, trans. Robert Charles Hill (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross, 2006), 328 n. 8, 11. 40 Theodoret, Interpretatio in Ezechielem, in Theodoret Cyrensis Episcopi Opera Omnia, PG 81, ed. J.-P. Migne (Paris: 1864), 899–92, 1183–84; the translations above are from Hill, Theodoret of Cyrus, 81, 242–43. 41 Note that Theodoret is quoting the Septuagint of Ezekiel, which presumes a Hebrew Vorlage reading ‫אחר‬ ‫“ לב‬different heart” rather than the Masoretic Hebrew text’s ‫אחד‬ ‫“ לב‬one heart.”

432

Michael A. Lyons

see in Theodoret’s other writings, and points to a preexisting theological model that he brings to the text.42 For Augustine, the book of Ezekiel demonstrates that God restores and enables a completely damaged human will; for Cassian, the book of Ezekiel demonstrates that some humans freely move to God while others are forcibly moved by God; and for Theodoret, Ezekiel’s statements about God’s agency are interpreted to mean that God acts without compromising human freedom. What is significant for this essay is not simply the fact that Augustine, Cassian, and Theodoret take different positions on the relationship between divine grace and human freedom.43 Rather, it is that they employ different reading strategies with respect to the book of Ezekiel: while Augustine takes Ezekiel’s anthropological pessimism as a starting point, Cassian and Theodoret do not.

5. Conclusion What can we conclude about how pre-critical readers perceived and responded to conflicting statements about human and divine agency in the book of Ezekiel (or in Ezekiel and other books of Scripture)? First, some readers gave priority to Ezekielian passages that speak of divine agency (Ezek 11.19–20; 36.26–27) over passages that speak of human agency (Ezek 14.6; 18.30–32; 33.11). Of these, the authors of 1QH, the Gospel of John, and the Epistle to Titus simply avoided the language of Ezek 18.31 while exclusively employing the language of Ezek 36.25–27. The author of 4Q504 rewrote Ezek 18.31 (“cast away from yourselves all your transgressions”) to claim that God himself had “cast all our transgressions away from us,” and drew on language about divine agency from Ezek 36.22; 37.23. Both the Targum to Ezek 14.5–6 and Augustine explained repentance as enabled by God – the Targum by an interpolated statement, and Augustine by a complex description of how fallen human will could respond to God only after 42  For an analysis of Theodoret’s emphasis on human free will, see Paul Crego, “A Translation and Commentary on Theodoret of Cyrus’ Graecarum Affectionum Curatio Book Five: On Human Nature” (PhD diss., Boston College, 1993), 89, 115–37, 148–57. For an emphasis on human free will as characteristic of Antiochene theology, see Rowan A. Greer, The Captain of Our Salvation: A Study in the Patristic Exegesis of Hebrews (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1973), 269–72; J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 5th ed. (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1978), 372–74; George Kalantzis, “‘The Voice so Dear to Me’: Themes From Romans in Theodore, Chrysostom, and Theodoret,” in Greek Patristic and Eastern Orthodox Interpretations of Romans, RHCS 9, ed. Daniel M. Patte and Vasile Mihoc (New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013), 83–104. 43 For analyses of the differences between the positions of Augustine and Cassian, see Owen Chadwick, John Cassian: A Study in Primitive Monasticism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1950), 109–38; Rebecca Harden Weaver, Divine Grace and Human Agency: A Study of the Semi-Pelagian Controversy (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1996), 1–116; Michael Hanby, Augustine and Modernity (London: Routledge, 2003), 117–33; A. M. C. Casiday, Tradition and Theology in St John Cassian (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 66–69, 72–118.

Who Takes the Initiative?

433

an act of divine grace. Augustine explicitly juxtaposed Ezek 18.31 with Ezek 36.26 and argued that God provides in the latter passage what he required in the former passage. Second, readers such as John Cassian admitted that Scripture contains language of both divine agency and human agency, and situated Ezek 18.31 and 36.26 in this broader context. Cassian then suggested that Ezekiel’s diverse statements about agency corresponded to diversity in the human spiritual condition. While some humans possessed “some beginnings of a good will” and would respond to divine exhortation, those who were unwilling would require a more direct divine intervention. Third, the author of Sifra explicitly juxtaposed Ezekielian language about divine agency next to language from Leviticus describing human agency, arguing that if Israel failed to respond to an exhortation to repent, God would nevertheless restore the people even against their will. In this reading, human and divine initiative are not understood as inherently conflicting alternatives, but as temporally sequential possibilities: when humans do not respond, God will act. Fourth, readers such as Theodoret reacted to Ezekiel’s language of divine agency, redefining it in terms of cooperation with human effort and insisting that human free will was not being undermined when God assisted humans in moral improvement. Several factors played a role in the formation of the interpretations summarized above. First, the choice of one’s starting point: e. g., Augustine begins his interpretation with Ezekiel’s anthropological pessimism as a given, whereas Theodoret does not. Second, the interpretation of the Ezekielian metaphor “heart of stone”: did this metaphor apply to all humans (so Augustine), or merely to some who stubbornly refused to repent (so Cassian)? And did this metaphor indicate a complete inability to respond to God (so Augustine), or simply a refusal to obey (so Theodoret)?44 Third, the role of the broader context of Scripture in interpretation: for Augustine, a single verse (1 Cor 4.7) yielded a perspective that resolved tension in Ezekiel. For Cassian, the conflicting passages in Ezekiel constituted only one instance of a much larger set of conflicting passages in Scripture. For the composer of Sifra, the events depicted in the biblical storyline suggested that if humans did not respond to the invitation to repent (Lev 26.40–41), God would act against their will (Ezek 20.33) to restore them. Fourth, the presence of a preexisting communal outlook or theological model brought to the text: in the case of the Hodayot prayers, it appears that a deterministic outlook characteristic of the sectarian community in which they were composed was already in place when their author used passages from Ezekiel (though here we run into the “chicken vs. egg” problem concerning the extent to which their outlook was shaping their interpretation of Scripture and the extent to which their interpretation of Scripture was shaping their outlook). In the case of 4Q504, we cannot 44 According to Theodoret, a “heart of stone” was “disobedient, stubborn, unwilling to heed God”; see Hill, Theodoret of Cyrus, 81.

434

Michael A. Lyons

be certain whether there was a communal outlook influencing interpretation; as Esther Chazon has argued, it is impossible to definitively determine whether this text is sectarian or non-sectarian.45 For Theodoret, preexisting convictions (also attested in his other writings) about human free will affected the way he understood Ezekiel. What interpretive trends would arise in the following centuries? The Jewish notion of repentance as an expression of human agency would eventually reach a high point in Maimonides’ attempt to specify the various components of repentance (e. g., confession, a resolve to abandon sin, etc.), and in his emphasis on human freedom to act.46 A similar impulse to specify the components of repentance can be found in Western Christianity.47 But medieval commentators do not go far beyond what we have already seen. For example, the Jewish commentator Rashi (1040–1105) follows the Targum at Ezek 14.5, and interprets the call to repent in Ezek 33.11 as a response to what he reconstructs from v. 10 as the people’s belief that repentance would not be efficacious.48 Medieval Christian commentators such as Hugh of St. Cher (c. 1190–1263) and Nicholas of Lyra (c. 1270–1349) both sense tension about agency in Ezekiel, and clearly read Ezek 18.31 with Ezek 11.19; 36.26 in mind.49 It is not until the sixteenth century that we see new developments in the interpretation of Ezekiel.50 These would take the form of heated polemics about 45 See Esther G. Chazon, “Is Divrei Ha-Me’orot a Sectarian Prayer?,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research, STDJ 10, ed. Devorah Dimant and Uriel Rappaport (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 3–17. 46 Maimonides, Mishneh Torah 1.5, Hilkhot Teshuvah [“Laws of Repentance”]; on the necessity of human free will for repentance, see Hilkhot Teshuvah 5.1. For text and translation, see Mishneh Torah: The Book of Knowledge, trans. and ed. Moses Hymanson (Jerusalem: Feldheim, 1981), 81b–93a. 47 See e. g., Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae 3.84–90, where repentance is defined in terms of penance (both as sacrament and as virtue, consisting of contrition, confession, and satisfaction); see The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, vol. 3.4, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (New York: Benziger, 1917), 1–90. 48 See Rashi’s commentary on Ezekiel in Mikra’ot Gedolot “Haketer”: Ezekiel, ed. Menahem Cohen (Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University, 2000), 70, 211. 49 Hugh of St. Cher, Postilla in Ezechiel, in Hugonis Cardinalis. Opera Omnia in Universum Vetus & Novum Testamentum. Tomus V: In Libros Prophetarum. (Venice: N. Pezzana, 1703), 71: “Sed quomodo possunt sibi facere cor novum? Contrarium sup. 11.d. Dabo vobis cor novum. Solut. Sensius est: Facite aliquid quo facto detur vobis cor novum, sive mihi detis affectum quem habetis erga idola”; Nicholas of Lyra, Postilla litteralis super totam Bibliam, vol. 2 (Venice: 1488) at Ezek 18.31: “Et facite vobis cor. Talis novitas est per gratiam que a solo Deo datur: tamen homo ad hoc facit quantum per liberum arbitrium cum Dei adiutorio se ad hoc disponit, ideo subditur.” See also his comment on Ezek 36.26, where he interprets God’s gift of a new heart as the gift of “the will to act” (“Id est, voluntatis faciendi”). Andrew of St. Victor (? –1175) did not sense a tension between Ezekiel 18 and 36; see the relevant passages in his Expositionem in Ezechielem, in Andreae de Sancto Victore Opera, vol. 6, ed. Michael Alan Signer (Turnholt: Brepols, 1991). 50 Lapsley briefly mentions Calvin, Greenhill, and Hengstenberg (see Lapsley, Can These Bones Live?, 18–19), but focuses largely on how later critical commentators treated tension about initiative in Ezekiel.

Who Takes the Initiative?

435

initiative and agency in salvation, and a new emphasis on the rhetorical function of biblical language. Erasmus would interpret the fact that Ezek 18.31 was phrased as an exhortation to mean that human will was free to choose good or evil, and would understand Ezek 36.26 to imply that human effort was required along with divine grace.51 This position was strenuously opposed by early Protestant Reformers such as Martin Luther, Peter Vermigli, and John Calvin, and it is clear that they drew heavily from Augustine’s thought in formulating their response.52 These theologians would argue from Ezek 36.26 that the “new heart” required from humans in Ezek 18.31 could be bestowed only by God.53 But what is noteworthy about the way they framed this argument is their insistence that imperatives and exhortations such as found in Ezek 18.30–31; 33.11 do not presuppose human ability to carry them out. Rather, they are to be taken as rhetorical devices to demonstrate human inability.54 By this interpretive strategy, 51 Erasmus argued that God’s statement of agency in Ezek 36.26 was no different than that of a teacher who worked to produce results in a student, yet still required effort from the student. See Desiderius Erasmus, De libero arbitrio, in Desiderii Erasmi Opera Omnia, vol. 9, ed. J. Clericus (Lugduni Batavorum: Petrus Vander, 1706), 1225, 1234; in translation, see “On the Freedom of the Will,” in Luther and Erasmus: Free Will and Salvation, LCC 17, trans. and ed. E. Gordon Rupp and Philip S. Watson (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969), 35–97 (here 54–57, 72–74). Similar arguments were made by Albertus Pighius, De Libero Hominis Arbitrio & divina gratia Libri decem (Cologne: Melchior Novesianus, 1542), 87–88. 52 Augustine’s argument that God gives what he commands was repeated by Martin Luther, Der Brief an die Römer (1515/1516), in D. Martin Luthers Werke, WA 56, ed. Johannes Ficker (Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus, 1938), 256; idem, Tractatus de libertate christiana (1520) in D. Martin Luthers Werke, WA 7, 49–73 (Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus, 1897), 53; Peter Martyr Vermigli, In Epistolam S. Pauli apostoli ad Romanos commentarii doctissimi (Heidelberg: Iohannis Lancelloti, Academiae Typographi, Impensis Andreae Cambieri, 1612), 240; John Calvin, Institutes 2.5.7–8, in Institutes of the Christian Religion, LCC 20, 21, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 324–26 (note Calvin’s repeated references to Augustine in these sections). 53 See Martin Luther, De servo arbitrio, in D. Martin Luthers Werke, WA 18, ed. A. Freitag (Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus, 1908), 682–84 (in translation, see “On the Bondage of the Will,” in Luther and Erasmus, 101–334 [here 197–200]); Vermigli, Romanos commentarii, 515; John Calvin, Defensio sanae et orthodoxae doctrinae de servitute et liberatione humani arbitrii, ed. A. N. S. Lane (Geneva: Librairie Droz, 2008) 286–87; idem, Institutes 2.5.4–8; 3.24.15; idem, Commentaries on the First Twenty Chapters of the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, trans. Thomas Myers (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1850) 2:260–67. The same interpretation of Ezekiel can be seen in early Protestant confessional statements such as the Formula of Concord (1577) and the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647); see FC, Solid Declaration, Article II. Free Will, sections 25–26, in The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, trans. and ed. Theodore G. Tappert (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1959), 526; WCF 15.2–3; 16.3 in The Westminster Confession of Faith (Glasgow: Free Presbyterian Publications, 1985), 65–66, 69–70; see also later commentators in the Reformed tradition such as John Owen, ΘΕΟΜΑΧΙΑ ΑΥΤΕΞΟΥΣΙΑΣΤΙΚΗ: or, a Display of Arminianism, vol. 5 of The Works of John Owen, ed. Thomas Russell (1643; repr., London: Richard Baynes, 1826), 166–69; William Greenhill, An Exposition of the Prophet Ezekiel, with Useful Observations Thereupon (London: 1645–62; rev. and cor. James Sherman; repr., Edinburgh: James Nichol, 1864), 317, 458, 467–68. 54 See Luther, De servo arbitrio, 676–79, 686 (in translation, “On the Bondage of the Will,” 188–92, 202); Calvin, Institutes, 2.5.5: “If exhortations and reproofs profit the godly nothing

436

Michael A. Lyons

these readers would give priority to divine initiative in envisioning how spiritual transformation is effected.

Bibliography Andrew of St. Victor. Expositionem in Ezechielem. In Andreae de Sancto Victore Opera. Volume 6. Edited by Michael Alan Signer. Turnholt: Brepols, 1991. Aquinas, Thomas. The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas. Volume 3.4. Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province. New York: Benziger, 1917. Arnold, Russell C. D. “Repentance and the Qumran Covenant Ceremony.” Pages 159–75 in Seeking the Favor of God. Volume 2: The Development of Penitential Prayer in Second Temple Judaism. Edited by Mark J. Boda, Daniel K. Falk, and Rodney A. Werline. Atlanta: SBL, 2007. Augustine. Confessionum. Pages 659–868 in Sancti Aurelii Augustini Opera Omnia. Patrologia cursus completus. Series Latina 32. Edited by J.-P. Migne. Paris: 1841. –. Contra duas epistulas Pelagianorum. Pages 423–570 in Sancti Aureli Augustini Opera. Corpus Scriptorium Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 60. Edited by Carol Urbas and Joseph Zycha. Vienna: F. Temsky, 1913. –. De gratia et libero arbitrio. Pages 881–912 in Sancti Aurelii Augustini Opera Omnia. Patrologia cursus completus. Series Latina 44. Edited by J.-P. Migne. Paris: 1865. –. De praedestinatione sanctorum. Pages 959–92 in Sancti Aurelii Augustini Opera Omnia. Patrologia cursus completus. Series Latina 44. Edited by J.-P. Migne. Paris: 1865. –. De spiritu et littera. Pages 199–246 in Sancti Aurelii Augustini Opera Omnia. Patrologia cursus completus. Series Latina 44. Edited by J.-P. Migne. Paris: 1865. –. “On Grace and Free Choice.” Pages 141–84 in Augustine. On the Free Choice of the Will, On Grace and Free Choice, and Other Writings. Translated and edited by Peter King. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. –. Sermons 341–400. The Works of Saint Augustine III/10. Translated by Edmund Hill. Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 1995. Baillet, Maurice. Qumrân grotte 4.III (4Q482–4Q520). DJD 7. Oxford: Clarendon, 1982. Barclay, John M. G., and Simon J. Gathercole, eds. Divine and Human Agency in Paul and his Cultural Environment. Library of New Testament Studies 335. New York: T&T Clark, 2008. Bøe, Sverre. Gog and Magog: Ezekiel 38–39 as Pre-text for Revelation 19:17–21 and 20:7– 10. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2/135. Tübingen: Mohr ­Siebeck, 2001. Brand, Miriam. Evil Within and Without: The Source of Sin and Its Nature Portrayed in Second Temple Literature. Supplements to the Journal of Ancient Judaism 9. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013. except to convict them of sin, these ought not for this reason to be accounted utterly useless” (see the entire discussion in 2.5.4–5); Greenhill, Ezekiel, 317 (on Ezek 14.6): “Commands argue not power and free will in man to repent. … There is a use of these … To manifest what the Lord may justly require at the hands of men … . To clear himself, that it is not his fault if men cannot do what they are called upon for. … To set out before us the corruption and impotency of our nature: by the law we come to the knowledge, not of our power, but our impotency.”

Who Takes the Initiative?

437

Broome, Edwin C., Jr. “Ezekiel’s Abnormal Personality.” Journal of Biblical Literature 65 (1946): 277–92. Broshi, Magen. “Predestination in the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 235–46 in vol. 2 of The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2006. Calvin, John. Commentaries on the First Twenty Chapters of the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel. Volume 2. Translated by Thomas Myers. Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1850. –. Defensio sanae et orthodoxae doctrinae de servitute et liberatione humani arbitrii. Edited by A. N. S. Lane. Geneva: Librairie Droz, 2008. –. Institutes of the Christian Religion. LCC 20, 21. Edited by John T. McNeill. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960. Casiday, A. M. C. Tradition and Theology in St John Cassian. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Cassian, John. Conference 13 (De protectione Dei). Pages 897–954 in Joannis Cassiani Opera Omnia. Patrologia cursus completus. Series Latina 49. Edited by J.-P. Migne. Paris: 1846. –. The Conferences of John Cassian. Nicene and Post-Nicene Father 11, Series 2. Translated by Edgar C. S. Gibson. Oxford: James Parker and Co., 1894. Chadwick, Owen. John Cassian: A Study in Primitive Monasticism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1950. Chazon, Esther G. “4QDibHam: Liturgy or Literature?” Revue de Qumrân 15 (1992): 447–55. –. “Is Divrei Ha-Me’orot a Sectarian Prayer?” Pages 3–17 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research. STDJ 10. Edited by Devorah Dimant and Uriel Rappaport. Leiden: Brill, 1992. –. “Scripture and Prayer in ‘The Words of the Luminaries.’” Pages 25–41 in Prayers that Cite Scripture. Edited by James L. Kugel. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2006. –. “The Words of the Luminaries and Penitential Prayer in Second Temple Times.” Pages 177–86 in Seeking the Favor of God. Volume 2: The Development of Penitential Prayer in Second Temple Judaism. Edited by Mark J. Boda, Daniel K. Falk, and Rodney A. Werline. Atlanta: SBL, 2007. –. “Words of the Luminaries”: A Liturgical Document from Qumran and Its Implications. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah. Leiden: Brill, forthcoming. Christman, Angela Russell. What Did Ezekiel See? Christian Exegesis of Ezekiel’s Vision of the Chariot from Irenaeus to Gregory the Great. The Bible in Ancient Christianity 4. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Crego, Paul. “A Translation and Commentary on Theodoret of Cyrus’ Graecarum Affectionum Curatio Book Five: On Human Nature.” PhD diss., Boston College, 1993. Davila, James R. Liturgical Works. Eerdmans Commentary on the Dead Sea Scrolls Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Dolbeau, François. “Le sermon 348A de saint Augustin contre Pélage: Édition du texte intégral.” Recherches Augustiniennes 28 (1995): 37–63. Driver, S. R. An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament. 6th ed. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1897. Duhaime, Jean. “Determinism.” Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls 1:194–98.

438

Michael A. Lyons

Dupont, Anthony. Gratia in Augustine’s Sermones ad Populum during the Pelagian Controversy: Do Different Contexts Furnish Different Insights? Brill’s Series in Church History and Religious Culture 59. Leiden: Brill, 2013. –. Preacher of Grace: A Critical Reappraisal of Augustine’s Doctrine of Grace in his Sermones ad Populum on Liturgical Feasts and During the Donatist Controversy. Studies in the History of Christian Traditions 177. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Erasmus, Desiderius. De libero arbitrio. Pages 1215–1248 in Desiderii Erasmi Opera Omnia. Volume 9. Edited by J. Clericus. Lugduni Batavorum: Petrus Vander, 1706. –. “On the Freedom of the Will.” Pages 35–97 in Luther and Erasmus: Free Will and Salvation. The Library of Christian Classics 17. Translated and edited by E. Gordon Rupp and Philip S. Watson. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969. Falk, Daniel K. Daily, Sabbath, and Festival Prayers in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 27. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Flesher, Paul V. M., and Bruce Chilton. The Targums: A Critical Introduction. Studies in the Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture 12. Leiden: Brill, 2011. García Martínez, Florentino. “The Interpretation of the Torah of Ezekiel in the Texts from Qumran.” Pages 1–12 in Qumranica Minora II: Thematic Studies on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 64. Edited by Florentino García Martínez. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Greenberg, Moshe. Ezekiel 1–20. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 22. New York: Doubleday, 1983. –. Ezekiel 21–37. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 22A. New York: Doubleday, 1997. Greenhill, William. An Exposition of the Prophet Ezekiel, with Useful Observations Thereupon. London: 1645–62. Revised and corrected by James Sherman. Reprint, Edinburgh: James Nichol, 1864. Greer, Rowan A. The Captain of Our Salvation: A Study in the Patristic Exegesis of Hebrews. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1973. Grünwaldt, Klaus. Das Heiligkeitsgesetz Leviticus 17–26: Ursprüngliche Gestalt, Tradition und Theologie. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 271. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999. Hanby, Michael. Augustine and Modernity. London: Routledge, 2003. Heschel, Abraham Joshua. Heavenly Torah: As Refracted Through the Generations. Edited and translated by Gordon Tucker and Leonard Levin. New York: Continuum, 2005. Hill, Robert Charles. Commentary on the Prophet Ezekiel. Theodoret of Cyrus: Commentaries on the Prophets, Volume 2. Translated by Robert Charles Hill. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross, 2006. Hugh of St. Cher. Postilla in Ezechiel. In Hugonis Cardinalis. Opera Omnia in Universum Vetus & Novum Testamentum. Tomus V: In Libros Prophetarum. Venice: N. Pezzana, 1703. Jason, Mark A. Repentance at Qumran: The Penitential Framework of Religious Experience in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015. Jonge, Henk Jan de, and Johannes Tromp, eds. The Book of Ezekiel and its Influence. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007. Joyce, Paul M. Divine Initiative and Human Response in Ezekiel. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 51. Sheffield: JSOT, 1989.

Who Takes the Initiative?

439

–. “Ezekiel.” Pages 64–76 in The Oxford Handbook of the Reception History of the Bible. Edited by Michael Lieb, Emma Mason, and Jonathan Roberts. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Joyce, Paul M., and Andrew Mein, eds. After Ezekiel: Essays on the Reception of A Difficult Prophet. Library of Hebrew Bible / ​Old Testament Studies 535. New York: T&T Clark, 2011. Kahana, Menahem I. “The Halakhic Midrashim.” Pages 3–105 in Literature of the Sages. Second Part: Midrash and Targum, Liturgy, Poetry, Mysticism, Contracts, Inscriptions, Ancient Science and the Languages of Rabbinic Literature. Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum. Edited by Shmuel Safrai, Zeev Safrai, Joshua Schwartz, and Peter J. Tomson. Assen: Van Gorcum; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006. Kalantzis, George. “‘The Voice so Dear to Me’: Themes From Romans in Theodore, Chrysostom, and Theodoret.” Pages 83–104 in Greek Patristic and Eastern Orthodox Interpretations of Romans. Romans Through History & Culture Series 9. Edited by Daniel M. Patte and Vasile Mihoc. New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013. Kannengiesser, Charles. Handbook of Patristic Exegesis. The Bible in Ancient Christianity. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Katz, Steven T. “Man, Sin, and Redemption in Rabbinic Judaism.” Pages 925–45 in The Cambridge History of Judaism. Volume 4: The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period. Edited by Steven T. Katz. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian Doctrines. 5th ed. San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1978. Klawans, Jonathan. “The Dead Sea Scrolls, the Essenes, and the Study of Religious Belief: Determinism and Freedom of Choice.” Pages 264–83 in Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls: An Assessment of Old and New Approaches and Methods. Edited by Maxine L. Grossman. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. –. “Josephus on Fate, Free Will, and Ancient Jewish Types of Compatibilism.” Numen 56 (2009): 44–90. Klostermann, August. “Ezekiel. Ein Beitrag zu besserer Würdigung seiner Person und seiner Schrift.” Theologische Studien Kritiken 50 (1877): 391–439. Kowalski, Beate. Die Rezeption des Propheten Ezechiel in der Offenbarung des Johannes. Stuttgarter Biblische Beiträge 52. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2004. Kugler, Rob. “A Note on Lev 26:41, 43; 4Q434 1 II 3 and 4Q504 1–2 recto 5–6; and 1QS 8:3 (par. 4Q259 2:12): On Human Agency in the Divine Economy at Qumran.” Pages 245–50 in Prayer and Poetry in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature: Essays in Honor of Eileen Schuller on the Occasion of Her 65th Birthday. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 98. Edited by J. S. Penner, K. Penner, and C. Wassen. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Lambert, David. “Did Israel Believe That Redemption Awaited Its Repentance? The Case of Jubilees 1.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 68 (2006): 631–50. –. “Was the Dead Sea Sect a Penitential Movement?” Pages 501–13 in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by John J. Collins and Timothy H. Lim. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Lapsley, Jacqueline E. Can These Bones Live? The Problem of the Moral Self in the Book of Ezekiel. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 301. New York: de Gruyter, 2000. Levey, Samson H. The Targum of Ezekiel. The Aramaic Bible 13. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1987. –. “The Targum to Ezekiel.” Hebrew Union College Annual 46 (1975): 139–58.

440

Michael A. Lyons

Luther, Martin. Der Brief an die Römer. In D. Martin Luthers Werke. Weimarer Ausgabe 56. Edited by Johannes Ficker. Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus, 1938. –. De servo arbitrio. Pages 551–787 in D. Martin Luthers Werke. Weimarer Ausgabe 18. Edited by A. Freitag. Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus, 1908. –. “On the Bondage of the Will.” Pages 101–334 in Luther and Erasmus: Free Will and Salvation. The Library of Christian Classics 17. Translated and edited by E. Gordon Rupp and Philip S. Watson. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969. –. Tractatus de libertate christiana. Pages 49–73 in D. Martin Luthers Werke. Weimarer Ausgabe 7. Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus, 1897. Lyons, Michael A. An Introduction to the Study of Ezekiel. New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015. –. From Law to Prophecy: Ezekiel’s Use of the Holiness Code. Library of Hebrew Bible / ​Old Testament Studies 507. New York: T&T Clark, 2009. Maimonides. Mishneh Torah: The Book of Knowledge. Translated and edited by Moses Hymanson. Jerusalem: Feldheim, 1981. Manning, Gary T., Jr. Echoes of a Prophet: The Use of Ezekiel in the Gospel of John and in Literature of the Second Temple Period. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 270. New York: T&T Clark, 2004. Maston, Jason. Divine and Human Agency in Second Temple Judaism and Paul. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2/297. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. McKeating, Henry. Ezekiel. Old Testament Guides. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995. Merrill, Eugene H. Qumran and Predestination: A Theological Study of the Thanksgiving Hymns. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 8. Leiden: Brill, 1975. Morlan, David S. Conversion in Luke and Paul: An Exegetical and Theological Exploration. Library of New Testament Studies 464. New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013. Nicholas of Lyra. Postilla litteralis super totam Bibliam. Volume 2. Venice: 1488. Nihan, Christophe. From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch. A Study in the Composition of the Book of Leviticus. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2/25. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Owen, John. ΘΕΟΜΑΧΙΑ ΑΥΤΕΞΟΥΣΙΑΣΤΙΚΗ: or, a Display of Arminianism. 1643. Vol. 5 of The Works of John Owen. Edited by Thomas Russell. Reprint, London: Richard Baynes, 1826. Parry, Donald W., and Emanuel Tov, eds. Poetic and Liturgical Texts. The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader 5. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Pighius, Albertus. De Libero Hominis Arbitrio & divina gratia Libri decem. Cologne: Melchior Novesianus, 1542. Raitt, Thomas M. A Theology of Exile: Judgment / ​Deliverance in Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977. Rashi. Mikra’ot Gedolot “Haketer”: Ezekiel. Edited by Menahem Cohen. Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University, 2000. Schechter, Solomon. Aspects of Rabbinic Theology. New York: Macmillan, 1909. Reprint, New York: Schocken, 1961. Schwartz, Baruch J. “Repentance and Determinism in Ezekiel.” Pages 123–30 in Proceedings of the Eleventh World Congress of Jewish Studies: The Bible and its World. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1994. Sperber, Alexander. The Bible in Aramaic. Volume 3: The Latter Prophets According to Targum Jonathan. Leiden: Brill, 1962.

Who Takes the Initiative?

441

Sprinkle, Preston M. Paul and Judaism Revisited: A Study of Divine and Human Agency in Salvation. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013. Strack, H. L., and Günter Stemberger. Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash. Translated and edited by M. Bockmuehl. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Translated and edited by Theodore G. Tappert. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1959. Theodoret. Interpretatio in Ezechielem. Pages 807–1256 in Theodoret Cyrensis Episcopi Opera Omnia. Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Graeca 81. Edited by J.-P. Migne. Paris: 1864. The Westminster Confession of Faith. Glasgow: Free Presbyterian Publications, 1985. Urbach, Ephraim. The Sages. Translated by Israel Abrahams. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1979. Vermigli, Peter Martyr. In Epistolam S. Pauli apostoli ad Romanos commentarii doctissimi. Heidelberg: Iohannis Lancelloti, Academiae Typographi, Impensis Andreae Cambieri, 1612. Weaver, Rebecca Harden. Divine Grace and Human Agency: A Study of the Semi-Pelagian Controversy. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1996. Weiss, I. H., ed. Sifra. Vienna: Schlossberg, 1862. Wells, Kyle. Grace and Agency in Paul and Second Temple Judaism: Interpreting the Transformation of the Heart. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 157. New York: Brill, 2014. Yadin-Israel, Azzan. Scripture and Tradition: Rabbi Akiva and the Triumph of Midrash. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014. Zimmerli, Walther. Ezekiel 1. Hermeneia. Translated by Ronald E. Clements. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983.

The Contribution of the History of Ezekiel Interpretation and the Tradition of ‘Reformed’ Exegesis, with Particular Reference to Ezekiel 21.25–27 (30–32) Mark W. Elliott

1. Reception History and History of Interpretation In an essay largely devoted to the history of the sacred, John Sawyer mentions Luther’s fondness (he mentions it 16 times) for Ezekiel 33.11 (“I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked”) in the context of the Reformer’s doctrine of “evangelical grace freely given to all.”1 Regrettably one does not learn just how this famous verse, which in its fullness contains a bittersweet form of ‘evangelical grace’ (“I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from their ways and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways; for why will you die, O house of Israel?”) was employed in the hands of this famous Reformer, and the extent to which it contributed to his theology. On the other hand there is an attempt to show the theological impact of Ezekiel 44.2 (“And he said to me, ‘This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it; for the LORD, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut.’”).

1 John F. A. Sawyer, “Ezekiel in the History of Christianity,” in After Ezekiel: Essays on the Reception of a Difficult Prophet, ed. Paul M. Joyce and Andrew Mein, LHBOTS 535 (London: T & T Clark, 2011), 4. It is noteworthy that Zimmerli had only space to mention Ezekiel’s place in the history of art, especially the book by W. Neuss, Das Buch Ezechiel in Theologie und Kunst bis zum Ende des XII. Jahrhunderts, Beiträge zur Geschichte des alten Mönchtums und das Benediktinerordens 1/2 (Münster: Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1912). He pointed also to RGG3 2: 850 f: “dort weitere Literatur auch zur Auslegungsgeschichte.” The giveaway in Zimmerli’s work is his emphasis on the person and proclamation of Ezekiel amidst other critical questions as set forth in the introduction, and lines such as: “Suchen wir die Züge, welche die Berichte von der Berufung Moses und Jeremiah verbinden und in ihnen einen gewissen Typus des Berichtens erkennen lassen, zusammen zuordnen so ist ihnen allen der Charakter einer sehr persönlichen Einzelbegegnung zwischen Jahwe (bzw. der Repräsentation Jahwes in seinem Boten) und dem Berufenen eigen. In diesem Gespräch ist Raum für Zögern, ja Widerspruch des Berufenen, den Jahwe durch persönliche Zusage und Gewährung von Zeichen überwindet (ich bin mit dir; ich lege meine Worte in deinem Mund; das sei dir das Zeichen.)”. The discussion concerns what connects Ezekiel’s vision to that of Moses, Gideon, Saul and Jeremiah (Ezechiel 1, I. Teilband, BK XIII/1 [Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969], 18).

The Contribution of the History of Ezekiel Interpretation

443

While the Hebrew prophecy uses the imperfect, Jerome’s Vulgate employed the perfect tense with some indication that the Incarnation is meant: “the Lord God has entered by it.” Yet to go on to assume that Jerome’s use of the Latin word porta as feminine made its identification with the Virgin Mary ‘easier’ is a linguistically shaky move, and indeed Jerome himself made nothing of this ‘coincidence,’ even if his some of his medieval readers did. Sawyer concludes that this identification of porta with a woman has been an unhappy accident for the treatment of women as objects. In other words, reception history relates the unhappy story of ignoring Semitics and ending up with oppression. Be that as it may, so long as reception history remains at the level of making of lists of offenders,2 it is unlikely to be taken seriously by any commentary series worthy of respect. For it appears to be interested neither in theology, nor in the original historical contexts, nor in the various contexts of the interpreters, nor in the impacts of words and texts (preferring to focus on ‘controlling ideas’ and ‘the visionary,’ as befits a practice build around theories of Rezeptionsästhetik). By contrast, a history of interpretation approach might hopefully go past curious accidents such as the identification of ‘gate’ with the Virgin Mary, and move on to consideration of more subtle exegesis and exegetes, with some hope for constructive learning. Indeed, the point of studying the history of interpretation is that of looking to see whether there is a most common and influential or even a quirky attempt to cut the Gordian knot of any particular crux interpretum. Now it needs to be admitted that the Book of Ezekiel received attention in the early church among those who did not struggle too hard to work out its historical referents, or even try to make exact sense of the words. For it seemed obvious that words spoken by prophets are impressionistic in their intention and effect, allusively pointing beyond this world and its ugly histories. This allowed room for Christian religious experience to contribute handsomely to the meaning of the book. This way of reading Ezekiel for the sake of Christian piety had an illustrious founder: Origen of Alexandria had already suggested that in Ezekiel’s initial vision, which was revealed to him in ‘Chaldea,’ the headquarters of the astrologers, three of the ‘faces’ stood for the rational, the irascible, and the concupiscent parts

2 M. Greenberg saw the list of precious stones in Ezek 28.13 as corresponding to those in high priest’s vestment, per Exod 28 (Ezekiel 21–37: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 22A [New York: Doubleday, 1997], 582). Robert Jenson, in Ezekiel, Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2009) on the same chapter then comments, that this is “typical of the minutiae, most of them leading nowhere that he [Greenberg] loves to report and for which his commentary is a treasure-house.” (220, n. 6). Jenson accompanies this with a criticism of exclusivity: for in an inclusivist account “Israel and her now paired successors – rabbinic Judaism and the church – are not to be allowed any special role between God and humanity” (209). But what Christian or Jew would want a role that located themselves or their respective communities between God and humanity? Any specialness comes from covenantal grace, not any inherent specialness.

444

Mark W. Elliott

of the soul, while the eagle’s face signified “the soul’s presiding spirit.”3 Ambrose glossed this faculty as ‘discernment’ or the capacity for justice4 and contended that it guides the soul into flight. But when Ambrose said this, it appears he meant ‘flight’ in the sense of the soul ascending to God after death.5 Contemplation is both cause and effect of this purification, as Gregory the Great would in turn emphasise. The moral change effected by contemplation results in the capacity for deeper or higher levels of it. One might say that the impact of the Dionysian Neo-Platonism was to encompass moral or tropological readings of Ezekiel 1 in ‘contemplation.’ Unlike the simplicity and the provisionality of the visions of the other Major Prophets, for the medieval mind Ezekiel was from first to last a book authored by and about a mystic. In this approach “the allegorical sense” really meant the contemplative one: it will deal, as Hugh of St. Victor says in Didascalion VI, iv, with the mystery of the Trinity, or the mystery of free will and the origin of sin.6 It rises up from the foundation of sound faith and must be consonant with it. As the reader contemplates, the imagination is filled and captivated. So far, so tendentious, at least for most modern tastes. And yet what also distinguishes early Christian interpretation is its confidence in some sort of salvific historical process as being the content of prophetic contemplation. Thus, in his first Homily on Ezekiel, even Origen saw that even if elevation to spiritual realms was possible, what was to be viewed was earthbound and temporal. Origen’s opening sentence deserves repeating: “Non omnis, qui captivus est, propter peccata sustinet captivitatem” (“not all captives owe their captivity to sinning”); he explains that there were righteous people, like Ezekiel, among the exiles after the manner of Joseph in Egypt who saw visions of how history would turn out. God punishes his people, but not immoderately as the heretics allege, and through Joseph God was even kind to the Egyptians. In such a situation it befits a prophet to ‘look up,’ but it is all for the sake of the fortunes of the people on the ground, the visionary prophet himself included. The material for vision and contemplation did not always limit itself to the particular text in front of the commentator, but that is how Christian interpretation (and a sizeable amount of Jewish interpretation if one thinks of Midrashim) worked, like a daisy chain of many interconnections. So Christian attempts to provide a thoroughgoing interpretation of the prophecy which included Ezekiel’s non-mystical moments and the meaning of his 3 Origen, Origène: Homélies sur Ezékiel: In Ezechielem homeliae XIV (latine interprete Hieronymo), ed. P. Marcel Borret, Sources Chrétiennes 352 (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1989), 94. 4 Angela R. Christman, “What Did Ezekiel See?”: Christian Exegesis of Ezekiel’s Vision of the Chariot from Irenaeus To Gregory the Great, Bible in Ancient Christianity 4 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 112. 5 Cf. De obitu Valentini (ed. O. Faller; CSEL 73; 1955), cap. 66: 360. 6 Ch.H. Buttimer, Hugonis de Sancto Victore Didascalicon De Studio Legendi (Library of Latin Texts; Washington D. C.: Catholic University Press, 1939), 117.

The Contribution of the History of Ezekiel Interpretation

445

prophecies as concerning the history of the people should not be neglected. Of course, many medieval Jewish exegetes had found themselves dealing with Ezekiel by downplaying its mysticism and its apparent supersession of the Torah in its later ‘visionary’ chapters, and playing up its sometimes controversial theology. As Robbie Harris (quoting Moshe Greenberg EncJud 6:1094) puts it, “the divergence in moral theology between Ezekiel 18.4 and Exodus 20.5b did not embarrass later authorities; it was but one of several matters of doctrine that Moses ordained and a later prophet abrogated.”7 Likewise “I gave them laws, not good ones” (Ezek 20.25) is explained by Eliezer of Beaugency as something exceptional, for a limited period only, referring to those very forty years of Israel’s wilderness wandering. So Eliezer defuses the apparent contradiction above by referring one to individuals and the other to the collective. Israel would and did survive.8 The setback was temporary. No doubt this was contextually aware peshat by the likes of Eliezer. Ezekiel is all about events in the life of Israel, in her disobedience and deliverance: “one is struck by how utterly normally they treated the book.”9 It was not a work by and about a mystic. Christian exegesis, not least that of the Reformation exegetes who owed so much to the medieval Jewish commentaries, brought in a note that was something typological, i. e. that which shuttled between a storied figure and its later fulfilment. Also, their typologising presupposed a caesura between eras, in a way that Jewish exegesis did not. Ezekiel belonged to the mysterious pre-Christian past, yet had something to teach Christian believers, albeit in an indirect way. As David Steinmetz asserted in a famous essay: “The so-called plain sense became anything but simple, a big bellied literal sense, eight months pregnant with hidden meanings.”10 The plain sense was never allowed to become too plain, this means. However, while that might fit the sort of exegesis of the later Middle Ages, and the Reformers inasmuch as they remained medieval (Luther, most obviously), the Renaissance motto ‘ad fontes’ introduced a novum that soon became the motto for later, Enlightenment historical criticism’s slogan that carried on into Romanticism: the most early, the pristine, that is the best. Here the Reformation was most influenced by the Renaissance biblical scholarship, and commentary was not just about new applications through typology and extrapolation into Christian morality; rather, exegesis itself was affected, and new meanings of   7 Robert A. Harris, “The Reception of Ezekiel Among Twelfth Century Northern French Rabbinic Exegetes,” in After Ezekiel: Essays on the Reception of a Difficult Prophet, ed. Paul M. Joyce and Andrew Mein, 73; cf. Sarah Kamin, Rashi’s Exegetical Categorization: In Respect to the Distinction Between Peshat and Derash (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1986) [Hebrew]. Harris is interested in how Ezekiel 1.4’s ‫“ חשמל‬eludes definition for Rashi and others.”   8 Harris, “Reception,” 82.   9 Harris, “Reception,” 87. 10 David C. Steinmetz, “Appendix: Footnotes to an Old Complaint,” in Taking the Long View: Christian Theology in Historical Perspective (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 164.

446

Mark W. Elliott

verses and passages were claimed. Moreover – although ‘whose Augustine?’ was possibly just as important as ‘whose Paul?’ – for some Reformers, the insistence on commentary writing that covered every verse with all the philological means at their disposal betokened a new movement in the history of Christian biblical exegesis. Conceivably one could argue that Renaissance Christian exegesis (a happier term than ‘Reformation exegesis’) was neither fish nor fowl, but some ugly hybrid, pleasing to no person, whether ancient or modern. However the converse could be held: this era or kind of exegesis combined the best of both worlds. So, if one is to answer the question “why then attend to pre-critical exegesis?” the answer might be: because exegesis in its post-Renaissance, pre-Enlightenment form often reveals sensitivity to the poetic and figurative expression in biblical texts which are missed by those writing after 1700 CE. It is often sensitive to intertextuality, in the sense of linking the discussion of a text to a theme found in another biblical book; it does not usually refuse to be conscious of not only other canonical voices, but what one might call the res of, or beyond, the text. It will also usually refuse to reduce theology to ideology: Ezekiel is not ‘about’ monotheism or ‘survival.’ Finally, it also delivers us from reducing the critical questions to that of ‘the anxiety of influence’: who came first, who came last? Who edited whom?

2. Reformation / ​Renaissance Commentary: Ezekiel 21.32 (EV 27) as a Test Case A passage that is eye-catching and from which one might expect some attention from Reformation exegetes is Ezekiel 21.32. One would hardly know this from the frankly disappointing volume in The Reformation Commentary on Scripture.11 Johannes Oecolampadius of Basel (d. 1531), the Cambridge-educated John Mayer (separatist, d. 1664) and William Greenhill (Independent, d. 1671) seem the mainstays of this selection but sadly their comments on the verses at the end of Ezek 21 get omitted. As for the sister volume in the Ancient Christian Commentary Series dedicated to the exegesis of the church fathers, there is a complete omission of chapters 21–23 in the Ezekiel volume.12 So we shall have to go ad fontes. We shall leave Calvin on Ezekiel (and the fine work done by Erik de Boer on this13) to another time, and consider instead two other ‘early modern’ 11 Carl L. Beckwith, ed., Ezekiel, Daniel, Reformation Commentary on Scripture: Old Testament XII (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2012). 12 Michael Glerup and Kenneth Stevenson, eds., Ezekiel, Daniel, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Old Testament XIII (Downers Grove, IVP Academic, 2008). 13 E. A. de Boer, John Calvin on the Visions of Ezekiel: Historical and Hermeneutical studies in John Calvin’s “sermons inédits”, especially on Ezek. 36–48 (Leiden: Brill, 2004).

The Contribution of the History of Ezekiel Interpretation

447

commentaries, published in the same year (1610), one by a Catholic and the other by a Protestant: Maldonatus and Junius. To give the fuller passage: 30“You profane and wicked prince of Israel, whose day has come, whose time of punish-

ment has reached its climax, 31this is what the Sovereign Lord says: ‘Take off the turban, remove the crown. It will not be as it was: The lowly will be exalted and the exalted will be brought low. 32A ruin! A ruin! I will make it a ruin! The crown will not be restored until he to whom it rightfully belongs shall come; to him I will give it.’”

To begin with, the star of early modern Catholic biblical exegesis, Maldonatus. He had been a pupil of Soto at Salamanca before going to Paris to found the school of Clermont. He wrote of the Church’s need to get back to the ‘twin suns’ of Old Testament (OT) and New Testament (NT) in their original languages.14 As Basil Hall has observed, Jesuits represented a positive approach to exegetical theology, yet without promoting any real methodical advances, and the very practice of it came at the price of Jesuit theological unity.15 Hall’s judgement is overly negative and seems to have been challenged by the last generation of scholarship. Jean-Pierre Delville has related Maldonatus’ confidence as an exegete in calling the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard (Matt 20.1–16) “easy to interpret.”16 The first edition of his Gospels Commentary (Commentarii in Quatuor Evangelistas) was as early as 1563, the year after he joined the Order and the year before he started to teach in Paris. Although under suspicion for his reservations about the Immaculate Conception and his refusal always to follow Augustine, he died peacefully in Rome in 1583, having been summoned there to lead the work on the new edition of the Vulgate, owing to his knowledge of the Greek Old Testament and its ‘variant readings.’ His work on the Prophets dates from the early 1570s, with the lectures posthumously being turned into a commentary in 1609.17 His commentary is marked by economy and clarity. With what seems to have been a Rabbinic Bible as well as the Vulgate in front of him, Maldonatus comments [my paraphrase follows] that in Ezek 21.30 [25] 14  See V. Baroni, Le Contre-Réforme devant la Bible: La question biblique: avec un supplément, du XVIIIe siècle á nos jours (1943. Reprint, Geneva: Slatkine, 1986). See also Jared Wicks, “Catholic Old Testament Interpretation in the Reformation and Early Confessional Eras,” in Hebrew Bible / ​Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation. II: From the Renaissance to the Enlightenment ed. Magne Sæbø (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008), 617–648. More generally on Maldonatus’ life, see Paul Schmitt, La Réforme Catholique. Le Combat de Maldonat (1534–1583), Théologie historique 74 (Paris: Beauchesne, 1985). 15 Basil Hall, “Biblical Scholarship: Editions and Commentaries,” in The Cambridge History of the Bible: The West from the Reformation to the Present Day, ed. S. L. Greenslade (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), 91 f. 16 Jean-Pierre Delville, L’Europe de l’Exégèse au XVIe siècle. Interpretations de la parabole des ouvriers a la vigne (Matthieu 20,1–16), BETL 174 (Leuven: Peeters, 2004), 584. 17 Ioannis Maldonati, Comentarij in Prophetas IIII. Ieremiam, Baruch, Ezechielem, & Danielem: Accessit Expositio Psalmi CIX. & Epistola de Collatione Sedanensi cum Caluinianis, eodem auctore, (Paris: Horace Cardon, 1610).

448

Mark W. Elliott

iniquitas or avon / ​‫ עון‬really means the punishment of iniquity: the signs are not hopeful. Little by little this crown will be afflicted in the time of Jehoachim, Jechoniah and Zedekiah; but it is not to be thoroughly removed (penitus auferenda) until finally Nebuchadnezzar comes, the one to whom judgement has been delegated, whom I [the Lord] have made administrator of my justice and vengeance. For he will make judgement on Zedekiah and he will kill others in his sight and he will remove his eyes. (2 Ki 25.7 and Jer 52.10). On that account R. David Kimchi thinks the threefold ‘ruin’ signifies that three generations will be affected.18 Maldonatus continues: “Some commentators believe that the crown will be no more until Christ comes. It seems that it would suit no-one’s head until Christ came, to whom all judgement I (God) have given.” He sees an allusion to John 5.22 (“The Father judges no one but has given all judgement to the Son”), and then concludes: “For all those who came after Zedekiah, as Jerome said, all those who were kings up until Christ were not kings by right, but only by force, such as (John) Hircanus when he obtained the kingdom. Others [by which he seems to mean the tradition of exegesis as a whole] explain the phrase about the turban or crown (“I will set it curvam curvam or obliquam obliquam,”) to mean ‘make it twisted, so that it could not fit anyone’s head until Christ would come on whom it has rested’.”19 Maldonatus has understood the turban image well. We are not really dealing with a medieval metal crown, but an ancient oriental sign of potency and rule. Furthermore, Maldonatus does not pick up on the connection with Gen 49.10, and this silence may be significant. The point is that there is no continuity between the royal and messianic hope of Jews facing exile and the person of Christ ‘from above,’ who judges all human political rule. The implications for Catholic political theory, according to which human kingdoms are provisional in the Age of the Church, should not be ignored. It will be instructive to compare here the posthumous Ezekiel commentary by the great biblical linguist, translator and theologian, Franciscus Junius.20 There is a touching dedication by his son John Casimir on behalf of himself and his brother Francis dated 1609 and located in Groningen, lamenting what their father would have carried out, had God spared him, ; a scholar who was greatly admired by Gomarus and Lubbertus. There follows a fairly brief preface by Junius himself. In this he sets out the four parts of Ezekiel that follow the narrative of the 18 Ibid.,

433–4. 434. 20 Franciscus Iunii Biturgis, Commentaria in Iechezkelem prophetam: nunc primum in lucem post auctoris obitum emissa (Heidelberg: In Bibliopolio Commeliniano, 1610). On the Tremellius-Junius Latin Bible translation see my article ‘Looking Backward: the Protestant Latin Bible in the eyes of Johannes Piscator and Abraham Calov’, in Bruce Gordon and Matthew McLean, eds., Shaping the Bible in the Reformation: Books, Scholars and their Readers in the Sixteenth Century (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 291–302, especially 291–96. 19 Ibid.,

The Contribution of the History of Ezekiel Interpretation

449

prophetic call in Ezek 1–3. Ezekiel 4–24 concerns the message to Jews in Judea and Babylon; 25–32 concerns the foreign peoples; 33–39 speaks of things to come before reign of Christ; and finally 40–48 is a ‘typical prophecy’ about the bringing about of Christ’s kingdom, and its character (prophetia typica de instauratione regni Christi, & conditione eiusdem).21 Junius, with his introductory remarks about the two witnesses as being the OT church and the NT church, shows the Reformed respect for the religion of the former people. Two other things seem singled out in the preface. First, any prophecy that is true is also quite specific; in fact, false prophets are those who interpret the original prophecies to the point of distortion by applying them to the wrong things and not sticking to the substance of oracles, straying beyond their gifting. There is an analogy between this and the practices of the Roman Catholic Church of his time, he thinks (hactenus de Catholicis). Second, there are two sorts of signification: one is types and the other is by adiuncta, by which he means prophetic rite and action, giving the examples of 2 Chron 25 and 1 Sam 18.29; 22.10. As for the passage from Ezek 21, to paraphrase, an event threatening the present king and his kingdom is pronounced in three verses, which are rounded off with the most elegant promise of the eternal King. First, the death of the person of the king is announced in Ezek 21.30, then the demise of the whole reign / ​ kingdom in 21.31, and then finally the time of its subversion and spiritual restitution on Christ is promised in 21.32. It sets out (exprobat) the first cause of the punishments in the first limb; then in the second announces the punishments. Most grave iniquities in the case of the present king are objected to in two ways. First the man himself is called profane, altogether in his person, a stranger to all piety and holiness, just as the sacred story and prophecy of Jeremiah affirm. Then he is called vile, since he did not only study profane matters in person, but he also made efforts to lead the people and nobles off into the same perdition, the punishment for whose crimes is announced in the following verses. Junius observes that in Ezek 21.31 the prophecy moves to consider the whole kingdom. The more important part of the sentence is given extra weight with the repeated mention of the authority of God: “thus says the Lord Jehovah” (sic ait Dominus Iehova). It is said so that all might understand these things and the preceding words not only in the ‘exegetical’ sense that was borne by the prophet, but as containing a single prophecy which God specially ordered to be communicated more widely. The interpretation of this prophecy is ‘multiple’, for many interpret as if the Prophet himself compelled the king with the words of God-remove, &c. But it pleases me more that we understand by these words the prophet to explain most simply what God commanded him: remove, that is “declare by your prophetic announcement it to be that it will be removed, for scripture is used to speak in such a figurative way, such that the things predicted by the prophets are said to owe their existence to them: see Jeremiah chapter 1: ‘I have 21 In

the preface to the commentary.

450

Mark W. Elliott

appointed you to plant and uproot.’22 Now with these words, God orders the prophet to preach two things: first, it will be that the kingdom is removed, then all order in the whole of Judah will be removed and a horrible confusion will arrive, as if all things were carried upside down. The throwing down or the removing of the kingdom is figuratively announced in these words: Amove cidarim, tolle coronam, for these two were signs of the ancient kings; the cidar was worn ordinarily and the crown was reserved for solemn occasions. The Hebrew cidar came by way of Persia, and was what the Greeks called a diadem, namely a fascia by which the upper part of the head was surrounded. In any case there is no future for this kingdom, as expressed in proverbial mode in these words. For God uproots and institutes as he chooses – in holy anger.23

Junius continues: The prophet shows that the confusion of the king and the loss of the kingdom will be not only by one stroke and for one moment, but will be everlasting and very grave. The thrice repeated sound shows the everlasting and seriousness of the vengeance – I will give her back ‘crooked crooked crooked’ (perversam perversam perversam redditurus sum illam), and that is explained by the other part of the verse. For with clear words evil is announced to the whole body of Judah. However for those remaining according to the election of grace there follows the promise of the advent of a king, for consolation of the godly. Since the coming of the king is promised according to the election of grace to the rest who are to be kept, for the consolation of the godly, the prophet announces the eternal turning away of the kingdom with these words: etiam huic. For there will be no more of cidar and crown, namely the Lord or the future king who would gain it, for there is no right of the righteous for gaining it, since they were lacking the pre-made promises, in a way that we can see from the times of deportation up to the coming of Christ. For there was no king among the Jews, but every administration was set up in such a way that it could hardly be compared with that royal dignity and authority. There remains the locus of consolation, there will not be a prince equal to this crown’s obtaining until he comes, who is the right one and to whom the father has given it, and this is the most fine description of our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ, since it is said that the right of gaining the kingdom is his, and the calling to obtain that right is denoted by ‘the gift of the father.’ For indeed the right in that kingdom and in the world from creation onwards equally belongs to the Son and Father and Holy Spirit, who is one God of same substance and equal dignity. However, since the one by the calling of the Father is constituted heir of all things and the kingdom is given to him by the Father as the Apostle-Evangelists have taught, the person of Christ is very well described by the prophet along with his coming being promised with these two terms: ‘the right of The Lord’ and ‘the calling by the Father’. For the right and lordship of Christ is eternal, and his calling eternal; but the execution of his calling has been since he was sent firstborn into the world – Hebrews 1. That right is said to be given by the Father, not only since he is Son, but also by his will and decree according to the order of the economy and according to the manifestation he was sent into the world, so that he might gather together the 22 Francisci Iunii Biturgis, Commentaria in Iechezkelem prophetam, 219: “declara prophetica tua denunciatione fore ut amoveatur, & nam figurate scriptura sic loqui solet, ut ea quae a prophetis praedicuntur, ab ipsis fieri dicantur: quemadmodum videmus Ierem.” 23 Ibid.

The Contribution of the History of Ezekiel Interpretation

451

heirs of his kingdom by the preaching of the gospel and by eternal redemption reconcile them to the God and Father.24

As is obvious, all this discussion is far more involved than that of Maldonatus, but it has all been leading up to a pithy point. The prophetic oracle allows for speculation on the face of the Trinity, even while paying close attention to the rights and promises of the OT, which Christ comes to fulfil, establishing a strong aura of continuity between testaments. In that sense this early modern Reformed interpreter put his humanist, philological training in service of a contemplative theology akin to that of some of the more ‘mystical’ patristic exegesis considered above.

3. Enlightenment to Present-Day Consensus on Ezekiel 21.25–27 (30–32) In the second of his Dissertations appended to the Genesis commentary,25 concerning the right interpretation of Genesis 49.10, after listing all the traditional renderings which rely on the reading ‫שילה‬, Jean Leclerc then opted for the qere reading ‫( שלו‬cujus) ‘whose,’ as with the LXX and both the Onkelos and Jerusalem (Palestinian) Targumim. He supports this reading by noting that the Samaritan Pentateuch does not have yod. To clinch it he adds: And this interpretation is confirmed by Ezek 21.27 where a similar expression appears, and there it is plainly schello. And the Samaritan Codices have it without yod. Although I do not want to reject the previous reading with yod], it seems nevertheless harder here to see a contraction of the nominative which one would have to assume. By this covenant the sense of the prophecy of Ezekiel could be open with two possible interpretations: one could as easily supply ‘destruction’ as ‘reign’ to the term: judicium. For Ezekiel is clearly speaking about Zedekiah and his time: hence ‘to be snatched away.’ 24 Ibid. 220: “atque haec paraphrasis est elegantissima Domini & servatoris nostri Iesu Christi, quod dicitur illius esse ius obtinendi regni; & vocatio ad illud ius obtinendum denotatur donatione patris. nam ius quidem & in regnum illud & in saecula ex creatione aeque ad filium pertinet atque ad Patrem & Spiritum Sanctum, qui unus est Deus homoousios kai sunaidios, sed quia vocatione patris filius haeres omnium constitutus est, & regnum ipsi a patre datum, ut Apostoli Evangelistae docuerunt, optime a Propheta circumscribitur persona Christi & adventus illius promittitur his duabus vocibus, iuris sive domini, & vocationis a Patre. nam ius quidem dominiumque Christi aeternum est, & vocatio aeterna: sed vocationis illius executio, cum primogenitus in orbem terrarum missus est – Heb 1. Ius inquam illud a patre datum dicitur, non solum quia filius, sed etiam voluntate atque instituto KATA DIA TAXIN OIKONOMIKEN KAI KATA PHANEROSIN in mundum missus est, ut haeredes regni sui praedicatione evangelii colligeret & redemptione aeterna reconciliaret Deo & patri.” 25 Jean Leclerc, Commentarius in Mosis prophetae libros quinque: cum eiusdem versione et paraphrasi perpetua, dissertationibus item criticis atque tabulis chronologicis et geogr. Genesis sive Mosis prophetae liber primus, vol. 1 (Tübingen: Joannem Georgium Cottam, 1733). Leclerc did not complete a commentary on Ezekiel.

452

Mark W. Elliott

Here the Ezekiel passage is used to interpret Genesis, rather than vice versa. This is no more and no less than the Reformation rule of a clearer text being used to illuminate a less clear one. This deliberately ‘historical’ reading, and one which is silent about any hope beyond the plain meaning sets the tone for scholarship ever since. Indeed a quick look at the modern commentators (a sample) on this verse does not make encouraging reading for those who have come to expect a message of hope to be found there. K.-F. Pohlmann comments that to say that “the low will be raised up” is not “good news for the poor” (as per Luke 2), but it simply means that total chaos will ensue.26 The ICC editor of yesteryear, G. A. Cooke, wrote: “Perhaps Ez. had in his mind Gen 49:10, and ‘G’ seems to have noticed this possible allusion by rendering v. 32 ἀδικίαν ἀδικίαν θήσομαι αὐτήν, οὐδ᾽ αὕτη τοιαύτη ἔσται, ἕως οὗ ἔλθῃ ᾧ καθήκει, καὶ παραδώσω αὐτῷ.”27 However the study by W. L. Moran in 1958 is wise to the irony of any such hope.28 Moran connected our passage with Gen 49.10, but sees the blessing of Genesis transformed here into a curse: instead of a saviour, a destroyer will come in this topsy-turvy time. Such a parody would befit Ezekiel. Whether or not there is an echo here of Gen 49.10, only a menacing sense of ‫ משפט‬suits the context. A messianic or any other hope for a blessing is an incongruous conclusion.29 M. Greenberg agrees that this is an ironic echo. It can even be called deliciously cruel in its subversion of a well-known messianic prophecy. Likewise, Daniel Block sees no real room for messianic sentiment: Ezekiel has hereby taken an ancient word, on which his audience has staked their hopes, and transformed it into a frightening prediction of doom. It is difficult to imagine a more effective rhetorical strategy. The prophet has turned a sacred text upside down in order to expose a twisted world and to annul false bases of hope.30

Hence, the passage is not about God or the Messiah’s ‘right rule’ (‫ )משפט‬but is rather all about judgment by Nebuchadnezzar as “an event in which no Messiah shall interfere.”31 26 Karl-Friedrich Pohlmann, Der Propheten Hesekiel / ​Ezechiel Kapitel 1–19, ATD 22, 1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 321. 27 G. A. Cooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1936), 4*35. “Bar Hebraeus comments: ‘Literally, Zerubbabel [is alluded to], spiritually our Lord Jesus.” 28 W. L. Moran, “Gen 49,10 and its Use in Ez 21,32,” Biblica 39 (1958): 405–25. 29 Ibid., 419. 30 Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel 1–24, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 692–693. 31 Daniel I. Block, “Bringing Back David: Ezekiel’s Messianic Hope,” in Beyond the River Chebar: Studies in Kingship and Eschatology in the Book of Ezekiel (Cambridge: James Clark, 2014), 76; cf. Leslie C. Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, WBC (Dallas: Word, 1990), 28; cf. Christopher R. Seitz, Theology in Conflict: Reactions to the Exile in the Book of Jeremiah, BZAW 176 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989), 151–4.

The Contribution of the History of Ezekiel Interpretation

453

4. The Reformation Theological Tradition in Recent Times Sometimes it pays to go back one or two generations, to biblical scholars whose work is seen to have witnessed to a historical enquiry that had not quite freed itself from confessional theological concerns, not unlike the cases of the Early Modern commentators (above). In the introduction to his Ezekiel commentary, where the emphasis is on the contingency of Israel and world history, Walther Eichrodt wrote: But what is really exciting and dramatic is that the whole complex of priestly conceptions breaks down, being a world which must be given up as destined to pass away. The fixed constitutions and ordinances of the community can no longer be regarded as guaranteeing the undisturbed continuance of the existence of that community, nor can the covenant be said to be everlasting. The community does indeed recognize that disobedience must suffer chastisement, but it witnesses to a belief that Israel’s greatness must be preserved undimmed through all the dark periods of her history for the salvation of mankind.32

In other words, the covenant is not indissoluble, for Israel never had any ‘rights’ under it. Eichrodt goes on to present the shinier side of the same coin: Only the unfathomable presence of God who keeps faith with a nation that has faithlessly broken his covenant makes it possible to discern within the history of corruption a history of salvation which celebrates the praise of the compassionate Lord of the covenant. The people as a whole had been shattered by their encounter with God in all his holiness, and that threw a completely new light on the importance of the individual … [This involves a] willingness to walk obediently along the road of history where God makes salvation ripen into fulfilment.33

Accordingly, in his commentary on Ezek 21.25–27, Eichrodt claims that the uprooting is intended to speak beyond the immediate situation of Zedekiah and the exiles. The oracle (unlike v. 22) does not target Jerusalem, for its range is wider: “the context demands that not only the capital of Judah but the whole world, shall be reduced to ruins.”34 The threefold repetition means that quasi-magical means are being used. Discontinuity is to be emphasised. But to translate it ‘There shall thus be an end to the time, for he is coming to whom judgement belongs and I hand it over to him’ (Zimmerli) is still unconvincing, although grammatically possible. After the exhaustive account of the annihilation produced by the execution of Yahweh’s judgement, there is no room left for expecting any reference to the human executant of that judgement, who will come as an unnecessary embellishment, like a guest arriving too late for a feast.35 32 Walther Eichrodt, Ezekiel: A Commentary, trans. Cosslett Quin (London: SCM, 1970), 31–32. Originally published as Der Prophet Hesekiel, ATD 22 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966), the first half of which was completed by 1959. 33 Ibid., 45, 47. 34 Ibid., 301. 35 Ibid., 303.

454

Mark W. Elliott

Here the Basel professor’s account of Ezekiel’s theology is theocentric, not Christocentric. He concludes his comment by claiming that the unmistakeable allusion to Gen 49.10 is to be understood positively as “the establishment of the Kingdom of God.”36 One might wish to compare and contrast this with the approach of that other giant of mid-twentieth century Ezekiel scholarship, Walther Zimmerli. In a late essay on OT theology, he claimed that there is theology already in the OT, because God’s word kept going in and to Israel, even as Israelite religion declined. The latter’s inconsistent character served to show up the trustworthiness of the divine name, and Zimmerli employs a metaphor of financial institutions to reinforce the point.37 That ‘name’ gets consolidated as the Mitte (as it were) of the OT-NT bible in Christ himself, as Zimmerli put it elsewhere,38 and as Jochen Motte has underlined. There is a sense in which Christ keeps the two testaments apart, while being the hinge of their witnesses to God’s alternating No and Yes. Ezekiel represents the discovery of the justification of the godless.39 These themes are not all that unlike those of Eichrodt. And yet with Zimmerli there is a new chord struck in the sense of the ‘already’ in the faith of faithful Israel and some sort of messianism. To see Jesus not wholly ‘in’ the NT but also in the OT might well be healthy. The church’s penance about her history with Israel leads her to ask uncomfortable questions, which lead closer to Christ. No answers in terms of conceptual or thematic messages are to be found.40 All that can be said is that in Jesus all is fulfilled that was said to Israel.41 Yet if Zionism 36 Ibid.,

304. Zimmerli, “Erwägungen zur Gestalt einer alttestamentlichen Theologie,” in Studien zur alttestamentlichen Theologie und Prophetie: Gesammelte Aufsätze II, Theologische Bücherei (München: Chr. Kaiser, 1974), 27–54: “Eine alttestamentliche Theologie ist, anders als eine alttestamentliche Religionsgeschichte, nicht genötigt, die geschichtlichen Linien der nachprophetischen Zeit weiter durchzuziehen und zu zeigen, wie die großen Aussagen der Prophetie und der vorprophetischen Zeit nach dem Exil wieder in kleinere Münze umgewechselt werden. Mit ihrem Ausgang bei der “Mitte” des Gottesnamens, in dem Jahwe sich Israel aussagt, kann sie da abbrechen, wo das Geheimnis des Freien, der aus freier Gnade zugleich der treue bleibt, seine vollste alttestamentliche Enthüllung er fahren hat” (54). 38 Walther Zimmerli, Israel und die Christen: Hören und Fragen (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1964), 7: “die zweiteilige Bibel, in deren Mitte nach christlichem Glauben kein anderer steht als Christus.” 39 See Jochen Motte, Biblische Theologie nach Walther Zimmerli, Europäische Hochschulschriften 521 (Bern: Peter Lang, 1995), 89–95, which deals with Zimmerli’s work on Ezekiel. According to Zimmerli, the New Covenant is already in place in Ezekiel (and Jeremiah and Deutero-Isaiah). 40 Walther Zimmerli, “Christus ist Ziel und Weg (Göttingen: Pfingsten 1964)”, in Israel und die Christen: Hören und Fragen (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1964), 1–16, 11. In a reflection on the simchat tora, ten days after Yom Kippur, Zimmerli muses that God asks Adam where he is, not vice versa. God is not an object of speculation; but the church should let herself be questioned by the Jews out of the OT. 41 Ibid. 13: “… ein Name, der nun königlich auch über jenem Wort am Anfang ausgerufen sein will.” 37 Walther

The Contribution of the History of Ezekiel Interpretation

455

is not the answer, that is not because biblical religion is not interested in politics and only in the individual (pace Eichrodt), but rather because the Zionist movement, in Zimmerli’s book, was too communist in its outlook. The Bible will not allow materialism and the priority of the political. If the King and not the Land defines Israel now, this is because there was a crisis, and the only fulfilment lies in Christ, who is the judge, or, as it were, the dialectical principle over against and above. Could restoration of the Land to Israel not be a pre-final fulfilment? No, Israel lives not from the literal fulfilment of any particular prophecy, for that gets into speculation around calendars and subjectivity. Grace comes from Christ as God’s free mercy in history, which is not a product of belief like a mirror but happened of its own, and despite unbelief. There is not much place for a theme of “from faith to faith,”42 lest faith become a meritorious work. Jesus is the deepest meaning of Torah, not a challenge to it.43 With all that in mind, it is surely instructive to look at Zimmerli’s comments on Ezek 21.25–27.44 He fixes on the image of the priestly turban, which is not a royal crown, whatever it was made from. In any case the metaphor is one of demotion. He sees an allusion to Jeremiah 13.18. He resists the implicit randomness in Moran’s phrase ‘complete chaos’ concerning these verses, since according to Old Testament faith there must exist behind the lifting up and casting down of God the event of the sovereign establishment of justice.45 Mowinckel saw in ‘the echo’ as post-exilic “school of Ezekiel” hanging on to the promise of Gen 49.10; as in Ezek 23.24b: “of sharing out the judgment.”46 Yet, opines Zimmerli, Auvray in the Jerusalem Bible of 1949 was right to understand it as a threat, and one that was being fulfilled by Nebuchadnezzar’s decision to take the Jerusalem road, with the gloomy conclusion: “daß Ez die alte Heilsrede überraschend zum Gefäß einer vollen Unheilsbotschaft gemacht hat.”47 Zimmerli and Eichrodt inhabited very different worlds, for all that connected them. The former seemed to emphasize Ezekiel’s sovereign God making woeful things happen through Nebuchadnezzar, with all the weight put on discontinuity, crisis and the contingency of grace, whereas the latter has much more room for promise and fulfillment, with God himself and the kingdom of God bridging history from start to finish. The ‘ecumenical’ issues are different from those of Maldonatus and Junius: there is a dawning awareness that the issue of “the Jews 42 Walther Zimmerli, “Der Staat Israel – Erfüllung biblischer Verheißungen?” in Israel und die Christen: Hören und Fragen (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1964), 75. 43 Ibid., 80. 44 Walther Zimmerli, Ezechiel 1, I. Teilband, BK XIII/1 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969), 493–96. The first part was originally completed by 1954, such that Eichrodt was able to respond. 45 Ibid., 494. 46 Sigmund Mowinckel, He That Cometh: The Messiah Concept in the Old Testament and Later Judaism, trans. G. W. Anderson (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1956), 174–75. 47 Zimmerli, Ezechiel 1, 496 (seconding Auvray).

456

Mark W. Elliott

and Israel” is one that matters for modern OT exegesis. And yet in the pairing we see an analogy between those who favor continuity between the acts of God to Israel and to the Church (Eichrodt, Junius) and those for whom Ezekiel’s message is quite the opposite (Zimmerli, Maldonatus). Yet when one considers the modern commentators, who tend to vote with Moran, eschewing even Zimmerli’s notion of a transcendent and judgemental God, one feels that something of the far-sighted prophetic vision has been lost in their account. Ezekiel’s message gets boxed in the archives of ancient civilizations. His ‘eccentricity’ is largely a function of his remoteness in time. There are no islands or stepping-stones in the stream between him and us, just random loose connections without real correspondences, whether in biblical or post-biblical times. And that feels like a loss.

Bibliography Allen, Leslie C. Ezekiel 20–48. Word Biblical Commentary 29. Dallas: Word, 1990. Baroni, V. La Contre-Réforme devant la Bible: La question biblique: avec un supplément, du XVIIIe siècle á nos jours. 1943. Reprint, Geneva: Slatkine, 1986. Beckwith, Carl L., ed., Ezekiel, Daniel. Reformation Commentary on Scripture: Old Testament XII (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2012). Block, Daniel I. “Bringing Back David: Ezekiel’s Messianic Hope.” In Beyond The River Chebar: Studies in Kingship and Eschatology in the Book of Ezekiel, 74–94. Cambridge: James Clark, 2014. Block, Daniel I. The Book of Ezekiel 1–24. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Boer, E. A. de. John Calvin on the Visions of Ezekiel: Historical and Hermeneutical Studies in John Calvin’s “sermons inédits”, especially on Ezek. 36–48. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Christman, Angela R. “What Did Ezekiel See?”: Christian Exegesis of Ezekiel’s Vision of the Chariot from Irenaeus To Gregory the Great. Bible in Ancient Christianity 4. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Cooke, G. A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1936. Delville, Jean-Pierre. L’Europe de l’Exégèse au XVIe siècle. Interpretations de la parabole des ouvriers a la vigne (Matthieu 20,1–16). Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 174. Leuven: Peeters, 2004. Eichrodt, Walther. Ezekiel: A Commentary. Translated by Coslett Quinn. London: SCM, 1970. Originally published as Der Prophet Hesekiel, Altes Testament Deutsch 22 (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966). Glerup, Michael and Kenneth Stevenson, eds. Ezekiel, Daniel. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Old Testament XIII. Downers Grove, IVP Academic, 2008. Gordon, Bruce and Matthew McLean, eds. Shaping the Bible in the Reformation: Books, Scholars and their Readers in the Sixteenth Century. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Greenberg, Moshe. Ezekiel 21–37: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible 22A. New York: Doubleday, 1997.

The Contribution of the History of Ezekiel Interpretation

457

Hall, Basil. “Biblical Scholarship: Editions and Commentaries.” In The Cambridge History of the Bible: The West from the Reformation to the Present Day, edited by S. L. Greenslade, 38–93. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970. Harris, Robert A. “The Reception of Ezekiel Among Twelfth Century Northern French Rabbinic Exegetes.” In After Ezekiel: Essays on the Reception of a Difficult Prophet, edited by Paul M. Joyce and Andrew Mein, 71–88. Library of Hebrew Bible / ​Old Testament Studies 535. London: T & T Clark, 2011. Jenson, Robert. Ezekiel. Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2009. Junius, Franciscus [Francisci Iunii Biturgis]. Commentaria in Iechezkelem prophetam: nunc primum in lucem post auctoris obitum emissa. Heidelberg: In Bibliopolio Commeliniano, 1610. Kamin, Sarah. Rashi’s Exegetical Categorization: In Respect to the Distinction Between Peshat and Derash [Hebrew]. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1986. Leclerc, Jean. Commentarius in Mosis prophetae libros quinque: cum eiusdem versione et paraphrasi perpetua, dissertationibus item criticis atque tabulis chronologicis et geogr. Genesis sive Mosis prophetae liber primus, vol. 1. Tübingen: Joannem Georgium Cottam, 1733 (originally Amsterdam, 1693). Maldonati, Ioannis. Comentarij in Prophetas IIII. Ieremiam, Baruch, Ezechielem, & Danielem: Accessit Expositio Psalmi CIX. & Epistola de Collatione Sedanensi cum Caluinianis, eodem auctore. Paris: Horace Cardon, 1610. Moran, W. L. “Gen 49,10 and its Use in Ez 21,32.” Biblica 39 (1958): 405–25. Motte, Jochen. Biblische Theologie nach Walther Zimmerli. Europäische Hochschulschriften 521. Bern: Peter Lang, 1995. Mowinckel, Sigmund. He That Cometh: The Messiah Concept in the Old Testament & Later Judaism. Translated by G. W. Anderson. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1956. Neuss, W. Das Buch Ezechiel in Theologie und Kunst bis zum Ende des XII. Jahrhunderts. Beiträge zur Geschichte des alten Mönchtums und das Benediktinerordens 1/2. Münster: Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1912. Origen. Origène: Homélies sur Ézékiel (In Ezechielem homeliae XIV (latine interprete Hieronymo). Edited by P. Marcel Borret. Sources Chrétiennes 352. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1989. Pohlmann, Karl-Friedrich. Der Prophet Hesekiel / ​Ezechiel Kapitel 1–19. Das Alte Testament Deutsch 22, 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. Sawyer, John F. A. “Ezekiel in the History of Christianity.” In After Ezekiel: Essays on the Reception of a Difficult Prophet, edited by Paul M. Joyce and Andrew Mein, 1–9. Library of Hebrew Bible / ​Old Testament Studies 535. London: T & T Clark, 2011. Schmitt, Paul. La Réforme Catholique. Le Combat de Maldonat (1534–1583). Théologie historique 74. Paris: Beauchesne, 1985. Seitz, Christopher R. Theology in Conflict: Reactions to the Exile in the Book of Jeremiah. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 176. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989. Steinmetz, David C. “Appendix: Footnotes to an Old Complaint.” In Taking the Long View: Christian Theology in Historical Perspective, 161–8. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. Steinmetz, David C. “The Superiority of Pre-Critical Exegesis.” Theology Today 37/1 (1980): 27– 38.

458

Mark W. Elliott

Wicks, Jared. “Catholic Old Testament Interpretation in the Reformation and Early Confessional Eras.” In Hebrew Bible / ​Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation. II: From the Renaissance to the Enlightenment, edited by Magne Sæbø, 617–48. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008. Zimmerli, Walther. “Erwägungen zur Gestalt einer alttestamentlichen Theologie.” In Studien zur alttestamentlichen Theologie und Prophetie: Gesammelte Aufsätze II, 27–54. Theologische Bücherei 51 München: Chr. Kaiser, 1974. Zimmerli, Walther. “Christus ist Ziel und Weg (Göttingen: Pfingsten 1964)” In Israel und die Christen: Hören und Fragen, 1–16. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1964. Zimmerli, Walther. “Der Staat Israel – Erfüllung biblischer Verheißungen?” In Israel und die Christen: Hören und Fragen, 61–81. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1964. Zimmerli, Walter. Ezechiel 1, I. Teilband. Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament XIII/1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969.

Reception and Interpretation in Ezekiel Paul M. Joyce

1. Introduction to the Reception History of Ezekiel One of the most distinctive features of Biblical Studies in recent times has been the raised profile of work in reception history. I here reflect on the contribution of work on the reception history of Ezekiel, including not least its relation to the task of exegesis. Though it may seem more prevalent currently in Anglo-American academic circles, reception history is grounded primarily in the philosophical hermeneutics of Hans-Georg Gadamer and his pupil Hans Robert Jauss.1 Accessible critical introductions to reception theory have been provided by Holub and, relating specifically to the Bible, by Parris.2 Reception history still seems to be regarded with suspicion in some academic circles. One of my former colleagues once mischievously described reception history as “Biblical Studies on holiday.” Responding to this, Susan Gillingham has recently explored this phrase in its positive as well as negative implications3 in a notable collection edited by Emma England and John Lyons.4 In spite of the critical reservations of some, the value and scholarly integrity of reception studies are increasingly recognised, bringing them more and more into the so-called mainstream. John Sawyer emphasises that “what people believe [the Bible] means and how they actually use it – in everyday situations, in the liturgy, in preaching, in the media, in literature, in art, in music, in film – can be studied with the same degree of scientific sensitivity and rigor 1 Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method, 2nd rev. ed. (London: Continuum / ​New York: Crossroad, 2004); Hans Robert Jauss, Toward an Aesthetic of Reception, Theory and History of Literature 2 (Brighton: Harvester / ​Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1982). 2 R. C. Holub, Reception Theory: A Critical Introduction, 2nd ed. (London: Routledge, 2003); D. P. Parris, Reception Theory and Biblical Hermeneutics, PTMS 107 (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2009). 3 Susan Gillingham, “Biblical Studies on Holiday? A Personal View of Reception History”, in Reception History and Biblical Studies: Theory and Practice, ed. Emma England and William John Lyons, Scriptural Traces: Critical Perspectives on the Reception and Influence of the Bible 6; LHBOTS 615 (London: Bloomsbury, 2015), 17–30. 4 Emma England and William John Lyons, Reception History and Biblical Studies: Theory and Practice, Scriptural Traces: Critical Perspectives on the Reception and Influence of the Bible 6; LHBOTS 615 (London: Bloomsbury, 2015).

460

Paul M. Joyce

as the original.”5 It is vital that biblical scholars should not define their work too narrowly and refuse to step outside the circle of their expertise, strictly defined. Interdisciplinary work requires that those who engage in it make themselves vulnerable in this way, even though academic guilds rightly prize specialization. It is important to be ready to venture into territory where connections are made between Biblical Studies, film studies, cultural criticism, intellectual history and much besides, even though no one individual can be expert in all of these fields. Reception history as a sub-discipline of Biblical Studies is still evolving, and it is clear from recent discussions that its various exponents have diverse views of what it entails. There is still, in my view, all too often a tendency, even among those committed to reception studies, to polarize historical-critical study of the Bible and reception studies to an inappropriate degree. The insights of reception studies can in fact shed light on the whole story of the Bible from the time of its own formation until now. Let me illustrate this point by way of focusing first on the start of the story and then on its modern phase. It is important to recognize the broad range of what may be described as ‘reception.’ Thus while reception proper might be said to begin only once there is in some sense a Bible to receive, it makes sense to me to regard what scholars generally refer to as redaction, the elaboration of the biblical text in ancient times before the canonical closure of a final form of scripture, as analogous with the process of reception. It is not just a matter of the Bible being received by later generations; in a sense, reception takes place even within developing biblical tradition itself, as, for example, in the elaboration of Ezek 16 or 20. Translation, of course, even from early times, is to be seen as another form of reception. Ezekiel 21.8–9 (ET 21.3–4) provides an excellent example: “I will cut off from you both righteous and wicked.” These words have long been found difficult and indeed uncongenial by readers. LXX-Ezekiel 21.8 has ἄδικον καὶ ἄνομον, “both unrighteous and wicked,” which Zimmerli describes as a “classical example of a correction for dogmatic reasons.”6 Turning to modern times, there is a general tendency to exclude academic biblical scholarship from reception history, distinguishing sharply between readers whose aim is to elucidate the biblical text, usually in its ancient context, and readers who are motivated by other interests. But it is important to recognize that historical-critical study of the Bible is not an enterprise quite separate from reception history. Historical-critical study of the Bible does not stand above the tide of history and culture, but is to be seen as historically and culturally located, not least in its modernist quest for detached objectivity and in its employment of evolutionary models. Thus we should not think of exegesis, the quest for the 5 John F. A. Sawyer, “Ezekiel in the History of Christianity,” in After Ezekiel: Essays on the Reception of a Difficult Prophet, eds. Andrew Mein and Paul M. Joyce, LHBOTS 535 (New York and London: T & T Clark / ​Continuum, 2011), 1–10 (2). 6 Walter Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel Chapters 1–24, Hermeneia, trans. Ronald E. Clements (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), 421.

Reception and Interpretation in Ezekiel

461

probable original meaning of biblical texts, as being a totally prior activity, a kind of neutral foundation on which reception history might be built as a second-stage superstructure. Rather, historical-critical study is to be understood as one relatively recent phase in the long story of the reception of the Bible over many centuries. One aspect of this is the challenge to become more self-conscious as interpreters. The history of interpretation is closely related to reception history, indeed I wish to regard them as in many ways part of the same enterprise. Many biblical commentaries have as part of their introduction a review of previous scholarship. More recently especially, surveys of earlier interpretation in commentaries have more often gone back further, to pre-modern times. (I say pre-modern to make the point that it is very important not to speak of pre-critical times – our earlier predecessors as interpreters of Ezekiel were certainly critical!) Childs contributed much to this growing practice,7 while Greenberg characteristically emphasised the insights of Jewish tradition.8 It was, of course, commonplace in pre-modern times for both Jewish and Christian commentators to cite much earlier interpreters. Important work on the history of interpretation of a larger scale kind has been done by Smend, Reventlow, Sæbø, Clements, and Rogerson, helping us to contextualize phases of scholarship.9 The contextualization of previous phases of interpretation of Ezekiel can give us a valuable sense of historical perspective. This is well illustrated in a recent essay from William Tooman. He explores Cotton Mather’s interpretation of Ezekiel in the massive commentary known as the Biblia Americana. The American Puritan Cotton Mather was hugely prolific especially in the early 18th century. Tooman looks particularly at his treatment of the visions of Ezek 1–3 and 40–48. He presents Cotton Mather as “an orthodox, pious Puritan who is entranced by the new learning of the Enlightenment but fated to follow premodern mental habits of the Renaissance.” He remained, in short, an old-fashioned Renaissance humanist.10   7 For example, Brevard S. Childs, The Book of Exodus, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1974).  8  Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, AB 22 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983); ibid., Ezekiel 21–37, AB 22A (New York: Doubleday, 1997).   9 Rudolf Smend, Deutsche Alttestamentler in drei Jahrhunderten (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989); ibid., Epochen der Bibelkritik, Gesammelte Studien 3 (Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1991); ibid., From Astruc to Zimmerli: Old Testament Scholarship in Three Centuries (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007); Henning Graf Reventlow, History of Biblical Interpretation, vols. 1–2, Society of Biblical Literature Resources for Biblical Study (Atlanta: SBL, 2009); ibid., History of Biblical Interpretation, vols. 3–4, Society of Biblical Literature Resources for Biblical Study (Atlanta: SBL, 2010); Magne Sæbø (ed.), Hebrew Bible / ​Old Testament: the History of its Interpretation, 3 vols. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996–2015); Ronald E. Clements, A Century of Old Testament Study, rev. ed. (Guildford: Lutterworth Press, 1983); John W. Rogerson, Old Testament Criticism in the Nineteenth Century: England and Germany (London: SPCK, 1984). 10 William A. Tooman, “Of Puritans and Prophets: Cotton Mather’s Interpretation of Ezekiel in the Biblia Americana,” in After Ezekiel: Essays on the Reception of a Difficult Prophet, ed. An-

462

Paul M. Joyce

A critical awareness of what others have done in earlier interpretation and of their contexts can make us more sensitive to the particularities of our own contexts as interpreters, which should enable us to think more critically about ourselves as interpreters and can potentially stimulate fresh insights in interpretation. The influence of Gadamer is seminal here, drawing attention to the situated nature of all interpretive acts: as interpreters we always work from within our historical locations; our very consciousness exists within that context.11 Each of us is as culturally located as Jerome or Rashi, Calvin or Cotton Mather. At this point, let me highlight briefly three examples of the way modern Ezekiel scholarship reflects the intellectual and cultural contexts in which it has been conducted: a) The emphasis on individual responsibility in Ezekiel, in some 19th and 20th century work, echoes the privileging of individualism in some modern religious traditions, both Christian and Jewish, as well as the broader intellectual context including existentialism. Also the tendency to construct a developmental model for the emergence of individualism in ancient Israel, a picture within which Ezekiel often held a key role, reflects the evolutionary ideas of the age (e. g. Causse).12 b) The tendency to explain the apparent strangeness of Ezekiel’s personality and behaviour in terms of the prophet’s alleged mental illness provides another case, clearly reflecting the period in which this work was done. Such interpretations are found, for example, in Klostermann’s work of 187713 and revived in a thoroughgoing way as recently as Halperin’s Freudian reading of 1993.14 c) Feminist Criticism in the 20th century led, of course, to a critique of Ezekiel’s language about women, not least that in chapters 16 and 23. Exum, Kamionkowski, Moughtin-Mumby,15 and others have done much to elucidate Ezekiel, from a point of view that strongly reflects the spirit of the age of interpretation. To acknowledge the cultural locatedness of scholarly trends in interpretation does not, of course, imply that there are not insights here that shed genuine light drew Mein and Paul M. Joyce, LHBOTS 535 (New York and London: T & T Clark / ​Continuum, 2011), 203–227 (227). 11 Gadamer, Truth and Method. 12 A. Causse, Du groupe ethnique à la communauté réligieuse: le problème sociologique de la réligion d’Israél (Paris: Jouve / ​F. Alcan, 1937). 13 A. Klostermann, “Ezechiel: Ein Beitrag zu besserer Würdigung seiner Person und seiner Schrift,” Theologische Studien und Kritiken 50 (1877): 391–439. 14 David J. Halperin, Seeking Ezekiel: Text and Psychology (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1993). 15 J. Cheryl Exum, “The Ethics of Biblical Violence against Women,” in The Bible in Ethics: The Second Sheffield Colloquium, ed. J. W. Rogerson, M. Davies, and M. D. Carroll R, JSOTSup 207 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 248–271; S. Tamar Kamionkowski, Gender Reversal and Cosmic Chaos: A Study on the Book of Ezekiel, JSOTSup 368 (London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003); Sharon R. Moughtin-Mumby, Sexual and Marital Metaphors in Hosea, Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Ezekiel, Oxford Theological Monographs (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008).

Reception and Interpretation in Ezekiel

463

on the text and help us greatly in interpretation. We should certainly avoid the so-called ‘genetic fallacy’ that to see why something might be said (or at least to see factors influencing it being said) resolves the question of its truth. We turn to reception work in Ezekiel specifically, which has developed and indeed thrived over recent years. Among important volumes are that edited by H. J. de Jonge and J. Tromp, The Book of Ezekiel and its Influence16 and a valuable assembly of patristic material compiled by K. Stevenson and M. Glerup.17 A collection that Andrew Mein and I edited, called After Ezekiel, gathers a wide range of essays on the reception of this difficult prophet.18 Incidentally, Andrew Mein is currently writing the Wiley-Blackwell commentary volume on Ezekiel, which will be a treasure store not only of particular cases of reception but also of methodological insight.19 Detailed specific studies in monograph form include Manning on the use of Ezekiel in the Gospel of John,20 Kowalski on the reception of Ezekiel in the book of Revelation,21 Christman on exegesis of Ezekiel’s Vision of the Chariot in the Church Fathers,22 and de Boer on Calvin on the visions of Ezekiel, especially those in Ezek 36–48.23 So far my remarks have been focused mostly on modes of reading Ezekiel that are concerned overtly with interpretation. But it is important to be aware that the impact the Bible has on its readers is broader than that, taking in the full range of artistic, cultural, and other uses of the Bible. Some speak of Wirkungsgeschichte, the study of the history of the impact the Bible has had on its readers through the centuries. The cultural influence of Ezekiel has indeed been extensive in in16 Henk Jan de Jonge and Johannes Tromp (eds.), The Book of Ezekiel and its Influence (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007). 17 Kenneth Stevenson and Michael Glerup (eds.), Ezekiel, Daniel, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, Old Testament 13 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2008). 18 Andrew Mein and Paul M. Joyce (eds.), After Ezekiel: Essays on the Reception of a Difficult Prophet, LHBOTS 535 (New York / ​London: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2011). 19 Andrew Mein, Ezekiel through the Centuries, Wiley-Blackwell Bible Commentary (Malden, MA and Oxford: Blackwell, forthcoming). My own previous forays into the reception history of Ezekiel may be found in Paul M. Joyce, “Ezekiel,” in R. J. Coggins and J. L. Houlden (eds.), A Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation (London: SCM Press / ​Philadelphia, PA: Trinity Press International, 1990), 228–229; ibid., “After Ezekiel: Ezekiel in Tradition,” in Ezekiel: A Commentary, LHBOTS, 482 (New York and London: T & T Clark / ​Continuum, 2007), 53–60; “Ezekiel,” in The Oxford Handbook to the Reception History of the Bible, by Michael Lieb, Emma Mason, and Jonathan Roberts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 64–76. 20 Gary T. Manning Jr., Echoes of a Prophet: The Use of Ezekiel in the Gospel of John and in Literature of the Second Temple Period, JSNTSup 270 (London: T & T Clark International, 2004). 21 Beate Kowalski, Die Rezeption des Propheten Ezechiel in der Offenbarung des Johannes, Stuttgarter Biblische Beiträge 52 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2004). 22 Angela R. Christman, “What Did Ezekiel See?”: Christian Exegesis of Ezekiel’s Vision of the Chariot from Irenaeus to Gregory the Great, The Bible in Ancient Christianity 4 (Leiden: Brill, 2005). 23 E. A. de Boer, John Calvin on the Visions of Ezekiel: Historical and Hermeneutical Studies in John Calvin’s ‘sermons inédits’, especially on Ezek 36–48, Kerkhistorische Bijdragen 21 (Leiden: Brill, 2004).

464

Paul M. Joyce

novative and surprising directions. The place of Ezekiel in modern literature is not insignificant. William Blake’s indebtedness to the book was considerable, as is seen in The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, where, in one of his “memorable fancies,” the prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel dine with the author. The play Juno and the Paycock by the Irish writer Sean O’Casey ends with an anguished plea that Ireland’s “‘hearts o’ stone’ be replaced with ‘hearts o’ flesh’” (cf. Ezek 11.19; 36.26); during the ongoing Irish troubles of the later twentieth century, the rock band U2 evoked the same Ezekiel theme in Like a Song … (“A new heart is what I need … O God, make it bleed”). Blake also produced memorable illustrations of several scenes from Ezekiel; another striking artistic representation is Marc Chagall’s Vision d’Ezéchiel, in which he portrays the living creatures of Ezek 1, giving the human figure breasts. Ezekiel has long played an important part in millennial speculation, not surprisingly in view of its historical association with apocalyptic material. Such interest has ebbed and flowed. It was strong in the seventeenth century, and was again prominent in the latter part of the twentieth century, as the second millennium approached its culmination. For example, Michael Lieb has written fascinatingly on the use of Ezekiel in the Nation of Islam movement.24 Other examples of the cultural impact of Ezekiel range from the liberationist poetry of Daniel Berrigan25 to the role Ezekiel plays in Quentin Tarantino’s influential film Pulp Fiction (1994), of which the oft-repeated refrain is adapted from Ezek 25.17: “I will execute great vengeance on them with wrathful punishments. Then they shall know that I am the LORD, when I lay my vengeance on them.” A short but important article from 1971 by Wilfred Cantwell Smith entitled “The Study of Religion and the Study of the Bible” anticipates later developments and discussion about the impact of the Bible. His comments, like the following one, are still pertinent: “The first point, then, is to see the Bible not merely as a set of ancient documents or even as a first‑ and second-century product but as a third-century and twelfth-century and nineteenth-century and contemporary agent … The dominant point in this case is to understand the potential and the actual roles of such a scripture in the life of the imagination, its role as an organizer of ideas, images, and emotions, as an activating symbol.”26 Others have developed the notion of the Bible as dynamic agent. Some are especially keen to highlight the impact of the Bible through active metaphors rather than speaking of its passive use and application. Yvonne Sherwood traces the ‘afterlives’ of a bib24 Michael Lieb, Children of Ezekiel: Aliens, UFOs, the Crisis of Race, and the Advent of End Time (Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press, 1998). See also Dale C. Allison Jr., “Ezekiel, UFOs and the Nation of Islam,” in Mein and Joyce (eds), After Ezekiel, 247–257. 25 Daniel Berrigan and Thomas Lewis-Borbely, Ezekiel: Vision in the Dust (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1997). 26 Wilfred Cantwell Smith, “The Study of Religion and the Study of the Bible,” JAAR 39/2 (1971): 131–40 (134). Compare John F. A. Sawyer, writing in 2011: “It seems that finally biblical scholars are admitting that what people believe the Bible means is often as interesting and historically important as what it originally meant” (Sawyer, “Ezekiel in the History of Christianity,” 2).

Reception and Interpretation in Ezekiel

465

lical text in her study of the survival of Jonah in Western culture.27 Whereas many exponents of reception history would make a clear distinction between the biblical text itself and the manifold uses and applications of it, for Sherwood it is as though the book of Jonah is itself alive and active, responsive and responding.28 There are some affinities with this in the recent work of Brennan W. Breed,29 who claims that biblical interpretation should focus on the shifting capacities of the text, viewing it as a dynamic process instead of a static product. Rather than seeking to determine the original text and its meaning, Breed proposes that scholars approach the production, transmission, and interpretation of the biblical text as interwoven elements of its overarching reception history. He wishes to alter the framing questions of interpretation from “What does this text mean?” to “What can this text do?” I mentioned earlier the unfortunate but prevalent tendency, even among those committed to reception studies, to polarize historical-critical study of the Bible (seen as preoccupied with original meaning) and reception studies (characterized as a catalogue of examples of use and influence). Much of Ezekiel scholarship in the modern era has been dominated by the assumption that we are concerned with the quest for probable original meaning. For me this must indeed remain an integral part of the enterprise of Biblical Studies, as in my own exegetical work on the book of Ezekiel.30 But, that said, the long story of what has happened to the book of Ezekiel (or indeed what the book of Ezekiel has done) since the close of the canon has much to teach us as well, even potentially about exegesis. I have recently become interested in what Diana Lipton and I like to call ‘reception exegesis.’ This involves cases where readings in the reception of the Bible appear to throw up fresh interpretative possibilities that can be taken back to the task of exegesis of the original meaning of the text. For us this has been in the context of work on Lamentations for the Wiley-Blackwell commentary.31 Often illumina27 Yvonne Sherwood, A Biblical Text and its Afterlives: The Survival of Jonah in Western Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000). 28 The text on the back of the book makes this especially clear: “This book charts the mutations of … the book of Jonah as it latches onto Christian and Jewish motifs and anxieties, passes through highbrow and lowbrow culture, and finally becomes something of a scavenger among the ruins, as, in its most resourceful move to date, it begins to live off the demise of faith.” 29 Brennan W. Breed, Nomadic Text: A Theory of Biblical Reception History, Indiana Series in Biblical Literature (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2014). 30 Paul M. Joyce, Divine Initiative and Human Response in Ezekiel, JSOTSup 51 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989); ibid., Ezekiel: A Commentary, LHBOTS 482 (New York and London: T & T Clark / ​Continuum, 2007). One wants neither narrow preoccupation with original meaning nor casual indifference to it, as I argued in “First Among Equals? The Historical-Critical Approach in the Marketplace of Methods,” in Crossing the Boundaries: Essays in Biblical Interpretation in Honour of Michael D. Goulder, ed. Stanley E. Porter, Paul Joyce, and David E. Orton, Biblical Interpretation 8 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 17–27. 31 Paul M. Joyce and Diana Lipton, Lamentations through the Centuries, Wiley-Blackwell Bible Commentaries (Malden, MA and Oxford: Blackwell, 2013); cf. John Riches, “Reception Exegesis of Lamentations,” Expository Times (4th March 2014): 383–7.

466

Paul M. Joyce

tion can be derived from textual and other media that are better characterized as responding to or using or being impacted by the Bible, rather than exegeting or interpreting it. Use of the Bible in later times can thus shine a spotlight on biblical verses that have been dulled by familiarity; it can foreground biblical concepts and concerns that have faded over time into the background; and it can even give rise to new readings of difficult terms. ‘reception exegesis’ is driven by this insight that how the Bible has been received may provide invaluable assistance in the exegetical task. Our most telling example from Lamentations involves the grim text of Lam 4.10, “The hands of compassionate women have boiled their own children; they became their food in the destruction of my people.” Most exegetes have written of women who had been and should be compassionate degenerating to this appalling behaviour. But a Shoah poem by Abraham Sutskever tells of a father who in extreme hunger contemplates eating his son but concludes that he is unworthy to do so. This picture of the complexity of human experience in a situation of abject crisis takes one back to Lamentations with a sense that it is not for us to judge the women as uncompassionate; the point is that though compassionate they boil their own children.32 To recognise that reception work may generate such exegetical fruit does not mean, of course, that examples of reception that do not enrich our understanding of the core biblical text are less valuable than those that do. In other words, the legitimacy of reception history as an enterprise by no means depends upon it having to ‘pay its way’ by yielding exegetical fruit; it is valuable in its own right in multiple ways. The new insights that are sometimes yielded can be shared at the exegetical table as a serendipitous bonus, which offers an additional dimension to reception history as usually understood.33 Related straws in the wind may be seen in the notion of ‘reception criticism,’ favoured by Cheryl Exum over ‘reception history’ because it signals that the enterprise involves not merely cataloguing cases of reception but also critical analysis.34 Reference should be made here to the work of Larry Kreitzer on fiction and film and also of those including David Tollerton and Kelly Wilson who have sought to interpret the Bible through the prism of its post-Shoah reception.35 and Lipton, Lamentations, 158–160. G. Brett writes helpfully about the value of distinguishing between distinct legitimate interpretative interests in “Four or Five Things to do with Texts: a Taxonomy of Interpretative Interests,” in The Bible in Three Dimensions: Essays in Celebration of Forty Years of Biblical Studies in the University of Sheffield, ed. D. J. A. Clines, S. E. Fowl and S. E. Porter, JSOTSup 87 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 357–377. 34 J. Cheryl Exum, “Toward a Genuine Dialogue between the Bible and Art,” in Congress Volume Helsinki 2010, ed. M. Nissinen, VTSupp 148 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 473–503 (473–6). 35 Larry J. Kreitzer, The New Testament in Fiction and Film: On Reversing the Hermeneutical Flow (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press / ​London: Continuum, 1993); ibid., The Old Testament in Fiction and Film: On Reversing the Hermeneutical Flow (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994). See also Joan E. Taylor (ed.), Jesus and Brian: Exploring the Historical Jesus and His Times Via Monty Python’s Life of Brian (London: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2015); David C. Tol32 Joyce 33 Mark

Reception and Interpretation in Ezekiel

467

Recent stimulating contributions by Hindy Najman36 and Jacques Van Ruiten37 also shed much light here. How then might reception studies help in the interpretation of Ezekiel? I suggest that this can happen in a range of ways, three of which I shall now review in programmatic mode.

2. History of Interpretation I argued earlier that the history of interpretation should be regarded as part of reception history. Calvin’s work on Ezekiel offers some interesting cases. Calvin delivered sermons on Ezekiel in 1552–54 in the church of ‘la Madeleine’ in Geneva, many of them focusing on exposition of the visions of Ezekiel. They constitute a striking specimen of literal historical exegesis with a christological perspective.38 Calvin also produced a commentary on Ezekiel 1–20; this consists of revised transcripts of his last lectures, delivered in 1563–64 and first appearing in print in the year after his death.39 Calvin’s exegesis reflects his humanism; this is seen particularly in its attention to historical context and the intention of the author, and it is evident also in his striving to establish the plain sense of the text (in contrast to allegorical interpretation). Two examples from Calvin on Ezekiel may be considered briefly. The first concerns the putting of “a mark on the foreheads of those who sigh and groan” in Ezekiel 9. In Ezek 9.4 God says to a man clothed in linen, “Go through the city, through Jerusalem, and put a mark on the foreheads of those who sigh and groan over all the abominations that are committed in it.” In Ezek 9.6 we read “Cut down old men, young men and young women, little children and women, but lerton, The Book of Job in Post-Holocaust Thought, Bible in the Modern World 44 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2012); ibid., “Two Jewish-American Interpretations of the Book of Job in the Aftermath of the Holocaust: A Short Discussion of the Relationship between Job’s Modern Reception and Its Ancient Production,” in Text, Theology, and Trowel: New Investigations in the Biblical World, ed. Lidia D. Matassa and Jason M. Silverman (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2011), 59–74; Kelly M. Wilson, “Daughter Zion Speaks in Auschwitz: A Post-Holocaust Reading of Lamentations,” JSOT 37/1 (2012): 93–108. 36 For example, Hindy Najman, “Configuring the Text in Biblical Studies,” in A Teacher for All Generations: Essays in Honor of James C. VanderKam, vol. 1, ed. Samuel Thomas, Alison Schofield, and Eugene C. Ulrich, JSJSupp 153 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 3–22. 37 Jacques Van Ruiten, “Nomadic Angels: Gen 6,1–4 and Reception History,” in A Pillar of Cloud to Guide. Text-critical, Redactional, and Linguistic Perspectives on the Old Testament in Honour of Marc Vervenne, ed. Hans Ausloos and Bénédicte Lemmelijn, BETL 269 (Leuven: Peeters, 2014), 247–276. 38 De Boer, John Calvin on the Visions of Ezekiel. 39 Thomas H. L. Parker, Calvin’s Old Testament Commentaries (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1986), 29; John Calvin, Ezekiel I: Chapters 1–12, rev. ed., Calvin’s Old Testament Commentaries: The Rutherford House Translation 18 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans / ​Carlisle: Paternoster, 1994).

468

Paul M. Joyce

touch no one who has the mark.” This has been exegetically problematic, because elsewhere it is indicated that such discrimination is not observed; for example, as mentioned earlier, in Ezek 21.8–9 (ET 21.3–4) it says “I will cut off from you both righteous and wicked.”40 In another contribution to After Ezekiel, Steven Tuell sheds new light on the mark on the forehead motif by turning to the history of interpretation to “break the interpretive impasse in critical scholarship.” He notes that Calvin (like the Babylonian Talmud, b. Šabb. 55a) proposes that the mark did not convey protection, a reading that opens new possibilities for interpretation consistent with the remainder of Ezekiel and new directions for theological application and insight. This leads Tuell to come up with a suggestive new proposal: “The mark in Ezekiel 9 may be understood as God’s signature or seal, declaring that those marked belong to God. Those God claims as God’s own are not held responsible for Jerusalem’s sin; however, they still must suffer Jerusalem’s fate.”41 The second Calvin case concerns the places where Ezekiel’s adultery metaphors drift into warnings to actual women, namely 16.38, “I will judge you as women who commit adultery and shed blood are judged, and bring blood upon you in wrath and jealousy,” and 23.48, “Thus will I put an end to lewdness in the land, so that all women may take warning and not commit lewdness as you have done.” This has been exegetically problematic because the metaphorical language breaks down completely and instead of the Hebrew kingdoms (led, of course, by men) being judged under the guise of women, the polemic is now addressed to actual women. Andrew Mein, with particular reference to chapter 16, writes By contrast with Origen’s and Jerome’s allegorizing of the text, which tends to distance the reader from the details of the metaphor, Calvin’s more literal yet equally applied approach does the opposite. It not only “reinscribes” the gender ideology of Ezekiel’s text, but also quite explicitly intensifies it.

Mein continues: “Calvin’s is the first commentary I have found that uses Ezekiel’s text as the basis of serious social commentary on his own period and in particular on gender relations.”42 He argues that Calvin exploits “the text’s potential to describe the perceived faults of real women.”43 This stimulates the insight that Ezekiel himself may well have had in mind actual women of his own generation, and intended chapters 16 and 23 to be implicit rebukes of their immoral behaviour, as well as metaphors about the nation as a whole. Features of Calvin’s commentary would thus uncover this possible motivation underlying Ezekiel’s polemic. This is an additionally interesting case in that the context of Mein as interpreter is one informed by the feminist criticism of the twentieth and twenty-first century 40 Joyce,

Ezekiel: A Commentary, 156.

41 Steven Shawn Tuell, “The Meaning of the Mark: New Light on Ezekiel 9 from the History

of Interpretation,” in After Ezekiel, ed. Mein and Joyce, 185–202. 42 Andrew Mein, “Ezekiel’s Women in Christian Interpretation: The Case of Ezekiel 16,” in After Ezekiel, ed. Mein and Joyce, 159–83 (173). 43 Mein, “Ezekiel’s Women,” 182.

Reception and Interpretation in Ezekiel

469

that has done much to elucidate Ezekiel.44 We see here the multi-layered nature of reception of the Bible and we are made aware of multiple cultural contexts of interpretation: the ages of Ezekiel, of Calvin, and of ourselves.

3. Impact and Imagination The artistic and cultural impacts of the Bible can help us think harder about the original. Ezekiel has long played an important part in millennial speculation, not surprisingly in view of its historical association with apocalyptic material. As in ancient times so in modern, the opening chapter of Ezekiel has continued to exercise a strangely powerful appeal and influence, and has not infrequently been read in terms of aliens and Unidentified Flying Objects. Science fiction oriented speculation in von Däniken Chariots of the Gods?45 interpreted the passage in terms of extra-terrestrial visitors, while later the portrayal of spaceships in Steven Spielberg’s 1977 film Close Encounters of the Third Kind allude to the chariot imagery of Ezekiel chapter 1.46 Michael Lieb has written fascinatingly and perceptively on Ezekiel in relation to speculation about aliens and UFOs.47 Such cultural receptions might stimulate further exegetical reflection upon the original, as might the much earlier artistic exploration of Ezekiel’s imagery found in the Ezekiel Cycle in the Church of St Maria and St Clemens, Schwarzrheindorf, which is studied by Odell,48 and also Rowland’s consideration of William Blake’s handling of the chariot imagery in his own context within the era of the Industrial Revolution.49 All of these materials offer potential grist for the mill of imaginative play with Ezekiel’s language and images that merits further explora-

44 A particularly pertinent example being Fokkelien Van Dijk-Hemmes, “The Metaphorization of Woman in Prophetic Speech: An Analysis of Ezekiel xxiii,” VT 43 (1993): 162–70. Also in On Gendering Texts: Female and Male Voices in the Hebrew Bible, ed. Athalya Brenner and Fokkelien van Dijk-Hemmes, Biblical Interpretation Series 1 (Leiden: Brill, 1993), 168–76; reprinted in A Feminist Companion to the Latter Prophets, ed. Athalya Brenner, The Feminist Companion to the Bible 8 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 244–55. 45 Däniken, E. von, Chariots of the Gods? Unsolved Mysteries of the Past (London: Souvenir, 1969). 46 Compare also The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas, directed by Colin Higgins (Universal City, CA: Universal Pictures, 1982), which features a scene in which an appearance of a shooting star in the night sky leads on to a citation of Ezekiel 1 and reference to “what the Bible says about the spaceships in Ezekiel.” 47 Lieb, Children of Ezekiel. See also Allison, “Ezekiel, UFOs and the Nation of Islam,” 247–257. 48 Margaret S. Odell, “Reading Ezekiel, Seeing Christ: the Ezekiel Cycle in the Church of St Maria and St Clemens, Schwarzrheindorf,” in After Ezekiel, ed. Mein and Joyce, 115–136. 49 Christopher ROWLAND, “William Blake and Ezekiel’s Merkabah,” in After Ezekiel, ed. Mein and Joyce, 229–245.

470

Paul M. Joyce

tion in terms of the prospect of fresh exegetical insights.50 The very language of Ezekiel 1 offers an enticing invitation to give free rein to the imagination, as in the words of Ezek 1.26, ‫( דמות כסא‬NRSV: “something like a throne”) and ‫דמות‬ ‫( כמראה אדם‬NRSV: “something that seemed like a human form”), and Ezek 1.27, ‫( כעין חשמל‬NRSV: “something like gleaming amber”).

4. Cross-cultural comparative study My third example is of a rather different kind, though it too acknowledges the cultural locatedness of the biblical interpreter. The question of where Ezekiel exercised his ministry has long puzzled exegetes, from as early as the time of Rashi. This has been exegetically problematic because the book of Ezekiel presents the prophet’s ministry as being conducted in Babylonia (Ezek 1.1–3) and yet there are episodes set in Jerusalem. Certain features of the book led some scholars, notably Herntrich,51 to suggest that Ezekiel’s ministry may have been not in Babylonia but in Jerusalem. The detailed description of the abominations in the Jerusalem temple in chapter 8 was one such feature stressed by Herntrich. Another was the presence of passages that might be thought to make more sense if spoken in Jerusalem, notably the oracle in chapter 12 concerning “the prince in Jerusalem and all the house of Israel in it” (12.10). Perhaps more influential than the position of Herntrich, however, has been that particularly associated with Bertholet.52 This represents a compromise between the traditional view, that Ezekiel’s ministry took place entirely in Babylonia, and the view of Herntrich, that the prophet remained in Jerusalem throughout. Bertholet suggested that Ezekiel had in fact two ministries, one beginning in 593 not in Babylonia but in Jerusalem, and a second in Babylonia following the fall of Jerusalem in 587. These discussions arise from genuine difficulties, never resolved to the satisfaction of all. Keith Carley invokes cross-cultural comparative study, and argues that evidence from contemporary Developing World experiences and reports of parapsychic activity might shed new light on Ezekiel. After doctoral studies in the UK, Carley served as a Lecturer in Old Testament Studies at Rarongo Theological College, Papua New Guinea. His is a striking case of the geographical and cultural context of interpretation providing new interpretive possibilities. That Papua New Guinean culture might offer insights into ancient Near Eastern soci50 Scholars encouraging the exercise of the imagination in interpreting the Bible include Walter Brueggemann, Texts under Negotiation: the Bible and Postmodern Imagination (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993) and Gerd Theissen, The Shadow of the Galilean: the Quest of the Historical Jesus in Narrative Form (London: SCM, 1987). 51 Volkmar Herntrich, Ezechielprobleme, BZAW 61 (Gießen: Töpelmann, 1933). 52 Alfred Bertholet and Kurt Galling, Hesekiel, Handbuch zum Alten Testament 13 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1936).

Reception and Interpretation in Ezekiel

471

ety has been argued by others too, even recently, as in the work of Aren M. Maier.53 Carley, however, offered something particularly distinctive. He wrote both a commentary and a significant monograph on Ezekiel.54 In his 1974 commentary, Carley refers to accounts of long-distance flights of people to heal, give counsel, or simply observe.55 In his 1975 monograph, he argues that “the many arresting parallels between Israelite and Melanesian culture have given a broader basis for understanding Ezekiel’s thought world.”56 In some ways he is close to others who have emphasized the universality of the phenomenon of (ecstatic) prophecy, including Lindblom.57 But he takes seriously reports of the ability of sorcerers to exercise ‘parapsychic faculties’, including translocation, and reports claims about a long-distance flight of 700 miles by a famous sorcerer in modern Papua New Guinea (comparable to the distance between Babylon and Judah).58 All of this he brings to the task of interpreting the crux concerning where Ezekiel exercised his ministry, with magical translocation entertained as a real possibility. Such a line of interpretation challenges modernist assumptions, of course. It is one thing to learn from the anthropology and psychology of religion about the kinds of beliefs human beings entertain, considering how such ideas might inform the thought world of Ezekiel’s day. It is quite another to take seriously whether translocation like that reported in Papua New Guinea in our own age might actually explain difficulties and tensions in the book of Ezekiel. But Carley’s work implicitly challenges the post-enlightenment assumptions that are taken for granted in most scholarly discussion and pushes one to justify why certain exegetical options are typically ruled out of court. That the book of Ezekiel should lead, even in the context of critical works like the monograph and the commentary of Carley, to such possibilities of interpretation is testimony to the weird and wonderful nature of this remarkable text. I hope to have hinted, albeit in programmatic fashion, a range of ways in which reception studies, broadly defined, can help in understanding Ezekiel, not least through attention to the history of interpretation, Wirkungsgeschichte, the exercise of the imagination, and cross-cultural comparative study, all conducted with critical attention to the historical and cultural contexts of previous readers of Ezekiel and of ourselves. 53 Aren M. Maier, “A Feast in Papua New Guinea,” Near Eastern Archaeology 78/1 (2015): 26–34. 54 Keith W. Carley, The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, Cambridge Bible Commentary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974); ibid., Ezekiel among the Prophets, Studies in Biblical Theology, Second Series 31 (London: SCM, 1975). 55 Carley, The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, 6, 52, 66. 56 Carley, Ezekiel among the Prophets, vii. 57 Ibid., 6. Cf. Johannes Lindblom, Prophecy in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Blackwell, 1962). 58 Carley, Ezekiel among the Prophets, 28–37, 71–72, 77–78 (and see also 91 n. 113, relating to the discussion on 35).

472

Paul M. Joyce

Bibliography Allison. Jr., Dale A. “Ezekiel, UFOs and the Nation of Islam.” In After Ezekiel: Essays on the Reception of a Difficult Prophet, ed. Andrew Mein and Paul M. Joyce, 247–257. Library of Hebrew Bible / ​Old Testament Studies 535. New York and London: T & T Clark / ​Continuum, 2011. Berrigan, Daniel and Thomas Lewis-Borbely. Ezekiel: Vision in the Dust. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1997. Bertholet, Alfred and Kurt Galling. Hesekiel. Handbuch zum Alten Testament 13. Tübingen: Mohr, 1936. Boer, E. A. de. John Calvin on the Visions of Ezekiel: Historical and Hermeneutical Studies in John Calvin’s ‘sermons inédits’, especially on Ezek. 36–48. Kerkhistorische Bijdragen 21. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Breed, Brennan W. Nomadic Text: A Theory of Biblical Reception History. Indiana Series in Biblical Literature. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2014. Brett, Mark G. “Four or Five Things to do with Texts: a Taxonomy of Interpretative Interests.” In The Bible in Three Dimensions: Essays in Celebration of Forty Years of Biblical Studies in the University of Sheffield, ed. D. J. A. Clines, S. E. Fowl and S. E. Porter, 357–377. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 87. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990. Brueggemann, Walter. Texts under Negotiation: the Bible and Postmodern Imagination. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993. Calvin, John. Ezekiel I: Chapters 1–12. Revised edition. Calvin’s Old Testament Commentaries: The Rutherford House Translation 18. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans / ​Carlisle: Paternoster, 1994). (Translated from posthumous first edition: Ioannis Calvini in viginti prima Ezechielis Prophetae capita Praelectiones Ioannis Budaei et Caroli Ionvillaei labore et industria exceptae. Genevae: Ex officina Francisci Perrini, 1565.) Carley, Keith W. The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel. Cambridge Bible Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974. –. Ezekiel among the Prophets. Studies in Biblical Theology, Second Series 31. London: SCM, 1975. Causse, Antonin. Du groupe ethnique à la communauté réligieuse: le problème sociologique de la réligion d’Israél. Paris: Jouve / ​F. Alcan, 1937. Childs, Brevard S. The Book of Exodus. The Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1974. Christman, Angela R. “What Did Ezekiel See?”: Christian Exegesis of Ezekiel’s Vision of the Chariot from Irenaeus to Gregory the Great. The Bible in Ancient Christianity 4. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Clements, Ronald E. A Century of Old Testament Study. Revised edition. Guildford: Lutterworth Press, 1983. Däniken, Erich von. Chariots of the Gods? Unsolved Mysteries of the Past. London: Souvenir, 1969. Dijk-Hemmes, Fokkelien van. “The Metaphorization of Woman in Prophetic Speech: An Analysis of Ezekiel xxiii.” Vetus Testamentum 43 (1993): 162–70. Also in On Gendering Texts: Female and Male Voices in the Hebrew Bible, ed. Athalya Brenner and Fokkelien van Dijk-Hemmes, 168–76. Biblical Interpretation Series 1. Leiden: Brill, 1993. Reprinted in A Feminist Companion to the Latter Prophets, ed. Athalya Brenner. The Feminist Companion to the Bible 8. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995, 244–55.

Reception and Interpretation in Ezekiel

473

England, Emma and William John Lyons, eds. Reception History and Biblical Studies: Theory and Practice. Scriptural Traces: Critical Perspectives on the Reception and Influence of the Bible 6. Library of Hebrew Bible / ​Old Testament Studies 615. London: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2015. Exum, J. Cheryl. “The Ethics of Biblical Violence against Women.” In The Bible in Ethics: The Second Sheffield Colloquium, ed. John W. Rogerson, Margaret Davies and M. Daniel Carroll R, 248–271. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 207. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. –. “Toward a Genuine Dialogue between the Bible and Art.” In Congress Volume Helsinki 2010, ed. M. Nissinen, 473–503. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 148. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Gadamer, Hans-Georg. Truth and Method. 2nd revised edition. London: Continuum / ​ New York: Crossroad, 2004. Gillingham, Susan. “Biblical Studies on Holiday? A Personal View of Reception History.” In Reception History and Biblical Studies: Theory and Practice, ed. Emma England and William John Lyons, 17–30. Scriptural Traces: Critical Perspectives on the Reception and Influence of the Bible 6. Library of Hebrew Bible / ​Old Testament Studies 615. London: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2015. Greenberg, Moshe. Ezekiel 1–20. Anchor Bible 22. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983. –. Ezekiel 21–37. Anchor Bible 22A. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1997. Halperin, David J. Seeking Ezekiel: Text and Psychology. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1993. Herntrich, Volkmar. Ezechielprobleme. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 61. Gießen: Töpelmann, 1933. Higgins, Colin (director). The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas. Universal City, CA: Universal Pictures, 1982. Holub, Robert C. Reception Theory: A Critical Introduction. 2nd edition. London: Routledge, 2003). Jauss, Hans Robert. Toward an Aesthetic of Reception. Theory and History of Literature 2. Brighton: Harvester / ​Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1982. de Jonge, Henk Jan and Johannes Tromp (eds.). The Book of Ezekiel and its Influence. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007. Joyce, Paul M. “After Ezekiel: Ezekiel in Tradition.” In Ezekiel: A Commentary, 53–60. Library of Hebrew Bible / ​Old Testament Studies 482. New York and London: T & T Clark / ​Continuum, 2007. –. Divine Initiative and Human Response in Ezekiel. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 51. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989. –. “Ezekiel.” In A Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation, ed. Richard J. Coggins and J. Leslie Houlden, 228–229. London: SCM Press / ​Philadelphia, PA: Trinity Press International, 1990. –. “Ezekiel.” In The Oxford Handbook to the Reception History of the Bible, ed. Michael Lieb, Emma Mason, and Jonathan Roberts, 64–76. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. –. Ezekiel: A Commentary. Library of Hebrew Bible / ​Old Testament Studies 482. New York and London: T & T Clark / ​Continuum, 2007. –. “First Among Equals? The Historical-Critical Approach in the Marketplace of Methods.” In Crossing the Boundaries: Essays in Biblical Interpretation in Honour of Michael

474

Paul M. Joyce

D. Goulder, ed. Stanley E. Porter, Paul Joyce, and David E. Orton, 17–27. Biblical Interpretation 8. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Joyce, Paul M. and Diana Lipton, Lamentations through the Centuries. Wiley-Blackwell Bible Commentaries. Malden, MA and Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013. Kamionkowski, S. Tamar. Gender Reversal and Cosmic Chaos: A Study on the Book of Ezekiel. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 368. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003. Klostermann, August. “Ezechiel: Ein Beitrag zu besserer Würdigung seiner Person und seiner Schrift.” Theologische Studien und Kritiken 50 (1877): 391–439. Kowalski, Beate. Die Rezeption des Propheten Ezechiel in der Offenbarung des Johannes. Stuttgarter Biblische Beiträge 52. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2004. Kreitzer, Larry J. The New Testament in Fiction and Film: On Reversing the Hermeneutical Flow. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press / ​London: Continuum, 1993. –. The Old Testament in Fiction and Film: On Reversing the Hermeneutical Flow. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Lieb, Michael. Children of Ezekiel: Aliens, UFOs, the Crisis of Race, and the Advent of End Time. Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press, 1998. Maier, Aren M. “A Feast in Papua New Guinea.” Near Eastern Archaeology 78/1 (2015): 26–34. Manning, Gary T., Jr. Echoes of a Prophet: The Use of Ezekiel in the Gospel of John and in Literature of the Second Temple Period. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 270. London: T & T Clark International, 2004. Mein, Andrew. “Ezekiel’s Women in Christian Interpretation: The Case of Ezekiel 16.” In After Ezekiel: Essays on the Reception of a Difficult Prophet, ed. Andrew Mein and Paul M. Joyce, 159–83. Library of Hebrew Bible / ​Old Testament Studies 535. New York and London: T & T Clark / ​Continuum, 2011. Mein, Andrew and Paul M. Joyce (eds.). After Ezekiel: Essays on the Reception of a Difficult Prophet. Library of Hebrew Bible / ​Old Testament Studies 535. New York and London: T & T Clark / ​Continuum, 2011. Mein, Andrew. Ezekiel through the Centuries. Wiley-Blackwell Bible Commentaries. Malden, MA and Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, forthcoming. Moughtin-Mumby, Sharon R. Sexual and Marital Metaphors in Hosea, Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Ezekiel. Oxford Theological Monographs. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Najman, Hindy. “Configuring the Text in Biblical Studies.” In  A Teacher for All Generations: Essays in Honor of James C. VanderKam, vol. 1, ed. Samuel Thomas, Alison Schofield, and Eugene C. Ulrich, 3–22. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 153. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Odell, Margaret S. “Reading Ezekiel, Seeing Christ: the Ezekiel Cycle in the Church of St Maria and St Clemens, Schwarzrheindorf.” In After Ezekiel: Essays on the Reception of a Difficult Prophet, ed. Andrew Mein and Paul M. Joyce, 115–136. Library of Hebrew Bible / ​Old Testament Studies 535. New York and London: T & T Clark / ​Continuum, 2011. Parker, Thomas H. L. Calvin’s Old Testament Commentaries. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1986. Parris, David P. Reception Theory and Biblical Hermeneutics. Princeton Theological Monograph Series 107. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2009. Reventlow, Henning Graf. History of Biblical Interpretation, vols 1–2. Society of Biblical Literature Resources for Biblical Study. Atlanta: SBL, 2009.

Reception and Interpretation in Ezekiel

475

–. History of Biblical Interpretation, vols 3–4. Society of Biblical Literature Resources for Biblical Study. Atlanta: SBL, 2010. Riches, John. “Reception Exegesis of Lamentations.” Expository Times (4th March 2014): 383–7. Rogerson, John W. Old Testament Criticism in the Nineteenth Century: England and Germany. London: SPCK, 1984. Rowland, Christopher. “William Blake and Ezekiel’s Merkabah.” In After Ezekiel: Essays on the Reception of a Difficult Prophet, ed. Andrew Mein and Paul M. Joyce, 229–245. Library of Hebrew Bible / ​Old Testament Studies 535. New York and London: T & T Clark / ​Continuum, 2011. Sæbø, Magne (ed.). Hebrew Bible / ​Old Testament: the History of its Interpretation. 3 vols. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996–2015. Sawyer, John F. A. A Concise Dictionary of the Bible and its Reception. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2009. –. “Ezekiel in the History of Christianity.” In After Ezekiel: Essays on the Reception of a Difficult Prophet, ed. Andrew Mein and Paul M. Joyce, 1–10. Library of Hebrew Bible / ​ Old Testament Studies 535. New York and London: T & T Clark / ​Continuum, 2011. Sherwood, Yvonne. A Biblical Text and its Afterlives: The Survival of Jonah in Western Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Smend, Rudolf. Deutsche Alttestamentler in drei Jahrhunderten. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989. –. Epochen der Bibelkritik. Gesammelte Studien 3. Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1991. –. From Astruc to Zimmerli: Old Testament Scholarship in Three Centuries. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Smith, Wilfred Cantwell. “The Study of Religion and the Study of the Bible.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 39/2 (1971): 131–40. Stevenson, Kenneth and Michael Glerup (eds.). Ezekiel, Daniel. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, Old Testament 13. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2008. Tollerton, David C. “Two Jewish-American Interpretations of the Book of Job in the Aftermath of the Holocaust: A Short Discussion of the Relationship between Job’s Modern Reception and Its Ancient Production.” In Text, Theology, and Trowel: New Investigations in the Biblical World, ed. Lidia D. Matassa and Jason M. Silverman, 59–74. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2011. –. The Book of Job in Post-Holocaust Thought. Bible in the Modern World 44. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2012. Tooman, William A. “Of Puritans and Prophets: Cotton Mather’s Interpretation of Ezekiel in the Biblia Americana.” In After Ezekiel: Essays on the Reception of a Difficult Prophet, ed. Andrew Mein and Paul M. Joyce, 203–227. Library of Hebrew Bible / ​Old Testament Studies 535. New York and London: T & T Clark / ​Continuum, 2011. Tuell, Steven Shawn. “The Meaning of the Mark: New Light on Ezekiel 9 from the History of Interpretation.” In After Ezekiel: Essays on the Reception of a Difficult Prophet, ed. Andrew Mein and Paul M. Joyce, 185–202. Library of Hebrew Bible / ​Old Testament Studies 535. New York and London: T & T Clark / ​Continuum, 2011. Van Ruiten, Jacques. “Nomadic Angels: Gen 6,1–4 and Reception History.” In A Pillar of Cloud to Guide. Text-critical, Redactional, and Linguistic Perspectives on the Old Testament in Honour of Marc Vervenne, ed. Hans Ausloos and Bénédicte Lemmeli-

476

Paul M. Joyce

jn, 247–276. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 269. Leuven: Peeters, 2014. Wilson, Kelly M. “Daughter Zion Speaks in Auschwitz: A Post-Holocaust Reading of Lamentations.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 37.1 (2012): 93–108. Zimmerli, Walter. Ezekiel 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel Chapters 1–24. Hermeneia. Translated by Ronald E. Clements. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979. Originally published as Ezechiel 1, I. Teilband. Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament XIII/1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969.

Ezekiel as José Posada: An Experiment in Cultural Exegesis1 Daniel L. Smith-Christopher

Figure 1: Ángel Zamarripa, Don José Guadalupe Posada with Catrina and Devil (1957).

1. Ezekiel 37.1–14 in Recent Scholarship In another study that predated the present essay, I noted that in much of the existing scholarship on the famous Vision of the Dry Bones in Ezekiel 37, there is a certain repetition of a few important observations.2 These are significant 1 This experimental essay is written in dedication to my many Mexican and Mexican-American students at Loyola Marymount University who have taught me more than I can ever repay. Here I offer a reflection on one part of the Hebrew Bible in the context of aspects of Mexican culture and history. 2 See my other essay in this volume, “Deconstructing Terror in Ezekiel.”

478

Daniel L. Smith-Christopher

contributions to our understanding of this passage. First, a certain ‘anatomical’ sequence of the revival of human beings is often noted, particularly its resemblance to the creation account in Gen 2. Also widely noted is the proposed connection between this passage and Jer 8.1–2 (although I think vv. 1–4 ought to be included in the discussion3) where there is a striking imagery of punishment for idolatry by spreading people’s bones out to the sun. The passage is certainly a reminder of the cultural significance of ‘bones’ as representative symbols of the people – in this case, the corrupt leadership whom Jeremiah blames for the Babylonian conquest. That idea that these bones may represent the people, and thus have important meaning for identity is also not an insignificant point, and it is interesting to point out that there are contemporary analyses of the significance of ‘bones’ and their handling in modern Israel.4 Finally, a discussion of how this vision relates to Hebrew beliefs about resurrection is always important given the historical use of this vision in Christian polemics, but the general conclusion is that we cannot really speak of a concept of resurrection of the dead as a context for this vision.5 Is it possible, however, that a focus on the iconography, or perhaps symbolism, of bones may yield an interesting context for reading Ezekiel 37? It is the goal of this experiment in cultural exegesis to explore this question.

2. Toward a “Mexican Reading” of Ezekiel 37? Bones of the Bible This experiment was inspired by my recent reading on Mexican history and culture – itself a very tardy response to my anxiety over my lack of understanding the cultural and experiential context for appreciating the concerns of my many Mexican and Mexican-American students in Los Angeles (whether they are theological, historical, or at times even personal). Any non-Hispanic (like myself) who engages in even a cursory reading of Mexican history and culture will quickly come across the profound importance of festivals and celebrations in Mexican culture  – many of which have strong 3 Joseph Blenkinsopp, Ezekiel, Interpretation (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1990), 171; Keith W. Carley, The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, CBC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974), 55. 4 Alex Weingrod, “Dry Bones: Nationalism and Symbolism in Contemporary Israel,” Anthropology Today 11/6 (December 1995): 7–12. 5 Walther Eichrodt, Ezekiel, trans. Cosslett Quin, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1970), 509; Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2: A Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel, Chapters 25–48, trans. James D. Martin, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), 264; Brad E. Kelle, Ezekiel: A Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition, New Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 2013), 301; Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 25–48, NICOT (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1998), 372–387.

Ezekiel as José Posada

479

Figure 2: José Posada, Dancing the Jarabe in the Other World.

religious backgrounds that blend the indigenous and Spanish6 traditions that are the ubiquitous ingredients for virtually all things Mexican. For anyone interested in the book of Ezekiel, however, even a preliminary encounter with the artistry surrounding observance of the Day of the Dead (Días de los Muertos) celebrations (especially figurine sculptures, paintings, and many other types of folk art) is obviously striking! Skeletal figures are everywhere. Often partially dressed, these skeletons are portrayed as dancing, fighting, eating and drinking, even in romantic embrace. Furthermore, these Day of the Dead skeletal figures all bear the unsettling ‘smile’ of fleshless teeth, and the empty stares. The point is, they are skeletons that ‘live,’ yet are not alive. The macabre images include the popular pure-sugar skulls, decorated but never eaten, on sale everywhere in the cities and villages of Mexico as October draws near. There have been some important discussions about the history of Días de los Muertos. For example, in his book, Skulls to the Living, Bread to the Dead: The Day of the Dead in Mexico and Beyond, Stanley Brandes argues that the Day of the Dead has essentially Spanish Christian roots: The evidence speaks for itself. Throughout southern Europe and Latin America – particularly the parts of Latin America such as Mexico, the Andes, and the American Southwest, which were all settled around the time of the Spanish conquest – special food displays are an important part of All Saints’ and All Souls’ days proceedings. So 6 For the significance of celebrations and rituals in Spanish culture, see the wonderful work of Max Harris, Carnival and Other Christian Festivals: Folk Theology and Folk Performance (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2003).

480

Daniel L. Smith-Christopher

is the ritualized distribution of food, whether by begging or other means … it would be hard to deny that the Mexican Day of the Dead does have a prominent, though not exclusive, Spanish origin.7

There may be a Spanish origin to connections with All Saints’ Day celebrations, but this cannot be allowed to override the unique elements of the Mexican Day of the Dead celebrations.

3. Day of the Dead and Colonial Suffering? The Day of the Dead celebrations certainly go back to early colonial contact, and this means that we cannot dismiss a direct connection between whatever Spanish imagery and chronology (e. g. the time of October) that may have been brought to Mexico, and the horrific holocaust visited upon the indigenous people of colonial Mexico at the same time. Estimates of the stunning decline in the native population of Mexico as a direct result of Spanish presence vary from 22 % to 95 %. Sherbourne Cook and Woodrow Borah’s figures, for example, are as follows: (1) Ca. 1519–1532 – Estimated population from 16.8 from 25.2 million; (2) 1548 – 6.3 million; (3) 1605 – 1.075 million; (4) By 1620s – 730,000.8 Furthermore, Brandes writes that there is evidence that Spaniards tried to “tone down” the popularity of All Souls / ​All Saints day celebrations in the colonial era, and he cites Juan Pedro Viqueira, who argued that the Day of the Dead posed a threat to civil authorities. Viqueira, he writes, “demonstrates … that the Day of the Dead, with its culinary, iconographic, and other flamboyant symbols of death, became a form of resistance against official ideology and social practices.”9 How? And why? Is it because the Day of the Dead somehow revives pre-Christian imagery and rituals in direct resistance to the Christianization of the Indigenous people? This has been offered as one argument, given the fact that skulls do occur in pre-contact Aztec art. But Brandes argues against the direct relationship of Day of the Dead to pre-contact death rituals of Aztec and other indigenous religious rites of sacrifice. Even though celebrations at grave sites suggests a strong emphasis on remembering the ancestors, Brandes suggests that there are 7 Stanley Brandes, Skulls to the Living, Bread to the Dead: The Day of the Dead in Mexico and Beyond (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2006), 33. 8 Sherburne F. Cook and Woodrow Borah, Essays in Population History, 3 vols (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971–1979), cited in Brandes, Skulls to the Living, Bread to the Dead, 35. 9 Brandes, Skulls to the Living, Bread to the Dead, 41.

Ezekiel as José Posada

481

a number of intrinsic characteristics of bones / ​skulls in Mexican Day of the Dead celebrations that differentiate them from indigenous use of skull imagery. Among these characteristics Brandes notes: (1) They are ephemeral art – Pan de Muerto (“dead bread”), sugar skulls and coffins, drawings, but all made for momentary consumption “to celebrate the moment.” (2) They are seasonal art – the Day of the Dead is the focus of the decorations, not funerary arrangements generally. (3) They are humorous in content: the decorations and art manifest a playful quality. (4) They are secular, as there is little or no sacred significance attached to the objects. (5) Day of the Dead art is designed for living people, not for the deceased. (6) Day of the Dead art is small, light, and transportable.10 All of this seen as quite different from pre-Columbian artistic use of skeletal motifs,11 especially given the Aztec morbidity and graphic descriptions of sacrifice. But Brandes is equally convinced that the Spanish influence is only minimal. For example, the Spanish / ​European traditions of the “Macabre Dance” (Danza Macabra) tended to emphasize the ultimate equality of all (facing death), and to emphasize that we have only a limited time for repentance.12 Certainly there may be a bit of humor in such medieval portrayals, and perhaps even a bit of enjoyment of the fall of the rich and powerful, eventually, to the death that faces us all – but Brandes argues that this is not the “whimsical” Day of the Dead humor. Finally, Brandes notes, contrary to the Spanish / ​European influences, Day of the Dead skeletons are rarely portrayed as directly interacting with humans, which was the whole point in the European portrayals (see Figure 3).13 Given Brandes’ argument, if Day of the Dead is not easily and directly traced to either Spanish Catholic influences from All Saints’ Day or the Macabre Dance, nor a sort of ‘folk-revival’ of indigenous Aztec identity and symbolism from precontact Mexican native cultures, then how is it thought to be “social resistance” or “politicized”? A hint is suggested by Brandes himself: … no special Mexican view of death, no uniquely morbid Mexican national character, has produced this mortuary art. Rather, specific demographic and political circumstances originally gave rise to it and commercial interests have allowed it to flourish in the 20th Century. It is above all the enormous proliferation of Day of the Dead art that has produced the all-too-familiar stereotype of the death-obsessed Mexican.14 10 Ibid.,

48–50. 54. 12 Ibid., 59. 13 Ibid., 60. 14 Ibid., 66. 11 Ibid.,

482

Daniel L. Smith-Christopher

Figure 3: Francisco Bustamante (c.1680–1737), typical Spanish, not Mexican, imagery.

Thus, Brandes suggests that there is something inherently Mexican about the emergence of the Day of the Dead imagery  – but is there significant social commentary here? Initially, the literature on Day of the Dead isn’t promising for consideration of a social or even ‘political’ reading of the Day of the Dead celebrations. In fact, in their 1994 collection of essays dedicated to the politics of ritual celebrations in Mexico, Rituals of Rule, Rituals of Resistance: Public Celebrations and Popular Culture in Mexico, the editors have no chapter on Day of the Dead, and don’t even make significant mention of Day of the Dead in the course of talking about other celebrations more amenable to a social and political interpretation.15 Social and political readings of Day of the Dead, however, are not entirely absent in the literature. Juanita Garciagodoy, in her 1998 monograph Digging the Days of the Dead: A Reading of Mexico’s Días de Muertos, proposes that The calaveras found in the country’s largest metropolis during this time combine the sadness of unpleasant, miserably remunerated work with the delight of irritating the wealthy by reminding them of the situation of the subordinated and of the former’s 15 William H. Beezley, Cheryl English Martin, and William E. French (eds.), Rituals of Rule, Rituals of Resistance: Public Celebrations and Popular Culture in Mexico (Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources, 1984).

Ezekiel as José Posada

483

role in that subordination. The exhibits combine life and death by depicting activities of people’s livelihoods performed by skeletons.16

Drawing on Bakhtin’s famous notions of using ‘carnival’ imagery to speak of turning social conventions upside down as a social release and protest, Garciagodoy suggests that Day of Dead celebrations can be read as a message from the otherwise ignored classes and peoples in a Bakhtinian sense, turning social order upside down … by naming themselves in the agora, they make themselves recognized by those who prefer to forget their inconvenient actuality and their unpopular cries from the social wilderness.17

Such a reading already suggests a possible reading of Ezekiel 37, namely as a ‘carnivalesque’ reversal of fortune vision, intended as social protest. There is more, however, that needs to be said than the often over-simplistic (and over-used) invocation of Bakhtin to make virtually any folk celebration ‘political’. Indeed, it seems that there is something unique in the Mexican context that can take this discussion much further.

4. Calaveras (Skulls) and Social Commentary The mid-19th century was a turbulent time leading to the supposedly liberal leadership of General Porfirio Díaz. The first illustrated Mexican newspaper was named “El Calavera” (“The Skull”) and was established in 1847. After 31 issues it was suppressed by the government and its leaders were imprisoned for trying to incite rebellion. Why “El Calavera”? In his monumental 2005 study, Death and the Idea of Mexico, Claudio Lomnitz pursued the common allegation that there is something uniquely Mexican about symbols of death, a kind of morbid cultural trait, which supposedly finds its ultimate expression in the imagery of the Day of the Dead. First, Lomnitz does believe that the conditions of early colonial contact are an essential element of the rise of death imagery in Mexican self-consciousness. The horrendous native suffering at the arrival of Europeans certainly cannot be dismissed as an influence on thinking about death as a cultural trope. As Lomnitz writes, “even by the most exacting statisticians, the sixteenth century was a veritable holocaust for the native population.”18 We have seen the variability in the controversial debates about population estimates of the Mexican region before European contact, but in any case, “a relentless string of epidemics and famine, which were in part caused by violence and the reorganization of labor, had left a 16 Juanita Garciagodoy, Digging the Days of the Dead: A Reading of Mexico’s Días de Muertos (Niwot, CO: University Press of Colorado, 2000), 91. 17 Garciagodoy, Digging the Days of the Dead, 95. 18 Claudio Lomnitz, Death and the Idea of Mexico (New York: Zone Books, 2005), 68.

484

Daniel L. Smith-Christopher

population of only about one million Indians by the early years of the seventeenth century.”19 The records indicate many elements of tremendous suffering: In sixteenth-century Mexico, the public dismemberment, execution, or disfigurement of bodies was a recurrent form of displaying and enacting power, and the steady trickle of decrees by Crown and clergy that sought to give dignity to dead Indians, or at the very least to dead Christian Indians, were feeble protestations in the face of actual practice. Indians drafted for forced labor were herded in droves and branded like sheep, while impatient conquistadores played with the lives of Indians in much the same way that they gambled away fortunes with cards.20

Secondly, however, Lomnitz (against Brandes) thinks that connections with precontact ritual are not entirely missing from early Day of the Dead and funerary rituals of the Indigenous people who were converting to Christianity. Lomnitz proposes that the early adoption of Day of the Dead celebrations allowed some pre-contact concepts to merge with the emergent native Christian faith: That the Days of the Dead were taken up before religious education was closely patrolled, and even before purgatory was widely promoted, suggests that this festival was adopted both as an external mark of Christianization and as an occasion on which alliances with the clergy could occur in tandem with the renewal of reciprocal exchange between the community’s living and dead members.21

Noting that skulls were representative of fertility for Aztecs,22 Lomnitz notes the skulls appearing on foundations of pyramid structures in Aztec architectural motifs, at the center of calendar discs, and in the middle of the famous ‘sun disk’. Thus, argues Lomnitz, “[t]he Indians’ enthusiastic adoption of the Days of the Dead was a way of maintaining positive connections to ancestors while harnessing Christian power.”23 But significant changes in modern Mexico give rise to an entirely different use of the symbolism of skeletal figures. During the liberal progressivism of the 19th century, and the growing anticlericalism that accompanied it in Mexican social theory, Lomnitz argues that obsessions with the afterlife were held partially responsible for society’s “disregard for science and education, and its concomitant regime of fiestas [which] undermined the work ethics,”24 so 19th century intellectuals became increasingly critical of Day of the Dead ceremonies. Interesting, then, to note that Lomnitz argues that bones continued to be important! For example, in the treatment of, and respect toward, the remains of national heroes (caudillos) there continued an interesting concern with the presence of bones: Death and the Idea of Mexico, 69. 85–86. 21 Ibid., 137. 22 Ibid., 166. 23 Ibid., 218. 24 Ibid., 300. 19 Lomnitz, 20 Ibid.,

Ezekiel as José Posada

485

The nationalization of the dead and the displacement of the image of sovereignty from the person of the king to the remains of the martyred caudillo contributed wildly to the politicization of the death cult, with dead caudillos now channeling a power that had once been reserved for saints.25

Arguably, then, the cultural motif of respect for the bones as symbols of the dead transformed in the cultural imagination from an exclusively religious context, to the politicized context in 19th century Mexico.

5. José Posada as Mexican Prophet of Bones The stage is now set for the introduction of the folk art of José Guadelupe Posada, and as Lomnitz argues: … beginning around the time of the wars of independence, the skull as a metaphor for vanity migrated from ethics to politics. From being a reminder of the brevity of life (often represented next to an hourglass, for instance), and from serving as a prompt to lead a Christian life of humility, the skull came to stand for human equality. The medieval theme of death as a leveler was now mobilized as political critique rather than mere ethical rebuke: the transposition of the skull and the vanities now exhibited the ways in which equality was ignored and trampled by the powerful. José Posada’s illustrations of daily scenes are an example of the use of the skull in the radical liberal tradition of political critique.26

Figure 4: José Posada, The Calavera of the Trolley Cars (1907).

25 Ibid., 26 Ibid.,

368–369. 417.

486

Daniel L. Smith-Christopher

Figure 5: José Posada, Revolutionary Calavera from Oxaxca (early 20th century).

Garciagodoy notes that Posada was born to “humble, illiterate parents” in Aquascalientes in Central Mexico on February 2, 1852. Tyler says that his political cartooning already got him in trouble in Aquascalientes, which led to his move to León. He eventually moved to Mexico City in 1888, where he set up shop and soon became affiliated with Antonio Vanegas Arroyo. They worked together from then on, and it was during their collaboration that Posada created his bestknown works. Posada’s method was often to produce his marvelous etchings in under an hour. He would go from shop to shop and produce etchings for printing on demand, to work up his reputation. Although he enjoyed recognition during his lifetime, he died ‘penniless’ in 1913, and his bones were tossed into a common grave with those of other poor people, an end that Garciogodoy suggests was “an uncannily appropriate end for the supreme calaverista.”27 Posada’s work was ‘discovered’ in 1920s by Jean Charlot, a Frenchman who had come to Mexico City at age 22, in order to paint with Diego Rivera, and many historians have noted that muralists like Rivera often used three arguments to bolster Posada’s prestige as a folk hero: (1) he was mestizo (mixed); (2) his shop stood opposite the Art Academy of San Carlos; and (3) he died a pauper in an unmarked grace in “the lower class section of the Panteon de Dolores,” the largest cemetery in Mexico City.28 Lomnitz further argues that it was significant that Posada worked for the penny press, illustrating news broadsheets that featured stories of murders, executions, and scandals – it was thus the kind of art that Digging the Days of the Dead, 99. Death and the Idea of Mexico, 418.

27 Garciagodoy, 28 Lomnitz,

Ezekiel as José Posada

487

Figure 6: José Posada, Calavera of Don Follas and the Negro (early 20th century). served the appetites of the people rather than those of the bourgeoisie, an art that was in a fundamental way anonymous and generous rather than self-promoting and precious. Posada had made more than twenty thousand engravings that were mechanically reproduced and sold for pennies. Finally, like all true proletarian artists, he had had the confidence to use the modern means of production he found at his disposal.29

However, Lomnitz argues further that In addition to his credentials as a popular artist, worker, and acerbic critic of the Porfirian dictatorship, Posada was the artist who made by far the most prolific use of the sign that would become, in the worlds of the critic Luis Cardoza y Aragon, ‘Mexico’s national totem’: the skeleton.30

So, Lomnitz argues that Posada used the skeleton as a “sign of truth,” since “[t]he dressed-up skeleton showed up the arbitrary and violent nature of social inequality”31 while Jacques Lafaye suggested that “Posada offers … a sort of X ray of a collective soul.”32 Anita Brenner, friend of Charlot wrote that Posada was “a prophet.”33 However, although there continues to be a steady flow of books featuring Posada’s surviving art (there have been exhibitions in Chile in 1971, Germany in 1975, and China and the USA in 1979) many critics have wondered how 29 Ibid.

30 Ibid.,

23, 418. 419. 32 Garciagodoy, Digging the Days of the Dead, 102. 33 Patrick Frank, Posada’s Broadsheets: Mexican Popular Imagery 1890–1910 (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1998), 235. 31 Ibid.,

488

Daniel L. Smith-Christopher

‘revolutionary’ Posada really intended to be. Under Díaz, the press tightly was controlled, and many have noted that if it was too critical, papers and other forms of publication risked being shut down. Editors and writers were certainly jailed: Posada, of course, was subject to the same treatment, and it has been widely reported that he, too, spent time in prison contemplating the anti-Díaz nature of his acid caricatures. No one has been able to find evidence that he was ever jailed, however; only rumors suggest that he might have been arrested, rumors that seem to have developed long after the fact, when his having been against the Díaz dictatorship would have made him appear to have been a prophet of the coming revolution. It is more likely that Posada walked a careful line between too laudatory and too critical …34

Finally, however, the question of how much Posada broke with the past is considered a matter for debate. We noted how Anita Brenner called Posada a “prophet”, but it was surely the arrival of the revolution and the vindication of popular taste that resulted from it [that] emboldened Brenner to see Posada as a prophet. Using the metaphor from the Old Testament story of Belshazzar’s feast in which a debauched party is interrupted by the horrifying sight of the proverbial handwriting on the wall, Brenner made Díaz’s Mexico into the party, and Posada into the prophet who ‘protested, foreboded, and with a full heart scribbled on a corner of the national slate a mene, mene, tekel upharsin.’ This is truly a compelling analogy, which except perhaps for the prints that satirize the middle class, surely goes too far.35

Our interest, however, is not primarily how revolutionary Posada was, but rather the fact that Posada certainly transformed the use of skeletal imagery into political and social iconography with entirely new meanings. Sadly, Posada never appeared to illustrate biblical scenes, much less Ezekiel (which would surely have been spectacular), but that is not our main concern here. The result of our foray into Mexican social history, and José Posada specifically, asks this question arising out of the cultural experience of bone imagery in Mexico: what if Ezekiel is read as a kind of ancient José Posada? Does Posada’s work invite a new way of asking questions about Ezekiel’s imagery in Ezek 37 (among many other texts as well)? I would suggest that it does. In my review of Day of the Dead literature, hoping that something might spark a connection with Ezek 37, it soon became clear that the most intriguing connection is not the history or traditions of Días de los Muertos itself, but rather the skeletal iconography associated with it in modern Mexico that became the most important, and most suggestive, aspect to consider. In other words, this study arises from a consideration of the importance of bones, especially “living skeletons” in the iconography of Días de los Muertos but especially in the Mexican artist almost single-handedly responsible for the imagery now universally as34 Ron

Tyler, ed., Posada’s Mexico (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, 1979), 12. Posada’s Broadsheets, 235.

35 Frank,

Ezekiel as José Posada

489

Figure 7: José Posada, Calavera Bicyclists (late 19th century).

sociated with this Mexican celebration, namely José Guadalupe Posada. To summarize, the most suggestive aspect of the skeletal imagery of Días de los Muertos (at least in my non-Mexican-American view) is not the celebration or event, but rather the work, and especially the political art, of Posada himself.

6. Ezekiel and Posada as Artisans of the Dead: Bones in the Bible This essay suggests a reading of Ezekiel as José Posada. What this may mean is that Ezekiel, like Posada, engages in a meaningful artistry with a macabre medium, namely, working with symbols of impurity and death to communicate a message of its opposite: life! In order to demonstrate the possibilities in such a reading of Ezekiel (especially the vision of chap. 37), we must first engage in a brief review of the significance of bone imagery in the Old Testament. We have seen how a history of bone imagery adds depth to a reading of Posada’s images. The standard term in Hebrew that is used for ‘bone’ is ‫עצם‬. It is interesting to note, however, that some have proposed a conceptual link with terms used for ‘strong’, that is, a concept of strength deriving from a notion of “strong in bone” (e. g. Ex 1.7, 20?; cf. as late as Daniel 8.24; 11.23). Bones as representative of inward strength are suggestive – thus strong in the ‘frame’ of a person (Job 40.18). This seems to suggest why depth of emotion can be expressed as ‘shaking’, or ‘burning’ of one’s bones (common in Job, e. g. 4.14; 30.30; 33.19, of shivering; cf. Ps. 102.3).

490

Daniel L. Smith-Christopher

A number of scholars have noted the purity concerns about contact with bones: Whoever in the open field touches one who has been killed by a sword, or who has died naturally, or a human bone, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days … then a clean person shall take hyssop, dip it in the water, and sprinkle it on the tent, on all the furnishings, on the persons who were there, and on whoever touched the bone, the slain, the corpse, or the grave. (Num 19.16, 18)

Given Ezekiel’s priestly context, therefore, the vision of the bones alerts us to the similarity with Ezekiel’s other rather notable ‘violations’ of purity as an aspect of shocking pedagogy – opportunities for lessons to be offered (not unlike Peter’s vision in Acts 10), such as eating impure food as an aspect of siege imagery (Ezekiel 4, 12). As such, then, the use of bone imagery is consistent with the purity imagery of the book of Ezekiel as a whole. However, there is already an interesting caution to be registered here. At the same time that Ezekiel is to be associated with priestly concerns with impurity, it is also a prophetic work, and therefore we must note a minor theme of miraculous contact with prophetic bones: “As a man was being buried, a marauding band was seen and the man was thrown into the grave of Elisha; as soon as the man touched the bones of Elisha, he came to life and stood on his feet.” (2 Kgs 13.21) Of more particular interest, of course, is the care of bones as a way of showing respect for the dead. When Joseph secures the promise that his bones will be taken from Egypt (Gen 50.25, “you shall carry up my bones from here”) it is interesting that the fate of Joseph’s bones is rather carefully rehearsed in the Moses (Ex 13.19) and Joshua (Josh 24.32) narratives, and recalled in Sirach, which notes that it was a measure of Joseph’s greatness that “even his bones were cared for” (Sir 49.15). Similarly, the Deuteronomic Historian records David’s concern for the bones of Saul and Jonathan, whose bodies had been displayed by the Philistines (2 Sam 21.12, cf. 1 Sam 31.13; and in a later case, 1 Macc 13.25). Respect of bones also seems to be at the heart of the sentiment expressed in Psalm 34.18–20: “The LORD is near to the brokenhearted, and saves the crushed in spirit. Many are the afflictions of the righteous, but the LORD rescues them from them all. He keeps all their bones; not one of them will be broken.” Surely it is the respect for burying bones, treating them with respect, which is behind the thought in Ezekiel itself: “As the searchers pass through the land, anyone who sees a human bone shall set up a sign by it, until the buriers have buried it in the Valley of Hamon-gog” (Ezek 39.15). The antithesis of this, of course, is what is really important to us here – namely that disrespecting bones is an indication of condemnation. This is most famously, and rather carefully, noted as an aspect of Josiah’s reform, showing Josiah’s disapproval of previous rulers and those who violated the worship of the God of Moses only. The acts of Josiah are ‘prophesied’ (clearly by Deuteronomic editing) and then noted as fulfilled:

Ezekiel as José Posada

491

While Jeroboam was standing by the altar to offer incense, a man of God came out of Judah by the word of the LORD to Bethel 2 and proclaimed against the altar by the word of the LORD, and said, “O altar, altar, thus says the LORD: ‘A son shall be born to the house of David, Josiah by name; and he shall sacrifice on you the priests of the high places who offer incense on you, and human bones shall be burned on you.’” (1 Kgs 13.1–2) He broke the pillars in pieces, cut down the sacred poles, and covered the sites with human bones … As Josiah turned, he saw the tombs there on the mount; and he sent and took the bones out of the tombs, and burned them on the altar, and defiled it, according to the word of the LORD that the man of God proclaimed. (2 Kgs 23.14, 16)

Similarly, on the theme of treatment of bones as signs of disrespect, Amos appears to condemn Moab for disrespect shown to the King of Edom: “Thus says the LORD: For three transgressions of Moab, and for four, I will not revoke the punishment; because he burned to lime the bones of the king of Edom” (Amos 2.1). And, as in Psalms where care of bones is God’s promise for the righteous, the disrespect of the wicked is reflected in the treatment of their bones: There they shall be in great terror, in terror such as has not been. For God will scatter the bones of the ungodly; they will be put to shame, for God has rejected them. (Ps 53.5) Like a rock that one breaks apart and shatters on the land, so shall their bones be strewn at the mouth of Sheol (Ps 141.7) He has made my flesh and my skin waste away, and broken my bones. (Lam 3.4)

We can follow this theme of mistreating bones as a sign of condemnation in even more provocative directions. Many of the commentaries suggest a strong connection between Ezekiel’s use of the bones imagery in the vision of Ezek 37, and the threatened punishment of Jerusalem and Judea in Jer 8.1–3. This threat is echoed in the later work known as Baruch: But we did not obey your voice, to serve the king of Babylon; and you have carried out your threats, which you spoke by your servants the prophets, that the bones of our kings and the bones of our ancestors would be brought out of their resting place. (Bar 2.24).

In the commentary literature on Jeremiah 8 especially, much is made of Mesopotamian comparisons with Assyrian rulers who threaten to spread or expose bones as signs of humiliation and defeat of enemies.36 In fact, in Ezekiel itself we find a similar sentiment: “I will lay the corpses of the people of Israel in front of their idols; and I will scatter your bones around your altars” (Ezek 6.5). To summarize, simply observing that Ezekiel the priest would clearly be troubled with a vision of bones as potentially rendering him impure is not enough to offer a sense of the ‘visually’ striking nature of this graphic description. This standard observations about the priestly context of Ezekiel does not take suffi36 William L. Holladay, Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of Jeremiah, Chapters 1–25, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989), 271–272; Robert P. Carroll, Jeremiah: A Commentary, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986), 224–226.

492

Daniel L. Smith-Christopher

cient note of the context of bone imagery in the Hebrew Bible. As we have noted, unburied bones were not merely impure, they were also a sign of disrespect, conquest, or humiliating hated enemies. They were also clearly intended to show a defeated people’s inability to properly care for the dead (thus the theme of burial in the late work, Tobit, for example). Furthermore, mistreatment of bones suggests contempt for that which otherwise should be respected – and there are strong suggestions of a contempt of bones that is directly associated with Assyria and Babylon – both as a result of their conquests (so Jeremiah and Baruch) but also as ravenous animals (Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Daniel). What is notable here is the lack of precedent for Ezekiel’s visionary presentation of bones reconstituted and reanimated. The hope expressed solely in Psalm 51.8 (“let the bones you have crushed rejoice”) may be influenced by Ezekiel as much as a possible pre-Ezekiel hint – but even if it was pre-Ezekiel, it is slim evidence for a major influence on the thought or imagery of the book of Ezekiel. In Ezekiel 37.9, the bones are from those who were killed (‫ )הרג‬As I have noted elsewhere,37 the term refers to those cut down with the sword (21.16; 23.10, 47; 26.6, 8, 11, etc.). When Ezekiel sees a ‘multitude’ (‫ )חיל‬arise, it seems to suggest he is seeing a restored army (cf. Ex 14.28; Deut 3.18; Nah 2.3; but in military context especially in Jer 32.2; 34.21; 35.11; 37.7, 10, 11; 38.3)! The military associations, allusions, and direct references, seem to suggest that the military and traumatic contexts are not ‘incidental’ to our reading of Ezekiel’s famous vision. Much more can be said, but if Ezekiel 37.1–14 is read as a response to military conquest, there are aspects of this vision that become more suggestive than simply treating this as a vision of “spiritual restoration” of a people. It is a refusal to accept defeat! We are faced with the interesting prospect, then, of suggesting the possibility that Ezekiel’s vision represents a genuine and strikingly new use of bone imagery as a euphemism of continued life. It is not entirely inconsistent with respectful attitudes toward bones, but it is most clearly to be understood as a response to the imagery of exile as disrespecting, ‘gnawing on’, and breaking, the bones of Israelite peoples. In short, did Ezekiel use bone imagery in a new way in the context of exile? Our reading in company with José Posada suggests precisely this possibility. Indeed, one might argue that Ezekiel is the only ‘Posada’ of the Bible – the only voice using this kind of inverted imagery of death to talk about life. By taking an image that was known in the past, but associated with impurity and disrespect (e. g. the touching of bones, and the presence of unburied bones), Ezekiel creates a radical politics of “resurrection” – a politic of refusing to accept the military defeat of Babylon (and Assyria before them) and suggesting that the people indeed have a future. If Posada’s message was a critique of wealthy abuse and political corruption in using bone imagery, Ezekiel’s use of bone imagery was quite likely equally ‘political’. Posada and Ezekiel ironically use bones as a 37 See

my other essay in this volume, “Deconstructing Terror in Ezekiel.”

Ezekiel as José Posada

493

Figure 8: José Posada, The Happy Street Cleaner Calaveras.

radical message of life! But in fact, we need not look far beyond the book of Ezekiel itself to see the meaning of ‘bones’ to one who has experienced conquest: “I will lay the corpses of the people of Israel in front of their idols; and I will scatter your bones around your altars” (Ezek 6.5); “The sword is outside, pestilence and famine are inside; those in the field die by the sword; those in the city – famine and pestilence devour them” (Ezek 7.15). Ezekiel thus writes as the refugee and a traumatized prophet. He lives in circumstances of unusual violence. But Ezekiel refuses to allow the trauma and conquest to mean the defeat and ultimate death of the Hebrew people. Ezekiel takes a shocking image – reassembling bones – and uses it as a proclamation of life – continued life for the Hebrew people. Ezekiel, in short, is to be read as José Posada … at least for the 6th century! A commentary by Lomnitz on a Posada etching could just as well be written about Ezekiel 37: The identification between the living and the dead produces a distancing, disaffection, or lack of identification with the age on the part of the living. The era becomes brutal, petty, or ridiculous, according to the occasion.38

I am grateful to my Mexican and Mexican-American students whose occasional references to their own traditions both enriched my classroom and prodded my own curiosity!

38

Lomnitz, Death and the Idea of Mexico, 379.

494

Daniel L. Smith-Christopher

Bibliography Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Ezekiel. Interpretation: A Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1990. Block, Daniel I. The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48. New International Commentary of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmanns, 1998. Brandes, Stanley. Skulls to the Living, Bread to the Dead: The Day of the Dead in Mexico and Beyond. Oxford: Blackwell, 2006. Carley, Keith W. The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel. Cambridge Bible Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974. Carroll, Robert P. Jeremiah: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986. Cook, Sherburne F. and Woodrow Borah. Essays in Population History. 3 vols. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971–1979. Eichrodt, Walther. Ezekiel. Translated by Cosslett Quin. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1970. Frank, Patrick. Posada’s Broadsheets: Mexican Popular Imagery 1890–1910. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico, 1998. Garciagodoy, Juanita. Digging the Days of the Dead: A Reading of Mexico’s Días de Muertos. Niwot, CO: University Press of Colorado, 1998. Harris, Max. Carnival and Other Christian Festivals: Folk Theology and Folk Performance. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2003. Holladay, William L. Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 1–25. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989. Kelle, Brad E. Ezekiel: A Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition. New Beacon Bible Commentary. Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 2013. Lomnitz, Claudio. Death and the Idea of Mexico. New York: Zone Books, 2005. Smith-Christopher, Daniel L. “Ezekiel on Fanon’s Couch: A Postcolonist Critique in Dialogue with David Halperin’s Seeking Ezekiel.” Pages 108–144 in Peace and Justice Shall Embrace: Power and Theopolitics in the Bible: Essays in Honor of Millard Lind. Edited by Ted Grimsrud and Loren L. Johns. Telford, PA: Pandora Press, 1999. Tyler, Ron, ed. Posada’s Mexico. Washington, DC: Library of Congress: 1979. Weingrod, Alex. “Dry Bones: Nationalism and Symbolism in Contemporary Israel.” Anthropology Today 11/6 (December 1995): 7–12. Zimmerli, Walther. Ezekiel 1: A Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel, Chapters 1–24. Translated by Ronald E. Clements. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979. –. Ezekiel 2: A Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel, Chapters 25–48. Translated by James D. Martin. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983. All illustrations in this article were used by permission from: Jean Moss, ed. The Day of the Dead: A Pictorial Archive of Día de los Muertos. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 2010.

Part 6

Reappraisal

Literary Unity, Empirical Models, and the Compatibility of Synchronic and Diachronic Reading1 William A. Tooman There is a basic irresolution at the heart of contemporary biblical scholarship. It is everywhere acknowledged and nowhere resolved. Interpreters, regardless of scholarly training, religious heritage, or academic context, increasingly acknowledge that ancient Jewish texts are unique works of art, each bearing a distinctive ideological, rhetorical, and aesthetic character. At the same time, it is commonly allowed that this character is the product of (at least some) creative processes of composition and editorial shaping. Thus, the conviction is widely held and commonly expressed that the character of ancient Jewish literature requires an integration of approaches.2 And yet, the great majority of scholarly production continues to focus attention on one aspect or the other: literary shape or compositional history. Indeed, few scholars are discussing the relationship between these approaches – synchronic and diachronic – in any sustained way.3 Despite wide acknowledgement that both are somehow essential to the task of text-analysis, there has been only sporadic conversation about a cooperative ap-

1 A portion of the research in this paper was conducted in 2014 with the support of an Arts and Humanities Research Council fellowship, which I gratefully acknowledge. 2 So, e. g., Odil H. Steck, The Prophetic Books and their Theological Witness (St Louis: Chalis, 2000; German original: Die Prophetenbucher Und Ihr Theologisches Zeugnis: Wege Der Nach­ frage Und Fahrten Zur Antwort: Wege der Nachfrage und Fährten zur Antwort [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996]); Wolfgang Richter, Exegese als Literatur Wissenschaft: entwurf einer Alttestamentlichen Literatur Theorie und Methodologie (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971); Johannes C. de Moor, Synchronic or Diachronic? A Debate on Method in Old Testament Exegesis (OS 34; Leiden and New York: Brill, 1995). Ulrich Berges, The Book of Isaiah: Its Composition and Final Form (Sheffield: Phoenix, 2012; German original: Das Buch Jesaja: Komposition und Endgestalt [Freiburg: Herder, 1998]), 1–37. 3 Among the few to publish more than a single article on the subject are Marvin Sweeney, Eep Talstra, John Barton, and Rolf Rendtorff (see bibliography). Speaking anecdotally, I often encounter two attitudes regarding this issue: the attitude that the issue is passé, an intellectual cul-de-sac of the 1980s and 1990s, or that the two approaches are hermeneutically incompatible and thus any reflection on the problem is otiose.

498

William A. Tooman

plication of the two approaches4 and virtually no hermeneutical reflection on the attendant problems of an integrated approach.5 4  These are often limited to reflections on the compatibility or incompatibility of specific methods. See, e. g., Simeon Chavel, “At the Boundary of Textual and Literary Criticisms: The Case of ‫ כי‬in Lev 20:9,” Textus 20 (2000): 61–70; Yair Zakovitch, “Implied Synonyms and Antonyms: Textual Criticism vs. the Literary Approach,” in Emanuel: Studies in the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint, and the Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov, eds. ‪Shalom M. Paul, Robert A. Kraft, Eva Ben-David, Lawrence H. Schiffman, and Weston W. Fields (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 833–49; Marvin Sweeney, “Synchronic and Diachronic Concerns in Reading the Book of the Twelve Prophets,” in Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations – Redactional Processes – Historical Insights, eds. Rainer Albertz, James D. Nogalski, Jakob Wöhrle (Berlin and Boston: de Gruyter, 2012), 21–33. Alternatively, some scholars extol the merits of one approach over the other, as can be seen, e. g., in Rolf Rendtorff, “Between Historical Criticism and Holistic Interpretation: New Trends in Old Testament Exegesis,” in Congress Volume, Jerusalem 1986; ed. J. A. Emerton (VTSup 40; Leiden: Brill, 1988), 298–303 and H. G. M. Williamson, “Synchronic and Diachronic in Isaian Perspective,” in Synchronic or Diachronic? A Debate on Method in Old Testament Exegesis, ed. Johannes de Moor (OS 34; Leiden and New York: Brill, 1995), 211–226. The few works that make some effort at integration tend to prioritize one approach and offer suggestions for integration as a supplemental discussion, e. g., Richter, Exegese; Meir Weiss, The Bible from Within: the Method of Total Interpretation (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1984; Hebrew original 1962). There are also numerous studies that juxtapose synchronic and diachronic without serious integration. To cite only three, see: Joy P. Kakkanattu, God’s Enduring Love in the Book of Hosea: A Synchronic and fiachronic analysis of Hosea 11, 1–11 (FAT II/14; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006); Serge Frolov, The Turn of the Cycle: 1 Samuel 1–8 in Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives (BZAW 342; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004); Daniel H. Ryou, Zephaniah’s Oracles against the Nations: A Synchronic and Diachronic Study of Zephaniah 2.1–3.8 (Leiden: Brill, 1995).‬‬ Something similar could be said for the new commentary series, the International Exegetical Commentary on the Old Testament (Kohlhammer).‬‬ 5 A rare exception is Alexander Samely, “Literary Structures and Historical Investigation: The Example of an Amoraic Midrash (Leviticus Rabba),” in Rabbinic Text and the History of Late-Roman Palestine, eds. Martin Goodman and Philip Alexander (PBA 165; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 185–215. Having more modest aims and results, see also James Barr, “The Synchronic the Diachronic and the Historical: A Triangular Relationship?” in Synchronic or Diachronic? A Debate on Method in Old Testament Exegesis; ed. Johannes de Moor (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 1–14; John Barton, “Historical Criticism and Literary Interpretation: Is There Any Common Ground?” in Crossing the Boundaries: Essays in Biblical Interpretation in Honour of Michael D. Goulder; eds. Stanley Porter, Paul Joyce, and David Orton (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 3–15; and Bernard Levinson, “The Right Chorale: From the Poetics to the Hermeneutics of the Hebrew Bible” in “Not in Heaven”: Coherence and Complexity in Biblical Narrative; eds. Jason Rosenblatt and Joseph Sitterson, Jr. (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991), 129–153. I will not be considering, except obliquely, most of those approaches that attempt to overcome the historical particularity of biblical texts for religious reasons, to preserve (or, perhaps, create) a voice for the bible in the contemporary world. These approaches almost always concede from the outset the need for a diachronic approach, whether in the form of ‘historical-criticism’ or ‘grammatical-historical interpretation’ or whatever (e. g., B. S. Childs, Biblical Theology in Crisis [Philadelphia: Westminster 1970] 97, 112; Rendtorff, “Between Historical Criticism”; Mark Brett, “Four or Five Things to do with Texts: A Taxonomy of Interpretative Interests,” in The Bible in Three Dimensions: Essays in Celebration of Forty Years of Biblical Studies in the University of Sheffield, ed. David Clines, Stephen Fowl, and Stanley Porter [JSOTSup 87; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990], 337–356), forestalling the more basic question of the compatibility of synchronic and diachronic reading strategies. I will also be avoiding any description of synchronic or

The Compatibility of Synchronic and Diachronic Reading

499

1. The ‘Unity’ of Ezekiel 36.16–386 Most interpreters, whether for hermeneutical, ideological, or pragmatic reasons, begin from the same starting point: the finished literary product in a fixed form. In the case at hand, that product is usually identified as something similar if not identical to the (proto‑)MT of Ezekiel. After this point, however, disputes and doubts begin. The misgiving of many synchronic scholars can be expressed in the following question: ‘can one reliably reach beyond the basic conditions and phenomena of a literary work of art into its hypothetical pre-history?’7 Beyond this basic question, however, there is great diversity of opinion regarding the aims and potentialities of synchronic reading.8 Practitioners of a synchronic approach, diachronic approaches as ‘interpretative’ or ‘exegetical’ methods. As we will come to see, this touches directly on one of the debates about the two approaches. In my judgment, the two represent competing explanations of the array of literary features that give shape and texture to the documents of ancient Judaism, and they will be treated as such. 6 The following observations on the structure of Ezek 36.16–38 are a synthesis of those made by Henry van Dyke Parunak, Structural Studies in Ezekiel (Ph.D. diss.; Harvard University, 1984); Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37 (AB 22A; New York and London: Doubleday, 1997); Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel 25–48 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998); Paul Joyce, Ezekiel: A Commentary (LHBOTS 482; London: Continuum, 2009); Franz Sedlmeier, Das Buch Ezechiel: Kapitel 25–48 (Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2013); and Thomas Renz, The Rhetorical Function of the Book of Ezekiel (VTSup 76; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 1999). 7 Roman Ingarden, Cognition of the Literary Work of Art, (Northwestern University Studies in Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy; Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press,1973), translator’s introduction xxii–xvii; Alexander Samely, Profiling Jewish Literature in Antiquity: An Inventory from Second Temple Texts to the Talmuds (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), esp. 16–28. 8 In my reading for this essay and only considering works that explicitly address the debate over synchronic and diachronic approaches, I have identified five definitions of the term ‘synchronic.’ (1) Synchronic refers to an ‘ahistorical reading’ versus diachronic, which is ‘historical,’ or as Eep Talstra prefers, synchronic means ‘reading which admits only linguistic data’ versus ‘reading which admits non-linguistic data’ (Eep Talstra, “Deuteronomy 9 and 10: Synchronic and Diachronic Observations,” in Synchronic or Diachronic? A Debate on Method in Old Testament Exegesis, ed. Johannes de Moor (OS 34; Leiden and New York: Brill, 1995), 192–93; John Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992], 7–16). (2) Synchronic refers to ‘analysis of a text as it was realized at one time’ as opposed to ‘analysis of a text’s changes through time.’ (e. g., Barr, “The Synchronic the Diachronic,” 3). In this case, the ‘final form’ is most frequently selected for analysis, though this not required. (3) Synchronic means ‘analysis of the text as a unity’ or an ‘artefact’ as contrasted with viewing the text ‘as a composite’ (e. g., Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative [rev.ed.; New York: Basic Books, 2011]; Jan P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art in Genesis: Specimens of Stylistic and Structural Analysis (2d ed.; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991]). (4) Synchronic approaches may value each text as a “literary work in its own right” (Marvin Sweeney, “Synchronic and Diachronic Concerns in Reading the Book of the Twelve Prophets,” in Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations  – Redactional Processes  – Historical Insights, ed. Reiner Albertz, James Nogalski, and Jakob Wöhrle [BZAW 433; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012], 21–33). This approach foregrounds the poetic qualities of a text like literary structure, word-play, voice, point of view, characterization, and so forth without, necessarily, insisting on unity. (5) The synchronic approach “reads the text as an end,” whereas historical-criticism “reads the text as a means” (Jan

500

William A. Tooman

though, hold two things nearly universally: a suspicion of the value and results of historical-criticism,9 and a commitment to analysing texts as unities. In the case of Ezek 36.16–38, two features that exemplify ‘unity’ are routinely emphasized: the structure of the pericope and its verbal and thematic connections to the wider literary context. 1.1 Structure of Ezekiel 36.16–38 A prophetic announcement formula (‫מר‬ ֹ ֽ ‫הו֖ה ֵא ַ ֥לי ֵלא‬ ָ ְ‫ )וַ יְ ִ ֥הי ְד ַבר־י‬stands at the head of Ezekiel 36.16–38, setting vv.16–38 apart as a text-segment. This text-segment is a complex of three oracles (vv. 17–32, 33–36, and 37–38) separated by the appearance of the prophetic messenger formula, ‫הוה‬ ֔ ִ ְ‫ ּ֤כֹה ָא ַמ ֙ר ֲאד ָֹנ֣י י‬, in vv. 33 and 37.10 These divisions are reinforced in the MT by the appearance of setûmôt after each. P. Fokkelman, Reading Biblical Narrative: An Introductory Guide [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999], 4; Paul R. Noble, “Synchronic and Diachronic Approaches to Biblical Interpretation,” JLT 7/2 [1993]: 131). By this definition, synchronic reading is very close to, if not identical with, “interpretation.” Concern for the pre-history of a text is not, in this view, considered an exegetical activity. For the majority of scholars who use the term, ‘synchronic’ is a multifaceted word, incorporating elements of more than one of these five concepts. Elizabeth Boase, for example, defines synchronic as “a reading of the text which considers it in its final form, reading the narrative sequentially and from an a-historic perspective” (“Life in the Shadows: The Role and Function of Isaac in Genesis – Synchronic and Diachronic Readings,” VT 51/3 (2001): 312 n. 2). Jacob Hoftijzer defines the term as “the approach which aims at the definition and description of the structure of a text in the final form in which it is handed down to us” (“Holistic or Compositional Approach? Linguistic Remarks to the Problem,” in Synchronic or Diachronic? A Debate on Method in Old Testament Exegesis, ed. Johannes de Moor (OS 34; Leiden and New York: Brill, 1995), 98 n. 1). Likewise, Paul Noble characterizes ‘synchronic’ as an “interest in the final form of the text” and, in the very next sentence, as “literary” (“Synchronic and Diachronic,” 131). In short, there is no common definition of ‘synchronic’ in biblical scholarship. Perhaps the only thing that is held universally is that ‘synchronic’ and ‘diachronic’ form a binary set.   9 Meir Sternberg, for example, laments “over two hundred years of frenzied digging into the Bible’s genesis, so senseless as to elicit either laughter or tears” (The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading, [Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985], 13). See similar comments in Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 48; Fokkelman, Reading, viii, 2, 4, 7, 14, etc.; and Moshe Greenberg, “What are Valid Criteria for Determining Inauthentic Matter in Ezekiel?” in Ezekiel and His Book. Textual and Literary Criticism and their Relation; ed. Johann Lust (BETL 74; Leuven: Peeters, 1986), 123–35. It is worth noting that many synchronic objections to the results of historical-criticism were based on out-dated methods and models. By the 1990’s, Ed Noort could sum up the effects of the ongoing debate as follows: “Diachronic approaches have a bad name outside of the specific historical questions in modern exegesis. Both methods and results are under heavy fire from many sides. The classic historical-critical approach has lost a lot of reputation and even in the heartland of diachronic exegesis, protestant Germany, new and other voices can be heard. On the other hand, many synchronic victories were not won by better positive arguments or by a better and convincing exegesis but by demonstrating the weakness of the diachronic positions, mostly as they were held at the beginning of the century” (“‘Land’ in the Deuteronomistic Tradition – Genesis 15: The Historical and Theological Necessity of a Diachronic Approach” in Synchronic or Diachronic? A Debate on Method in Old Testament Exegesis, ed. Johannes de Moor [OS 34; Leiden and New York: Brill, 1995], 129). 10 The occurrence in v. 22 serves to introduce the consequence portion of the oracle in v. 17–32.

The Compatibility of Synchronic and Diachronic Reading

501

Of the three, the longest segment, vv. 17–32, has the most complex structure and will be our focus. The whole section is unified by the repetition of so-called ‘keywords’: ‫ּגֹויִם‬, “nations” (vv. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 30),11 1 + ‫ ֵׁשם‬+ ‫קד״ׁש‬st person pronoun, “purify my name” (vv. 20, 21, 22, 23 bis), and words of defilement and purification like ‫חל״ל‬, ‫טמ״א‬, ‫טה״ר‬, ‫ּתֹוע ָבה‬. ֵ 12 Though, on the one hand, the oracle is unified by keywords, on the other, it is sub-divided by a transitional particle and by framing repetitions. First of all, vv. 22–32 have been set apart as the consequence portion of the oracle by the appearance of ‫ ָל ֵכן‬at the head of v. 22. (This division, too, is supported in the MT by the appearance of a setûmāh at the end of v. 21.) The accusation in the preceding verses (vv. 17–21) occurs in two movements that are divided structurally but not argumentatively. Structurally, ָ ‫ע ִל‬, ֲ “their way and their vv. 17–19 are framed by the repetition of ‫ ַּד ְר ָּכם‬+ ‫ילֹותם‬ ָ ‫ַהּגֹויִ ם ֲא ֶׁש‬ deeds.” Verses 20–21 are likewise framed by the repetition of ‫ר־ּבאּו‬ ‫ ​ׁש ָּמה‬ ָ / ‫ׁשם‬, ָ “the nations to which they came.” The two parts, though, comprise a single unbroken argument: Yhwh exiled Judah because she had defiled the land, but this caused a secondary defilement. The exile defiled Yhwh’s name (i. e., damaged his reputation) among the nations. The consequence section, vv. 22–32, is highly symmetrical. The unit is framed by the repetition of ‫ ֧ל ֹא ְל ַמ ַענְ ֶכ֛ם ֲא ִנ֥י ע ֶ ֹׂ֖שה‬in vv. 22b and 32a: v. 22b: Therefore say to the house of Israel, ‘Thus Adonai Yhwh said: It is not for your sake that I am acting (‫)ל ֹא ְל ַמ ַענְ ֶכ֛ם ֲא ִנ֥י ע ֶ ֹׂ֖שה‬ ֧ v. 32a: It is not for your sake that I am acting (‫)ל ֹא ְל ַמ ַענְ ֶכ֣ם ֲא ִנֽי־ע ֶֹׂ֗שה‬ – ֧ an utterance of Adonai Yhwh

This unit too is comprised of two parts, one, which is mostly poetry, in vv. 22–27, and another, which is prose, in vv. 28–32. The two address the same three topics, each of which responds to one of the problems raised in vv. 17–21. Thus, vv. 24–27 and 28–32 represent a dual-response to the same three problems, as indicated in the following diagram: 36.17–21 Accusation

36. 22–27 Poetic Response

36.28–32 Prose Response

A. You defiled the land and yourselves (v. 17)

C' I will not act for your sake, but for my name’s sake (vv. 22–23)

B" You will dwell in land again as my people (v. 28)

B. So I punished you by scattering you in many lands (vv. 18–19)

B' I will regather Israel from all diaspora (v. 24)

A" I will purify you (v. 29a)

C. Yhwh’s name was defiled A' I will purify you (v. 25) C" I will not act for your sake before the nations (vv. 20–21) (v. 32a) 11 This

continues the use of the term in 36.1–15 (vv. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13*, 14, 15). vv. 20, 21, 22, 23; ‫טמ״א‬, vv. 17 bis, 18, 25, 29; ‫טה״ר‬, vv. 25 bis, cf. 33; ‫תועבה‬, v. 31.

12 ‫חל״ל‬,

502

William A. Tooman

This, however, does not exhaust the connections between the parts. The poetic response to vv. 17–21 raises one topic that is not reflected in the prior accusation, namely, the transformation of the people such that they are empowered to keep the covenant (vv. 26–27). This topic is also reflected in the prose response, when it addresses the blessings of the covenant and evidence of the people’s transformation, indicated by their shame and self-loathing. In both 22–27 and 28–32, this additional topic appears immediately after the divine promise to purify the people: 36.17–21 Accusation

36. 22–27 Poetic Response

A. You defiled the land and yourselves (v. 17)

C' I will not act for your sake, but for my name’s sake (v. 22–23)

B. So I punished you by scattered you in many lands (vv. 18–19)

B' I will regather Israel from all diaspora (v. 24)

C. Yhwh’s name defiled before the nations (i. e., diaspora damaged his reputation) (vv. 20–21)

36.28–32 Prose Response B" You will dwell in land again as my people (v. 28)

A" I will purify you (v. 29a) You will enjoy the blessings of the covenant, and manifest A' I will purify you (v. 25) evidence of a changed nature (v. 29b–31) I will give you a new heart and spirit, so you C" I will not act for your sake (v. 32a) can keep the covenant (vv. 26–27)

1.2 The Place of Ezekiel 36.16–38 in the Literary Context Following the oracles against the nations (chap. 25–32) and the fall of Jerusalem (chap. 33), the focus of the book of Ezekiel turns more-and-more toward the future restoration. Chaps 34–39 attend to the return from diaspora and circumstances of the restoration, while chaps. 40–48 offer a visionary depiction of the restored land, focused, in particular, on the temple mount. In the MT, chapters 34–39 are segmented into six major parts, five oracle-complexes and one vision.13 The oracle-complexes (34.1–31, 35.1–36.15, 36.16–38, 37.15–28, and 38.1–39.29) are initiated by the prophetic announcement formula, ‫ויהי דבר־יהוה אלי לאמר‬, whereas the vision in 37.1–14 is headed by its appropriate announcement formula, ‫היתה עלי יד־יהוה‬.14 Ezekiel 36.16–38, thus, is presented as a bounded unit, delimited in an identical way to the surrounding text-segments.

13 Adapted from F.-L.Hossfeld, “Das Buch Ezechiel” in Einleitung in das Alte Testament; eds. E. Zenger, et al. (7th ed.; KST 1.1; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2008), 601–02. 14 This unusual formula reflects the form of the pericope, being narrative not discourse and vision not oracle.

The Compatibility of Synchronic and Diachronic Reading

503

Ezekiel 36.16–38 is famously replete with locutions and themes shared with a wide array of texts in Ezekiel (esp. chaps 11, 16, and 20), Jeremiah, and P / ​H,15 so it is unremarkable that there are additional verbal and thematic parallels to the immediate literary context, most notably to the preceding oracles in chaps 34.1–36.16. These are particularly notable in the last two oracles: vv. 33–36 and 37–38. I note the following connections: Prevailing Image: rebuilding and replanting the land Verbal Parallels (including antonyms) in black ‫ֹמות וְ ֶל ָע ִ ֣רים‬ ֙ ‫ וְ ֶל ֳח ָר ֹ֤בות ַה ּֽׁש ֹ ְמ‬36.4a ֔ ִ ְ‫ ּ֤כֹה ָא ַמ ֙ר ֲאד ָֹנ֣י י‬36.33–36 ‫ֹיום ַט ֲה ִ ֣רי ֶא ְת ֶ֔כם‬ ֙ ‫הוה ְּב‬ ‫ַהּנֶ ֱעזָ ֹ֔בות‬ ‫ת־ה ָע ִ ֔רים‬ ֣ ֶ ‫ּתי ֶא‬ ֙ ִ ‫וׁש ְב‬ ַ ‫ות ֶיכ֑ם וְ ֹֽה‬ ֵ ֽ‫ִמ ּ֖כֹל ֲעֹוֹנ‬ ‫וְ נִ ְבנ֖ ּו ֶה ֳח ָר ֹֽבות׃ וְ ָה ָ ֥א ֶרץ ַהּנְ ַׁש ָ ּ֖מה ֵ ּֽת ָע ֵב֑ד‬ ֶ֔ ‫֣יתי ֲא ֵל‬ ִ ‫ּופ ִנ‬ ָ 36.9b–10 ‫יכם וְ נֶ ֱע ַב ְד ֶ ּ֖תם‬ ‫ל־ֹעובר׃‬ ֵֽ ‫יְתה ְׁש ָמ ָ֔מה ְל ֵע ֵינ֖י ָּכ‬ ֣ ָ ‫ׁשר ָה‬ ֣ ֶ ‫ַּ֚ת ַחת ֲא‬ ‫יכ ֙ם ָא ָ ֔דם‬ ֶ ‫יתי ֲע ֵל‬ ֤ ִ ‫וְ נִ זְ ַר ְע ֶ ּֽתם׃ וְ ִה ְר ֵּב‬ ‫ן־ע ֶ֑דן‬ ֵ ַ‫יְתה ְּכג‬ ֖ ָ ‫וְ ָא ְמ ֗רּו ָה ָ ֤א ֶרץ ַה ֨ ֵּל ֙זּו ַהּנְ ַׁש ָּ֔מה ָה‬ ֙ ‫ל־ּבית יִ ְׂש ָר ֵ ֖אל ֻּכֹּל֑ ה וְ ֹֽנ ְׁש‬ ‫בּו‬ ֥ ֵ ‫ָּכ‬ ‫וְ ֶה ָע ִ ֧רים ֶה ֳח ֵר ֹ֛בות וְ ַ ֽהנְ ַׁש ֹּ֥מות וְ ַהּנֶ ֱה ָר ֹ֖סות‬ ‫ֶ ֽה ָע ִ ֔רים וְ ֶה ֳח ָר ֹ֖בות ִּת ָּב ֶנֽינָ ה׃‬ ֮ ‫ׁשר יִ ֽ ָּׁש ֲא‬ ‫רּו‬ ֣ ֶ ‫ֹּגוים ֲא‬ ִ֗ ‫צּוֹרות יָ ָ ֽׁשבּו׃ וְ יָ ְד ֣עּו ַה‬ ֥ ‫ְּב‬ ‫יתי ַה ֶּנ ֱ֣ה ָר ֹ֔סות‬ ֙ ִ ‫הוה ָּב ִ֨נ‬ ֗ ָ ְ‫ם ִ ּ֣כי׀ ֲא ִנ֣י י‬ ֒ ‫יכ‬ ֶ ‫יֹבות‬ ֵ ‫ְס ִב‬ ‫יתי׃‬ ִ ‫הו֖ה ִּד ַ ּ֥ב ְר ִּתי וְ ָע ִ ֽׂש‬ ָ ְ‫נָ ַ ֖ט ְע ִּתי ַהּנְ ַׁש ָ ּ֑מה ֲא ִנ֥י י‬ Prevailing Image: human flock (human fertility) Verbal Parallels in black ֔ ִ ְ‫ ּ֤כֹה ָא ַמ ֙ר ֲאד ָֹנ֣י י‬36.37–38 ‫הוה ֹ֗עוד ֛ז ֹאת ִא ָּד ֵ ֥רׁש‬ ‫ְל ֵ ֽבית־יִ ְׂש ָר ֵ ֖אל ַל ֲע ֹׂ֣שות ָל ֶ ֑הם ַא ְר ֶ ּ֥בה א ָ ֹ֛תם‬ ִ‫רּוׁש ֨ ַל ֙ם‬ ָ ְ‫ַּכ ּ֖צ ֹאן ָא ָ ֽדם׃ ְּכ ֣צ ֹאן ָ ֽק ָד ִׁ֗שים ְּכ ֤צ ֹאן י‬ ‫יה ֵּכ֤ן ִּת ְה ֶ֨יינָ ֙ה ֶה ָע ִ ֣רים ֶה ֳח ֵר ֹ֔בות‬ ָ ‫וע ֶ ֔ד‬ ֲ ‫ְּב ֹ֣מ‬ ‫הוה׃ ס‬ ֽ ָ ְ‫י־א ִנ֥י י‬ ֲ ‫ְמ ֵל ֹ֖אות ֣צ ֹאן ָא ָ ֑דם וְ יָ ְד ֖עּו ִ ּֽכ‬

ֶ ‫יתי ֲע ֵל‬ ֤ ִ ‫ וְ ִה ְר ֵּב‬36.10–11 ‫ל־ּבית‬ ֥ ֵ ‫יכ ֙ם ָא ָ ֔דם ָּכ‬ ‫בּו ֶ ֽה ָע ִ ֔רים‬ ֙ ‫יִ ְׂש ָר ֵ ֖אל ֻּכֹּל֑ ה וְ ֹֽנ ְׁש‬ ‫יתי‬ ֧ ִ ‫וְ ֶה ֳח ָר ֹ֖בות ִּת ָּב ֶנֽינָ ה׃ וְ ִה ְר ֵּב‬ ‫ּופ ֑רּו‬ ָ ‫ּוב ֵה ָ ֖מה וְ ָר ֣בּו‬ ְ ‫ֲע ֵל ֶיכ֛ם ָא ָ ֥דם‬ ‫יכם‬ ֶ֗ ‫ות‬ ֵ ‫ֹהוׁש ְב ִּ֨תי ֶא ְת ֶ֜כם ְּכ ַק ְד ֹֽמ‬ ַ ְ‫ו‬ ‫יכם ִ ֽו ַיד ְע ֶ ּ֖תם‬ ֶ֔ ‫ֹתי ֵמ ִרא ׁ֣ש ֹ ֵת‬ ֙ ִ ‫וְ ֵה ִ ֽטב‬ ‫הוה׃‬ ֽ ָ ְ‫י־א ִנ֥י י‬ ֲ ‫ִ ּֽכ‬ ‫יתי ָא ָ ֣דם‬ ֖ ִ ‫אנ֛י ֥צ ֹאן ַמ ְר ִע‬ ִ ֹ ‫ וְ ַא ֵ ּ֥תן צ‬34.31a ‫ַא ֶ ּ֑תם‬

The two brief oracles closing the unit, vv. 33–36 and 37–38, have different prevailing images. Verses 33–36 emphasize the rebuilding and replanting of the land. Verses 37–38 highlight human fertility, depicted as a large, multiplying flock. These themes are developed in the preceding chapters, most explicitly, in chap. 34 and in 36.1–15. Ezekiel 36.9b–11 combines the two themes (absent the flock image), and thus, elements from those verses appear in both closing oracles. Considered structurally, 36.33–36 and 36.37–38 address some of the key images and themes of the preceding oracle-complexes, 34.1–31 and 35.1–36.15, but they are in inverse order, creating a mirror-pattern:

15 Many of these connections are discussed in this volume, especially in the chapters by Barter and Häner.

504

William A. Tooman

34.1–31 the flock of Israel 35.1–36.15 replanting and rebuilding the land (esp. 36.8–12) 36.16–32 cleansing, transformation, and restoration 36.33–36 replanting the rebuilding the land 36.37–38 the flock of Israel

Considered this way, 36.33–38 takes up and advances the topics of 34.1–36.15. Verses 16–32 lie at the heart of the schema, which may be suggestive of its ideological or rhetorical centrality.16 These observations reinforce the view of some scholars that historical-critical approaches are not particularly meritorious. Historical-criticism, it is argued, overlooks evidence of textual unity or takes it as evidence of disunity. In this case, observations regarding the structure and topical unity of Ezek 36.16–38 and its verbal and thematic connections to the literary context have lead some Ezekiel scholars to one of two conclusions. Some have contended that 36.16–38 is original to the book if not the prophet or his immediate school.17 Literary unity is taken to be evidence of authorial singularity. Others contend that whatever the prehistory of the pericope and book, the resulting unity places its literary prehistory beyond reach. Moshe Greenberg has been the most vocal champion of this latter approach. In a pair of manifesto-style essays written in 1977 and 1986, Greenberg called on the academy to abandon attempts to recover an “improved” text, either by historical-critical or text-critical means.18 He contended, for example, that the OG and MT represent “two versions, each with its own quality and its own coherence.”19 He further argued, based upon finds in the Judean desert, that the MT was as old as the Vorlage of OG and that “this means that in the third century B. C. E. … several forms [of Ezekiel] were extant and considered authoritative.”20 For Greenberg, interpreters err when they cloud their vision with text-critical or historical-critical analyses (except in certain extreme circumstances). The logic of this approach turns on the notion of ‘cohesion’ or ‘unity.’ Patterns are discerned in the shifting phenomena – in repeated or fluid topics and images, in repeated locutions, in consistency or change in genre or voice – and, 16 See further in William Tooman, “Covenant and Presence in the Composition and Theology of Ezekiel,” in Divine Presence and Absence in Exilic and Post-Exilic Judaism, eds. Izaac J. de Hulster and Nathan MacDonald (FAT II/61; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 151–82. 17 Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 738–40; Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 338–43; Hector Patmore, Adam, Satan, and the King of Tyre: The Interpretation of Ezekiel 28:11–19 in Late Antiquity (JCP 20; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 137–46. 18 Moshe Greenberg, “The Use of Ancient Versions for Interpreting the Hebrew Text: A Sampling from Ezekiel ii 1–iii 11,” in Congress Volume: Göttingen, 1977; ed. J. A. Emerton (VTSup 29; Leiden: Brill, 1978), 131–148; “What are Valid Criteria.” In the 1977 essay, Greenberg singled out the following for particular criticism: Cornill, Fohrer, Eichrodt, Wevers, and Zimmerli. 19 “Ancient Versions,” 217. 20 Ibid., 219.

The Compatibility of Synchronic and Diachronic Reading

505

thus, unity is discovered.21 It is important that we acknowledge an assumption embedded in this approach. Before the features that create cohesion have been identified, there is already an assumption of unity. As the literary historian David Gershom Myers has put it: “Criticism, then, is the special activity of seeking the coherence which it postulates as a property of literary texts.”22 Even supposed instances of disunity – gaps, ambiguities, inconsistencies, redundancies, and the like  – are viewed by interpreters like Greenberg as constructive qualities and represent deliberate choices by erudite composers. In other words, to be properly appreciated, the Hebrew Bible requires the same techniques of reading that are appropriate to modern works of literary art.23

2. Empirical Models and the Question of ‘Unity’ In 1985 Jeffery Tigay introduced the term ‘empirical models’ into the discourse of historical-criticism. Tigay’s edited volume, Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism, contained an array of articles that explored how historical-critical theory might be informed by cases in which multiple stages of textual growth were documented in existing tablets and manuscripts.24 Examples were drawn from a wide array of times and literatures in ancient Near Eastern antiquity: pre‑ and post-biblical, Akkadian, Hebrew, and Greek. Examining cases of documented textual growth allows certain trend to appear. Some of these trends validated common historical-critical assumptions; most significantly complicated them. Because of Tigay’s volume and the work of those who followed up his ideas (to say nothing of related developments in the field of redaction-criticism) it is no longer sufficient to assume that editorial activity is revealed by cases of incohesion and incoherence in grammar, voice, style, theology, imagery, and so on. Such 21 Structural unity is particularly highlighted in the works of Shimon Bar-Efrat (Narrative Art in the Bible [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989; reprint London: T & T Clark, 2004]), Fokkelman (Narrative Art; Reading), Weiss (Bible from Within), and Greenberg (Ezekiel 21–37). It is not always clear what is implied by the term “unity.” 22 David Gershom Myers, “Robert Penn Warren and the History of Criticism,” Midwest Quarterly 34 (1993): 375–76. 23 This point has been made by Bernard Levinson, “The Right Chorale,” 29 and Marc Z. Brettler, “Coherence of Ancient Texts,” in Gazing into the Deep: Ancient Near Eastern and Other Studies in Honor of Tzvi Abusch (ed. J. Stackert, B. Porter, and D. Wright; Bethesda: CDL Press, 2010), 411–19 (cf. Sternberg, Poetics, 53, 409, 436–37). This tends to be asserted more strongly in biblical scholarship with respect to prose-narratives and poetry than it is for prose-prophecy or law. 24 Jeffery Tigay (ed.), Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985). Precursors to Tigay include George F. Moore, “Tatian’s Diatessaron and the Analysis of the Pentateuch” (reprinted in Tigay; original 1889); Thomas R. W. Longstaff, Evidence of Conflation in Mark? A Study of the Synoptic Problem (SBLDS 28; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars, 1977); Herbert Donner, “Der Redaktor: Überlegungen zum vorkritischen Umgang mit der Heiligen Schrift,” Henoch 2 (1980): 1–30.

506

William A. Tooman

may be the case, but it cannot be assumed that ancient standards of cohesion and incohesion, or tolerances thereof, are identical to modern standards. To validate a diachronic hypothesis, one must now show from documentary evidence that ancient writers, in fact, practiced the types of textual interventions that are proposed. This has given rise, in recent years, to a large body of literature on literacy, scribalism, scribal practices, writing, and rewriting in Jewish antiquity. The study of empirical models has had a secondary effect as well. It is increasingly evident that many cases of editorial intervention fill gaps, clarify ambiguities, flatten out grammatical discrepancies, and update language. In other words, a redacted text is, in many cases, a more coherent, more unified text.25 Returning to our test-case, Ezek 36.16–38 is remarkable in that the Hebrew text shows almost no fissures in its surface features – abrupt or unanticipated changes in voice or mood, pronominals lacking antecedents, incomplete syntactic constructions26 – and yet, there is significant evidence in the manuscript tradition for the evolution of the pericope itself and its structural relationship to the surrounding chapters. Verses 23bβ–38 of Ezekiel 36 are famously absent in certain Greek and Latin witnesses (Papyrus 967 and Codex Wirceburgensis [W]), and are now widely accepted as a late expansion.27 This is significant when one considers that 36.16–38 is a theologically central text, summing up and coordinating many of the book’s claims regarding Israel’s restoration. It draws together many elements 25 There is a quietly developing debate about the limits of ‘empirical models’ attested in works like: Seth Sanders, “What if There Aren’t Any Empirical Models for Pentateuchal Criticism?” in Orality and Literacy in Ancient Israel (ed. Brian Schmidt; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2014), 281–304; cf. Reinhard Kratz, “Abraham, Mein Freund: Das Verhältnis von inner‑ und ausserbiblischer Schriftauslegung,” in Die Erzväter in der biblischen Tradition (ed. Anselm Hagedorn and Henrik Pfeiffer; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2009), 115–36. 26 Regarding the singular verb in v. 20, ‫ויבוא‬, certain Cairo Geniza mss and sebirîn read plural ‫ויבואו‬. More to the point, the antecedent is ‫בת־ישראל‬, thus, the singular (“he,” v. 20) and plural (“they,” vv. 17–19, 21) are co-referential. Regarding the shift in person from third-person address (vv. 16–21) to second (vv. 22–36) and back again (vv. 37–38), Yhwh is addressing the prophet about Israel in vv. 16–21 and 37–38, whereas the prophet is instructed to recite vv. 22– 36 to them (note the utterance formulae in vv. 22 and 36). On these and other salient details see Anja Klein, Schriftauslegung im Ezechielbuch: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Ez 34–39 (BZAW 391; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2008), 140–68, esp. 141–48. 27 Compare also Codex Bibliothecae Bodleianae Coptico-Bombycinus on which see M. N. van der Meer, “A New Spirit in an Old Corpus?: Text-Critical, Literary-Critical and Linguistic Observations regarding Ezek 36:16–38,” in The New Things: Eschatology in Old Testament Prophecy: Festschrift for Henk Leene (F. Postma, K. Spronk and E. Talstra, eds.; Amsterdamse Cahiers voor Exegese van de Bijbel en Zijn Tradities, Supplement series, 3; Maastricht: Uitgeverij Shaker, 2002), 147–58, esp. 148). The following have argued against the value of Pap967 as a witness to an alternate text-form of Ezekiel: F. V. Filson, “The Omission of Ezek. 12:26–28 and 36:23b–38 in Codex 967,” JBL 62 (1943): 27–32 and John W. Wevers, Ezekiel (NCBC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982). Though present in LXXB, 36.23bβ–38 appears to be the work of a different translator than the surrounding text-segments, as was first recognized by H. St. J. Thackeray, “The Greek Translators of Ezekiel,” JTS 4 (1903): 398–411; The Septuagint and Jewish Worship (2d ed; London: British Academy, 1921), 37–39, 124–26.

The Compatibility of Synchronic and Diachronic Reading

507

from Ezekiel’s deliverance oracles, coordinating them in a single portrait of the future restoration.28 It incorporates many locutions and ideas from Jeremiah, coordinating the two books’ linguistic and ideological profiles more closely,29 and it harmonizes Ezekiel’s deliverance oracles, most notably by coordinating the promise of the divine spirit (37.14) with that of a new heart and spirit (11.19–20) in 36.26–28.30 The empirical evidence presented by Pap967 has several important implications for our methodological reflections. First, the symmetrical structure of 36.17–32 was produced in the process of the text’s diachronic development. The original oracle, vv. 17–23bα, included the accusations of impurity and a promise that Yhwh would act for his name’s sake, but no specifics were offered in this context (one of the circumstances which inspired the large expansion, no doubt). The redactor or redactors responsible for 23bβ–38 supplied the doubleresponse to the accusation and the two short supplemental oracles. This, in turn, indicates that redactional processes are responsible for the mirror-structure of chaps 34–36, intentionally or not.31 My main point, which is obvious by now, is that the literary unity of 36.16–38 and its integration with the arguments and themes of the book demonstrably are products of expansion and rewriting. Literary unity and compositional unity, it appears, are not correlates. The inverse is equally true. Incohesion and incoherence are not always suitable diagnostic tools for identifying cases of expansion and rewriting.

3. Implications The assertion that ‘synchronic’ and ‘diachronic’ approaches have different aims, and thus the critic’s objectives should dictate the selection of approach, is rather commonplace in this debate. As Joel Baden has put it, “the two methods move 28  E. g., 36.23 ǁ 20.41b, 28.25, 39.25, 39.27b–28; 36.24 ǁ 20.41b–42a, 39.27; 36.26 ǁ 11.19, 18.31, 39.29b; 36.27 ǁ 11.20, 37.14, 37.24b; 36.28 ǁ 37.25a, 27b; 36.29 ǁ 34.29a; 36.30 ǁ 34.27a, 34.29b; 36.31 ǁ 20.43; 36.32 ǁ 20.44, 39.26. 29 E. g., 36.28 ǁ Jer 7.7; 16.15; 24.10; 25.5; 30.3; etc.; 36.31 ǁ Jer 7.3, 5; 18.11; 25.5; 26.13; etc.; 36.33 ǁ Jer 33.8. 30 See further Johann Lust, “Ezekiel 36–40 in the Oldest Greek Manuscript,” CBQ 43 (1981): 517–33; William Tooman, “Covenant and Presence”; “Text History of Ezekiel” and “Ezekiel: (Proto‑)Masoretic Texts and Texts Close to MT” in The Textual History of the Bible. Volume 1: The Hebrew Bible; eds. Armin Lange, Emanuel Tov, Matthias Henze, and Russell Fuller (Leiden and Boston: Brill, forthcoming). 31 Among the few who would deny that biblical writers and redactors had the training or capacity to construct complex texts of any length are John Barton (Oracles of God: Perceptions of Ancient Prophecy in Israel after the Exile [London: Darton, Longman, and Todd, 1986], 141–54, esp. 149–51) and Karl van der Toorn (Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible [Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press, 2007], 9–26, esp. 16).

508

William A. Tooman

in absolutely opposite directions. The conflict, such as it is, comes about when one method is used to address the questions for which the other was intended.”32 The difficulty with such an assertion, as we have seen, is that both synchronic and diachronic approaches begin from the same text (typically the MT) and account for the same data in different ways. Both describe the presentation features of the texts we possess, particularly patterns of coherence and incoherence. More to the point, they both make (possible) claims about how texts came to look the way that they do, that is, how the sequence of graphemes presented to us came about. Thus, the relationship of synchronic to diachronic approaches cannot be reduced to different aims or different text-analytic goals. They are not different hats that the critic can change at will, depending on the task of the day. Some of the data to be considered differs depending upon one’s academic aims, to be sure. Not all of it is different, however, and the two approaches often make irreconcilable claims about this shared data. Nonetheless, the two approaches are similar in one important respect. In Greenberg’s synchronic view, for example, biblical texts are basically unified, coherent in their structures and ideas. The interpretive task entails articulation of those coherences. Gaps, contradictions, and redundancies are explained as shrouding deeper more elusive coherencies. For many historical scholars, ancient Israelite authors and readers are assumed to be every bit as intolerant of grammatical incohesion and logical or imagistic incoherence as we are. Diachronic analysis differs from synchronic analysis when inconsistencies and incoherencies are interpreted as signs not of strategy but of textual disruption. The same contradictions, gaps, and redundancies are often explained as the unplanned consequences of error (esp. text-criticism) or interference by a new hand (esp. historical-criticism). My point is this: synchronic and diachronic scholarship share similar standards of what constitutes textual unity and both assume the normalcy of such unity.33 They differ, most fundamentally, regarding the causes of perceived disunity. 32 Joel S. Baden, “The Tower of Babel: A Case Study in the Competing Methods of Historical and Modern Literary Criticism,” JBL 128/2 (2009): 222–23. As Nobel puts it, “one can note that critical and literary interpretations typically yield quite different kinds of understanding: The former helps us understand the text’s genesis (acquainting us with the sources, traditions, and political-cultural milieu from which it emerged), whereas the latter aids us in understanding the text semantically (i. e., in grasping its meaning).” “What I am suggesting, however, is that the critical tools should not be given the task of helping us to understand the meaning of the final form, because they are simply the wrong tools for that job. It is not a critical undertaking, and therefore does not benefit from those aspects of the critical tools that make them critical” (“Synchronic and Diachronic,” 134). 33 Sternberg, Poetics, 53, 409, 436–37; see related comments by Levinson, “Right Chorale,” 29. Instructive, in this regard, are the comments and assumptions of Serge Frolov and David Carr in the following exchange: Serge Frolov “The Death of Moses and the Fate of Source Criticism,” JBL 133/3 (2014): 648–60; David Carr, “Unified until Proven Disunified?: Assump-

The Compatibility of Synchronic and Diachronic Reading

509

We have also seen that empirical evidence reveals limitations in both approaches that are particularly manifest when practitioners of either approach adopt the assumption of unity too rigidly. In the case of Ezek 36, the redacted text, including vv. 23bβ–38, has a highly symmetrical design and is more closely intertwined with the themes and arguments of the book as a whole. In other words, the text that appears most unified is the redacted text. Diachrony, in this case, is not betrayed – at least not readily – by some failure of cohesion or coherence. Nor is synchrony revealed by unity. Empirical evidence provides ample evidence to conclude that neither assumption is suitable to the literatures of ancient Judaism, at least in cases like Ezek 36.16–38. Ancient compositional practices, ancient reading competencies, and ancient tolerances are not entirely coextensive with the standard of textual unity shared by diachronic and synchronic approaches. It is perhaps worth noting, in this respect, that the more an approach is systematized the less likely it is to be able to account for the complexities of biblical literature. When incoherencies are assumed to be products of textevolution, this assumption will overwrite or ignore the creative possibilities of deliberate incoherence and close the door to refection on the different standards of coherence and incoherence between ancient and modern readers.34 Likewise, when incoherence is assumed to be the deliberate product of literary creativity, it flattens texts into singular voices from singular times robbing them of the deliberate and dynamic exchanges that characterise Traditions-literatur.

Bibliography Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative. Revised ed.; New York: Basic Books, 2011. Baden, Joel S. “The Tower of Babel: A Case Study in the Competing Methods of Historical and Modern Literary Criticism,” JBL 128/2 (2009): 209–24. Bar-Efrat, Shimon. Narrative Art in the Bible. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989; reprint Edinburgh and London: T & T Clark, 2004. Barr, James. “The Synchronic the Diachronic and the Historical: A Triangular Relationship?” Pages 1–14 in Synchronic or Diachronic? A Debate on Method in Old Testament Exegesis. Ed. Johannes de Moor. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Barton, John. Oracles of God: Perceptions of Ancient Prophecy in Israel after the Exile. London: Darton, Longman, and Todd, 1986. – “Historical Criticism and Literary Interpretation: Is There Any Common Ground?” Pages 3–15 in Crossing the Boundaries: Essays in Biblical Interpretation in Honour of Michael D. Goulder. Eds. Stanley Porter, Paul Joyce, and David Orton. Leiden: Brill, 1994. tions and Standards in Assessing the Literary Complexity of Ancient Biblical Texts,” JBL 133/3 (2014): 677–81. 34 On this point in particular, see the forthcoming thematic issue of HeBAI: Standards of (In)Coherence in Ancient Jewish Literature, eds. D. Andrew Teeter and William Tooman.

510

William A. Tooman

– “Intertextuality and the Final Form of the Text.” Pages 33–37 in Congress Volume, Oslo 1998. Edited by A. Lemaire and M. Sæbø. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2000. – “Reading Texts Holisticially: The Foundation of Biblical Criticism.” Pages 367–80 in Congress Volume, Ljubljana. Edited by A. Lamaire. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2007. Berges, Ulrich. The Book of Isaiah: Its Composition and Final Form. Sheffield: Phoenix, 2012 (German original: Das Buch Jesaja: Komposition und Endgestalt. Freiburg: Herder, 1998). Block, Daniel I. The Book of Ezekiel 25–48. NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Boase, Elizabeth. “Life in the Shadows: The Role and Function of Isaac in Genesis – Synchronic and Diachronic Readings.” VT 51/3 (2001): 312–35. Brettler, Marc Zvi. “Coherence of Ancient Texts.” Pages 411–19 in Gazing into the Deep: Ancient Near Eastern and Other Studies in Honor of Tzvi Abusch. Eds. J. Stackert, B. Porter, and D. Wright. Bethesda: CDL Press, 2010. Carr, David. “Unified until Proven Disunified?: Assumptions and Standards in Assessing the Literary Complexity of Ancient Biblical Texts.” JBL 133/3 (2014): 677–81. Chavel, Simeon. “At the Boundary of Textual and Literary Criticisms: The Case of ‫ כי‬in Lev 20:9.” Textus 20 (2000): 61–70. Donner, Herbert. “Der Redaktor: Überlegungen zum vorkritischen Umgang mit der Heiligen Schrift.” Henoch 2 (1980): 1–30. Filson, F. V. “The Omission of Ezek. 12:26–28 and 36:23b–38 in Codex 967.” JBL 62 (1943): 27–32. Fokkelman, Jan P. Narrative Art in Genesis: Specimens of Stylistic and Structural Analysis. 2d ed.; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. – Reading Biblical Narrative: An Introductory Guide. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999. Frolov, Serge. The Turn of the Cycle: 1 Samuel 1–8 in Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives. BZAW 342. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004. –“The Death of Moses and the Fate of Source Criticism,” JBL 133/3 (2014): 648–60. Greenberg, Moshe. “The Use of Ancient Versions for Interpreting the Hebrew Text: A Sampling from Ezekiel ii 1–iii 11.” Pages 131–48 in Congress Volume: Göttingen, 1977. Ed. J. A. Emerton. VTSup 29. Leiden: Brill, 1978. – “What are Valid Criteria for Determining Inauthentic Matter in Ezekiel?” Pages 123–35 in Ezekiel and His Book. Textual and Literary Criticism and their Relation. Ed. Johann Lust. BETL 74; Leuven: Peeters, 1986. – Ezekiel 21–37. AB 22A. New York and London: Doubleday, 1997. Hoftijzer, Jacob. “Holistic or Compositional Approach? Linguistic Remarks to the Problem.” Pages 98–114 in Synchronic or Diachronic? A Debate on Method in Old Testament Exegesis. Ed. Johannes de Moor. OS 34. Leiden and New York: Brill, 1995. Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar. “Das Buch Ezechiel.” Chap. in Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Eds. E. Zenger, et al. 7th ed. KST 1.1. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2008. Ingarden, Roman. Cognition of the Literary Work of Art. Northwestern University Studies in Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press,1973. Joyce, Paul. Ezekiel: A Commentary. LHBOTS 482. London: Continuum, 2009. Kakkanattu, Joy P. God’s Enduring Love in the Book of Hosea: A Synchronic and Diachronic Analysis of Hosea 11, 1–11. FAT II/14. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Klein, Anja. Schriftauslegung im Ezechielbuch: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Ez 34–39. BZAW 391. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2008.

The Compatibility of Synchronic and Diachronic Reading

511

Kratz, Reinhard. “Abraham, Mein Freund: Das Verhältnis von inner‑ und ausserbiblischer Schriftauslegung.” Pages 115–36 in Die Erzväter in der biblischen Tradition. Eds. Anselm Hagedorn and Henrik Pfeiffer. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2009. Lust, Johann. “Ezekiel 36–40 in the Oldest Greek Manuscript.” CBQ 43 (1981): 517–33. Levinson, Bernard. “The Right Chorale: From the Poetics to the Hermeneutics of the Hebrew Bible” Pages 129–53 in “Not in Heaven”: Coherence and Complexity in Biblical Narrative. Eds. Jason Rosenblatt and Joseph Sitterson, Jr. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991. Longstaff, Thomas R. W. Evidence of Conflation in Mark? A Study of the Synoptic Problem. SBLDS 28. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars, 1977. Myers, David Gershom. “Robert Penn Warren and the History of Criticism,” Midwest Quarterly 34 (1993): 369–82. Noble, Paul R. “Synchronic and Diachronic Approaches to Biblical Interpretation.” JLT 7/2 (1993): 130–48. Noort, Ed. “‘Land’ in the Deuteronomistic Tradition – Genesis 15: The Historical and Theological Necessity of a Diachronic Approach.” Pages 129–44 in Synchronic or Diachronic? A Debate on Method in Old Testament Exegesis. Ed. Johannes de Moor. OS 34. Leiden and New York: Brill, 1995. Parunak, Henry van Dyke. Structural Studies in Ezekiel. Ph.D. diss. Harvard University, 1984. Patmore, Hector. Adam, Satan, and the King of Tyre: The Interpretation of Ezekiel 28:11–19 in Late Antiquity. Jewish and Christian Perspectives 20. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Rendtorff, Rolf . “Between Historical Criticism and Holistic Interpretation: New Trends in Old Testament Exegesis.” Pages 298–303 in Congress Volume, Jerusalem 1986. Ed. J. A. Emerton. VTSup 40. Leiden: Brill, 1988. – “The Book of Isaiah a Complex Unity: Synchronic and Diachronic Reading.” Pages 109–28 in Prophecy and the Prophets: The Diversity of Contemporary Issues in Scholarship. Edited by Y. Gitay. Atlanta: Scholars, 1997. – “How to Read the Book of the Twelve as a Theological Unity.” Pages 75–87 in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve. Edited by J. Nogalski and M. Sweeney. Atlanta: Scholars, 2000. Renz, Thomas. The Rhetorical Function of the Book of Ezekiel. VTSup 76. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 1999. Richter, Wolfgang. Exegese als Literatur Wissenschaft: entwurf einer Alttestamentlichen Literatur Theorie und Methodologie. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971. Ryou, Daniel H. Zephaniah’s Oracles against the Nations: A Synchronic and Diachronic Study of Zephaniah 2.1–3.8. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Sailhamer, John. The Pentateuch as Narrative. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992. Samely, Alexander. “Literary Structures and Historical Investigation: The Example of an Amoraic Midrash (Leviticus Rabba).” Pages 185–215 in Rabbinic Text and the History of Late-Roman Palestine. Eds. Martin Goodman and Philip Alexander. PBA 165. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. – Profiling Jewish Literature in Antiquity: An Inventory from Second Temple Texts to the Talmuds. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Sanders, Seth. “What if There Aren’t Any Empirical Models for Pentateuchal Criticism?” Pages 281–304 in Orality and Literacy in Ancient Israel. Ed. Brian Schmidt. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2014.

512

William A. Tooman

Sedlmeier, Franz. Das Buch Ezechiel: Kapitel 25–48. Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2013. Steck, Odil H. The Prophetic Books and their Theological Witness. St Louis: Chalis, 2000 (German original: Die Prophetenbucher Und Ihr Theologisches Zeugnis: Wege Der Nachfrage Und Fahrten Zur Antwort: Wege der Nachfrage und Fährten zur Antwort. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996). Sternberg, Meir. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985. Sweeney, Marvin. “Synchronic and Diachronic Concerns in Reading the Book of the Twelve Prophets.” Pages 21–33 in Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations – Redactional Processes – Historical Insights. Eds. Rainer Albertz, James D. Nogalski, Jakob Wöhrle. Berlin and Boston: de Gruyter, 2012. – “Synchronic and Diachronic Consideration in the DtrH Portayal of the Demise of Solomon’s Kingdom.” Pages 175–89 in Birkat Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature, and Postbiblical Judaism Presented to Shalom M. Paul on his Seventieth Birthday. Edited by C. Cohen, V. Hurovitz, A. Hurvitz, Y. Muffs, B. Schwartz, and J. Tigay. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2008. Talstra, Eep. “Deuteronomy 9 and 10: Synchronic and Diachronic Observations.” Pages 187–210 in Synchronic or Diachronic? A Debate on Method in Old Testament Exegesis. Ed. Johannes de Moor. OS 34. Leiden and New York: Brill, 1995. – Solomon’s Prayer: Synchrony and Diachrony in the Composition of I Kings 8, 14–61. Translated by G. Runia-Deenick. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 3. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1993. Thackeray, H. St. J. “The Greek Translators of Ezekiel,” JTS 4 (1903): 398–411. – The Septuagint and Jewish Worship. 2d ed; London: British Academy, 1921. Tigay, Jeffery (ed.), Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985. Tooman, William A. “Covenant and Presence in the Composition and Theology of Ezekiel.” Pages 151–82 in Divine Presence and Absence in Exilic and Post-Exilic Judaism. Eds. Izaac J. de Hulster and Nathan MacDonald. FAT II/61. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. – “Text History of Ezekiel.” In The Textual History of the Bible. Volume 1: The Hebrew Bible; eds. Armin Lange, Emanuel Tov, Matthias Henze, and Russell Fuller. Leiden and Boston: Brill, forthcoming 2016. – “Ezekiel: (Proto‑)Masoretic Texts and Texts Close to MT.” In The Textual History of the Bible. Volume 1: The Hebrew Bible; eds. Armin Lange, Emanuel Tov, Matthias Henze, and Russell Fuller (Leiden and Boston: Brill, forthcoming 2016. van der Toorn, Karl. Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press, 2007. Weiss, Meir. The Bible from Within: the Method of Total Interpretation. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1984 (Hebrew original 1962). Wevers, John W. Ezekiel. NCBC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982. Williamson, H. G. M. “Synchronic and Diachronic in Isaian Perspective.” Pages 211–226 in Synchronic or Diachronic? A Debate on Method in Old Testament Exegesis. Ed. Johannes de Moor. OS 34. Leiden and New York: Brill, 1995. Zakovitch, Yair. “Implied Synonyms and Antonyms: Textual Criticism vs. the Literary Approach.” Pages 833–49 in Emanuel: Studies in the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint, and the Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov. Eds. Shalom M. Paul, Robert A. Kraft, Eva Ben-David, Lawrence H. Schiffman, and Weston W. Fields. Leiden: Brill, 2002.

Contributors Penelope Barter PhD Candidate, University of St Andrews, and Honorary Teaching Associate in Biblical Languages and Literature, University of Chester Stephen L. Cook Catherine N. McBurney Professor of Old Testament Language and Literature, Virginia Theological Seminary Mark W. Elliott Professor of Church History, University of St Andrews Tobias Häner Dozent, Institut Thérèse von Lisieux, Basel Frank-Lothar Hossfeld† Professor für alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, Rheinischen Friedrich-WilhelmsUniversität Bonn (Emeritus) Paul M. Joyce Samuel Davidson Professor of Old Testament / ​Hebrew Bible, King’s College London Anja Klein Chancellor’s Fellow in Hebrew Bible, University of Edinburgh Michael Konkel Professor für Altes Testament, Theologische Fakultät Paderborn Thomas Krüger Professor für alttestamentliche Wissenschaft und altorientalische Religions­ geschichte, Universität Zürich Jacqueline E. Lapsley Associate Professor of Old Testament, Princeton Theological Seminary

514

Contributors

Ingrid E. Lilly Visiting Scholar, Pacific School of Religion Michael A. Lyons Associate Professor of Old Testament, Simpson University Tyler D. Mayfield A. B. Rhodes Associate Professor of Old Testament, Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary Christophe Nihan Professeur associé, Bible hébraïque et Histoire de l’Israël ancien, Université de Lausanne Karl-Friedrich Pohlmann Professor für Altes Testament, Universität Münster Franz Sedlmeier Professor für alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, Universität Augsburg Daniel L. Smith-Christopher Professor of Theological Studies (Old Testament), Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles John T. Strong Professor of Religious Studies, Missouri State University William A. Tooman Senior Lecturer in Hebrew Bible / ​Old Testament, University of St Andrews Steven S. Tuell James A. Kelso Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary

Index of Ancient Sources Hebrew Bible Genesis 1 1–3 1.26 1.29 1.29–30 1.31 2 2.1–2 2.10–14 2.17 3 3.1–6 3.24 4–8 6–9 6.5–7 7.4 7.17–24 7.23 8.1 8.13 9 9.9–11 11.1–9 11.27–32 12.1–3 15.1–21 15.17 17 17.1 17.7 17.7–8 17.13 17.19 19.20 19.22 21.13 24.6

248, 351n27, 353n52 248n12 71 351 77 257 78, 248, 253, 478, 391 248 71, 74, 77, 248n11 71 73, 247 71 71 262 87, 248, 275 261, 271 261 275 261 275 262, 275 160 95 255 289 289 286 289 160 289 159 95, 286 159 159 369 369 369 370

24.8 42.2 43.30 43.32 43.34 49.10 50.25

370 370 370 82n68 82n68 451, 452 490

Exodus 1.13 1.14 3.20 5.2 6.4–7 6.7 7.5 8.26 11.3 12.3–5 13.19 14.18 14.28 15.7 15.16 15.17 15.18 20.14 23.20 23.27–30 23.20–33 23.32–33 25–31 25.8 25.17–22 25.32 28.11 28.15–20 28.15 28.21

144 144 289 314 95 286, 351 314 82n68 257 51 490 314 401, 492 272 272 271 272 210 289 289 288 288, 291 20n3 161, 346, 364 77 78 77 74 74 77

516

Index of Ancient Sources

28.36 29 29.14 29.45 29.45–46 29.46 31.13 32 32.2–4 32.17–18 33.1–3 34.10–11 34.12 34.12–16 34.15 35.11 37.9 39.6 39.8–13 39.14 39.30 40.18–33 40.34–35

77 162n34 400 354 161, 162n34, 346, 364, 370 197 347, 364 288 82 82 288 286 291 288 291 163n39 78 77 74 77 77 163 163, 354

Leviticus 4.11 6.18 [ET 6.11] 8.17 9.11 10.2 10.6–11 10.10–11 11.44 15.31 16.26 16.27 16.29 17–26 17.4 17.7 17.10–16 18.2b 18.3 18.21 18.22 18.24 18.24–25 18.24–30

400 347 400 400 79 371 81, 83 353 162n36, 364 197 400 50 82n68, 153, 176n84 163 363 291 291 291–292 125 82n68 291 290–92 289

18.25 18.26–27 18.28 18.29–30 19.2 19.12 19.26 19.29 19.31 19.35 20.2 20.3 20.4 20.5–6 20.7–8 20.8 20.13 20.22–26 20.23 20.26 21.6 21.8 21.12 21.15 22.16 22.2 22.32 23.27 23.40 23.55 25.7 25.9 25.10 25.23–24 25.23 25.41 25.42 25.43 25.46 25.53 26

290, 349 82n68 290 82n68 353, 364 125 176n84 363 291 367 361 125 361 363 353 347, 364 82n68 289 290–293 353 125 347, 364 74 364 364 125 125, 347, 364 50 351, 352, 352n29 365, 367 357 50 367, 368 367, 368 350, 365 368 367 144 144 144 11, 130n31, 138, 139n4, 143, 144, 144n31, 145, 145n36, 146, 147, 148, 148n53, 148n54, 149, 153, 153n3, 154, 154n5, 158n19, 159, 159n21, 161, 163, 164, 164n42, 165, 168, 168n58, 169, 169n61, 170,

517

Index of Ancient Sources

26.3 26.3–13 26.4 26.4–5 26.4–6 26.4–13 26.4–45 26.5 26.5a 26.5b 26.5–6 26.6 26.6a 26.6b 26.1–13 26.4 26.9 26.9–12 26.9–13 26.11 26.11b 26.11–12 26.12 26.12a 26.12b 26.13 26.13a 26.13b 26.14–39 26.15 26.25 26.25–26 26.30 26.30–33 26.31 26.32 26.33

171, 171n68, 175, 176, 182, 182n13, 422, 425 147, 350 145, 146, 148n53, 153, 153n3, 158, 167, 168, 173 145, 146, 147, 159n21, 168, 169, 169n63, 355, 355n40 169 148n51, 167, 173n78, 175 143n27 153n3 146, 147, 148, 168, 170, 355 169 168 356n47 143, 146, 147, 159n22, 159n23, 355n39, 356, 357 168 169 355, 425 351, 355 146, 147, 158, 159n22, 159n23, 160, 160n24, 161, 347, 354, 354n35, 363 160, 163, 174, 354 158 145n36, 157n15, 162, 162n36, 163 163 146, 164, 175 145n36, 146, 286, 346, 350, 357, 364, 365, 367 163 158 146, 147, 148n51, 170, 175, 355, 355n41 170 168 146, 425 363 363 363n10 145n36, 363n10 175 145n36 364 124, 350

26.34 26.34–35 26.40 26.40–41 26.40–42 26.40–45 26.41 26.42 26.44 26.44–45 26.45

197, 350 316 425 425, 426 425, 433 363 425 149n55, 425 149n55 293 149n55

Numbers 1.49 2.5 5.3 6.25 8.7 10.4 11.15 11.31 11.32 16–18 16.2 16.35 17.1–11 17.3 17.8 18 18.2–24 18.3 18.5 19.1–22 19.5 19.16–18 19.20 25 25.10–15 25.12 29.7 31.6 35.34

365 365 346, 364 197 350 365 73n33 166n48 166n48 85n77 364, 365 79, 365 82 347 83 84n76, 85 371 85 84n76 351n24 400 490 350 159n20 355n39 159n20, 355 50 83 346, 364

Deuteronomy 2.15 3.18 4.34–35 4.37

399 401, 492 286 286n4

518

Index of Ancient Sources

4.37b–38 5.24 7.1–2 7.2–6 7.7–9 7.25–26 9.7 9.23–24 10.16 18.9–12 18.9–14 18.15 18.18 20.1–9 20.15–18 22.27 23.2–4 25.4 26.5–9 26.17–19 27.15 28 28–30 28.31 29.1 30.1–2 30.6 32.7–9 32.7–14 32.8–9 32.7–14 33.2 33.8–10

285 73n33 287 288, 291 288 82n68 33n4 33n4 424 82n68 289, 292 95 95 287, 289 288 94 85n77 167n57 287 96 82n68 148n53, 153n3 422 94 286 423 424 258 293 286 286 311 81

Joshua 3.5 3.7–14 4.19 4.24 6.9 6.13 13.1–7 14.11 24.2–14

289 289 51 399 83 83 264–65 206 289

Judges 2.15 2.16

399 95

2.18 3.9 3.16 5.4 7.1–8 7.2–7

95 95 95 311 289 287

1 Samuel 1.3 1.11 2.6 2.16 2.35 4.4 5.6 5.9 12.22 18.29 22.10 24.9 25.24–29 25.31 25.41 26.17 29.8 31.13

269 269 111 206 95 77 399 399 96 449 449 270 270 270 270 270 270 490

2 Samuel 6.2 6.7 7 7.5 7.8 7.24 21.12

77 83 104 104 70n23, 104 96 490

1 Kings 4.7–19 5 6.18 6.19–28 6.29 7.23 8 8.7 11.34 12 12.21

366 70 352 78 352 352 20n3 78 99 380n12 253

519

Index of Ancient Sources

13.1–2 13.1–3 14.14 14.24 17.17–24 18.22 20.31

491 261 95 82n68 112 250 253

2 Kings 3.15 4.8–37 13.21 16.3 16.6 17.27–28 19.2 19.23 21.2 21.11 21.23–24 23 23.1–2 23.4–20 23.13 23.14 23.14–16 23.15–16 23.15–20 23.21–23 23.30 23.35

399 112 490 82n68 306 81 250 270 82n68 82n68 361 111 50 50 82n68 400 49 261 298 50 361 361

Isaiah 1–39 1.19 1.26 2.3 6.1 6.1–13 6.3 6.4 6.5 8.6 8.18 9.5f 10.5 11 11.1

268 430 370 62 266, 270 269 269 365 369 77 269 99 82 126 99

11.1a 11.1b 11.6–9 14.3–23 14.12 14.25 19.16 25.10 26.16 28.5 29.22 34.12 34.15 37.2 37.24 40–55 43.10 44.3 49.18–21 49.20 f. 49.22 f. 50.1 52.1–2 54.1–8 54.1–3 54.1 54.4–8 54.10 55.4 56–66 56.9 60 60.14 62.2–4 65.1–2 65.17–25 66 66.7 66.10–14

92 92 77 72 72 60 399 399 423 82n69 206 369 370 250 270 268, 345 104 423 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 173n78 70n23 268 171n66 60 368n31, 370 369n 31 429 77 20 76n45 60

Jeremiah 1 1.5 2.2 2.20–25 3.1–5 3.16 3.17

449–50 250 60 60 60 160n28 368n31, 370

520 5.24 6.11 8.1–2(4) 8.4 8.1–42 10.13 14.22 18.2 18.18 20.1 23 23.1 23.1–2 23.1–8 23.3 23.4 23.4–5 23.5 23.5–6 23.5–6 24 27.11 29.15 30.9 30.21 f. 30.22 31.31–34 32.1–15 32.2 32.37–41 32.39 33.14–18 34.16 34.21 35.11 37.7 37.10 37.11 42.10–12 50.17 50.31 Ezekiel 1 1–3 1–7 1–24

Index of Ancient Sources

145 124 478, 491 392 391–92 76n45 423 369 81 70n23 142n21 181 140 181 160n28 95, 98 142 92, 95, 99 45, 104 368n31 5 285 95 92, 95, 99, 100 96 96 48 285 401, 492 48 49 368n31 125 401, 492 401, 492 401, 492 401, 492 401, 492 285 400 82 19, 24, 216 6, 50n25, 80, 461, 470, 449 238 6n23, 20, 22, 22n8, 33, 34, 236, 383

1–37 1–39 1.1 1.1–2 1.1–3 1.3 1.4–28 1.7 1.20 1.24 1.26–27 1.28 1.28b 1.28b–2.2 1.28b–3.11 2.1–2 2.3 2.3–10 2.4 2.5 2.5–8 2.6 2.8–3.3 3 3.1 3.7 3.9 3.10–16 3.11 3.12–13 3.14 3.15 3.16 3.16–21 3.17 3.18–21 3.22 3.22–23 3.22–27 3.33 3.27 4 4–5 4–7 4–24 4.1–3 4–24 5.1–4

200 50, 156 19, 112, 194, 237 50, 50n25 5 80, 241, 399 78, 249 489 489 25 470 19 252 252 252, 254 255 253, 418 253 268, 418 250, 254 418 254 66 22, 239 253 256, 418, 419 254, 418 5 254, 256 400 241 256, 275 194 85 418 418 183, 241, 256, 399 50, 256 406 183 418 490 378 22 326, 327, 340 406 339, 449 254

Index of Ancient Sources

5.1–17 5.5–7 5.5–17 5.10–13 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.16 5.17 6 6.1 6.1–3 6.1–4 6.1–7 6.2 6.3 6.3–7 6.3–8 6.3b–5 6.4 6.4–5b 6.4–6 6.4a 6.4b 6.5 6.5a 6.5b 6.5–7 6.6 6.6aβ 6.7 6.7a 6.7b 6.8 6.8–10 6.9 6.9bα 6.11–12 7 7.1–4 7.1–9 7.2 7.3 7.3–4 7.4 7.5–6 7.5–9

406 418 325 404 363n10 351, 418, 419 46 46 46 21, 54n3, 58, 59, 61, 63, 260, 377 55 55, 55n3, 260 55n3 54, 55, 56, 58, 60, 260 55 55, 58, 363n10 145 175 260 145n36, 262 55 55 55 55 166n48, 400, 491, 493 55, 145n36 55, 55n4, 145n36 405 55, 145n36, 260, 262 55n3 260 55 55, 55n4 125n16 22n7, 331, 332, 334, 340 132, 331, 334, 340 127 46, 363n10 55, 55n4, 81n65, 377 81, 81n65 81, 81n65, 82 81n65 81n65 82 419 81n65 81, 81n65

7.6–9 7.7 7.9 7.10 7.10–27 7.13 7.14 7.14–15 7.15 7.19 7.20 7.21 7.26 7.26–27 7.27 8 8.1 8–11 8–19 8.1–18 8.3 8.3–16 8.11–12 8.12 8.16–18 8.18 9 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.5–6 9.6 9.7 9.9 9.10 10–11 10.1–22 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.6 10.7 10.14 11 11.1–3 11.1–12 11.1–13

521 81n65 82, 82n69 419 81n65, 82, 82n69, 83 81, 82 419, 427 83 405 46, 363n10, 493 150n59 82 74 80, 80n62, 81, 83, 361 81 361 109, 262, 378 194, 237, 241 5, 6, 19, 34, 50n25, 62, 70, 213, 216, 250, 262, 312 238 83 112 418 140 250 83 419 20, 257, 262, 467, 468 78 80, 467 419 21 467 262 82, 250 419 257 78 78, 79 364 78 79 78 78 21 140 34 285

522 11.1–21 11.6–8 11.13 11.14–21 11.15 11.16 11.16b 11.16–17 11.16–20 11.16–21 11.17–20a 11.17–21 11.18 11.19 11.19a 11.19–20 11.20 11.22–23 11.23 12 12.2 12.2–3 12.8 12.8–16 12.10 12.15–16 12.15 12.16 12.19 12.21–27 13.1–7 13.1–23 13.9 13.14 13.21 13.23 14 14.1 14.1–3 14.1–11 14.3–5 14.4 14.5 14.6 14.7–8 14.7–10

Index of Ancient Sources

254 405 257 22, 33, 34, 121n3, 142n18, 285, 325 34, 256, 285n1, 295, 370 250, 257 34 140 80 332 34 293 34, 368 49, 68n10, 418, 421, 427, 427n24, 428, 431, 434 34n5 48, 147, 419, 430, 432, 507 35 249 62, 62n24, 364 22, 407, 490 418 418 121n3 92 129n28, 470 349 140 21, 363n10 361 250 140 121n3 33, 35, 36, 39 36 36 36 123, 128 121n3 418 36, 39 36 427 427, 432 33, 419, 426, 427, 432 427 36

14.11 14.11a 14.11b 14.13–21 14.15 14.17 14.21 14.21–23 14.22–23 15 15.6–8 16 16.1–14 16.1–43 16.5 16.8 16.14 16.15–34 16.22 16.23 16.27 16.27–28 16.35–58 16.43 16.44–58 16.44–63 16.52 16.53 16.53–58 16.53–63 16.54 16.55 16.59 16.59–63 16.60 16.61 16.61–63 16.62 16.63 17 17.1–21 17.11–19 17.19–24 17.22

33, 351 36 36 419 46 169n60 46, 363n10 5 326, 349 22 5 20n4, 22, 60, 382, 388, 460, 462, 468 330 383 164n42 38, 363 352 330 38, 330 427 330 427 330 38, 330, 427 37n12, 383 37n12 330 37, 37n11 36 33, 85, 121n3 226, 330 37n11 38 36, 37, 37n12, 331, 334, 340 38, 95, 157n13, 330 37, 37n11, 38, 226, 329, 330, 334, 340 331 95, 332, 340 38, 329, 330, 334, 337, 340 22, 38, 61, 62 61, 140 92 5 38, 61, 62, 367

Index of Ancient Sources

17.22–24 17.22–29 17.23 17.24 18 18.4 18.11 18.15 18.18 18.30–32 18.30–31 18.31 18.31–32 18.32 19 19.1 19.1–9 19.9 20

20.1 20–23 20–24 20.1 20.1–32 20.1–39 20.5 20.5–9 20.5–26 20.5–29 20.5b 20.8 20.9 20.10–14 20.12 20.12–15 20.13 20.14 20.15–22 20.16 20.20–23

33, 38, 39, 40, 61n21, 62, 63, 92 61 61, 62 361n4 21, 22, 39 361n4, 445 176n84 176n84 126 420, 432 435 21, 48, 49, 68n10, 418, 423, 427, 427n24, 430, 432, 433, 434, 435 428 21 22, 38, 92 59, 70 59 59 21, 22, 25, 61, 61n22, 103, 120, 121, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 127n24, 128, 129n28, 130n28, 130n31, 131, 132, 133, 134, 239, 460 194 238 327 237 331 40 314 328 129n28 124, 328 445 124, 314, 419 314 328 364 83 124, 314, 418 314, 418 328 418 83

20.21 20.23 20.25 20.27–29 20.30 20.30–32 20.32–33 20.32–38 20.32–39 20.33

523

124, 418 124, 125n16, 127, 140 126, 127, 132, 445 129n28, 314 419 418 425, 426 129n28 94 124, 128, 128n26, 245, 271–73, 316, 367, 433 20.33a 128n26 20.33–34 124, 128, 128n26 20.33–38 13.9 20.33–39 39 20.34 124, 126, 128n26 20.34a 128n26, 132 20.39 39, 125, 125n17, 129n28 20.39–44 22, 33, 51, 61, 62, 85 20.39a 419 20.39b 130n28 20.39b–44 419 20.40 39, 61, 62, 63, 77, 129n28, 142n18, 170n65, 367 20.40–41 39 20.40–42 40 20.40–44 39, 121n3, 129, 129n28, 130n28, 131, 132, 133, 134, 331, 334, 340 20.41 51, 125, 126, 131 20.41–42 125 20.42 131 20.43 123, 127, 132, 329, 331, 334, 340 20.43–44 128, 129, 131, 326, 430 20.44 123, 130, 130n28, 332, 340 21 22, 67407, 449 21.5 [ET 20.49] 419 21.7–12 [ET 21.1–7] 67 21.8–9 [ET 21.3–4] 460, 468 21.8–10 [ET 21.3–5] 21 21.12 [ET 21.7] 381 21.13–22 [ET 21.8ff] 67

524 21.16 [ET 21.11] 21.18 [ET 21.13] 21.22 [ET 21.17] 21.25–27 [ET 21.20f] 21.27 [ET 22] 21.30 [ET 21.25] 21.30–31 [ET 21.15f] 21.30–32 [ET 21.15ff] 21.31 [ET 21.26] 21.32 [ET 21.27] 22 22.4 22.6 22.6–12 22.9 22.24 22.25–29 22.25–28 22.26 22.26–28 22.27 22.29 22.32 23 23.1–35 23.2 23.4 23.10 23.17–19 23.20 23.24b 23.25 23.34 23.36–49 23.38–39 23.39 23.39–44 23.43

Index of Ancient Sources

401, 492 427 453 442–58 451 447–48, 449 140 92 449 446–51, 452 20, 22 128 140 384 176n84 351 83 140 76, 80, 83 81 368 361 340 20n4, 22, 60, 377–39, 462, 468 67 366 366 401, 492 379 380 455 380 380 67 76 379, 381 381 427

23.47 24 24–25 24.1 24.1–15 24.2 24.6 24.6–7 24.7 24.9 24.12–14 24.13 24.13–14 24.14a 24.14 24.21 24.25–27 25–32 25.1–26.6 25.4 25.12–14 25.23 26 26–28 26.1 26.1–6 26.1–21 26.1–29.19 26.2 26.3 27.3–4 26.4 26.5–6 26.6 26.7 26.7–14 26.7–28.19 26.8 26.11 26.12 26.15 26.15–18 26.17–18 26.19–21 26.19 26.21b 27

401, 492 22, 124, 128 238 194, 237 383 257 327 427 266 327 326–28 351 328 328 326, 327, 419 76 5 22n8, 33, 40, 67, 236, 246n6, 449, 502 57 145n36 311 75 40 41, 238 237 70n20 70, 70n20 70 350 70, 70n20 71 266 197 401, 492 70n20 70n20 67, 73 401, 492 71, 401, 492 76 70n20 70n20 40 41, 70n20 70n20 41 41

Index of Ancient Sources

27.1 27.1–36 27.2–27 27.10 27.13 27.26–36 27.32–36 27.36 27.36b 28 28.1–11 28.1–10 28.2 28.3–4 28.4–5 28.5 28.7 28.8–9 28.11 28.11–13a 28.11–19 28.12 28.12–13 28.12–19 28.13 28.14 28.14–15 28.15b 28.16 28.16b 28.17 28.17b 28.18 28.18b–19a 28.19 28.19b 28.20–23 28.20–26 28.22 28.24 28.25 28.25–26 28.26

70 70 40 198 200 41 40 71 41 42, 62, 72, 75n40 72n28 41, 70, 74n37 70, 70n23, 72, 73 73 73 76 74n37 74n37 70 246n6 41, 69, 70, 71, 72, 72n28, 73, 73n34, 74, 76, 78, 79, 80, 86, 87, 246, 246n9 70, 71, 72, 73, 77 247 40 71, 72, 72n32, 74, 75, 76, 77, 246n6, 443n2 61, 62, 71, 72, 77, 78, 247 246n6 247 61, 62, 71, 72, 73, 74, 74n37, 76, 77, 78 246n6, 247 71, 73, 246n6 247 71, 72, 73, 74, 76, 79 246n6 71 41 40, 44, 196 67 126 33, 44 126 33, 44, 103n20, 197, 202–03, 207 201

29–32 29.1 29.1–6 29.1–16 29.2–6 29.3 29.4 29.17 29.17–21 29.17–30.19 30.1–19 30.20 30.20–26 31 31.1 31.1–9 31.1–18 31.8–9 31.10–14 31.15–18 31.17 31.18 32 32.1 32.1–16 32.2 32.2–6 32.17 32.17–28 32.17–32 32.17–33.20 32.18–32 32.19 32.21 32.26 32.27 32.29–32 33 33–39 33–48 33.1–9 33.2 33.10–11 33.11 33.21 33.21–22 33.21–39

525 40, 42, 67, 69 237 196 238 196 42 200 237 25 238 42 237 238 40, 43, 238 237 67 42 348, 356 67 67 357 312–13 340 237 43, 238 70 40 237 43n20 40, 43, 43n20 238 40 312–13 312–13 200 400 43n20 21, 22, 140, 237, 383, 502 40, 44, 45, 340, 449 33, 47, 129n28, 236 85 361 420 442, 427, 432, 434, 435 180, 194, 237, 241, 257, 340 50n25, 238, 239, 240 5

526 33.21–39.29 33.22 33.22–33 33.23–33 33.24 33.25–29 33.27 33.28 33.30–32 33.30–33 33.31 33.32 33.33 34

34–36 34–37 34–39 34.1–2 34.1–10

34.1–15 34.1–16 34.1–22 34.1–24 34.1–31 34.1 34.2 34.2–6 34.2–10 34.2–22 34.3 34.4 34.5 34.5–6

Index of Ancient Sources

238, 240 122n5, 239, 241 33, 240 254 103, 295, 316, 370 293 46 59 419 256 419 419 250 11, 22, 92, 99, 100, 103n18, 138, 139n4, 139n5, 141, 142, 143, 143n25, 144, 144n31, 145, 146, 147, 148, 148n53, 149, 150, 153, 154, 154n5, 157n12, 165n46, 168, 168n58, 168n59, 169, 169n61, 169n63, 170, 171, 172, 173, 173n78, 174, 175, 175n82, 179, 180, 180n1, 180n3, 181, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 238, 243, 384 346–57, 507 93n3, 153, 154, 235–243 139n5, 167n55, 180, 502 180n3 33, 45, 98, 99, 140, 141, 180, 180n3, 181, 183, 183n15, 186, 186n22, 188, 191 93, 180n3, 181n8 180n3 171n67 141n17 92, 240, 242, 502, 503, 504 92, 93, 242 139, 141, 181, 181n7, 242 92, 93, 141 139, 140, 140n12, 141 143n27 141 141, 144, 144n32, 364 140 141

34.6 34.7–8 34.7–10 34.8 34.9–10 34.10 34.11 34.11a 34.11–12 34.11–14 34.11–15 34.11–16 34.11–31 34.12 34.13–15 34.13 34.13a 34.14 34.14a 34.15 34.15–16 34.16 34.17 34.17–19 34.17–22

34.17–24 34.17–31 34.18 34.18–33 34.20 34.20–22 34.20–31 34.22 34.22–24a 34.23 34.23a 34.23aβ

140, 141, 181 93, 93n2 92, 141 141, 143, 148 93, 180n3 140, 141, 142, 143, 170, 181, 242 45, 140n12, 242, 243 183n15 141, 142 183n15, 356n43 93, 102n16, 143n28, 181, 186, 188, 189, 191 45, 92, 95, 98, 99, 104, 140n12, 141, 142, 142n17, 143, 167, 170, 180, 180n3 365 45, 141, 142, 142n19 141, 142 59, 101, 143, 182n9, 186 182 63, 141n12 61, 62 45, 172n69 45 93, 141, 144n32, 181n8, 191, 364 93, 139, 141, 142, 242, 243 45, 92, 93 33, 93, 95, 95n5, 98, 139, 140, 140n12, 141, 142, 180, 180n3, 181n8, 182, 188, 190, 191 93, 143n24 141n17 141n12 148n53 94, 139, 140n12, 242, 243, 355 45, 92, 93 353, 354–57 94, 102, 139, 142, 143, 148, 182 94 93, 95, 97, 99, 101, 142, 142n21, 172, 182, 187 174, 187 97

Index of Ancient Sources

34.23b 34.23bβ 34.23–24

34.23–30 34.23–31 34.24 34.24a 34.24aα 34.24aβ 34.24bβ 34.25

34.25a 34.25b 34.25–27 34.25–28 34.25–30

34.25–31 34.26 34.26a 34.26b–27a 34.26b 34.26–27

174, 174n81 96, 98, 182n11 39, 45, 92, 93, 94, 95, 95n5, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 104, 105, 141, 141n17, 142, 143n28, 155n6, 156n8, 165, 165n44, 171, 173, 173n77, 174, 175, 175n82, 180, 182n10, 187, 187n26, 189, 191, 367 96n7, 173n77, 174, 175, 175n82 153, 154, 165, 165n44 93, 96, 96n7, 102, 142n21, 143n27, 172, 173, 182, 187, 366, 367 102n17 96, 98, 100, 182n11 100, 173n74, 182, 182n11, 187, 187n27, 189 98 44, 46, 143, 146, 143, 143n27, 144, 146n38, 147, 148, 148n50, 355, 356, 356n47, 357 166, 168, 169, 171 165n46, 170, 171 166, 167, 167n52, 171n67 201 46, 92, 93, 93n3, 141n17, 142, 142n22, 143, 143n27, 143n28, 145, 146, 147, 148, 148n51, 165, 165n44, 167, 167n55, 169n62, 170, 171n68, 173, 173n77, 173n78, 174, 175, 175n82, 180, 182, 187, 188, 189, 191 141, 143n24, 143n25, 354, 355, 356 144, 145, 146, 147, 166n48, 169, 355 165n48, 166n48, 167, 169, 170, 170n64, 172 169 145n35, 166n48, 168, 170 46, 355

34.27 34.27a 34.27b 34.27–28 34.28 34.28a 34.28b 34.28–30 34.29 34.29a 34.30 34.30a 34.30–31 34.31a 34.31 35 35.1 35.1–4 35.1–6 35.1–12a 35.1–15 35.1–36.15 35.2 35.3 35.4 35.5 35.5–9 35.7–8a 35.8b–12a 35.9 35.10 35.10–12a 35.12a 35.11 35.11–38.14 35.11b–12a 35.12a–15 35.13 35.14 35.15 36

527 143, 146, 146n38, 147, 168, 355 168, 170, 171 166, 168, 170, 170n65, 171 44, 46 46, 143, 146, 146n38, 148, 171, 355, 356 148, 171 148n50, 168, 170 166, 167, 167n52 46, 143, 168, 355 167 96n7, 143, 146, 166, 174 166 366 503 93, 93n3, 141n17, 142, 142n22, 165n44, 171n67, 354, 355, 356 33 121 196, 310 308–09 310, 315 56, 57, 58n14, 260 240, 243, 260, 502, 503, 504 309 58n14 315 310 308, 310 308 308–09 56n6, 312, 315 258, 310 308, 310 309, 315 307 123 308, 310 308 308 243, 308 308 21, 25, 58, 59, 61, 63, 68n12, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 130n28,

528

36–39 36–40 36–48 36.1 36.1–2 36.1–11 36.1–15 36.2 36.3 36.3–6 36.4a 36.4 36.5 36.6 36.7 36.7–8a 36.8 36.8a 36.8b 36.8–9 36.9 36.9–11 36.9b–10 36.10–11 36.10 36.11 36.11b 36.14 36.15 36.16 36.16–19 36.16–20 36.16–21 36.16–22 36.16–22aβ 36.16–23a 36.16–23bα 36.16–23 36.16–32

Index of Ancient Sources

130n31, 131, 133, 134, 179, 239, 260, 428 8, 123n8 156n8, 161n33 463 56, 57, 58 56, 57, 260, 308 57, 58, 60, 109 22, 54, 56, 309–10, 501n11, 503 56, 56n6, 59, 243, 309–10, 310n109 56, 243 56 503 56, 243 56, 243, 350 56, 143, 243, 260, 308 56, 226, 243 56, 57 352n31 56, 57 57 260, 308 57, 58 146 503 503 57, 57n9 57, 109, 160, 160n28, 260, 262, 265, 308, 351n27 57 56 121, 143 122n5, 130n28, 324 365n20 33 202, 348, 504n26 203 130n28 48, 68n11, 195, 197, 199, 202–04, 207–08 127, 129n28, 130n28, 133, 134 33, 44 68n10, 120, 120n2, 121, 504

36.16–38 36.16–37.14 36.17 36.17–18 36.17–23bα 36.17–19 36.17–21 36.17–30 36.17–32 36.18 36.19 36.19a 36.19b 36.19–21 36.20 36.20a 36.20–21 36.20–22 36.20–23 36.21 36.21–22 36.21–32 36.21b 36.22

36.22–23a 36.22–23bα 36.22–23 36.22–24 36.22–27 36.22–28 36.22–32 36.22–36 36.22–38 36.22b 36.23 36.23a 36.23–24 36.23bβ 36.23bβ-24

8n36, 22, 48, 52, 120, 122, 133, 323–41, 346–54, 351n25, 499–505, 506 240, 241 123, 128, 129, 327, 351 349, 351n24 507 129, 326–28, 501, 504n26 324, 325, 328, 327, 334, 339, 340, 501, 502 324, 340 340, 500, 507 124, 128, 327, 328 123, 124, 128, 129, 134, 326, 431, 501 328 327, 340 327 68, 325, 327, 348, 349, 501, 506n26 329 328, 501 202 128 125, 328, 501, 504n26 419 325, 340 329 68, 120, 121, 122n5, 125, 129, 130, 313, 314, 324, 328, 329, 334, 423, 432, 500n10, 501 202, 313 130n28 133 327 501, 502 328 325, 334, 501 504n26 122n4 329 125, 126, 130, 203, 501 125, 313, 329 49 125, 133 131

Index of Ancient Sources

36.23bβ-32

68n12, 68n13, 127, 131, 131n32, 131n34, 132, 133, 134 36.23bβ(c)-38 48, 49, 67, 68, 68n10, 115, 120, 120n2, 122, 133, 350–51, 506, 509 36.24 126, 327, 501 36.24–27 419 36.24–28 47, 114 36.24–30 330, 334 36.24–38 329 36.25 51, 68n10, 326, 327, 350, 351, 351n24, 421, 422 36.26 68n10, 418, 421, 422, 427, 427n24, 428, 433, 434, 435, 435n51 36.26–27 431, 432, 502 36.26–28 507 36.26–38 48, 49 36.27 147, 338, 350, 421, 422, 428 36.27b 325 36.28 48, 325, 327, 350 36.28–32 501, 502 36.29a 326 36.29 33, 327, 351 36.30 327, 351, 352, 355n40, 501 36.30b 325 36.31 33, 123, 126, 127, 132, 325, 327, 330, 331 36.31a 124, 127n24, 329 36.31–32 85, 323–41 36.32 120, 133, 226, 324, 328, 329, 331, 334, 419, 422, 423 36.32b 325 36.33 49, 68n10, 120, 121, 122n5, 324, 327, 351, 352n29 36.33–36 123,131n34, 132, 325, 352, 500, 503, 504 36.34 327, 352, 354 36.35 327, 348, 352 36.36 120, 121, 122n5, 327, 353 36.37 68n10, 324 36.37–38 68n10, 93n3, 120, 123, 131n33, 132, 325, 352, 353, 354, 500, 503, 504

36.38 37

37.1 37.1a 37.1–2 37.1–4 37.1–6 37.1–10 37.1–11 37.1–11a 37.1–14

37.1–15 37.1–17 37.2 37.2a 37.2abα 37.2bβ 37.3 37.3–4bα 37.4 37.4bβ 37.5 37.5a 37.5aα 37.5b 37.5–8a 37.5–8 37.5–10 37.6 37.6a 37.6b

529 353 59, 68n13, 92, 99, 100, 105, 110, 112, 112n21, 114, 122, 142, 153, 154, 154n5, 155, 157, 158, 159, 159n20, 160, 161, 162, 162n34, 163, 164, 164n42, 164n43, 165n46, 168, 171, 172, 173, 173n76, 174, 175, 175n82, 176, 179, 183, 185, 187, 188, 189, 190, 195, 199, 256, 258n53, 261, 404, 488–89, 491, 493, 391 122, 122n5, 241, 256, 399 108 46 117 108, 114, 188, 183, 186, 186n22, 191 107, 108, 110, 112, 112n21, 155 108 108 6, 46, 47, 48, 50n25, 52, 107, 109, 110, 111, 112, 115, 118, 131n32, 183, 207, 240, 248, 255, 391–409, 477–78, 492, 502 22 110n12 183 111 108 108 256 108 255 108 117 117 108 117, 183 255 116 110, 116, 117 109, 400 117 108

530 37.6–8a 37.7 37.7b 37.7–10 37.8 37.8b 37.8b–10a 37.9 37.9–10 37.10 37.10a 37.10b 37.11 37.11a 37.11b 37.11–13a 37.11–14 37.11b–13a 37.12 37.12a 37.12aβ 37.12b 37.12–13 37.12–13a 37.12–14 37.13 37.13a 37.13b 37.13b–14 37.14 37.14a 37.14aα 37.14aβ 37.14b 37.15 37.15–19 37.15–22 37.15–23 37.15–28 37.16 37.17a 37.17b

Index of Ancient Sources

117 400 110, 111 108 400 117 110, 111, 117 256 116, 255 257 108, 109 117 108 108, 113, 256, 257 113 108, 114, 117, 183 107, 108, 109, 112, 112n21, 113, 117, 155 108 113, 115, 257, 258 113 184n16 113, 183 47 113, 114 47 113, 257 113, 114 113, 115, 184n16 108, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 184, 184n16 47, 114, 117, 121, 122n5, 174n80, 184, 184n15, 191, 258, 421, 507 113 113 113 113 101 47, 101, 155, 174, 174n80, 183, 184 142n20, 191 174n80 22, 45, 47, 52, 99, 101, 156n8, 183, 240, 366, 502 184 184 184

37.19 37.19–20 37.20–23 37.20–24a 37.20–28 37.21 37.21b 37.22 37.22aβ 37.23 37.23–24 37.23b 37.24

37.24a 37.24aα 37.24b 37.24–25 37.24–28

37.24b–25 37.24b–28 37.25

37.25a 37.25b 37.25bα 37.25bβ 37.25–27 37.25–28

184n17 184n17 101, 102n16, 155, 155n6, 174n80, 184, 184n17, 185n19, 186, 188, 189, 191 47, 101, 102 47, 101 184n17, 186 184 59, 101, 103n18, 155n6, 174, 184, 186, 186n25, 187, 366 184 96, 101, 102, 103n18, 155n6, 184n18, 351, 423, 432 100 102 101, 142n20, 142n21, 155, 155n6, 156n8, 172, 172n73, 174n80, 184, 185n18, 187, 187n26, 189, 191 101, 102, 103n18, 104, 155n6, 156n8, 157, 157n16, 162n35, 172 102 103, 155n6, 157 39, 45, 92, 100, 103n18, 104, 105, 142, 157, 159, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175 153, 154, 155, 155n6, 155n7, 156, 157, 157n16, 158, 159, 164, 171n68, 173, 173n77, 173n78, 174, 174n80, 175, 176 103, 155n6, 157n16 47, 101, 103 44, 100, 103, 142n21, 155, 155n6, 172, 173n78, 174n80, 185n19, 187, 189, 367 103, 155n6, 157 101, 103, 159 159 104, 155n6, 157, 159, 185 100 155, 155n6, 162n34, 173n78, 182n13, 185,

Index of Ancient Sources

37.26 37.26a 37.26aα 37.26aβ 37.26b 37.26bα 37.26bβ 37.26–27 37.26–28 37.26b–27a 37.27 37.27a 37.27aα 37.27aβ 37.27b 37.27–28 37.28 37.28b 38 38–39 38.1–3a 38.1–9 38.1–17 38.1–39.22 38.1–39.29 38.3 38.4 38.5 38.8 38.8–20 38.11 38.18–22 38.19 38.21 38.23 39

185n19, 187, 187n27, 188, 189, 191, 208 143, 145n36, 155, 158, 159, 159n21, 159n22, 160, 161, 173n78, 185, 188, 189, 364 157, 159, 159n23, 164, 164n43, 173n78 158 158 158, 160, 161, 161n32, 162, 162n35, 164n43 157, 159 161, 162, 162n38, 185 103, 104, 143n25, 146, 157, 158, 163, 164, 174 370 162n37 96, 101, 143, 145n36, 162, 162n36, 162n37, 163, 173n78, 174, 346 162, 162n35, 164, 172 158, 161, 162, 162n38 157, 158 157, 158 347, 364 101, 103, 104, 145n36, 157, 158, 173n78, 364 159 237 33, 47, 52, 59, 68, 68n13, 122, 150, 150n58, 185, 190, 194–198, 199–208 196, 201 200–201, 204, 207 194 202 240, 502 401, 492 197, 200 198, 200 44, 200, 206, 208 68n13 44 194 400–01 201 126, 194 392

39.1a 39.1–5 39.2 39.4 39.6 39.7 39.7aβ 39.8–10 39.11–13 39.11–16 39.12 39.13 39.14–16 39.15 39.16 39.17 39.17–20 39.17–29 39.21–22 39.21–29 39.22 39.23 39.23–24 39.23–29 39.24 39.25 39.25–29 39.26a 39.26 39.26–27 39.27 39.28 39.29 40–42 40–48

40.1 40.1–2 40.1–43.7a

531 197 194, 196, 197, 200–201, 203, 207 59 59 194, 205 68, 194, 196, 197, 203, 364 125 194 194 208 347 361 194 490 347 59 200, 208 194 44 197, 332, 340 197, 203 197, 205 33, 203 203 197 142n18, 197, 202, 205 85, 202–05, 207 205 44, 197, 329, 332, 332, 334, 340 202 126, 197, 205 142n18, 333, 340, 427 197 50, 109, 111, 223n47, 333 6, 40, 45, 47, 49, 50, 50n24, 62, 63, 67, 68n13, 80, 80n62, 83, 85, 86, 86n80, 104, 121n3, 161, 162, 162n37, 164, 187, 189, 195, 199, 213, 224, 237, 238, 258, 258n53, 259, 360–71, 378, 449, 461, 502 50, 50n25, 194, 237, 238, 241, 368, 399 62 86n80

532 40.1–43.9 40.2 40.5 40.44–46a 40.44–46 40.45–46 40.45 40.46a 40.46b 42.5–18 42.13–14 42.20 43 43–48 43.1–12 43.1–13 43.3 43.3–5 43.5 43.6 43.7 43.7a 43.7–9 43.7–12 43.9 43.10 43.10–11 43.10–12 43.10–46.24 43.11a 43.11 43.12 43.12–48.35 43.13–27 43.13–46.24 43.19 43.27 44.1–2 44.1–14 44.1–31 44.2 44.3 44.4–31 44.6–10 44.7 44.7–8

Index of Ancient Sources

67 39, 62, 63, 112, 162, 259, 263 86n80 84n76 84, 84n76, 86 80 86 84n76 84, 84n76 68n13 86, 86n80 83 19, 25, 210–29 223 50n25, 51 368 216–17, 218, 225, 227–28 216 365 217–18, 227 312–13, 346, 360, 364 78, 164n42 33 219 312–13, 346, 360, 364 71n25, 219, 221, 227, 333, 334 85, 329, 332, 333, 334, 340 62, 218–24 67 223 220–22, 225–227, 333, 334 62, 63, 220–21, 227 219, 220, 222 51, 219 51 86 40, 49, 51 86n80 84, 85, 85n77, 86 219 442 367 85n77 33 85 85

44.11 44.13 44.13–14 44.19 44.23–24 44.28–30 45 45.1–8 45.6 45.6–7 45.7–9 45.8 45.8–9 45.9 45.9–46.24 46.2 46.10 46.16–17 46.17 46.18 46.19–24 46.20 46.24 47–48 47.1–7 47.1–12 47.1–13 47.8–12 47.8 47.9 47.13–48.29 47.18 48 48.8 48.8–22 48.10 48.11 48.19 48.20 48.21 48.25 48.30–35 48.31 48.35

85 85 85 347 81 371 68n13 219 368 360 367 367 368 33 219 367 367 368 50 368 86 86, 347 86 67 263 51, 77, 86n80, 248n11, 263, 265–66, 348, 354 263 264 265 370 51, 86, 219, 259, 263, 265, 366, 371 263 340, 366n22 25, 364 161, 162 364 86 368 368n30 364 369 51, 86n80, 219, 368 368 19, 368, 368n31, 369, 369n31, 370

533

Index of Ancient Sources

76n45

2.5 2.8 2.10 2.10–12 2.12 3.5 3.8 6.12 8.3 9.9 9.16 10.2 10.2–3 10.3 10.3a 10.3b 10.5b 11.3ff 11.16 12.10–13.1 13.1 14.8 14.16

354 354 346 364, 370 347 351 92 92 369n31, 370 367 141 35, 141, 141n14 140, 141 141, 141n14 141n14 141n14 367 141 95, 141 348, 348n14, 351, 351n25 77 77, 348 352

Micah 3.2–3 4.6–7 5.3

400 206 206n25

Malachi 1.3 3.6–12 3.7

171n66 170n64 424

Nahum 2.3 3.2

401, 492 401

Zephaniah 1.15 1.18 3.1–4 3.4

142 142, 150n59 80n62, 83 83

Haggai 1.1 1.9–11

39 170n64

Zechariah 1–8 1.8 2 2.1–5

268 352 354 354

Psalm 2.6 5.9 13.2 16.5 22.25 27.9 33.16–17 44.12 46.4 48.3 49.2 51.8 53.5 62.9 72.4 76.3 76.12 77.16–17

62 430 197 430 197 197 367 125 77 62 70n22 492 400, 491 70n22 94 370 70n23 76n45

Hosea 2.4–17 2.14 3.5 4 4.1–19 4.1–2 4.6

60 143 92, 95, 96, 99, 100 81 81 81 81

Joel 2.2 3.18

142 77

Amos 2.1 2.7 2.11 4 4.6–11 9.11

491 125 95 148 148, 148n53, 148n54 99

Jonah 2.3–7

534

Index of Ancient Sources

80.1 84 85.2 85.5 95.10 102.3 102.14 103.7 103.13 104.16 116.5 107.3 107.23–27 119.158 130.3 133.3 137.7 139.21 141.7

77 270 197 424 127 489 197 123 197 356 197 126 76n45 127 270 60 295 127 400, 491

2.12 2.15 2.21 3.4 3.7–9 4.4 4.9–10 4.10 5.9 5.21

406 71 407 400, 491 406 406 406 466 407 424

Esther 8.3–5

252n33

Proverbs 3.32 4.26 6.16–19 8.6 28.16

Daniel 3 8.5 8.24 9.26 11.23

112 82n69 489 70n23 489

82n68 430 82n68 70n23 70n23

Ezra 2.59 6.20 9.8 9.9

370 86, 86n79 147n49 147n49

Job 4.14 6.2–7 7.5 8.8–10 8.14 10.1 10.11 19.20 29.10 30.30 33.19 36.16–17 41.23

489 24n13 400 24n13 127 127 400 400 70n23 489 48 76n45 45

Nehemiah 7.61 8.15 9.36 11.11

370 352, 352n 29 147n49 70n23

Lamentations 1–4 1.1 1.1–6 1.3 1.18

268–69 406 60 407 407

1 Chronicles 2.10 3.19 9.11 9.20 13.1 13.6 13.10 15.24 16.6 17.7 22.4 28.18

367 39 70n23 70n23 70n23 77 82 83 83 70n23 70 78

535

Index of Ancient Sources

2 Chronicles 2.13–15 3.8–13 4.11–18 13.12 15.3 25

28.7 30.17 31.12–13 32.21 35.5–6 35.5

70 78 70 83 81 449

70n23 86, 86n79 70n23 70n23 86 86n79

Ancient Near Eastern Literature Annals of Ninurta-Kudurri-Usur-Suhu 402 Khorsabad Inscription 402 Kurkh Monolith 402

Second Temple Jewish Literature 1 Enoch 14

214–15, 224

1 Maccabees 13.25

490

3 Baruch

215

4 Maccabees 18.17

399

4QPsEzek (4Q135–6) 110, 112n21 4Q385 2.3 147n49 4Q385 2.9 147n49 4Q386 1.ii.2–3 147n49 Baruch 2.24

491

ben Sira 49.15 50.17

490 218n33

Hodayot (1QHa) 5.22–25 421 8.20–21 421 9.7–20 420 20.11–13 421 21.11–13 421 Josephus, Against Apion 1.114–120 73n36 Josephus, Antiquities 13.171–73 420 Josephus, War 2.162–165 420 Serek Hayaḥad (1QS) 3.13–4.26 420 15.13–20 420 20.4–13 420 Songs of Sabbath Sacrifice (4Q400) 214, 224–5

536

Index of Ancient Sources

Temple Scroll (11Q19) 214 Testament of Levi 215 Words of the Luminaries (4Q504) 5.11 423

15.14 18.12–16 18.16–18 19.3–4 19.3–5 19.5–7

424 423 423 423 423 422

New Testament Matthew 7.8

429

1 Corinthians 4.7 429, 433

Luke 2

452

Ephesians 2.8–9

430

John 3.7 5.22 6.37 6.44 6.65 17.2

421 448 421n8 421n8m 430 421n8 421n8

Philippians 2.13

430

Titus 3.4–5

422

Acts 10

Hebrews 1

450

490

Romans 2.6 9.16

Revelation 20.7–10

214 68n13

430 430

Classical Greek Literature Herodotus History, 2.161 69

Church Fathers Ambrose De obitu Valentini

444

Jerome Vulgate

443

537

Index of Ancient Sources

Origin of Alexandria Homélies sur Ezékiel 443, 444

Theodoret of Cyrus Comm. Ezek, 28

72

Tertullian Adversus Marcionem, 2.10 72

Rabbinic Literature Mishna and Talmud b. Makkot 24.a m. Menahot 27a b. Sanhedrin 92b b. Shabbat 55.a b. Yoma, 54b

426n22 352 111, 112 468 77

Midrashim Lam. Rabba 5.21–22 424 Sifra 26 425–26

Index of Modern Authors Achenbach, Reinhard 12, 14 Ackroyd, Peter 189, 192 Aharoni, Yoḥanon 299, 316 Ahn, John 316, 407, 409 Albertz, Rainer 14, 142, 150, 189, 192, 360, 367, 371, 409 Allen, James 396, 401, 409 Allen, Leslie 7, 14, 37, 52, 56, 60, 61, 62, 64, 85, 87, 120, 129, 134, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 150, 160, 165, 166, 176, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 192, 251, 253, 255, 256, 262, 265, 268, 271, 275, 285, 309, 316, 324, 333, 341, 452, 456 Allison Jr, Dale 464, 472 Alt, Albrecht 258, 362, 371 Alter, Robert 499, 500, 509 Anderson, H. 399, 409 Apel, Dora 397, 409 Arnold, Russell 421, 436 Baden, Joel 507, 508, 509 Baentsch, Bruno 138, 150, 154, 175 Baillet, Maurice 422, 436 Bakhtin, Mikhail 377, 378, 379, 380, 389 Baltzer, Dieter 182, 184, 192 Bar-Efrat, Shimon 505, 509 Barclay, John 421, 436 Baroni, V. 447, 456 Barr, James 498, 499, 509 Bartelmus, Rüdiger 108, 110, 111, 118 Barstead, Hans 189, 192, 317 Barter, Penelope 328, 503 Barthélemy, Dominique 34, 52 Bartlett, John 295, 296, 317 Barton, John 497, 498, 507, 509, 510 Batto, Bernard 185, 192, 249, 275, 355, 356, 357 Bauckham, Richard 345, 356, 357 Baudisson, Wolf 84, 87 Baumgärtel, Friedrich 235, 244

Bechtel(-Huber), Lyn 313, 317, 335, 336, 341 Beck, Pirhiya 300, 301, 303 Becker, J. 6, 14 Beckwith, Carl 446, 456 Beezley, William 482 Beit-Arieh, Itzhaq 296, 298, 299, 300, 301, 303, 304, 305, 306, 317 Ben-Porat, Ziva 123, 134 Ben Zvi, Ehud 295, 317, 404, 410 Benjamin, Dan 313 Bennett, Crystal 306 Beges, Ulrich 497, 510 Bergman, Claudia 385, 389 Bergsma, John 346, 357 Berquist, J. L. 369, 371 Berrigan, Daniel 464, 472 Berry, George 223, 229 Bertholet, Alfred 470, 472 Betts, T. J. 235, 244 Biberger, Bernd 14, 194, 198, 199, 203, 207, 208 Biran, Avraham 305, 317 Biturgis, Franciscus 448, 450, 451 Blake, William 464, 469 Blenkinsopp, Joseph 82, 87, 149, 150, 251, 275, 293, 317, 347, 357, 392, 393, 409, 477, 494 Block, Daniel 3, 4, 8, 14, 37, 46, 52, 54, 56, 57, 61, 62, 64, 67, 82, 84, 87, 99, 103, 105, 112, 118, 129, 134, 139, 140, 141, 145, 146, 150, 155, 157, 159, 165, 166, 167, 172, 176, 180, 181, 182, 183, 185, 192, 205, 206, 208, 235, 240, 244, 245, 250, 251, 252, 253, 256, 257, 260, 262, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 272, 275, 293, 308, 309, 310, 316, 318, 324, 333, 341, 348, 350, 353, 354, 357, 382, 389, 391, 392, 410, 452, 456, 477, 494, 499, 510 Bloomquist, Tina 298, 318 Boadt, Larry 43, 52, 260, 274, 275, 308, 318

Index of Modern Authors

Boase, Elizabeth 500, 510 Bodi, Daniel 276 Bøe, Sverre 199, 208, 417, 436 de Boer, E. A. 446, 456, 463, 467, 472 Bogaert, Maurice 68, 87, 161, 176, 182 Borah, Woodrow 480 Borghino, Angelo 335, 341 Bovati, Pietro 336, 341 Bowen, Nancy 381, 389, 404, 407, 410 Bower, Bruce 407, 410 Brand, Miriam 421, 423, 436 Brandes, Stanley 480, 481, 494 Breed, Bennan 212, 229, 465, 472 Brett, Mark 466, 472 Brettler, Marc Zvi 364, 505, 510 Broome Jr, Edwin 417, 436 Broshi, Magen 421, 436 Brown, M. 265, 276 Brown, William 345, 357 Brownlee, William 276 Brueggemann, Walter 470, 472 Buber, Martin 45 Buttimer, Ch. H. 444 Cahill, Jane 306 Callahan, Allen 410 Callender, Dexter 71, 87, 247, 252, 276 Calvin, John 66, 87, 435, 462, 467, 468, 472 Carley, Kieth 392, 410, 470, 471, 472, 494 Carr, David 8, 10, 14, 23, 26, 75, 87, 144, 150, 407, 410, 508, 510 Carroll, Robert 491, 494 Carvalho, Corrine 391, 410 Casiday, A. M. C. 432, 436 Casimir, John 448 Causse, A. 462, 472 Chadwick, Owen 432, 436 Chapman, Cynthia 381, 382, 385, 386, 389 Chavel, Simeon 498, 510 Chazon, Esther 422, 434, 436 Charlesworth, H. 399, 421 Childs, Brevard 273, 276, 460, 472, 498 Chilton, Bruce 426, 438 Christensen, Duane 288, 315, 318 Christman, Angela 417, 436, 444, 456, 463, 472 Clements, Ronald 6, 15, 67, 68, 88, 149, 150, 265, 270, 276, 313, 318, 461, 472

539

Clifford, Richard 264, 276 Cohen, Rudolf 296, 297, 298, 318 Cook, Sherburne 480, 494 Cook, Stephen 11, 67, 72, 78, 79, 85, 88, 200, 208, 277, 345, 347, 357, 360, 361, 363, 367, 371, 372 Cooke, George 55, 61, 64, 81, 82, 88, 118, 134, 135, 139, 141, 150, 172, 176, 225, 229, 247, 253, 256, 264, 277, 452, 456 Cornill, Carl H. 504 Crane, Ashley 15, 122, 123, 135, 155, 156, 160, 161, 162, 177, 199, 200, 208, 228, 229, 258, 277, 323, 341, 351, 352, 358 Crego, Paul 432, 436 Cresson, Bruce 295, 298, 299, 300, 317, 318 Cross, Frank Moore 84, 88, 271, 272, 277, 311, 318, 360, 372 Dahmen, Ulrich 323 von Däniken, E. 469, 472 Darr, Katheryn Pfisterer 251, 255, 277 Daugherty, James 370, 372 Davis, Andrew 302, 318 Davis, Ellen 15, 66, 88, 235, 244, 345 Davila, James 225, 230, 424, 436 Debel, Hans 212, 230 Delcor, M. 349, 358 Delville, Jean-Pierre 447, 456 Dicou, Bert 307, 310, 319 van Dijk-Hemmes, Fokkelien 469, 472 Dijkstra, Meindert 210, 211, 230 Dolbeau, François 428, 436 Donner, Herbert 505, 510 Driver, G. R. 264, 277 Driver, S. R. 426, 436 Duguid, Ian 80, 83, 88, 367, 372 Duke, Rodney 84, 85, 88 Duhaime, Jean 437 Dupont, Anthony 429, 438 Duran, B. 407, 410 Duran, E. 407, 410 Edelman, Diana 307, 319, 404, 410 Eichrodt, Walther 81, 88, 105, 134, 135, 251, 256, 264, 272, 277, 391, 392, 410, 453, 454, 456, 477, 494, 504 Eissfeldt, Otto 271, 277

540

Index of Modern Authors

Elliott, Mark 448 England, Emma 459, 473 Evans-Campbell, Teresa 407, 410 Exum, J. Cheryl 462, 466, 473 Falk, Daniel 218, 230, 422, 438 Fassin, Didier 406, 410 Faust, Avraham 295, 319 Fernández-Galiano, Manuel 117, 118 Filson, F. V. 506, 510 Finkelstein, Israel 296, 302, 303, 304, 319 Fischer, Georg 19, 26 Fischer, Irmtraud 10 Fishbane, Michael 85, 88 Fishelov, David 214, 230 Fitzpatrick, Paul 199, 208 Flesher, Paul 426, 438 Floyd, Michael 149, 150 Fokkelmann, Jan 499, 500, 505, 510 Fohrer, Georg 57, 60, 61, 64, 165, 177, 184, 192, 227, 230, 256, 260, 264, 277, 308, 319, 504 Fox, Michael V. 108, 110, 114, 118, 255, 277 Frank, Patrick 487, 488, 494 Freedy, Kenneth 227, 230, 277 French, William 482 Freud, Liora 300, 301, 306 Friebel, Kelvin 126, 135 Fritz, Volkmar 306, 319, 362, 372 Frolov, Serge 498, 508, 510 Frymer-Kensky, Tikva 259, 262, 275, 277 Fuhs, Hans 10, 15, 95, 105, 185, 192 Gadamer, Hans-George 459, 462, 473 Galambush, Julie 4, 15, 332, 337, 341, 356, 358, 381, 389, 393, 410 Galling, Kurt 165, 184, 470, 472 Ganzel, Tova 261, 277 Garber, David 13, 15, 235, 244, 377, 389 García, C. Granados 324, 327, 332, 333, 336, 341 García Martínez, Florentino 323, 341, 417, 438 Garciagodoy, Juanita 483, 486, 487, 494 Garscha, Jörg 5, 8, 15 Gathercole, Simon 421, 436 Gerstenberger, Erhard 291, 311, 319

Gese, Hartmut 84, 85, 88, 333, 341 Gesenius, Wilhelm 97, 105 Gillingham, Susan 459, 473 Glerup, Michael 410, 446, 456, 463 Glucklich, Ariel 387, 389 Gluech, Nelson 306 Goff, Matthew 215, 230 Gordon, Bruce 456 Gorst-Unsworth, Caroline 405, 410, 412 Gosse, Bernard 58, 64 Gowan, Donald 247, 277 Grabbe, Lester 189, 190, 192 Greenberg, Moshe 3, 4, 9, 15, 60, 61, 64, 67, 68, 72, 73, 81, 88, 99, 105, 112, 118, 128, 129, 135, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 150, 180, 192, 240, 244, 247, 251, 256, 261, 267, 268, 272, 274, 277, 307, 309, 319, 324, 327, 332, 341, 342, 348, 349, 350, 353, 354, 358, 391, 394, 396, 410, 420, 438, 442, 456, 460, 473, 499, 500, 504, 505, 510 Greenhill, William 435, 436, 437, 438, 446 Greenspoon, Leonard 410 Greer, Rowan 432, 438 Grünwald, Ithamar 216, 230, 438 Grünwaldt, Klaus 138, 144, 148, 150, 154, 168, 177, 426 Gunkel, Hermann 67, 88 Haag, Ernst 45, 52, 251, 278 Hall, Basil 447, 457 Hallo, William 402, 410 Halperin, David 228, 230, 462, 473 Hals, Ronald 81, 88, 129, 135, 139, 151, 235, 240, 244, 252, 278, 319, 410 Hamp, Vinzenz 181, 192 Hanby, Michael 432, 438 Häner, Tobias 49, 51, 52, 326, 330, 332, 337, 342, 503 Harris, Max 479, 494 Harris, Robert 445, 457 Hatt, Michael 397, 410 Hermann, Johannes 57, 64 Herntrich, Volkmar 470, 473 Herrmann, Siegfried 61, 64, 179, 188, 192, 202, 208 Herrmann, Virginial 301 Heschel, Abraham J. 424, 438

Index of Modern Authors

Hiebel, Janina 333, 334, 340, 342 Hill, Robert 431, 433, 438 Hillers, Delbert 269, 278 Himmelfarb, Martha 213, 215, 218, 230 Hobson, Russell 404, 411 Höffken, Peter 108, 110, 118 Hoffner, Harry 253, 278 Hoftijzer, Jacob 500, 510 Holliday, William 491, 494 Hölscher, Gustav 54, 55, 57, 61, 64, 84, 88, 200, 208 Holub, R. C. 459, 473 Hossfeld, Frank-L. 7, 8, 15, 95, 105, 108, 114, 118, 139, 143, 151, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 187, 192, 196, 197, 198, 201, 202, 204, 207, 209, 270, 278, 326, 342, 502, 510 Howell, Martha 23, 26 Hunziker-Rodewald, Regine 181, 192 Hurvitz, Avi 162, 177 Hurowitz, Victor 249, 278 Hutton, Jeremy 210 Ilan, David 305 Ingarden, Roman 499, 510 Irwin, William 70, 88 Ishida, Tomoo 270, 287, 319 Jackson, Ron 396, 411 Janzen, David 407, 411 Japhet, Sara 86, 89 Jason, Mark 421, 438 Jauss, Hans Robert 473 Jenni, Ernst 206, 209 Jenson, Robert 401, 411, 442, 457 de Jong, Matthijs 67, 88 de Jonge, Henk 463, 473 de Jonge, Jan 417, 438 Joosten, Jan 290, 319, 347, 350, 358 Joüon, Paul 97, 105 Joyce, Paul 7, 15, 59, 60, 64, 101, 103, 105, 112, 118, 123, 131, 135, 141, 151, 185, 186, 192, 240, 244, 245, 251, 255, 256, 268, 278, 327, 342, 353, 358, 365, 372, 393, 411, 417, 420, 438, 439, 463, 465, 466, 468, 473, 474, 499, 510 Junius, Franciscus 448, 449, 450, 451, 456, 457

541

Kahana, Menahem 424, 439 Kakkanattu, Joy 498, 510 Kalantiz, George 432, 439 Kalmonofsky, Amy 380, 389 Kamin, Sarah 457 Kamionkowski, S. Tamar 383, 384, 389, 462, 474 Kannengiesser, Charles 427, 439 Kasher, Rimon 365, 372 Kasmin, Sara 445 Katz, Steven 42, 4394 Katzenstein, H. Jacob 69, 89 Kautzsch, Emil 97 Kayser, Wolfgang 378, 389 Keck, Leander 251 Keel, Othmar 264, 278 Keil, Friedrich 257, 278 Kelle, Brad 15, 260, 278, 290, 319, 332, 379, 380, 383, 384, 388, 389, 390, 392, 407, 411, 494 Kelly, J. N. D. 432, 439 Kempinski, Ahraon 306, 319 Kim, Soo J. 369, 370, 372 Kimchi, David 448 Klawans, Jonathan 362, 363, 372, 421, 439 Klein, Anja 5, 6, 9, 15, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 102, 106, 108, 109, 110, 114, 118, 120, 135, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 145, 147, 150, 151, 154, 155, 159, 161, 162, 165, 166, 167, 168, 172, 173, 177, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 192, 199, 203, 207, 209, 278, 308, 310, 311, 319, 347, 358, 506, 510 Klein, Ralph 245, 268, 271, 278, 323, 328 Klopfenstein, Martin 333, 335, 342 Kloppenborg, John 212, 230 Klostermann, August 139, 144, 151, 417, 439, 462, 474 Knohl, Israel 346, 358, 361, 363, 364, 365, 372 Kochavi, Moshe 300, 304, 319 Koenen, Klaus 33, 52 Kohn, Risa Levitt see Levitt Kohn, Risa Konkel, Michael 5, 15, 85, 89, 110, 111, 115, 118, 209, 255, 278, 323, 333, 336, 342 van der Kooij, A. 178 Körtring, Corinna 62, 63, 64

542

Index of Modern Authors

Kowalski, Beate 139, 151, 417, 439, 463, 474 Kratz, Reinhard G. 6, 15, 506, 511 Kraus, Hans-Joachim 270, 279 Kreitzer, Larry 466, 474 Kronholm, T. 263, 279 Krüger, Thomas 5, 15, 37, 52, 130, 135, 246, 279, 328, 342 Kugler, Rob 423, 439 Kuhrt, Amelie 403, 411 Kutsko, John 248, 255, 279, 363, 372, 391, 411 Lambert, David 421, 439 Lang, Bernard 10, 15, 255, 279, 393, 398, 411 Lapsley, Jacqueline 4, 16, 85, 89, 131, 135, 255, 261, 279, 313, 319, 330, 331, 333, 334, 336, 338, 342, 351, 353, 354, 358, 377, 379, 381, 387, 390, 420, 427, 434, 439 Larkin, Katrina 348, 358 Latto, Anti 403, 411 Launderville, Dale 392, 393, 411 Leclerc, Jean 451, 457 Lee, Nancy 407 Lemaire, Andre 320 Lemos, Tracy 379, 380, 382, 383, 388, 390 Lenski, Gerhard 361, 361, 371, 372 Leuchter, Mark 293, 320, 360, 372 Levenson, Jon 77, 89, 249, 267, 279, 366, 367, 368, 371, 372 Levey, Samson 426, 439 Levin, Christophe 6, 12, 16, 138, 143, 151, 154, 161, 162, 173, 177, 182, 192, 295 Levinson, Bernard 498, 505, 508, 511 Levitt Kohn, Risa 82, 89, 261, 278, 310, 365, 372 Lieb, Michael 463, 464, 469, 474 Liedke, Gerhard 94, 106 Lilly, Ingrid 122, 123, 135, 161, 175, 199, 200, 209, 210, 212, 215, 227, 230, 268, 279, 323, 342, 350, 358 Linafelt, Tod 407, 411 Lind, Millard 393, 411 Lindblom, Johannes 471 Lipiński, E. 254, 279 Lipschits, Oded 295, 320, 402, 403, 404, 411

Lipton, Diana 465, 466, 474 Lohfink, Nobert 97, 106 Lomnitz, Claudio 483, 484, 485, 486, 487, 493, 494 Longstaff, Thomas 505, 511 Lowe, Robert 408 Luckenbill, Daniel David 266, 279 Lust, Johan 9, 16, 67, 68, 82, 89, 93, 106, 118, 115, 122, 123, 135, 156, 161, 177, 185, 186, 193, 199, 209, 210, 230, 267, 279, 320, 323, 342, 354, 411, 507, 511 Luther Martin 435, 440 Lyons, John 459 Lyons, Michael 11, 16, 125, 126, 136, 139, 145, 146, 151, 153, 154, 169, 177, 235, 244, 279, 280, 289, 320, 346, 353, 354, 355, 356, 358, 362, 372, 418, 426, 440 MacDonald, Nathan 346, 358 Mackie, Timothy 161, 175, 175, 176, 177, 210, 228, 230 Maier, Aren 471, 474 Maldonati, Ioannis 447, 448, 456, 457 Manning Jr, Gary 255, 280, 417, 421, 422, 440, 463, 474 Mark, Martin 38, 52, 330, 343 Markter, Florian 324, 338, 343 Martin, Cheryl E. 482 Martin, Gary 212, 230 Marttila, M. 231 Marzouk, Safwat 380, 390 Mason, Emma 463 Mason, Rex 348, 349, 351, 358 Maston, Jason 421, 440 Mather, Cotton 461, 462 Matthews, Victor 280, 313, 320 Matties, Gordon 4, 16 Mayes, A. D. H. 288, 292, 320 Mayfield, Tyler 121, 122, 136, 237, 238, 244, 280 McBride Jr, Dean 86, 89, 280 McGregor, John 267, 280 McKeating, Henry 418, 440 McKenzie, John 247, 280 van der Meer, Michaël 68, 90, 323, 326, 344, 506 Mein, Andrew 131, 136, 280, 401, 402, 411, 463, 468, 474

Index of Modern Authors

Merrill, Eugene 421, 440 Meshel, Ze’ev 302 Mettinger, Tryggve 70, 89, 247, 268, 269, 280, 311, 312, 320, 364, 372 Meyer, Rudolf 97, 106 Mihesuah, Devon 395, 396, 411 Miles, Margaret 385, 390 Milgrom, Jacob 85, 89, 139, 144, 146, 151, 154, 158, 162, 163, 164, 168, 169, 171, 177, 206, 209, 265, 280, 291, 320, 346, 359, 362, 365, 372, 388, 390 Miller, James 280 Miller, Patrick 311, 320 Mitchell, Korintha 396, 398, 411 de Moor, Johannes 497 Moore, George F. 505 Moore, Megan Bishop 332 Moran, W. L. 452, 457 More, Sir Thomas 370, 372 Morlan, David 421, 440 Morris, Ellen 280 Morris, Paul 352, 359 Moscati, Sabatino 265, 280 Mosis, Rudolf 35, 36, 42, 52, 53 Moss, Jean 494 Motte, Jochen 454, 457 Moughtin-Mumby, Sharon 462, 474 Mowinckel, Sigmund 455, 457 Muldoon, Orla 408, 411 Müller, Reinhard 11, 16, 138, 151, 154, 163, 177 Muraoka, Takamitsu 97 Murray, John 406, 408, 411 Myers, David G. 505, 511 Najman, Hindy 214, 229, 230, 467, 474 Nelson, Richard 285, 286, 287, 292, 320 Neusner, Jacob 111, 118 Neuss, W. 442, 457 Nevader, Madhavi 246, 248, 273, 280 Newman, Judith 212, 214, 224, 230 Newsom, Carol 68, 73, 76, 79, 89, 230, 231, 377, 390 Niditch, Susan 26, 27 Nihan, Chrisophe 11, 16, 138, 144, 148, 151, 154, 156, 159, 160, 163, 169, 172, 177, 346, 355, 356, 359, 426, 440 Niskanen, Paul 391

543

Nobile, Marco 43, 53 Noble, Paul 500, 508, 511 Noort, Ed 500, 511 Nussbaum, D. 291 O’Connor, Kathleen 407, 411 Odell, Margaret 71, 85, 89, 112, 118, 205, 209, 251, 252, 265, 274, 280, 281, 310, 313, 320, 335, 337, 343, 370, 372, 380, 390, 412, 469, 474 Oecolampadius, Johannes 446 O’Hare, Daniel 213, 231, 268, 281 Ohnesorge, Stefan 59, 65, 110, 114, 118, 162, 173, 177, 182, 184, 185, 187, 188, 193, 326, 343 Ollenburger, Ben C. 270, 281 Olley, John W. 335, 343 Olmstead, A. T. 397, 412 Olyan, Saul 313, 320, 336, 343, 360, 372 Ortlund, Raymond 337, 339, 343 Otene, Matungulu 353, 359 Otto, Eckart 11, 16, 138, 148, 151, 154, 177 Owen, John 440 Paas, Stefan 248, 281 Pakkala, Juha 231 Pardee, Denis 295, 301, 320 Parker, Thomas 467, 474 Parpola, Simon 385, 390 Parris, D. P. 459, 474 Parry, Donald 422, 440 Parunak, H. van Dyke 324, 343, 499, 511 Patmore, Hector 72, 89, 122, 123, 136, 350, 359, 511 Patton, Corrine 67, 89, 277, 347, 357, 360, 372 Pearce, Laurie 217, 231 Petersen, David 141, 151, 246, 273, 281 Phelps, Teresa 408, 412 Pohlmann, Karl-F. 5, 6, 8, 10, 16, 18, 23, 25, 27, 31, 32, 37, 53, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 65, 95, 106, 109, 110, 115, 119, 136, 140, 142, 151, 161, 173, 174, 175, 178, 180, 181, 182, 183, 186, 193, 202, 207, 209, 246, 253, 256, 260, 264, 281, 311, 320, 321, 331, 343, 452, 457 Pope, Marvin 72, 89, 247, 281

544

Index of Modern Authors

Poser, Ruth 4, 12, 13, 16, 281, 331, 336, 338, 343, 407, 411 Premstaller, Volkmar 4, 16, 199, 209 Prevenier, Walther 23 Pritchard, James 77, 90 Provan, Ian 412 Puckett, David 66, 90 Raabe, Paul 312, 321 von Rad, Gerhard 287, 321 Rainey, Anson 298, 321 Raitt, Thomas 147, 151, 420, 440 Rechtman, Richard 406 Redditt, Paul 348, 359 Rendtorff, Rolf 13, 17, 124, 128, 136, 328, 343, 497, 498, 511 Renz, Thomas 4, 17, 260, 281, 331, 343, 371, 372, 499, 511 Reventlow, Henning G. 461, 474 Rice, Anne 412 Riches, John 475 Richter, Wolfgang 497, 498, 511 Riding In, James 395, 412 Roberts, J. J. M. 270, 281 Roberts, Jonathan 463 Robertson, David 293, 321 Rogerson, John 461, 475 Rom-Shiloni, Dalit 140, 151, 254, 258, 282, 293, 316, 321, 383, 390 Rooke, Deborah 360, 372 Rooker, Mark 17 Rose, Wendy 395, 412 Rösel, Christophe 9, 17, 194, 195, 196, 198, 199, 205, 206, 208, 209 Rowland, Christopher 469, 475 Rudnig, Thomas 5, 6, 32, 62, 65, 161, 162, 165, 178, 180, 187, 193 van Ruiten, Jacques 467, 475 Rushdy, Ashraf 397, 412 Ryou, Daniel 498, 511 Sæbø, Magne 461, 475 Sailhamer, John 499, 511 Samely, Alexander 498, 499, 511 Sanders, Seth 301, 321, 506, 511 Saur, Markus 282 Sawyer, John 442, 457, 460, 464, 475 Scarry, Elaine 386, 387, 390

Scatolini Apóstolo, S. S. 323, 343, 349, 350, 354, 359 Schechter, Solomon 424, 440 Schiffman, Lawrence 224, 231 Schmid, H. H. 159, 178 Schmid, Konrad 4, 6, 10, 17, 149, 151, 188, 189, 190, 193 Schmid, Wolf 24, 27 Schmidt, Francis 223, 231 Schmitt, Paul 447, 457 Schmoldt, H. 343 Schneider, Tammi 250, 282, 338 Schnocks, Johannes 110, 112, 114, 119, 338, 344 Schöpflin, Karin 5, 13, 17, 311, 313, 321 Schultz, Richard 144, 152 Schwagmeier, Peter 5, 6, 9, 17, 97, 100, 106, 119, 185, 193, 199, 209, 323, 344 Schwartz, Baruch 131, 136, 147, 152, 336, 337, 344, 364, 372, 420, 440 Scott, James 217, 231 Sedelmeier, Franz 7, 17, 35, 53, 103, 106, 129, 130, 134, 136, 155, 165, 172, 174, 178, 246, 251, 252, 254, 256, 260, 263, 264, 271, 272, 274, 282, 309, 311, 314, 321, 334, 336, 344, 499, 512 Seebass, Horst 344 Seitz, Christopher 255, 256, 264, 282, 457 Sherwood, Yvonne 465, 475 Simian(-Yofre), Horacio 57, 58, 59, 65, 260, 262, 282, 328 Smend, Rudolf 67, 90, 181, 193, 344, 460, 475 Smith, Mark S. 311, 321, 361, 372 Smith, Wilfred Cantwell 464, 475 Smith-Christopher, Daniel 76, 340, 344, 405, 406, 412, 477, 492, 494 von Soden, Wolfram 265, 280 Sommer, Benjamin 125, 136, 346, 349, 359 Sparks, Kenton 266, 282 Speiser, Ephraim 385, 390 Sperber, Alexander 426, 440 Spieckermann, Hermann 62, 65, 111, 119, 282 Spitaler, Anton 265, 280 Sprinkle, Preston 421, 441

Index of Modern Authors

Stackert, Jeffery 159, 178 Stager, Lawrence 403, 412 Stavrakopoulou, Francesca 261, 282 Steck, Odil Hannes 26, 27, 58, 60, 65, 149, 151, 152, 188, 189, 190, 193, 497, 512 Steinmetz, David C. 445, 457 Stemberger, Günter 424, 441 Stephens, Judith 398, 410, 412 Stern, Ephraim 295 Sternberg, Meir 500, 508, 512 Stevens, Marty 77, 90 Stevenson, Kalinda 364, 368, 372, 446 Stevenson, Kenneth 463, 475 Steymans, H. U. 153, 178 Stiebert, Johanna 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 344 Stone, Michael 255, 282 Stordalen, Terje 247, 248, 282 Strack, H. L. 424, 441 Strazicich, John 348, 359 Strine, Casey 3, 6, 7, 17, 131, 136, 309 Stromberg, Jacob 150, 152, 160, 178 Strong, John 11, 69, 70, 79, 90, 120, 245, 247, 255, 262, 265, 272, 282, 283, 312, 314, 322 Strubble, J. 301, 322 Suriano, Matthew 262, 283 Sweeney, Marvin 211, 231, 283, 285, 322, 497, 498, 512 Talmon, Shemaryahu 68, 90, 123, 136, 212, 231 Talstra, Eep 497, 499, 512 Taylor, Joan 466 Taylor, John 412 Teeter, D. Andrew 509 Terrell, Mary 412 Thackeray, Henry St J. 67, 68, 90, 506, 512 Thiel, W. 173, 178 Thiessen, Matthew 293, 322 Thompson, Philip 388, 390 Tigay, Jeffrey 292, 322, 505, 512 Tigchelaar, Eibert 123, 136, 224, 231 Tollerton, David 466, 467, 475 Tooman, William 9, 11, 17, 26, 76, 79, 90, 120, 125, 126, 128, 129, 131, 136, 150, 151, 153, 161, 171, 178, 194, 198, 199, 204, 206, 208, 209, 210, 253, 256, 257,

545

258, 260, 283, 353, 354, 368, 460, 475, 504, 507, 509, 512, 512 van der Toorn, Karel 26, 27, 507, 512 Tov, Emanuel 122, 136, 211, 227, 231, 422 Tromp, Johannes 417, 463 de Troyer, Kristin 212, 230 Tuell, Stephen 49, 53, 67, 75, 77, 90, 86, 112, 119, 219, 231, 246, 251, 263, 264, 267, 283, 368, 372, 468, 475 Tull(-Wiley), Patricia 345, 359 Turner, Stuart 412 Tyler, Ron 488, 494 Uehlinger, Christoph 302, 303, 305, 322 Ullendorff, Edward 265, 280 Ulrich, Eugene 211, 231 Ünal, Ahmet 347, 359 Urbach, Ephraim 424, 441 Ussishkin, David 322 Utzschneider, Helmut 26, 27 Vanderhooft, David 412 Vijola, Timo 187, 193 Volkan, Vamik 407, 413 de Vries, Simon J. 339, 341 Wallis, Gerhard 286 Walton, John 20, 27, 249, 263, 264, 283 Watanabe, Kazuko 385 Watson, Wilfred G. E. 72, 90 Watts, James 363, 372 Weaver, Rebecca 432, 441 Weinberg, Joel 76, 90 Weinfeld, Moshe 285, 286, 288, 289, 292, 293, 322 Weingrod, Alex 392, 413, 478, 494 Weiss, I. H. 425 Weiss, Meir 512 von Weissenberg, Hanne 231 Wellhausen, Julius 138, 148, 152 Wells, Kyle 421, 423, 441 Wenham, Gordon 291, 322 Westermann, Claus 38, 53, 283 Wevers, John 81, 82, 91, 132, 137, 158, 178, 251, 253, 283, 504, 506, 512 Wicks, Jared 447, 458 Wiegman, Robyn 397, 413 Wildberger, Hans 269, 284

546

Index of Modern Authors

Wilkie, J. M. 404, 413 Williamson, Hugh G. M. 10, 91, 498, 512 Williamson Jr, Robert 214, 231 Willmes, Bernd 181, 193 Wilson, Kelly 467, 476 Wilson, Robert 66, 76, 77, 78, 246, 284, 314, 322 Winitzer, Abraham 71, 72, 75, 91 Wink, Walter 70, 91 Wischnowsky, Marc 60, 65 Wöhrle, Jakob 149, 152 Wolff, Hans Walter 148, 152 Wong, Ka Leung 4, 17, 274, 284, 289, 290, 322, 363, 372 Wright, J. Edward 284 Wunsch, Cornelia 217 Yadin(-Israel), Azzan 252, 284, 424, 441 Yadin, Yigael 68 Yarbro-Collins, Adela 215, 231 Yee, Gale 383, 384, 390 Yisrael, Yigal 297

Young, Harvey 413 Younger, K. L. 402, 410 Zakovitch, Yair 498, 512 Zahn, Molly 229, 231 Zenger, Erich 270 Ziegler, Joseph 155, 157, 160, 165, 172, 178, 216 Zimmerli, Walther 5, 37, 53, 55, 56, 60, 61, 62, 65, 68, 75, 81, 82, 84, 91, 106, 112, 119, 120, 124, 128, 129, 132, 137, 139, 140, 142, 143, 144, 145, 147, 152, 155, 156, 161, 162, 165, 166, 172, 174, 178, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 187, 193, 195, 198, 200, 202, 207, 209, 217, 231, 235, 244, 245, 246, 251, 252, 253, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 264, 265, 267, 268, 271, 272, 274, 284, 285, 289, 310, 312, 314, 327, 331, 344, 391, 393, 400, 413, 426, 441, 442, 454, 455, 456, 458, 460, 476, 477, 494, 504 Zobel, Hans 269, 284

Subject Index Aaron 82, 83, 84 (also → high priest) akitu feast 50 allusion 61, 82, 138–50, 274, 353, 355–56, 385, 393, 423, 448, 452, 454, 455 altar → temple apocalyptic 6, 32, 110, 352, 370, 464, 469 – proto- 47 Arabah 254–56, 306–07, 311, 315 Arad 261, 295–308 ark, of the covenant 77–78, 83 Ashkelon 403 Assyria 42, 82 Athtar 72 Baal 72 Babylon 59, 69, 82 banished → exile and exiles Beersheba 296–98, 301, 304, 306–07 Beit-Arieh 294–302 Bethel 261, 298, 491 bones, of Israel 46–48, 59, 107–118. 145, 155, 179–91, 241, 256–57, 261–63, 391–409, 477–81, 484–93 Booths, festival of → Sukkot Botenformel 121, → formula, divine word branch, of David → messiah calf, golden 82 Canaan 20, 72, 264, 291, 355 chaos → creation chariot, divine 78, 112, 216–17, 223–25, 228, 400–01, 463, 469 Cheḇar 19, 216, 217, 275 cherub(im) 19, 41, 71–73, 77–79, 88, 269, 280, 363, 365, 371, → chariot, divine conversion 35–37, 484 covenant 11, 33, 39, 44–46, 49, 94, 95, 96, 98, 102, 129, 131, 143, 146–47, 149, 153, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 163, 164, 166, 167, 171, 173, 174, 179, 182, 185, 189, 190, 248, 257, 259, 269, 286, 287, 288,

289, 291, 292, 293, 312, 313, 335, 336, 337, 340, 350, 354, 363, 364, 365, 368, 381, 383, 421, 422, 425, 443, 451, 453, 454, 502, 504, 507 – Davidic 45–46, 70, 104, 165 – eternal 36–38, 46, 47, 48, 173 – new 38, 48, 49, 289, 454 – of peace 46, 47, 93, 96, 103, 147, 154, 157, 158, 159, 164, 173, 174, 180, 182, 185, 187, 188, 189, 191, 355, 356 crocodile 42 creation 33, 42, 71, 72, 75, 77, 110, 116, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 253, 258, 262, 264, 269, 270, 271, 272, 275, 286, 293, 345, 352, 354, 356, 367, 387, 391, 450, 451, 478 – and chaos xv, 42, 249, 274 – new creation/recreation 114, 115, 156, 267, 245, 247, 252, 255, 259, 263, 273, 275, 351 Dan 301–02 Daniel 36, 419 David 38, 70, 92–105, 146, 154, 155, 156, 157, 159, 165, 166, 170–75, 180–89, 191, 198, 208, 249, 253, 269, 270, 288, 296, 305, 360, 366–68, 452, 490 – servant of Yhwh 45, 46, 93, 96, 98, 99, 100, 102, 103, 104, 142, 156, 170, 172, 182, 184, 185, 238, 269, 288, 366, 367 Day of the Dead 477–93 Day of Yhwh 42, 142, 352 diaspora 5, 13, 22, 32, 45, 103, 124–25, 129, 142, 143, 181, 183, 184, 188, 202, 205, 206, 208, 217, 293, 331, 501, 502 direction of dependence 10, 125, 144–45, 148, 195, 363 dirge 38, 40–41, 43, 66–87, 92, 238, 246–47, 251–54, 268–69, 409, 448 disgust → self loathing divine image 71

548

Subject Index

divine warrior → God, warrior Dura-Europas 112, 255, 393 Eden 41, 48, 71, 72, 74, 77, 247, 248, 280, 282, 345, 348, 349, 351, 352, 353, 356, 357, 359 Edom 37, 43, 260, 264, 286, 295–303, 306–08, 310–13, 315, 369, 491 Egypt 40, 42, 43, 46, 52, 59, 67, 69, 147, 158, 170, 200, 238, 252, 255, 269, 272, 286, 287, 288, 298, 314, 329, 380, 444, 490 (see also → Pharaoh) El, Canaanite god 72 El-Kheleifa 297–306 Elijah 112, 250, 265–66 Elisha 112, 295, 399, 490 empirical models 211–12, 497–509 ʿEn Ḥaṣeva 296–98, 300, 307 Esagila 50, 266 eschatology 22, 31–52, 40–45, 47, 64, 68, 207, 208 – definition of 32–33 exile and exiles 3, 5, 7, 13, 22, 31, 32, 34–35, 39, 40, 46, 47, 49, 50, 57, 80, 103, 107, 110, 113, 114, 116, 117, 127, 128, 129, 131, 140, 142, 147, 148, 149, 154, 170, 180, 183, 186, 188, 189, 197, 198, 200, 201, 202, 204, 205, 207, 208, 245–59, 262, 271–75, 285, 290, 292–93, 307, 314–16, 324, 325, 327–29, 331–34, 337, 341, 345, 348–50, 355, 360, 363, 368, 370–71, 378, 382–83, 394, 407, 419, 425, 427, 444, 448, 453, 492, 501 Exodus – tradition of the 47, 50, 51, 74–75, 197, 268, 271, 272, 274, 286, 314–16, 328, 329 – new exodus 34, 39, 45, 46, 48, 50, 51, 101, 182, 183, 186 – second exodus 113, 201, 202 Ezekiel, Book of – author(s) of 23–25 – Codex Alexandrinus 352 – fractures of 19–23 – Hexapla 117, 122, 160, 166, 172 – masoretic and proto-masoretic texts 3, 4, 8, 9, 23, 34, 35, 47, 48, 56, 61, 62, 67,

– – – – – –

–

68, 71–75, 81–82, 93, 99, 113, 116–17, 122–23, 142, 144–46, 150, 155, 156, 157, 160–62, 164, 165, 166, 167, 169, 172, 174, 176, 185, 195, 203, 205–08, 210–11, 215–227, 253, 257, 264, 267–68, 271, 285, 310, 323, 324, 327, 347, 350, 351, 370, 499, 450, 500, 501, 502, 504, 507, 508 Old Latin (Codex Wirceburg) 47, 68, 122, 350 original to prophet 3–4 Palestinian edition 10 Papyrus 967 4, 6, 8–9, 47, 48, 56, 67, 87, 117, 122, 176, 185, 210, 216, 217, 218, 219, 506 Peshiṭṭa 165–66, 216–17 Septuagint 4, 9, 16–17, 23, 34, 47, 56, 61, 67, 68, 71–75, 81–82, 90, 93, 98, 104, 106, 115–17, 122, 136, 144–46, 155–58, 160, 163, 166, 169, 176–78, 194, 198– 99, 205, 209–11, 213, 216–31, 247, 253, 256–57, 261–62, 264, 268, 271, 280–81, 285, 310, 320, 323, 333, 342–43, 349, 353, 356, 359, 398, 430–31, 451, 460, 506, 512 Targum 61, 165, 271, 426–27, 432, 434, 451

feminist criticism 382, 387, 462, 468 Festival of Weeks 287 foreign nations → nations, foreign flock, image for Israel → sheep formula(e) – asseveration 182 – chronological 10, 40, 121, 237–39 – covenant 35, 36, 37, 46, 48, 95, 96, 98, 100, 101, 102, 104, 105, 143, 145, 155, 157, 158, 163, 174, 184, 257, 354 – divine word 70, 94, 101, 168, 268 – gathering-and-return 186 – hand of Yhwh 122, 235 – messenger 55, 56, 57, 70, 120, 139, 141, 235, 236, 239–41, 242–43, 308, 352, 500 – oath 235, 245, 267, 308 – prophetic word 121, 194, 235, 502 – reassurance 146 – reception 55

Subject Index

– recognition 36, 55, 57, 81, 101, 113, 147, 197, 260, 308, 310, 312–16, 325, 332–33, 340, 355 – self-revelation 361 – word-event 324, 326 Fortschreibung 108, 113–14, 140–41, 195, 198–99, 200 gathering, of Israel → regathering genre studies 210–29 Gilgamesh 71–72, 228, 248 goat → sheep God/Yhwh – arm of 82, 128, 271, 425, → God, hand of – glory/keḇôd 19, 34, 40, 50, 51, 62, 78, 183, 213–14, 216–19, 224–25, 251, 345–46, 354–55, 363–65, 368–70 – hand of 82, 89, 128, 269, 271–72, 286– 87, 289, 309, 348, 382, 399, → formula, hand of Yhwh – holiness of 44, 204, 251, 273, 329, 339, 345–57, 364–72, 426, 440, 449, 453 – justice of 20–22 – knowledge of 45 – love of 38 – mercy of 38 – name of 48, 125, 128, 130–31, 133– 34, 197, 202, 204, 240–41, 313, 325, 328–29, 339, 350, 422–23, 428, 454, 501–02, 507, sanctify name: 125–26, 130–33 – reputation of 125, 337, 419, 502 – transcendence and immanence 19–20, 24–25 – warrior 273, 285, 287, 291–92, 386, 388 Gog of Magog 43, 44, 47–48, 59, 68 grotesque 377–89 H → holiness, code Hand Yahwes Offenbarungsformel 122, → formula, hand of Yhwh Hasmonean(s) 32, 47, 48 heart, flesh/new/stone → transformation high place(s) 55, 56 holiness – code (H) 11–13, 74, 82, 125, 138–39, 144–48, 153–54, 158–61, 163, 175, 254,

549

289–92, 310, 319–20, 346, 353, 357, 362, 426 – school 346, 350, 361–63, 365 Ḥorvat ʿUza 297–302, 304–07 idol(atry) 34, 36, 70, 82, 85, 102, 112, 114, 126, 128, 134, 145, 258, 261–62, 277, 289, 297, 302, 351, 378, 381, 391, 400, 405, 418–19, 478, 491, 493 impurity → purity infidelity – cultic 39, 204, 291–92, 330, 381 interpretation – diachronic approach(es) xiv, xv, 5–6, 8, 10, 14, 18, 20, 25–26, 29, 33–34, 107, 207, 211, 497–509 – Fortschreibungsmodell 5, → Fortschreibung – holistic → synchronic – synchronic approach(es) xiv, xv, 3–4, 6, 8–10, 13, 18–19, 25–26, 211, 231, 233, 323, 328, 332, 497–509 Jehoiachin 5, 39, 50, 254, 258, 383 Jerusalem 5, 6, 10, 19, 20, 34, 39, 69–70, 78, 80, 81, 84, 198, 213, 224, 225, 228, 245–46, 257, 261, 264, 268–70, 272–74, 285, 295, 298, 306–308, 312, 326, 3307, 350, 354, 360, 363, 366, 368–70, 381, 383, 387, 389, 427, 453, 455, 467–70 – conquest / destruction of 13, 20, 22, 24, 50, 54, 63, 70, 79, 82, 83, 140, 180, 194, 239–40, 293, 295–96, 311–12, 330, 331, 340, 378–79, 387, 393, 401, 402, 406, 419, 468, 470, 491, 502, – personified 36–38, 58, 60, 61. 330, 352, 353, – rebuilding 32, 190, 264, 354 – Zion 39, 40, 54–55, 58, 59–61, 63–64, 69, 70, 77, 79, 198, 206, 245, 264, 266, 269–70, 272, 274–75, 312, 347, 363, 369 – Zion theology 54, 63–64, 70, 77, 198, 245–46, 270–71, 274–75, 311, 363 – Zionism 454–55 Josiah 50–51, 86, 261, 274, 285, 298, 299, 490–91 jubilee 50–51, 274, 365

550

Subject Index

judgement 20–23, 33–36, 39–46, 51–60, 63, 93–94, 121–29, 180–83, 190–91, 197, 201–07, 248, 327, 431, 447–48, 453, 456 king → monarch(y) Kuntillet Ajrud 302 lament → dirge land of Israel 5, 10, 21, 22, 33–37, 44, 46–47, 50, 59, 60, 61, 63, 76, 81, 83, 86, 101, 103, 104, 111, 112, 113, 114, 116, 128–32, 143, 201, 202, 204, 219, 240, 250, 254–67, 273–74, 285–316, 327, 329, 346–47, 348–71, 383, 385, 392, 400, 425, 427, 455, 468, 490–91, 501 – restoration of (rebuilding, replanting) 44–45, 49–50–51, 58, 63, 146–48, 154–73, 179–90, 246, 254–67, 273–74, 323, 331–33, 339, 341, 455, 502–04 law → Torah lion imagery 59, 380 Lucifer → Satan LXX → Ezekiel, book of Maccabees/Maccabean 108, 110, 116, 223 Malḥata 300–02, 304–05, 307 Manasseh 298–99 Marduk 50, 266 masoretic text → Ezekiel, book of merkavah → chariot, divine messiah 94, 452, 454 – “branch” 38–39, 99, 368 Moab 264, 491 monarch(y) 76, 101, 238, 253, 360–02, 364–70 – Davidic 38–39, 45, 63, 92, 96, 103, 156–59, 171–75, 180–89, 191, 296, 367–68 – of Egypt → Pharaoh – of Tyre 41, 61–62, 66–87, 246 mountain(s) – of God 74 – of Israel 39, 40, 54–64, 101–03, 176, 197, 200–01, 204, 240, 243, 258, 260–63, 310–11, 331, 347, 364, 402 MT → Ezekiel, book of

name, divine → God, name of nations, foreign 18, 22, 32, 40–48, 56–57, 61, 67, 96, 101, 114, 124–26, 129–33, 143, 148, 157–58, 166–70, 182–86, 194–97, 201–08, 236, 246–47, 250, 266, 276, 282, 285–316, 323, 325, 327–29, 338, 348–49, 408, 425, 431, 501–02 Nebuchadnezzar 69, 82, 257, 332, 363, 400, 403–04, 448, 453, 455 Negev 294, 296, 298–300, 304, 306, 308, 312, 315 New Year 50 Nisan, month of 50–51 Oholibah 366, 379–300 orality 25–26 Paradise 46, 72, 77, 247, 263–64, 251–52, 364 Passover 50–51, 86, 351 Persian period 5, 6, 41, 85, 147, 148, 202, 264, 402–04 Pharaoh 42, 43, 67, 69, 200, 238, 252, 269, 314–15 Phoenicia 69, 247 Posada, José 477–93 priest(hood) 36, 51, 74–87 primal human 71–72, 87, 250–52, 255– 56, 258–59, 262–63, 266, 273–74, 276 – high 74–86, breastplate of 74–76, → Aaron – Levite(s) 51, 70, 83–89, 302, 333, 364, 371 – Zadokite(s) 51, 84–86, 115, 251, 345, 347, 350–51, 357, 360, 362–64, 366, 370, 371 Priestly tradition 95, 100, 153, 160, 162–63, 194–98, 214, 217–18, 235, 265, 290, 360, 362, 363, 377, 380, 388, 400, 453, 455, 490, 491 – priestly code 36, 159, 345–46 – priestly school 11–12, 362 Prince 81, 93, 96, 105, 142, 156, 189, 361, 447, 450, 470 – nagîd 41, 70, 72–73 – nasîʾ 45–46, 100, 104, 157, 172, 182, 185, 187 profanation of the name → God, name of

Subject Index

prophet(s) / prophecy 13, 24–26, 59, 130, 150, 180–81, 183–84, 332, 345–46, 449, 471 – false prophecy 35–36 – prophetic school(s) 69 proto-apocalyptic → apocalyptic proto-masoretic text → Ezekiel, book of Purity and impurity 83, 128, 292, 326–27, 346, 347, 348, 351, 353, 365, 370, 400, 489, 490, 492, 507 Qaus 298–99, 301–03, 305, 308, 312 Qitmit 299, 200–01, 312 redaction 31, 33, 44, 67, 115, 199–200, 323 – diaspora-oriented 142, 202, 331 – gola-oriented (exilic) 5, 7–8, 31–32, 46, 142, 260 – Hellenistic 13, 31, 46 – methodology 18–20, 23–26, 460, 505–06 – Persian period 41, 264 – priestly 80–86 regathering 44, 126, 155, 179, 186,1 88 191, 202, 205, 208, 323, 351 reputation, divine → God, reputation resettlement 57 resurrection 46–48, 107–118, 255, 370, 392–94, 409–10, 478, 492 restoration 22, 31–52, 56–57, 58, 64, 107–118, 120, 127–28, 130–36, 142–43, 147–49, 157, 164, 183–85, 189–90, 208, 225, 238, 240–41, 255, 259–62, 273, 285, 293, 315, 323–41, 350–52, 370–71, 384, 401, 418–19, 423–28, 455, 502–06 rewritten scripture 213, 229 rhetoric(al function) 60, 107–08, 215, 222, 243, 249, 258, 259, 263, 267, 269, 291–92, 310, 313, 332, 353, 355, 364, 369, 379, 382–83, 388, 398, 402–04, 419, 435, 452, 497, 504 Sabbath 83, 134, 214, 217, 223–25, 230, 274, 422, 438 sacrifice 40, 78, 83–86, 214, 217, 224–25, 291, 302, 346, 353, 480, 481, 491 – sacrificial feast 59

551

salvation 31–52, 54–63, 92–104, 113–17, 134, 179–91, 198, 201–08, 258, 273, 323–41, 355, 366, 429–30, 435, 453 Samaria 37, 38 Satan 72, 89 scribes and scribalism 26, 174, 211, 219–21, 224–25, 354, 468 Seidel’s law 160, 353, 355 Seir 56–58, 239–43, 260, 300, 302, 303, 307–19 self-loathing 40, 127, 132, 158, 163, 331, 332 Sennacherib 266, 403 Septuagint → Ezekiel, book of seven 241 – oracles against nations 40–43, 67, 287 sexual imagery 279–89 shame 21, 85, 204, 206, 218, 220–21, 223, 225–26, 313, 323–41, 382, 384, 400, 491, 502 sheep 45–46, 61, 93–94, 139–42, 171, 179–93, 353–56, 400–02, 484 – goats 93, 139, 141 shepherd 46, 59, 139–41, 181–91, 240, 242, 367 – divine 45, 59, 95–105, 238, 355 – David 45, 93, 95–105, 142, 156, 172, 174, 180–91, 238 Sheol 41, 42, 43, 400, 491 shoah 466 Sidon 40, 43, 44, 69, 201, 333 sign act (symbolic action) 47, 101, 104, 184, 185, 191, 237, 251, 252, 256, 406 spirit, divine 46–49, 113–117, 183, 184, 202, 204, 205, 248, 252, 255, 258, 275, 391–92, 399, 419, 421–23, 450 Sodom 37–38, 330, 366 Solomon 47, 73 street theatre 255, 398 Sukkot 351–53 symbolic action → sign act(s) Tel Abib 256 Tel ʿIra 294, 296, 304–07 Tel Masos 305–07 temple, Jerusalem 13, 19, 20, 25, 34, 39, 41, 46–47, 49–51, 62–63, 70, 74, 76–80, 82–84, 86, 109, 111, 198, 208, 245, 249,

552

Subject Index

251, 257, 262, 268, 270, 274, 285, 308, 312, 332, 346, 360, 364–66, 377–79, 381, 386–88, 470 – altar of 72, 78, 84, 86, 166, 216, 219, 261, 265, 297, 298, 300, 302, 321, 400, 405, 491, 493 – chambers of 78, 84, 224, 269 – heavenly 20 – Herodian 223 – inner court 84, 216 – new (Second) 19, 48–51, 62–64, 84, 86, 109, 111–112, 129, 159, 173, 189–90, 198, 208, 210–29, 265, 268, 273, 333–34, 346–48, 351–53, 357, 360–71, 378, 388, 421, 502 – vision of (Ezek 40–48) 47, 49–51, 62–63, 84, 86, 109, 111–12, 195, 208, 210–29, 238, 251, 258, 265, 269 Tischri, month of 50 Torah 35, 36, 49, 50, 67, 74, 81, 103, 218–27, 259, 267–69, 274, 315, 363, 371, 424, 455, 505, → Holiness Code, → Priestly Code transformation – of the individual (recreation) 34–35, 48–49, 103, 223, 234, 338, 348, 418, 420, 428, 431, 436, 502, 504 – new heart 21, 48–49, 114–15, 131–32, 225, 240–41, 323, 418–22, 427–31, 434–35, 464, 502, 507 – new spirit 21, 34, 35, 48–49, 114, 131–32, 184, 240–41, 323, 351, 419, 420, 422, 428, 430, 431, 502, 507

trauma 12–13, 149, 377–89, 391–09, 493 Tyre 40, 41–42, 61–62, 66–87, 197, 238, 246, 266, 350 – king of → monarchy Ugarit(ic) 72, 247, 270, 272 Uzzah 83 underworld → Sheol visions, Ezekiel’s 6, 19–20, 32, 46–47, 50, 67, 78, 134, 216–17, 225, 229, 238, 241, 345, 361, 378, 444, 461, 463, 467, → bones, of Israel, → chariot, divine, → temple, vision of Versions → Ezekiel, book of Wiederaufnahme 128 wilderness 39, 46, 127, 147, 163, 165, 170–71, 314, 445 wisdom 71–73 – forbidden 71–72 world tree 39, 42–43, 67 Yehud 41 Yhwh → God Yom Kippur 50, 454 Zadokite(s) → priest(hood) Zion → Jerusalem Zoroastrian 392