Literary Structure and Setting in Ezekiel (Forschungen Zum Alten Testament 2.Reihe) 9783161502729, 9783161511417, 3161502728

Citation preview

Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2. Reihe Edited by Bernd Janowski (Tübingen) · Mark S. Smith (New York) Hermann Spieckermann (Göttingen)

43

Tyler D. Mayfield

Literary Structure and Setting in Ezekiel

Mohr Siebeck

Tyler D. Mayfield, born 1980; 2005 MAR Yale Divinity School; 2009 PhD, Claremont Graduate University; Adjunct Faculty at the Claremont School of Theology and Research Associate at the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center, Claremont; since 2010 Post-Doctoral Fellow at Union Theological Seminary in the City of New York.

e-ISBN PDF 978-3-16-151141-7 ISBN 978-3-16-150272-9 ISSN 1611-4914 (Forschungen zum Alten Testament, 2. Reihe) Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. © 2010 by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. 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 printed by Laupp & Göbel in Nehren on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

Preface This monograph is a revised version of my doctoral dissertation completed in the summer of 2009 at Claremont Graduate University in Claremont, California. I wish to express my genuine gratitude to the editors of the series Forschungen zum Alten Testament, Prof. Bernd Janowski, Prof. Mark S. Smith, and Prof. Hermann Spieckermann, for accepting this work for publication. I also thank heartily Tanja Mix at Mohr Siebeck for her detailed attention to this manuscript. I do not pretend to arrive at the end of this exciting, exhausting, and energizing journey alone. Many have traveled with me and should be thanked for their generosity of time, energy, and care. Allow me to single out the three groups of people that contributed most to this project. First, I wish to thank all those who read portions of this work and made helpful suggestions on how to improve it, or who discussed the ideas presented here and brought clarification to the project, sometimes without knowing it. Betty Clements, the Reference Librarian at Claremont School of Theology, helped improve the style in many places. Shelley Long and Koog-Pyoung Hong, fellow Claremont graduate students, read sections of the work and offered truly constructive criticism. Debbie Ahlberg, a fellow graduate student from outside my field, endured long conversations about Ezekiel and literary theory, even though her real interest involved history. Second, I cannot express properly or with enough enthusiasm my heartfelt thanks to my professors at Claremont. Dr. Lori Anne Ferrell agreed to serve as a reader of this dissertation, even though we did not meet in person until the day of my defense. Dr. Kristin De Troyer, now of St. Andrews, instilled in me a lifelong curiosity for the painstaking, but necessary, work of textual criticism and believed in my scholarly abilities from the beginning of my time at Claremont. Dr. Tammi Schneider thought my crazy idea to write my dissertation in such short order was really not that crazy. Impromptu visits to her office always initiated supportive talks concerning both academia and parenthood. Finally, Dr. Marvin Sweeney, my doctoral advisor, taught me how to ask excellent, fresh questions about prophetic literature and modeled for me the life of an ever curious academic. His wise and constantly spot-on comments concerning this work have strengthened the argument at every turn. If I have reached any good con-

VI

Preface

clusions in this literary study of Ezekiel, it is surely because of his profound influence. Lastly, I am grateful to my family. My parents, Pedro and Toni, taught me from an early age to love the stories of the Bible. My in-laws, Doug and Cindy, genuinely cared both about the progress of this project and my general well-being while writing it. My brother-in-law, Kyle, spent many of his free weekends helping my wife with our kids, while I wrote. My children, Livia and Jude, are too young to remember the hours I spent away from them; for that, I am thankful. Finally, I am indebted to my wife, Lauren, my untiring supporter and closest friend, who not only served as the glue holding our family together but also completed a graduate degree herself during this time. I dedicate this volume to her: love you – lots. Claremont, April 2010 Tyler Mayfield

Contents Preface ............................................................................................................. V Contents .................................................................................................. VII

Chapter One: Introduction ................................................................... 1 1.1. The Problem ........................................................................................ 1 1.1.1. Literary Structure ..................................................................... 3 1.1.2. Using Literary Structure to Read Contextually ......................... 8 1.2. Thesis ................................................................................................ 10 1.3. Methodology ..................................................................................... 12 1.4. History of Scholarship ...................................................................... 17 1.4.1. Minority Reports .................................................................... 18 1.4.2. Majority Report ...................................................................... 24 1.5. Overview of Book ............................................................................. 28

Part One: Literary Structure Chapter Two: Structuring Prophetic Books ................................... 33 2.1. The Search for a Text’s Structure ..................................................... 36 2.1.1. Preliminary Distinctions: Structure, Form, and Genre ............ 36 2.1.2. Excursus: The Genre of Prophetic Book ................................. 39 2.1.3. Genre Structure & Text Structure ........................................... 43 2.1.4. Conceptual Structure & Surface Structure .............................. 44 2.1.5. Excursus: Genre Conceptual Structure & Genre Surface Structure .................................................................... 56 2.1.6. Text Conceptual Structure & Text Surface Structure ............. 57 2.1.7. Establishing the Text’s Surface Structure ............................... 62 2.1.8. Excursus: Multiple Structures in a Text? ................................ 64 2.2. An Example of Surface Structure and Conceptual Structure: Zephaniah ......................................................................................... 65 2.2.1. Conceptual Structure .............................................................. 66 2.2.2. Surface Structure .................................................................... 67

VIII

Contents

2.2.3. Conclusion .............................................................................. 69 2.3. Surface Structure and Chronological Formulas: Haggai and Zechariah ....................................................................... 69 2.3.1. The Structure of Haggai ......................................................... 69 2.3.2. The Structure of Zechariah ..................................................... 72 2.4 Chapter Summary .............................................................................. 74

Chapter Three: Structuring Ezekiel ................................................. 77 3.1. Formulas as Literary Features ........................................................... 80 3.2. Five Formulas Not Affecting the Structure ....................................... 81 3.3. Chronological Statements as Primary Structural Markers ................. 84 3.3.1. Chronological Statements in General ..................................... 86 3.3.1.1. Placement in Book ..................................................... 86 3.3.1.2. The Formulas’ Parts ................................................... 87 3.3.1.3. Chronological Sequence ............................................. 90 3.3.1.4. Exile of King Jehoiachin as Reference Point in Formulas ....................................................... 92 3.3.1.5. Macro-Genre Considerations ..................................... 93 3.3.1.6. The Formulas’ Literary “Reach” within the Book ...... 95 3.3.1.7. Formulas’ Relation to Historical Events .................... 97 3.3.1.8. Redactional Considerations ........................................ 98 3.3.1.9. Why Use Chronological Formulas? ........................... 99 3.3.1.10. Summary ................................................................ 100 3.3.2. Specific Chronological Statements ....................................... 101 3.3.2.1. Ezekiel 1:1 ............................................................... 101 3.3.2.2. Ezekiel 8:1 ............................................................... 104 3.3.2.3. Ezekiel 20:1 ............................................................. 105 3.3.2.4. Ezekiel 24:1 ............................................................. 107 3.3.2.5. Ezekiel 26:1 ............................................................. 108 3.3.2.6. Ezekiel 29:1 ............................................................. 110 3.3.2.7. Ezekiel 29:17 ........................................................... 111 3.3.2.8. Ezekiel 30:20 ........................................................... 112 3.3.2.9. Ezekiel 31:1 ............................................................. 112 3.3.2.10. Ezekiel 32:1 ........................................................... 113 3.3.2.11. Ezekiel 32:17 ......................................................... 114 3.3.2.12. Ezekiel 33:21 ......................................................... 115 3.3.2.13. Ezekiel 40:1 ........................................................... 116 3.3.3. Macro-Structure of the Book of Ezekiel, First Level ............ 117 3.4. Prophetic Word Formulas as Secondary Structural Markers ........... 117 3.5. Excursus: Diachronic (Redactional) Considerations ....................... 121 3.5.1. The Diachronic Growth of the Chronological Formulas ....... 122 3.5.2. A Diachronic View of the Oracles concerning the Nations .. 123

Contents

IX

3.6. Chapter Summary ........................................................................... 124

Part Two: Literary Setting Chapter Four: Reading Contextually Within Units: Ezekiel 24–25 ..................................................................................... 127 4.1. Contextual Reading ......................................................................... 127 4.2. Ezekiel 24–25 as a Literary Unit ..................................................... 134 4.2.1. Ezekiel 24:1b–14 .................................................................. 135 4.2.1.1. Translation & Critical Notes .................................... 135 4.2.1.2. Structure ................................................................... 137 4.2.1.3. Genre ....................................................................... 139 4.2.2. Ezekiel 24:15–27 .................................................................. 141 4.2.2.1. Translation & Critical Notes .................................... 141 4.2.2.2. Structure ................................................................... 143 4.2.2.3. Genre ....................................................................... 146 4.2.2.4. Excursus: Ezekiel’s Priestly Identity ........................ 150 4.2.3. Ezekiel 25: 1–17 ................................................................... 152 4.2.3.1. Translation & Critical Notes .................................... 152 4.2.3.2. Structure .................................................................... 154 4.2.3.3. Genre ....................................................................... 155 4.2.4. Reading Ezekiel 24–25 Together .......................................... 157 4.2.4.1. General Discussion of Ezekiel 24–25 ....................... 157 4.2.4.2. The Unit Begins with a Date .................................... 159 4.2.4.3. Multiple Literary Perspectives ................................. 161 4.2.4.4. The Separate Oracles Share Common Themes in Literary Context ................................................... 163 4.2.4.5. Destruction of Jerusalem .......................................... 164 4.2.4.6. Knowledge of God ................................................... 165 4.2.4.7. Destruction for the Whole Area ............................... 166 4.2.4.8. This Literary Unit is Transitional ............................. 167 4.2.4.9. Reality and Distraction ............................................ 168 4.3. Chapter Summary ........................................................................... 169

Chapter Five: Reading Contextually Within Units: Ezekiel 32:17–33:20 ......................................................................... 171 5.1. Ezekiel 32:17–33:20 as a Literary Unit ........................................... 171 5.1.1. Ezekiel 32:17–32 .................................................................. 172 5.1.1.1. Translation & Critical Notes .................................... 172

X

Contents

5.1.1.2. Structure ................................................................... 174 5.1.1.3. Genre ....................................................................... 176 5.1.2. Ezekiel 33:1–20 .................................................................... 177 5.1.2.1. Translation & Critical Notes .................................... 177 5.1.2.2. Structure ................................................................... 179 5.1.2.3. Genre ....................................................................... 180 5.1.3. Reading Ezekiel 32:17–33:20 Together ................................ 182 5.1.3.1. General Discussion of Ezekiel 32:17–33:20 ............. 182 5.1.3.2. The Date Reference Creates a Unique Literary Perspective ................................................................ 183 5.1.3.3. Summarizing Climactic Unit .................................... 185 5.1.3.4. Final Judgment Unit ................................................. 186 5.1.3.5. Preparation & Purification for New Temple ............ 186 5.2. Chapter Summary ........................................................................... 187

Chapter Six: Reading Contextually Within The Book: Ezekiel 29:1–32:16 ........................................................................... 189 6.1. Reading the Units Separately as Introduction ................................. 191 6.1.1. Ezekiel 29:1–16 .................................................................... 191 6.1.1.1. Synopsis ................................................................... 191 6.1.1.2. Structure ................................................................... 192 6.1.1.3. Genre ....................................................................... 193 6.1.2. Ezekiel 29:17–30:19 ............................................................. 194 6.1.2.1. Synopsis ................................................................... 194 6.1.2.2. Structure ................................................................... 195 6.1.2.3. Genre ....................................................................... 197 6.1.3. Ezekiel 30:20–26 .................................................................. 198 6.1.3.1. Synopsis ................................................................... 198 6.1.3.2. Structure ................................................................... 198 6.1.3.3. Genre ....................................................................... 199 6.1.4. Ezekiel 31:1–18 ................................................................... 199 6.1.4.1. Synopsis ................................................................... 199 6.1.4.2. Structure ................................................................... 199 6.1.4.3. Genre ....................................................................... 200 6.1.5. Ezekiel 32:1–16 .................................................................... 202 6.1.5.1. Synopsis ................................................................... 202 6.1.5.2. Structure ................................................................... 202 6.1.5.3. Genre ....................................................................... 203 6.2. A Contextual Reading of the Literary Units in Ezekiel 29:1–32:16 204 6.2.1. The Prominence of Pharaoh .................................................. 204 6.2.2. Chronological Disorder ........................................................ 205

Contents

XI

6.2.3. A Literary Progression within the Oracles concerning the Nations toward the Egyptian Oracles ................................... 207 6.2.4. Oracles concerning the Nations Build toward Book’s Conclusion ................................................... 207 6.3. Chapter Summary ........................................................................... 208

Chapter Seven: Conclusion ............................................................. 209 7.1. Summary of Study .......................................................................... 209 7.1.1. Summary of Methodological Theses .................................... 209 7.1.2. Summary of Theses related to Ezekiel .................................. 210 7.2. Further Study .................................................................................. 211

Bibliography .......................................................................................... 213 Index of Biblical Passages ..................................................................... 227 Index of Authors .................................................................................... 232 Index of Subjects ................................................................................... 235

Chapter One

Introduction 1.1. The Problem Although the book of Ezekiel contains bizarre and unsettling images, ubiquitous references to priestly tradition 1 , and a polyglot’s vocabulary 2 , contemporary scholars generally regard it as one of the most highly-structured, biblical books. 3 Confidence reigns as commentators discuss the various features that contribute to the book’s orderly structure, features such as the general grouping of oracles of judgment separately from oracles of promise, the three great vision reports, numerous formulas, and repetition of key 1 See Michael A. Lyons, From Law to Prophecy: Ezekiel’s Use of the Holiness Code (LHBOTS 507; New York: T&T Clark, 2009); Risa Levitt Kohn, A New Heart and a New Soul: Ezekiel, the Exile, and the Torah (JSOTSup 358; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002) for recent, sustained discussions of Ezekiel’s relationship to the priestly tradition. 2 The rabbis recognized the difficulty of this biblical book even in antiquity. E.g., Jerome notes that Jews under the age of thirty were forbidden to read the beginning and end of the book. See Commentariorum in Hiezechielem libri XIV, S. Hieronymi presbyteri Opera ¼, (Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 75; Turnholt: Brepols, 1964), 3–4; in addition, the Talmud records that Rabbi Hanina ben Hezekiah burned 300 barrels of oil in his study in order to reconcile the differences between the book of Ezekiel and the Torah (b. aggigah 13a; b. Menaot 45a; b. Shabbat 13b). 3 E.g., in his groundbreaking work, Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1 (Herm; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 2, states, “In coming from the other prophetic books, one is struck by the impression of great order in the book of Ezekiel.” Likewise, Ellen F. Davis, Swallowing the Scroll: Textuality and the Dynamics of Discourse in Ezekiel’s Prophecy (Sheffield: Almond, 1989), 11, commences her study as follows: “‘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.” Lawrence Boadt, “Rhetorical Strategies in Ezekiel’s Oracles of Judgment,” in Ezekiel and His Book (ed., Johan Lust; Leuven: Peeters, 1986), 185, admits, “I suspect the text is very highly structured, but am not convinced that we can recover the order by strictly rational and analytic arguments.” Finally, James L. Crenshaw, Story and Faith: A Guide to the Old Testament (New York: Macmillan, 1986), 212, summarizes well the scholarly consensus concerning both the difficulty of the book and the clarity of its structure: “In contrast to the imagery within the book, which is often confused and at times even weird, the book’s structure is clear and simple.”

2

Chapter One: Introduction

elements. 4 Certainly, scholars who compare the prophetic book with its historical contemporary and canonical neighbor, Jeremiah, celebrate the orderly nature of Ezekiel’s presentation. 5 On the one hand, intuitive readers of the book sense the predominately negative mood of the early chapters as Jerusalem and Judah’s unfortunate fate is foretold repeatedly (e.g., Ezek 4–5, 7, 10); on the other hand, these same readers appreciate the later, more optimistic chapters, which speak of the divine shepherd (Ezek 34), national resurrection (Ezek 37), and a new temple (Ezek 40–48). A synchronic criterion such as content is not alone in creating this intuitive caricature of the book. For example, in stark contrast to the prophetic books of Jeremiah and Isaiah, contemporary scholars mostly agree that the majority of Ezekiel basically stems from the hand of one person, or one historically-brief, prophetic tradition, thereby partially alleviating perpetual scholarly discussions of redactional layers, which often obscure conversations of a prophetic book’s structure. 6 All of these characteristics point unambiguously to the book’s bizarre content, yet tidy structure. On the whole and in sum, Ezekiel, of all the prophetic literature, is the most structurally sound prophetic book. Yet, for all the existing discussions of Ezekiel’s well-established and intentional structure, scholars overlook two interpretive areas: the relationship between the literary features on the surface of the text (such as formulas) and the book’s overall structure, and the significance of structure to the interpretation of a prophetic book’s message and intent. 7 As a result, the prevailing ways in which contemporary scholars write about, and pro4 D.N. Freedman, “The Book of Ezekiel,” Int 8 (1954): 446, states, “outlining the Book of Ezekiel is a relatively easy process.” 5 For a nice review of scholarship on Jeremiah, see Robert P. Carroll, “Surplus of Meaning and the Conflict of Interpretations: A Dodecade of Jeremiah Studies (1984– 1995),” Currents in Research 4 (1996): 115–59. Recent literary approaches to the book of Jeremiah have detected an intentional presentation of the textual materials. See, e.g., Louis Stulman, Order Amid Chaos: Jeremiah as Symbolic Tapestry (Biblical Seminar 57; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998). 6 In fact, Brevard Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), 365, posits that the “perspicuous arrangement” of the book is why scholars assumed the entire book was written by one author. It should not be assumed, however, that the issue of compositional unity is settled. For the most recent analysis of this question, see Paul M. Joyce, Ezekiel: A Commentary (LHBOTS 482; New York: T&T Clark, 2007), 7–16. 7 Structure as a whole has suffered as a subject of study within the field as Rolf Knierim, “Old Testament Form Criticism Reconsidered,” Int 27 (1973): 459, notes: “In spite of its programmatic commitment to form-analysis and valuable contributions, Old Testament form criticism has not yet given the method of structural interpretation the attention which it deserves as a distinctive research tool in its own right. We are far from possessing either a fully developed methodology of structural research, or a comprehensive typology of structural principles, or a morphology of textual structures.”

1.1. The Problem

3

vide support for, their structures within Ezekiel and the ways in which scholars generally utilize their structures need reconsideration and modification. The entire enterprise of establishing a structure for a prophetic book remains in a quagmire with little serious reflection on the proper criteria for such a process. Stuck also in this precarious position is the appropriate use of an explicit structure for reading the book. Consequently, this study examines these two major exegetical issues within Ezekiel – the structure of the book and the use of this structure in providing contextual readings (i.e., readings that take into account the literary context of the passage or unit). 1.1.1. Literary Structure 8 The first area of scholarly neglect – the relationship between overtly literary features at the surface of the text and textual structure – results partially from a trend within the field of 20th century biblical scholarship to view the text mainly with an eye to historical questions. 9 If one focuses singular attention on the compositional history of small, self-contained units of text as they join together to create larger textual blocks (e.g., sources ĺ passages ĺ books), then inevitably and intuitively one begins to divide the compiled whole according to its compositional parts, thereby ignoring any literary markers that may divide the whole differently. 10 Therefore, literary growth, as postulated by redaction criticism, becomes the sole criterion for demarcation of the book. This type of reading allows a hypothetical, his8

A brief note on terminology: this study uses the terms structure and literary structure interchangeably. The latter usage only serves as a reminder of the inherent synchronic nature of the term. 9 See, e.g., the survey of the modern study of the prophets in Joseph Blenkinsopp, A History of Prophecy in Israel (rev. ed.; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 16– 26. For a defense of historical criticism as an approach, see John Barton, “Historicalcritical Approaches,” in The Cambridge Companion to Biblical Interpretation (ed. John Barton; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 9–20. 10 This methodological procedure is typical of older renditions of form and redaction criticism. Note here for example the works of Duhm and Mowinckel on Jeremiah in which they posit sources that together make up the composition of this prophetic book: Bernhard Duhm, Das Buch Jeremia (KHAT 11; Tübingen/Leipzig: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1901); Sigmund Mowinckel, Zur Komposition des Buches Jeremia (Kristiana: Dybward, 1914). Of course, redaction criticism has its own set of issues including the possibility of the disappearing redactor [See John Barton, Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984) 56–58] or even the nonexistent of a redactor [See J. Van Seters, “The Redactor in Biblical Studies: A Nineteenth Century Anachronism,” JNSL 29 (2003): 1–19; and his book, The Edited Bible: The Curious History of the “Editor” in Biblical Criticism (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2006)]. The obsession with finding the ‘original’ text of the prophet and the priority of the ‘original’ text is treated by Gale A. Yee, Composition and Tradition in the Book of Hosea (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 27–50.

4

Chapter One: Introduction

torical development and construction of the text to take precedence over the complete and final text in front of the reader with the result that redaction critical decisions trump all other concerns. Concerning Ezekiel specifically, Pohlmann represents well the extreme influence of redactional questions on the interpretive enterprise. 11 Or, if one asks of the biblical text only questions pertaining to the ancient, historical events behind it, then one inescapably misses important literary features within the text. In these particular instances, diachronic factors that actually stand outside the text sometimes monopolize the division within the text. For example, Wevers divides the book of Ezekiel based in part on the argument that chapters 1– 24 are pre-586 B.C.E. material and chapters 33–39 are post-586 B.C.E. oracles. 12 Or the literary division is completely unobserved because of the emphasis on historical data. 13 Another, older example of the field’s indebtedness to solely historical questions is exemplified by William Irwin. He commences his work on Ezekiel by noting the problem of Ezekiel is threefold: a) is the book by the prophet or pseudonymous? b) is it a unified composition? and c) where was it written? 14 All three of these are decidedly diachronic issues. Even the second consideration, which on the surface looks as if it possibly relates to literary concerns, is actually more properly concerned with the redactional history of the book, i.e., the question of whether the whole was written at one point in time or whether it represents multiple authors and multiple sources. For Irwin, the important questions, the essential inquiries, relate to history. He is unable to formulate questions concerning, for example, the literary presentation of the prophet within the book. Another classic example of this type of diachronic reading can be found in the standard, historical-critical appraisal of the prophetic book of Isaiah, which scholars often divide into three parts: chapters 1–39, 40–55, and 56–

11 K.-F. Pohlmann, Ezechielstudien: Zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Buches und zur Frage nach den ältesten Texten (BZAW 202; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992); see also his twovolume commentary, Das Buch Hesekiel (Ezechiel): Kapitel 1–19 (ATD 22/1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996) and Das Buch Hesekiel (Ezechiel): Kapitel 20–48 (ATD 22/2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001). Yet, J. Garscha’s study, Studien zum Ezechielbuch: Eine redaktionskritische Untersuchung von Ez 1–39 (Europäische Hochschulschriften 23; Bern: Herbert Lang; Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1974), remains the most extreme of recent redaction critical work, assigning a mere 30 verses within the book to the prophet. 12 John W. Wevers, Ezekiel (NCBC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 1. 13 For additional examples of these diachronically-weighted arguments, see Section 1.4. in this chapter concerning the history of scholarship. 14 William A. Irwin, The Problem of Ezekiel (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1943), 3.

1.1. The Problem

5

66. 15 However, these dubious divisions are wholly based on a sense of historical growth within the Isaianic tradition and do not reveal a structure of the book in its final form. 16 Furthermore, reading the book of Isaiah as if it contains these three major parts totally alters the intent and message of the book. To put it simply: differing structures proffer differing messages. 17 Similarly, Ezekiel’s Oracles concerning the Nations (e.g., Tyre and Egypt) are assumed to constitute one period of composition within the Ezekielian tradition, i.e., the prophet delivered his Oracles concerning the Nations at one point in his career; therefore, scholars treat them as a unit within most structures. 18 While penetrating questions of the compositional history and subsequent editing of a complete biblical book are quite necessary, especially in light of clear evidence of the continual reworking of prophetic books, these important questions cannot function as the starting point for interpretation since no book is extant in its earlier stages or forms. 19 Furthermore, as Ben Zvi recently notes, there are no markers within prophetic books (in his case, Micah) that tell the readers – ancient or modern – to read a particular section “in a manner governed by their own awareness of either any proposed redactional history of the book, or by the place of the relevant READING in a text other than the present book of Micah.” 20 In other words, prophetic books may contain certain literary tensions, which lead scholars to postulate redactions, but they never direct readers to read only the redactional material, only certain sections of the book. For example, no evidence – manuscript or otherwise – exists that 15

Bernhard Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia (HKAT 3/1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1892), argued for this now well-circulated division. Yet, he was not the first to argue that parts of the book did not originate with the 8th century prophet, Isaiah. See Marvin A. Sweeney, “On the Road to Duhm: Isaiah in Nineteenth Century Critical Scholarship,” As Those Who are Taught: The Reception of Isaiah from LXX to SBL (ed. C. Mathews McGinnis and P. Tull; SBLSym; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006), 243–61. 16 Marvin A. Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, with an Introduction to Prophetic Literature (FOTL 16; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), provides a structure of the book that divides it into two sections: chapters 1–33 and 34–66. Other scholars who have attempted a more unified reading of the book of Isaiah include for example: Ronald E. Clements, “The Unity of the Book of Isaiah,” Int 36 (1982): 117–29; Edgar W. Conrad, Reading Isaiah (OBT 27; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1991). 17 This notion of the effect of structures on reading is addressed in the following section of this chapter. 18 See the section on the history of scholarship later in this chapter. Also note that this line of reasoning leads to the misleading historical assumption that prophets can only speak judgment or hope, not both, at any one time in their career. 19 No manuscript has been recovered that contains only Ezekiel’s Oracles concerning the Nations in such an arrangement that leads one to believe it is a complete, unified text, i.e., not part of a larger work. 20 Ehud Ben Zvi, Micah (FOTL 21B; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 7.

6

Chapter One: Introduction

Isaiah 40–55 ever constituted a prophetic book or even a collection independent of the whole book. Likewise, no legitimate reason exists to assume Ezek 25–32 circulated as a book or even a section of a book. Instead, prophetic books function as a coherent literary whole, as a piece of literature in their “final” form. 21 Thus, the prophetic superscriptions at the beginning of each book make the claim that the whole book is to be identified with a single prophetic figure. Therefore, the study of prophetic books must begin with the whole. 22 The structure of Ezekiel has also been held hostage over the years by another criterion – content. However, it is difficult to separate this seemingly synchronic issue of a text’s content from the aforementioned diachronic issue of redaction history. Scholars often group together units of text within Ezekiel based on the content (e.g., theo-political message and historical audience) of the oracles, but then date those oracles, either explicitly or implicitly, to the same time period, to the same compositional level with the assumption that prophets/authors/redactors only write similar content within the same time frame. So, it is not easy to discern whether content is the driving interpretative force or historical/redactional concerns. Take three examples briefly. First, the oracles of judgment against Jerusalem and Judah in the book of Ezekiel are set literarily mostly in the first 24 21

I am aware of the differing final forms of books as they exist in various manuscripts, both within the same language (e.g., the Leningrad Codex vis-à-vis the Aleppo Codex or Codex Vaticanus vis-à-vis Codex Alexandrinus) and between languages as a result of translation (e.g., Codex Vaticanus vis-à-vis the Leningrad Codex). The argument made here in the body of the text does not negate the important contribution of text criticism in establishing the text nor does it devalue the need to study the books in other textual versions such as the Old Greek and Old Latin. For an introduction to the discipline of textual criticism, see the excellent work of Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (2nd rev. ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001). 22 For a fuller consideration of this methodological point, see Marvin A. Sweeney, “Formation and Form in Prophetic Literature,” in Old Testament Interpretation: Past, Present, and Future (ed. J.L. Mays, D.L. Petersen, K.H. Richards; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995), 113–26; Ehud Ben Zvi, “The Prophetic Book: A Key Form of Prophetic Literature,” in The Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty-First century (ed. M.A. Sweeney and E. Ben Zvi; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 276–97; Rolf Knierim, “Criticism of Literary Features, Form, Tradition, and Redaction,” in The Hebrew Bible and Its Modern Interpreters (ed. D.A. Knight and G.M. Tucker; Chico, California: Scholars, 1985), 123–65; repr. in Wonil Kim et al., eds., Reading the Hebrew Bible for a New Millennium: Form, Concept, and Theological Perspective: Volume 2: Exegetical and Theological Studies (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 2000), 1–41. In other words, a synchronic outlook precedes a diachronic outlook. See Roy F. Melugin, “The Formation of Amos: An Analysis of Exegetical Method,” in SBL Seminar Papers 1978 (vol. 1, ed. Paul J. Achtemeier; Missoula, Montana: Scholars, 1978), 369–391; K. Spronk, “Synchronic and Diachronic Approaches to the Book of Nahum,” in Synchronic or Diachronic?: A Debate on Method in Old Testament Exegesis (ed. Johannes C. de Moor; Oudtestamentische Studiën 34; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 159–86.

1.1. The Problem

7

chapters of the book and historically before the fall of Jerusalem in 586 B.C.E. Thus, Ezek 1–24 has shared content and a similar historical background and redactional timeframe. Therefore, scholars often take the additional step of considering this a literary unit of the book. But the primary reason(s) for grouping Ezek 1–24 into a unit remains unclear, that is, not explicit. Is the principal criterion related to the similar content of mostly judgment within these chapters? Or their pre-586 B.C.E. date? Or other factors such as their common addressee? It is probably best to say that the precise ways in which content and historical concerns are intertwined in this specific division of the book has yet to be unraveled. Second, the Oracles concerning the Nations in Ezek 25–32 share similar content in that they are concerned mainly with the fate of Judah’s neighbors, and scholars view them as somehow sharing the same redactional layer. 23 Once more, the synchronic and diachronic criteria mix. And once again, the challenge to differentiate exactly which criterion scholars use to create a unit at Ezek 25–32 perplexes readers. My point here is not to diminish the ways in which redactional concerns and/or content play a role in textual meaning, or, for that matter, the structure of a text. Instead, I wish only to demonstrate how implicit and confused much of the current thought and practice is on this very matter. Finally, Cooke’s commentary’s table of dates within the book of Ezekiel provides truly the perfect example of the tension between a criterion of content and literary criteria. 24 Cooke argues from the first page of his commentary that the book is divided into three parts based on content; yet, he also recognizes the importance of the chronological formulas within the book. So he places these two essential features in conversation on his table with the result of unintended confusion. Unfortunately, the two topics – content and formulas – do not correlate in order to present a mutually agreeable division within the book. Based on content, Part II of Ezekiel, for Cooke, should begin with chapter 25, but no chronological formula exists at this point in the book. Therefore, in his chart, the division must be delayed until chapter 26 and its chronological formula. Furthermore, Part III of Ezekiel should begin with chapter 33 if one uses content as the prevailing criterion, but again no chronological formula exists there with the result that Part III actually commences at 33:21. Cooke has laid out well the central problem with the consensus view of the structure of Ezekiel: the thematic schema, which has typically prevailed in determining the struc23

Although this study does not concern redaction critical matters, it should be noted that the wedding of content and redactional layers, i.e., understanding redactional layers based solely on shared content, is problematic methodologically aside from simply confusing the issue. See Rolf Knierim, “Criticism of Literary Features,” passim. 24 G.A. Cooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1936), xviii.

8

Chapter One: Introduction

ture in Ezekiel, is at odds with the literary features, in this case, the chronological formulas, of the text. In summary, most structures of prophetic books typically use thematic, content-related factors as the unspecified criteria, while they ignore explicitly literary factors on the text’s surface, factors such as formulas. 1.1.2. Using Literary Structure to Read Contextually The second neglected area, which concerns the recognition of the significance of structure in reading a prophetic book, stems from a twofold failure on the part of contemporary scholarship. It is a failure both to link a book’s structure to the overall meaning or message of the book, and to read a prophetic book as a whole entity, as an example of a genre. Too many scholars have disconnected a book’s unique structure from the book’s message. Among form critics, the misstep occurs by linking another important concept such as genre or even societal setting (Sitz im Leben) to meaning without a concern for the unique, structural features of the text. In other words, scholars derive a meaning from the text based almost entirely on the genre in which the text participates. 25 Little attention is given to the interpretive impact of structure. 26 Additionally, this wall between the text’s structure and the text’s meaning is erected because few commentators attempt a reading of such a large piece of literature as 48 chapters as a coherent book. Scholars, in the past, have typically viewed the prophetic books as mere collections of prophetic materials – disorganized, incoherent, and without a unified message. However, scholars must attempt this type of large-scale reading since a book’s structure is one legitimate way to discern its message, as Sweeney explains: The structure or arrangement of the book reveals the final redactor’s overall perspectives and conceptualization of the prophet’s message in that the sequence of texts within the final form of the book points to those aspects of the prophetic message that the redactor wishes to emphasize. 27

This study does not, however, provide a reading of the whole book of Ezekiel – mainly because of space constraints – but it does keep in mind the entire piece of literature. It rejects any reading that only considers “collections” or assumes a disorganized presentation to the prophetic text. And 25

This prioritizing of the typical elements, e.g., the genre of a text, is why Muilenburg wanted to go “beyond” form criticism, which at the time placed an emphasis on the typical features of the text, not the unique. See James Muilenburg, “Form Criticism and Beyond,” JBL 88 (1969): 1–18. 26 I should clarify that genre and societal setting are important factors in determining textual meanings, but not to the neglect of structure. 27 Sweeney, “Formation and Form,” 116.

1.1. The Problem

9

the study sets the stage for a reading of the whole book by presenting a structure. It should be noted that the book’s message, if read in the final form, is not to be equated automatically with the historical prophet’s message. Reading the final form alone does not excuse one from understanding the complex dynamics of text production, nor the probable time gap between the historical prophet’s life and the production of the prophetic book associated with this figure. The message of the final form of the book is assuredly what the last editor wishes to leave with the reader. 28 Thus, one cannot claim in some overly simplistic way that the final form of Ezekiel traces back to the prophet. Fortunately, however, the book of Ezekiel seems to stand in close connection historically to the prophet’s actual message, especially when compared to other prophetic books such as Isaiah and Jeremiah, both of which contain long, complicated redactional histories. To put it otherwise, the book shows significantly less signs of overt rewriting and expansion in comparison to other large prophetic books. Collins, for example, concludes “there are good grounds for concluding that the work of rewriting was done either under the supervision of Ezekiel himself or that of a like-minded disciple, who kept tight control of the production of the book at every stage.” 29 For these reasons, scholars need fresh readings of the book of Ezekiel that consider the impact of the structure. One way to use a structure in the service of establishing a text’s meaning or purpose is to examine literary settings (Sitze in der Literatur). 30 Readings that are attuned to literary settings focus on the ways in which a structure sets certain blocks of texts in relation to each other, either on the same level or a subordinate or superior level within the book. Since a structure divides a book, such as Ezekiel, into units and subunits, it also provides the literary settings for each of these same textual units. To put it differently: a structure engenders various literary settings. These literary settings can be defined as the ways in which any given text is situated within the piece of literature, e.g., the way in which verses are situated within the larger subunit and/or unit. And they are based on literary-structural understandings of the text. 28 Clements, Old Testament Prophecy, 145, is even more emphatic: “It is clear that in no case are we here presented with a series of prophecies preserved simply as the original prophet received or preached them. Instead, they have passed through a substantial process of editing during which additional material has been introduced to amplify and expand upon the original sayings and records.” 29 Terence Collins, The Mantle of Elijah: The Redaction Criticism of the Prophetical Books (The Biblical Seminar 20; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 93. 30 Wolfgang Richter, Exegese als Literaturwissenschaft: Entwurf einer alttestamentlichen Literaturtheorie und Methodologie (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971), 145–48, first proposed this type of setting.

10

Chapter One: Introduction

In order to examine how a structure might impact reading and meaning, I have chosen several textual units within the book of Ezekiel that contain Oracles concerning the Nations as fertile ground for harvesting results. 31 This allows for a selective reading of some portions of the book of Ezekiel in order to demonstrate the interpretive power and usefulness of a new structure. These Oracles concerning the Nations also serve as some of the most difficult oracles within the book to understand and interpret and remain largely overlooked by many Ezekiel scholars. In summary, the present study questions an almost foregone conclusion within Ezekiel scholarship – its structure – and presses for an understanding of the literary settings of the book that factor in this new structure. The two pieces of this study fit together naturally as the second piece obviously derives directly from the first. So, while the discussion roams over several methodologies and takes us to various portions of the book of Ezekiel, the essential topics of structure and literary setting remain the goals of this project.

1.2. Thesis My two general theses – to summarize the end of the last section and to provide a solution to the problem therein – are directly related to literary structure and literary setting. First, the scholarly consensus view of, and approach to, the structure of Ezekiel needs considerable rethinking since it does not adequately reflect the literary features at the surface of the text. These surface level features need further attention in order to present a less ambiguous and more explicitly literary approach to the book, one that does

31 A note about terminology: This study uses the phrase “Oracles concerning the Nations” intentionally and exclusively (as opposed to “Oracles against the Nations”) for several reasons. First, the former phrase is more neutral and allows for a more unbiased reading of the material. Second, there are some glimmers of hope within these particular oracles (especially in the book of Isaiah), which leaves open the possibility that the message is not always negative. Third, the Hebrew preposition used, ‘l, can mean either “against” or “concerning/about” so the proposal is not without Hebrew lexical merit. See John B. Geyer, Mythology and Lament: Studies in the Oracles about the Nations (SOTSM; Aldershot, England: Ashgate, 2004), 3, for a more complete argument of this usage. In addition, while I tend to agree with scholars such as Boadt, who argue that these oracles can be attributed to Ezekiel, this diachronic stance is hardly relevant to this study. For a diachronic assessment of these oracles, see Lawrence Boadt, “Rhetorical Strategies in Ezekiel’s Oracles of Judgment,” in Ezekiel and His Book (J. Lust ed.; Leuven: University Press, 1986), 182–200; also his monograph, Ezekiel’s Oracles against Egypt: A Literary and Philological Study of Ezekiel 29–32 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980).

1.2. Thesis

11

not allow factors such as content to dominate the discussion. Furthermore, the consensus approach, which using mainly thematic criteria, contains significant methodological weaknesses and interpretive ambiguities. Second, this newly-reformulated structure must be used as an interpretive tool so as to provide contextually-rich readings of both the complete book of Ezekiel and its individual units. In other words, within a given structure, each unit and/or subunit has a particular place, a given context, in which it resides intentionally; these contexts are engendered by the structure and deserve careful consideration. As noted above, both of these research areas have been overlooked in the book of Ezekiel because of dominant, historical paradigms within the field of prophetic literature. It is time now to investigate the literary aspects of this highly-structured, written composition in order to understand better the rhetorical goals of this unique prophetic book. 32 My more specific thesis, to anticipate the following chapters, is that the book of Ezekiel is divided into 13 literary units based on the chronological formulas found throughout the book, beginning in Ezek 1:1 and ending in Ezek 40:1. These chronological formulas create the first level of a surface structure for the entire prophetic book. Each of these macro-level units, formed by an initial chronological formula, follows a basic literary pattern: the unit begins with a narrative of varying length, depending on the individual unit, and then contains one or more prophetic oracles. These narratives and oracles constitute the subunits, or second level structure, of the book with the oracles marked consistently by prophetic word formulas at the beginning. Thus, a structure of Ezekiel pays attention to the chronological and prophetic word formulas at the surface of the text in order to divide the text. A surface structure does not divide the book according to thematic or conceptual issues that are generalized from the content within the book, e.g., Oracles concerning the Nations, oracles of judgment. This type of conceptual understanding of the book’s division, while perhaps accounting for the content of the book in a very general sense, yields a number of weaknesses when examined closely. This new structure is not the only specific thesis of the study, however, since a structure alone does not provide any particular interpretations of textual passages within the book. By introducing a new structure, one does not provide a rich interpretation of a textual passage. To put it otherwise: establishing a structure does not equate to understanding a text. More needs to be said; fortunately, there is a way to use the structure as an interpretive tool. 32

I am in basic agreement with the thesis of Davis, Swallowing the Scroll, that Ezekiel represents written prophecy from the beginning. See also the commentary of Robert R. Wilson, “Ezekiel,” The HarperCollins Bible Commentary (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2000), 583–622, for a similar conclusion.

12

Chapter One: Introduction

The surface structure provided in the book of Ezekiel by the chronological and prophetic word formulas must be used for reading various sections within the prophetic book as they relate to each other. Using the structure, one can read the book in a contextually-rich way in order to gain a more unified, complete reading of the entire prophetic book. This way of reading situates each unit and subunit within the larger whole; it recognizes the importance of literary context for any interpretation. For example, using the formulas discussed above to create a surface structure results in the establishment of Ezek 8–19 as a literary unit within the book. A contextual reading then considers these twelve chapters as united and examines their different subunits which come together to create an overall book unit. Additionally, a contextual reading looks at how the subunits relate to each other. So, a contextual reading attends to the ways in which various subunits are placed in their contexts in order to make up a larger literary unit. As a result, a contextual reading emphasizes the order of presentation of Ezekiel’s oracles within any given unit. Therefore, I focus in chapters four and five of this study on two literary units, Ezek 24–25 and Ezek 32:17–33:20, and argue that a contextual reading within these units demonstrate how they are key, transitional units within the book. Instead of viewing these passages as containing the chief fault lines within the book, I see the book’s formulas guiding the reader toward an understanding of the diverse materials within the unit that work together to create a literary entity, thereby demonstrating the integral nature of the Oracles concerning the Nations to the overall message of the book. This contextually-rich reading attends to the placement of each literary unit within the overall book, e.g., the way in which Unit II stands between Units I and III. Therefore, I focus in chapter six on a series of five literary units including Ezek 29:1–16; 29:17–30:19; 30:20–26; 31:1–18; 32:1–16, in order to provide a contextual reading among these units. This type of reading highlights the importance of the chronological framework and its disruption among these units.

1.3. Methodology The present study fits within the parameters of recent formulations of form criticism even as it strives to advance the discipline further along synchronic lines. 33 The two focal topics of structure and setting in this study 33

See Sweeney, “Formation and Form in Prophetic Literature,” 113–126; idem. “Form Criticism,” in To Each Its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and their Application (ed. S.R. Haynes and S.L. McKenzie; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999), 58–89; Knierim, “Criticism of Literary Features, Form, Tradition, and Re-

1.3. Methodology

13

have always been quintessential form-critical issues. 34 However, it would also be appropriate to note the influence of rhetorical criticism, structuralism, and linguistics on this study. Together these other methodologies have enabled form criticism to maintain its relevance and vitality as a method and have highlighted some areas of neglect within the method itself in its earlier renditions. For example, early form-critical studies often focused on the typical elements within oral speech. Rhetorical criticism helped to rectify this emphasis by highlighting the unique qualities of texts. In fact, in many ways the new methodologies or interpretive approaches such as rhetorical criticism and intertexuality have contributed to a new kind of form criticism, what one might term synchronic form criticism, as opposed to diachronically-oriented form criticism. 35 Synchronic form criticism combines the classic, mainly diachronic, concerns of form-critical theory (issues of form, genre, and Sitz im Leben) as articulated by the German scholarly tradition of Gunkel, Mowinckel, Alt, von Rad, Noth, and Westermann 36 with the more recent understandings of the biblical text as a piece of literature whose final form deserves sustained attention. 37 Of course, one innovation of Gunkel’s exegetical program, and its subsequent manifestations, was the shift from Wellhausen’s concern for the history of ancient Israel, which he pursued by slicing daction,” 123–165; idem. “Old Testament Form Criticism Reconsidered” Interpretation 27 (1973): 435–468. 34 Knierim, “Criticism of Literary Features,” 138, notes “If the structural analysis of texts and of their individuality is considered an essential ingredient in determining their literary integrity, and if form criticism incorporates such structural analysis into its methodology, then the best place for it, possibly including the literary-critical task, seems to be as the initial step of the form-critical method.” 35 See J.C. de Moor (ed.), Synchronic or Diachronic? A Debate on Method in Old Testament Exegesis (OtSt 34; Leiden: Brill, 1995). 36 See, e.g., Hermann Gunkel, Genesis (trans. Mark E. Biddle; Macon: Mercer, 1997); Sigmund Mowinckel, Psalmenstudien (2 vols.; Amsterdam: Schippers, 1961); Albrecht Alt, “The Origins of Israelite Law,” in Essays on Old Testament History and Religion (Garden City: Doubleday, 1967), 101–71; Gerhard von Rad, “The Form-Critical Problem of the Hexateuch,” in The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (Edinburgh and London: Oliver and Boyd, 1966), 1–78; Martin Noth, The Deuteronomistic History (JSOTSup 15; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981); Claus Westermann, Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967). 37 See, e.g., Richter, Exegese als Literaturwissenschaft; Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985); Harald Schweizer, Metaphorische Grammatik: Wege zur Integration von Grammatik und Textinterpretation in der Exegese (ATSAT 15; St. Ottlien: EOS, 1981); Phyllis Trible, Rhetorical Criticism: Context, Method, and the Book of Jonah (GBS; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994); Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981); Edgar W. Conrad, Reading the Latter Prophets: Toward a New Canonical Criticism (JSOTSup 376; London: T&T Clark, 2003).

14

Chapter One: Introduction

the text into ‘sources,’ to an examination of the history of the literature of ancient Israel. 38 In this way, form criticism has concerned itself from the beginning with the biblical text as literature. However, this literary concern has often taken shape exclusively within discussions influenced largely by diachronic questions. For example, Mowinckel introduced the seminal question of the social function of a text as it relates to psalms such as Psalm 46 and posited an actual, historical event (Israelite New Year’s festival) as the answer. 39 Mowinckel also utilized historically-driven, sourcecritical models for understanding the different types of literature (e.g., prose, poetry) in the book of Jeremiah. 40 In addition to the historical concerns of the early form critics, much attention during this time was directed toward the oral forms of the text. Gunkel and his followers helped 20th century scholars imagine the oral world of the biblical author, a world in which short myths and legends circulated before finally being written down. 41 In general, classical or diachronic form criticism still emphasizes these two pillars of orality and historical/sociological settings, leading many form critics to speculate about the nucleus of any given prophetic speech, the portion of the text that was once original and oral. However, as Sweeney notes, a shift is occurring within the discipline as form criticism seeks to incorporate the knowledge gained from other methodologies such as linguistics, literary theory, and rhetorical criticism: The history of form-critical research demonstrates a shift from an early focus on the short, self-contained, “original” oral speech unit to an emphasis on the literary and linguistic structures and modes of expression of the much larger textual compositions in which smaller formal units function. Such methodological evolution also entails a shift from a relatively limited and one-sided emphasis on the social realities that stand behind

38 See Conrad, Reading the Latter Prophets, 7–14, for an insightful discussion of Gunkel and Muilenburg and their shared interest in readers and texts. For two examples of classical source criticism, see Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel (trans. J. Sutterland Black and A. Menzies; Edinburgh: A & C Black, 1885; reprinted with foreword by D.A. Knight; Scholars Press Reprints and Translations Series; Atlanta: Scholars, 1994); Julius Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Buecher des Alten Testaments (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1899). For a discussion of Wellhausen, see John H. Hayes, An Introduction to Old Testament Study (Nashville: Abingdon, 1979), 159–180. 39 Mowinckel, Psalmenstudien, 2:38. 40 Mowinckel, Zur Komposition, posits four different sources (A, B, C, D) in the book of Jeremiah. This thesis is a refinement of the earlier work of Duhm in Das Buch Jeremia, mentioned above in footnote 10. 41 The issue of orality and textuality remains crucial today. See Susan Niditch, Oral World and Written Word: Ancient Israelite Literature (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996), for a recent treatment of these issues.

1.3. Methodology

15

and generate a text to a much broader emphasis on the social and literary realities that generate a text and that are in turn created and sustained by that text. 42

Fortunately, the shift is now able to accommodate issues of literacy and textuality (and orality still) as well as larger textual units such as books in its analysis. The present study of Ezekiel stands after this critical shift in the history of form-critical research for at least two reasons. First, I attempt to bracket, in general, diachronic concerns in favor of examining the synchronic dimensions of the book of Ezekiel. This should not be taken as an attempt to reject or even ignore important, diachronic questions about the text. In fact, diachronic questions are necessary and profitable in biblical exegesis; so much so, that questions concerning the historical development of a text must in fact be addressed at some point in order to understand fully the given text. It is simply a matter of scope that this study chooses to focus on synchronic questions. 43 Second, the specific type of form criticism I employ here is undoubtedly influenced by other synchronic methodologies. Accordingly, although the two literary topics discussed at length in this study derive from classical form-critical issues, the exact rendition of form criticism I use may seem strange to some who have not interacted with the methodology in recent years as it has developed in conversation with other methodologies. 44 In other words, form criticism today has expanded its research agenda from the days of Gunkel’s pioneering work – even from the days of Westermann’s classic study of prophetic speech. It has enlarged its territorial reach to include the study of prophetic literature in its final form at the textual level of a book as an important area of research. Thus, the first half of the current study is a discussion and application of structure analysis to the prophetic book of Ezekiel. By applying this analysis the study takes up a piece of the interpretive research agenda of the

42

Marvin Sweeney, “Form Criticism,” 60. The current trend within biblical scholarship to circle the wagons within either diachronic or synchronic territory and to ignore the other side is fruitless. Harnessing both approaches can be particularly helpful in providing a total picture of the text, both how it originated and how it currently stands. David M. Carr, Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary Approaches (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), begins his examination of Genesis with a literary or synchronic approach in order to try to discover the compositional history or diachronic issues. For an excellent, but short, discussion of this issue of synchrony and diachrony, see Daniel Hojoon Ryou, Zephaniah’s Oracles Against the Nations: A Synchronic and Diachronic Study of Zephaniah 2:1–3:8 (Biblical Interpretation Series 13; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 4–7. 44 For a sustained, book-length discussion of this ‘type’ of new form criticism, see Marvin A. Sweeney and Ehud Ben Zvi, eds., The Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty-First Century (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003). 43

16

Chapter One: Introduction

form critic, Rolf Knierim. 45 This project concerns how the literary features of a prophetic book can help discern the book’s structure and provides a key to the conceptualization of issues within the text. So, it disregards the valid concerns of the compositional history of the book in order to focus on the entire work as a finished literary product. If one accepts the notion of a genre such as prophetic book as a coherent textual unit, then one must seek to understand how the genre, in this case the whole of Ezekiel as book, structures its message. Naturally, this enterprise dovetails with Muilenburg’s supplementation of form criticism with rhetorical criticism, especially in light of the two tasks he assigns to the latter method: a) “define the limits of a literary unit by using the criteria of form and content,” b) “discern structure.” 46 The central question of the second half of the book is: How does the structure of a prophetic book help the reader understand the message and purpose of various sections of the book? To help answer this question, the study utilizes the concept of literary setting in order to read contextually. I am intentionally focusing, then, on the placement of literary units and subunits within their larger literary frameworks. Harnessing the results of my study of the book’s surface structure, I demonstrate the ways in which particular subunits stand together to create a coherent unit. Or, the ways in which larger units work together within the scope of the entire book to create emphases, themes, and overall messages. Literary structure and literary setting: these are the foremost concerns of this study; however, the study’s aim is much higher for it is not enough to lay out a tidy structure or to place each oracle or literary unit within its proper literary setting. The task of the interpreter, in the end, is to interpret, to provide meaning for an ancient text, to give clues as to its function and purpose. Reading the book of Ezekiel contextually helps to do exactly that – to provide a coherent reading of the whole.

45

Apparently, Knierim is credited for coining the term “structure analysis” or at the very least for harnessing the power of this concept in his classroom and research. See Antony F. Campbell, “Structure Analysis and the Art of Exegesis (1 Samuel 16:1418:30),” in Problems in Biblical Theology: Essays in honor of Rolf Knierim (ed. H. T.C. Sun et al.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 76–103. For the best example of Knierim’s mature methodology in practice, see Rolf P. Knierim, Text and Concept in Leviticus 1:1– 9 (FAT 2; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1992). Although I am critical of certain aspects of Knierim’s work in the following chapter, I still consider this project to be very much in line with his general research agenda. 46 Phyllis Trible, Rhetorical Criticism, 27. For Muilenburg’s articulation of rhetorical criticism, see his “Form Criticism and Beyond,” JBL 88 (1969): 1–18. However, note Knierim’s suggestion that Muilenburg does not actually go beyond form criticism in Knierim, “Old Testament Form Criticism Reconsidered,” 458n91.

1.4. History of Scholarship

17

1.4. History of Scholarship A review of the scholarly literature on the topics of literary structure and literary setting is complicated by at least two factors. 47 First, as noted above, scholars often discuss the structure of the book of Ezekiel within the context of its literary composition. In other words, redaction critical concerns become the basis for their rendering of the structure of the book. Yet, the ways in which books were composed do not necessarily influence their final form and structure. Therefore, this review does not rehearse the well-documented redaction critical discussion with regard to the book of Ezekiel. 48 Suffice it to say that Ezekiel was generally regarded as a unified work until the twentieth century. 49 Hölscher, with some earlier influences, challenged this understanding in 1924, which lead to a general consensus concerning the existence of multiple redactional layers in the book. 50 Recently, Greenberg has questioned this enterprise with his “holistic” reading of the text. 51 Today, most scholars admit secondary material within the 47 A more exhaustive history of scholarship concerning numerous aspects of the book can be found as follows: H.H. Rowley, “The Book of Ezekiel in Modern Study,” BJRL 36 (1953): 146–90; Brevard Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 357–70; Bernhard Lang, Ezechiel (Erträge der Forschung 153; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1981); Henry McKeating, Ezekiel (OTG; Sheffield: Almond, 1993), 30–61; Katheryn Pfisterer Darr, “Ezekiel among the Critics,” Currents in Research 2 (1994): 9–24; Marvin A. Sweeney, “The Latter Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel),” The Hebrew Bible Today: An Introduction to Critical Issues (ed. S. L. McKenzie and M.P. Graham; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998), 69–94; Risa Levitt Kohn, “Ezekiel at the Turn of the Century,” CBR 2:1 (2003): 9–31; Daniel I. Block, “Ezekiel in Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium,” Ezekiel’s Hierarchical World: Wrestling with a Tiered Reality (ed., S.L. Cook and C.L. Patton; SBLSym 31; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004), 227–39. 48 For a recent discussion of the redaction of Ezekiel, see Joyce, Ezekiel, 7–16. In addition, Duguid has surveyed the topic in his monograph, Iain M. Duguid, Ezekiel and the Leaders of Israel (VTSup 56; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 3–8. Also, see S. R. Driver, Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (New York: Scribner, 1913), 279; H. A. Redpath, The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel (London: Methuen, 1907), xiv. 49 G.B. Gray, A Critical Introduction to the Old Testament (New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1913), 198, for example, states, “no other book of the Old Testament is distinguished by such decisive marks of unity of authorship and integrity as this.” 50 G. Hölscher, Hesekiel, der Dichter und das Buch (BZAW 39; Gießen: A. Töpelmann, 1924), attributed only 170 verses from the book of Ezekiel to the prophet. This study also led to dating the book much later, e.g., C. C. Torrey, Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Original Prophecy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1930; repr., New York: KTAV, 1970), argued for a Seleucid period dating of the book, while Garscha, Studien zum Ezechielbuch, argued that the book is a postexilic composition with redactions occurring into the third century B.C.E. 51 Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20 (AB 22; Garden City, New York; Doubleday, 1983), 18–27.

18

Chapter One: Introduction

book but to a lesser degree than in Isaiah and Jeremiah, reading instead the majority of the book as dating to the time of Ezekiel. This review brackets this important, but tangential, discussion in order to rehearse the ways in which the book, in its present literary form, has been divided. The second complication of this scholarly review is that few scholars have attempted a reading of the whole prophetic book (or section of the book) derived from their proposed structure. To put it otherwise, scholars may offer varying structures, but this discussion is often relegated to how the book came together, not how to read the book as a unit. The literary setting of the book’s units does not play a large interpretive role in their analysis. Scholars may note in great detail the occurrence of three great visions within Ezekiel, but they are less concerned about the literary context in which those visions appear. One can notice here that generic questions are driving their exegesis in that they are able to isolate three examples of a vision within the book so they are naturally inclined to read those visions together. This is not a particularly unfruitful or incorrect way in which to proceed when confronted with one of Ezekiel’s long visions. However, it is an incomplete reading of the visions because it fails to note the textual material before and after the visions. Questions remain unanswered by these types of approaches to the book: How do various subunits, e.g., oracles, within any given larger unit relate to each other? How do the literary units relate to each other, especially as they are read chronologically? Therefore, this review does not offer much in the way of examining readings of the final product of the prophetic book since scholars often miss this seminal “forest” for all of the complex “trees.” Thus, the review below focuses on scholarly treatments of the structure of Ezekiel as well as any implicit or explicit criteria for arriving at that particular structure. It also examines the ways in which scholars have used their structures to read the book. The history of scholarship divides rather easily according to those scholars who file a minority report, meaning they conclude that the book does not have three major units, and scholars who file the majority report, which argues that this biblical book contains a tripartite structure typical of several prophetic books. 1.4.1. Minority Reports Some scholars find it compelling to divide the book of Ezekiel in half. Most recently, Tuell’s commentary divides the book into two major sections: Ezek 1–33 and 34–48. This division is based on the content of the prophetic oracles; the first section contains elements of judgment, while the second section focuses on hope. 52 Freedman has two major divisions: 52

Steven Tuell, Ezekiel (NIBC; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2009), 4. Tuell also notes the three vision cycle within the book as “another structure.” He is less specific as

1.4. History of Scholarship

19

chapters 1–24, which he titles “The Basic Book,” and chapters 25–48, which are “Miscellaneous additions” including the Oracles concerning the Nations, restoration oracles, and the vision of the new temple. It is quite easy to discern Freedman’s criteria for this bifurcation of the book. With his section titles, he insinuates that chapters 25–48 are written later and with less internal coherence than chapters 1–24, which form the book’s core. His binary structure, however, contradicts some of his discussion elsewhere in his article on the chronological statements, which he argues “offer a ready device for arranging the contents of the book.” 53 In the end, the system of dates is incomplete according to Freedman; therefore, he retreats back to diachronic criteria in order to structure the book. Brueggemann also divides the book of Ezekiel in half and notes a “twofold message of judgment and hope” as well as some “variations of genre and of accent” within the themes. 54 So, while he shares the same structure as Freedman, he uses a different criterion, i.e., the general theological content of the majority of the oracles within each section, to partition the book. This appeal to content or themes within the book will reoccur frequently in the discussion. Other scholars follow this bipartite structure: Tkacik 55 Bandstra, 56 Harrison, 57 and Bertholet. 58 Finally, Toy divides the book into two parts but with a different point of division: chapters 1–39 constitute “the prophecies proper,” while chapters 40–48 are “the vision of reconstruction.” 59 Here it seems that Toy has made a largely incorrect genre distinction between prophecies and a vision in that he fails to recognize other visions within the book. In the end, it may be that Toy recognizes a more general difference in content between his two sections but misidentifies it. Interestingly, Greenberg notes that the Babylonian Talmud and Josephus both divide the book into two sections. 60 However, this observation to whether these two structures align, coexist, or create tension. See also Tuell, “Should Ezekiel Go to Rehab? The Method to Ezekiel’s ‘Madness’,” Perspectives in Religious Studies 36 (2009): 293. 53 D.N. Freedman, “Ezekiel,” Int 8 (1954): 461. 54 Walter Brueggemann, An Introduction to the Old Testament: The Canon and Christian Imagination (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003), 192. 55 Arnold J. Tkacik, “Ezekiel,” in The Jerome Biblical Commentary (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1968), 1:347. 56 Barry L. Bandstra, Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Hebrew Bible (Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1995), 343. 57 Ronald K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1969), 822. 58 Alfred Bertholet, Das Buch Hesekiel (KHAT; Freiburg: J.C.B. Mohr, 1897), xix. 59 C.H. Toy, The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel: A New English Translation with explanatory notes and pictorial illustrations (New York: Dodd, Mead, and Company, 1899), 93. 60 Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 3.

20

Chapter One: Introduction

deserves further scrutiny. For example, Tannaitic tradition in Babylonian Talmud (Baba Batra 14b) notes simply that the book of Ezekiel begins with doom and ends with consolation. Is this to be taken as a structure for the book or simply a summary, albeit condensed, of the book’s contents? The statement is not enough to posit a division into two sections by the Talmud. Furthermore, Josephus, in Jewish Antiquities, states that Ezekiel “left behind two books.” 61 A footnote in the Marcus’s translation speculates as follows: “Josephus probably thought of the book of Ezekiel as composed of two distinct parts of 24 chapters each.” 62 Marcus refers to Thackeray’s discussion of Ezekiel opening with desolation and closing with consolation. 63 On the other hand, another scholar, Lowth, speculates, again quite freely, that Josephus is making a distinction between chapters 1–39 and 40–48 since the latter treats a completely different subject. 64 However, Marcus and Lowth’s suggestions say much more than the very short statement of Josephus. Furthermore, it is unclear if the Greek noun, biblous, which is used by Josephus here, can actually mean “sections of a book” instead of the more usual meaning of “books.” 65 Josephus is probably better read as referring to two books authored by Ezekiel, although the exact reference to a second book is not forthcoming. Block nonetheless suggests that Josephus has in mind the Apocryphon of Ezekiel, a Jewish work from the first century B.C.E. 66 Lind posits three sections in his commentary just as the majority of scholars considered below in the majority report. 67 However, his textual units set him apart from the majority report as follows: Ezek 1–3, 4–33, and 34–48. Unlike so many others, he also utilizes his tripartite structure to establish a theological point within Ezekiel: the book, according to Lind, is derived from a worship setting within Israel and is comparable to a hymn such as the Song of the Sea in Exodus 15. The first section of Ezekiel (Ezek 1–3) demonstrates that God is the victor via a vision of God in a cosmic war chariot; the second section (Ezek 4–33) demonstrates that God leads the people to victory over the enemy; the third section (Ezek 34–48) 61

Josephus, Ant. 10.77–81 (Marcus, LCL). Ralph Marcus, tr. Jewish Antiquities, by Josephus (LCL, 1966), 6:201, note e. 63 H. St. J. Thackeray, The Septuagint and Jewish Worship: A Study in Origins (The Schweich Lectures, The British Academy, 1920; London: The British Academy, 1923), 37. 64 William A. Lowth, A commentary upon the prophet Ezekiel (London, 1723), xi. 65 See BDAG, 176. See also Josephus, Ant. 10.63 & 10.263 (Marcus, LCL) for further use of this word to mean simply “books.” 66 Daniel Block, Ezekiel 1–24 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 43. For the text of this document, see OTP, 1:486–90. See also John J. Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004), 354. 67 Millard C. Lind, Ezekiel (Believers Church Bible Commentary; Scottdale, Pennsylvania: Herald Press, 1996), 18–19. 62

1.4. History of Scholarship

21

shows God establishing an eternal sanctuary. Thus, Lind provides the first example in this review of the use of a book’s structure in a meaningful interpretive way, i.e., drawing conclusions of meaning based on structure. It should also be noted that his criterion for dividing the book is content alone. He does not speak of any literary features either at the beginning or end of any of his units that would support his textual divisions. Wevers divides the book into four sections based on mixed criteria: the suspected date of textual composition and content. He notes that chapters 1–24 contain pre-586 B.C.E. material, while chapters 33–39 contain post586 oracles, thereby implying that the date of an oracle is important for structuring a biblical text. Next, Wevers states that chapters 25–32 constitute the Oracles concerning the Nations and chapters 40–48 concerns “the ideal cult of the future.” 68 At this point, he switches to a criterion of content for delineating structure. Furthermore, while he considers the chronological formulas in his discussion, he concludes that they are editorial in nature and not suitable for structuring a text. He notes in passing that the dates only apply “to the section for which it was presumably originally intended rather than to all the materials which follow up to the next date.” 69 Matthews, earlier in the century, also provides this same division and a theological explanation for it: “It opens with a vision of Yahweh and closes with Yahweh in the midst of his people. In the first division there is devastation because of iniquity. Divisions two and three show how to remove the causes of downfall. The last section gives the organization essential to preserve the happy result.” 70 Content is the absolute determining factor for Matthews. 71 Block differs somewhat in his division of the book into four major parts: Ezek 1–3, 4–24, 25–32, and 33–48. He gives his structural criteria explicitly as “time and subject matter.” Interestingly for this study, he also notes fifty literary units, “forty-eight of which are introduced either by a date notice or the word-event…formula.” 72 Collins also reads the book in four parts: Ezek 1–11 “great visions of the glory of the Lord”; Ezek 12–24 “extended and colorful allegories”; Ezek 25–32 oracles against foreign nations; and Ezek 33–48 “prophesies of consolation and restoration.” 73 The criterion in place seems to be related 68

Wevers, Ezekiel, 1. Wevers, Ezekiel, 2. 70 Isaac G. Matthews, Ezekiel (An American Commentary on the Old Testament; Philadelphia: Judson Press, 1939), xxx. 71 Kirsten Nielsen, “Ezekiel’s Visionary Call as Prologue: From Complexity and Changeability to Order and Stability?” JSOT 33 (2008): 99–114, also divides the book into these same four sections based on content. 72 Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 23. 73 Collins, Introduction, 353. 69

22

Chapter One: Introduction

to issues of genre, although even that must be taken very generally given that visions occur outside of Ezek 1–11 and oracles occur consistently throughout the whole book. Childs reads four divisions: Ezek 1–24, 25–32, 33–39, 40–48. However, Childs is acutely aware of the chronological formulas and their significance: The backbone of the structure is provided by a chronological framework which extends throughout the book and joins the sections together….Although it has often been remarked that the dates apply only to those passages explicitly recorded, the literary effect of the framework is clearly intended to included the other passages as well within the 74 larger temporal pattern.

Childs comes the closest of any scholar to grappling with the significance of the chronological formulas, probably because of his emphasis on the final form of the book. However, in the end, his book divisions dismiss the formulas as insignificant (e.g., he divides between chapters 24 and 25 and 32 and 33 where no formulas occur). Joyce, in his first monograph on Ezekiel, notes these same four sections. 75 May concurs with this four-fold division, basing his demarcation on content alone. 76 Cody also divides the text in this manner. 77 In sum, this division of the text is fairly prevalent since it represents a slight modification of the tripartite structure discussed below. With four sections, scholars are able to place Ezek 40–48 in its own category, as its own unit. Biggs arrives at five sections for the book by accepting the above division but separating Ezek 1–24 into chapters 1–2 (the call) and chapters 3– 24. Additionally, he comments on how this structure helps one to read the book: “the structure of the book reflects the experience of the people as it was seen in terms of their relationship with God.” 78 So, Israel is disobedient and God punishes; exile provides a chance for repentance; God forgives and allows for a rebuilding of the temple. Unfortunately, this theological paradigm does not satisfactorily explain the function of Biggs’ first section on the call of Ezekiel and his third section on the Oracles concern-

74

Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, 365. Paul Joyce, Divine Initiative and Human Response in Ezekiel (JSOTSup 51; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989), 21. 76 Herbert G. May, “Ezekiel: Introduction and Exegesis,” in The Interpreter’s Bible Volume (New York & Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1956), 6:64. 77 Aelred Cody, Ezekiel with an Excursus on Old Testament Priesthood (Old Testament Message; Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, 1984), 11–13. 78 Charles R. Biggs, The Book of Ezekiel (Epworth Commentaries; London: Epworth Press, 1996), xiv. 75

1.4. History of Scholarship

23

ing the Nations. Carley and Andrew also have five sections although of a slightly different sort: Ezek 1–3; 4–24; 25–32; 33–39; 40–48. 79 Kutsko also maintains a five section division of this prophetic book, but with differing sections from Biggs and Carley, as follows: Ezek 1–11, 12– 24, 25–32, 33–39, and 40–48. 80 This structure is chiastic with chapters 1– 11 labeled “From Divine Presence to Divine Absence” and chapters 40–48 labeled “From Divine Absence to Divine Presence.” 81 Furthermore, Ezek 12–24 is “Preparation for Destruction” and Ezek 33–39 is “Preparation for Restoration.” 82 Kutsko claims that the Temple in Jersualem and the divine presence are used thematically to structure Ezekiel as a book. This is a clear example of linking structure of the book to the overall meaning of it. In fact, it may be that this thematic reading of the book is driving his structural analysis. In other words, has Kutsko established a structure that yields this reading or has he established an overall reading of the book that necessitates this particular division? Vawter and Hoppe produce an outline with six sections by dividing the first twenty four chapters into three units: 1–7; 8–14; 15–24; 25–32; 33– 39; 40–48. 83 This structure has the advantage of drawing attention to the visions which begin in chapters 1 and 8. Joyce’s recent commentary divides the book into seven sections as follows: Ezek 1–3 Ezek 4–24 Ezek 25–32 Ezek 33 Ezek 34–37 Ezek 38–39 Ezek 40–48

“prophetic call of Ezekiel” “YHWH’s judgment upon Judah and Jerusalem” “Oracles against foreign nations” “Turning point of book” “Hopes for the restoration of Judah” “Gog of Magog” 84 “Extended vision of the temple.”

He does not provide argumentation or criteria for this judgment, although it seems to be based on content and not composition. This structure stands in contrast to his earlier delineation of the book as noted above. 79 Keith W. Carley, The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel (Cambridge Bible Commentary; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974), 2; M.E. Andrew, Responsibility and Restoration: The Course of the Book of Ezekiel (Dunedin, New Zealand: University of Otago Press, 1985). 80 John F. Kutsko, Between Heaven and Earth: Divine Presence and Absence in the Book of Ezekiel (Biblical and Judaic Studies 7; Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 1, 78. 81 Kutsko, Between Heaven, 1. 82 Kutsko, Between Heaven, 1. 83 Bruce Vawter and Leslie J. Hoppe, A New Heart: A Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel (International Theological Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 1–2. 84 Joyce, Ezekiel, 42–43.

24

Chapter One: Introduction

Finally, some scholars hesitate to proffer a structure. Wilson finds three major structural devices for the book: 1) date references that organize the book chronologically, 2) the arrangement of the oracles according to content, and 3) the use of images and words repeatedly. However, Wilson does not explain how these devices work together to create a unified structure – or even if they are supposed to provide such a structure; instead, they “give coherent shape” to the book. 85 More recently, Redditt argues for three structural features as well: a) the content of predictions, b) a series of three visions, and c) a series of dates. 86 Like Wilson, he does not try to prioritize these features or bring them together in a significant way. Muilenburg, in his short commentary, notes the orderly nature of the composition but declines providing a structure. 87 Finally, Blenkinsopp notes that the chronological formulas are “the most obvious structural feature” and that chapters 24 and 33 are “structurally crucial in the arrangement of the material;” however, he does not provide an actual structure, unless one takes the division of his commentary into seven parts as a hint at it. 88 In sum, the minority reports are anything but uniform. They consist of readings of the text containing from two to seven units. Scholars also disagree as to exactly where within the book to divide the text. However, major division points within the book do exist. Most scholars unanimously place a division between chapter 24 and chapter 25. This serves as the transition point from the oracles concerning Jerusalem and Judah to the Oracles concerning the Nations. Chapter 24 contains oracles relating to a boiling pot and the death of Ezekiel’s wife; chapter 25 concerns oracles about Ammon, Moab, Edom, and Philistia. Also, the commentators agree that an important division occurs between chapters 32 and 33. Again, this division relates to the Oracles concerning the Nations. Chapter 32 contains the last of the oracles regarding Egypt; chapter 33 returns to Ezekiel’s watchman role. Yet, neither of these divisions contains a chronological formula. 1.4.2. Majority Report The majority of contemporary Ezekiel scholars divide the book into three unequal parts as follows: Punishment against Israel and Jerusalem (chapters 1–24) Punishment against the nations (chapters 25–32) Restoration of Israel and Jerusalem (chapters 33–48). 85

Wilson, Harper’s Bible Commentary, 656. Paul L. Redditt, Introduction to the Prophets (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 150. 87 James Muilenburg, “Ezekiel,” in Peake’s Commentary on the Bible (London: Thomas Nelson, 1962), 568–90. 88 Joseph Blenkinsopp, Ezekiel (Interpretation; Louisville: John Knox, 1990), 3, 5. 86

1.4. History of Scholarship

25

This threefold structure is typically seen as a characteristic of several other prophetic books such as Isaiah and Jeremiah. 89 Hals’s commentary is paradigmatic in this regard with the following three sections: a) the message of judgment, b) the prophecies against foreign nations, and c) the message of consolation. 90 Likewise, Greenberg divides the book into these three sections but notes in a preliminary way the difficulties inherent when using content as the primary criterion. 91 Eichrodt also delineates this structure as the final shape of the book and notes “the prophet’s mighty march from judgment to salvation” as well as the prophet’s audience’s understanding of “the movement of history of salvation as displayed in his word.” 92 Here Eichrodt demonstrates a theological “reading” of his structure; while the initial word may be one of judgment, the final word is good news. Allen follows this trend of a three part structure, combining his initial discussion of structure with a discussion of the growth of the book. 93 Mays advocates this structure in his commentary for preachers. 94 Even Cassuto, who argues for the “association of ideas or words” as the criterion for smaller sections of Ezekiel, maintains the three larger divisions. 95 Odell also appears to advocate for three main sections within Ezekiel as she compares the book to Assyrian building inscriptions, although she is never explicit in delineating what constitutes her sections. 96 McKeating finds a threefold structure based on the content of the oracles, even though he notes that this is not a rigid demarcation. In the end, “the exceptions do not invalidate the accuracy of the broad characterization of the sections.” 97 This is basically the position of Fishbane, who also notes some exceptions that prove the rule. 98 Davis notes “a discernible pattern in the thematic or89 Paul R. House, The Unity of the Twelve (JSOTSup 117; Bible & Literature Series 27; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1990), argues for a tripartite structure for the Book of the Twelve. 90 Ronald M. Hals, Ezekiel (FOTL 19; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 3. 91 Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 3–6. 92 Walther Eichrodt, Ezekiel (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1970), 22. 93 Leslie Allen, Ezekiel 1–19 (WBC; Dallas: Word, 1994), xxiv-xxxvi. 94 James L. Mays, Ezekiel, Second Isaiah (Proclamation Commentaries; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978), 22. 95 U. Cassuto, Biblical and Oriental Studies, Volume 1: Bible (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1973), 228. 96 Margaret S. Odell, Ezekiel (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary; Macon, Georgia: Smyth & Helwys, 2005), 1–4, notes that Assyrian building inscriptions have three parts: “a self-introduction, historical survey, and building account.” But how exactly does this correspond to Ezekiel? 97 McKeating, Ezekiel, 15. 98 Michael Fishbane, “Sin and Judgment in the Prophecies of Ezekiel,” in Interpreting the Prophets (eds., James Luther Mays & Paul J. Achtemeier; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 170.

26

Chapter One: Introduction

ganization of the book” and outlines three sections. 99 Clements seems to follow the tripartite structure even though his commentary discusses the book in ten sections (Ezek 1–3; 4–7; 8–11; 12–15; 16–19; 20–24; 25–32; 33–37; 38–39; 40–48). 100 Boadt, in his monograph on the oracles concerning Egypt, also refers to “three large blocs of material.” 101 Cooke’s commentary of 1937 also divides the book into these same three parts on the basis of subject matter. 102 Noordtzij also supports this structure in his commentary. 103 Renz’s study of the rhetorical function of the book of Ezekiel also posits three major sections for the book. 104 Although he is less than explicit concerning his exact criteria – he more or less assumes the sections – they seem to be based on the content and addressee of the oracles. Darr’s three part structure is based on content and notes some of the structural nuances within the book. 105 For example, she observes that chapters 25–32 contain “most” of the oracles against the foreign nations, displaying a careful reading of the text that does not overstate the facts. She also mentions the dates throughout the book in her discussion of structure and suggests that this feature gives coherence to the work. Finally, she briefly hints at how her structure gives meaning to the whole book: “This is no pastiche of oracles, but a carefully structured literary work anchored in historical events. The scroll has a beginning, a middle, and an end. Its contents can be read randomly, but it invites a sequential reading.” 106 The major German commentaries also maintain the standard division. For example, Kraetzschmar in his introductory comments on Ezekiel as a book assumes the tripartite division. 107 Fohrer outlines three major sections. 108 Fuhs finds three clear parts to the book. 109 Zimmerli, the great 99

Davis, Swallowing the Scroll, 11. Ronald E. Clements, Ezekiel (Westminster Bible Companion; Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996). 101 Boadt, Ezekiel’s Oracles against Egypt, 1. See also Boadt’s ABD article, L. Boadt “Ezekiel, Book of,” ABD 2:711–722; and his “Rhetorical Strategies in Ezekiel’s Oracles of Judgment,” in Ezekiel and His Book (ed., Johan Lust; Leuven: Peeters, 1986), 185. 102 Cooke, The Book of Ezekiel, 1. 103 A. Noordtzij, De Profeet Ezechiël (Korte Verklaring der Heilige Schrift; 2 vols.; Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1956). 104 Renz, Rhetorical Function, 57–61. Although note that Ezekiel 33 seems to stand outside of the divisions. 105 Katheryn Pfisterer Darr, “The Book of Ezekiel: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible (Nashville: Abingdon, 2001), 6:1073–1607. 106 Darr, Ezekiel, 1089. 107 Richard Kraetzschmar, Das Buch Ezechiel: übersetzt und erklärt (Handkommentar zum Alten Testament; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1900), xi. 108 Georg Fohrer, Ezechiel (Handbuch zum Alten Testament 13; Tübingen: Verlag J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1955), 1–2. 109 Hans Ferdinand Fuhs, Ezechiel 1–24 (Würzburg: Echter-Verlag, 1984), 7. 100

1.4. History of Scholarship

27

commentator on Ezekiel, also recognizes the tripartite structure in Ezekiel, Isaiah, Zephaniah, and the Greek text of Jeremiah. 110 Pohlmann’s structure is difficult to discern since his concerns are elsewhere. In his listing of contents, he seems to delineate a tripartite division, yet chapters 40–48 receive treatment in a separate, fourth paragraph. 111 Critical introductions to the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible that subscribe to the tripartite structure are ubiquitous: Pfeiffer, 112 Boadt, 113 Schmidt, 114 Soggin, 115 Driver, 116 Rendtorff, 117 Kaiser, 118 Harrelson, 119 and Blenkinsopp. 120 In summary, Zimmerli states the consensus view: “the three major sections can clearly be separated from one another.” 121 The division into three parts is based primarily on content, secondarily on an assumed idea of the form of a typical prophetic book, tertiarily on assumed ideas about the composition of the book. This last methodological principle is certainly not exclusive to the book of Ezekiel. One thinks immediately of Isaiah’s typically diachronic division into three parts (Isa 1–39, 40–55, 56–66), Zechariah’s similar 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 three part structure (Zeph 1–2:3, 2:4–3:8, 3:9–20). In fact, the book of Ze-

110

Walther Zimmerli, The Fiery Throne: The Prophets and Old Testament Theology (ed. K.C. Hanson; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 37–38. 111 Karl-Friedrich Pohlmann, Das Buch des Propheten Hesekiel (Ezechiel) Kapitel 1– 19 (ATD 22.1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 18–19. 112 Robert J. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1948), 518. 113 Lawrence Boadt, Reading the Old Testament (New York: Paulist Press, 1984), 388. 114 Werner H. Schmidt, Old Testament Introduction (trans. Matthew J. O’Connell; New York: Crossroad, 1984), 250–3. 115 J. Alberto Soggin, Introduction to the Old Testament: From its Origins to the Closing of the Alexandrian Canon (3rd ed.; Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1989), 358. 116 S.R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (New York: Meridan Books, 1956), 279. 117 Rolf Rendtorff, The Old Testament: An Introduction (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), 209. 118 Otto Kaiser, Introduction to the Old Testament: A Presentation of its Results and Problems (trans. John Sturdy; Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing, 1975), 250. 119 Walter Harrelson, Interpreting the Old Testament (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1964), 287. 120 Blenkinsopp, A History of Prophecy, 168. 121 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 2.

28

Chapter One: Introduction

phaniah, LXX Jeremiah, and Ezekiel are often used to posit a three part structure for the prophetic books in general. 122 This history of scholarship demonstrates the need for a clear reassessment of the structure of Ezekiel and the valid criteria for establishing such a structure. Scholars have disagreed about the number of units within the book even as a general consensus has formed around the tripartite structure. This three-part structure must be examined again in order to see if the premise for this conclusion is compelling. In addition, other structuring devices within the book, some of which are mentioned by scholars in the review above, must be considered.

1.5. Overview of Book This monograph falls into two parts. In the first part, I discuss the quintessential form-critical topic, structure, as it relates to prophetic books and to Ezekiel in particular. Whereas scholars generally practice the process of structuring prophetic literature more often than critically reflecting upon it, in this part of the study I examine the theoretical dimensions of the concept of structure. Then, I offer a methodologically-controlled, surface structure of the complete book of Ezekiel. Hence, the main, guiding research question of Part One is: what is the surface structure of Ezekiel? However, in order to answer this rather specific question, I take a step back to consider the more general topic of structure. In Chapter Two, I first pursue this line of thought by introducing a set of important, form-critical distinctions, distinctions such as genre and form, form and structure, and surface and conceptual structures. Then, this last distinction – surface and conceptual structures – creates an elegant, two-part classification system for structure that demonstrates the ways in which scholars have structured prophetic books, i.e., the divergent criteria used to establish a structure. I argue that many of these attempts at structure belong to the large category of conceptual structure. Furthermore, this category has methodological flaws insofar as it often relies on ambiguous, intuitive criteria. In this way, I demonstrate the strength of a surface structure as opposed to a conceptual structure. In Chapter Three, I turn more expressly to the book of Ezekiel to argue that the 13 chronological formulas in this book establish the overarching, surface structure of the entire book, while the prophetic word formulas aid in creating subunits within the surface structure. These two formulas are 122 See, e.g., Childs, Introduction, 458, and his structure of Zephaniah. It is unclear how three examples of a certain structure can become a typical pattern for prophetic books since that means basically that at least a dozen books do not follow this pattern.

1.5. Overview of Book

29

the most important literary features of the book and are used throughout it to delineate the units and subunits. This new structure stands in sharp contrast to most scholarly divisions of the text because it demands a consistent treatment of literary features within Ezekiel. Although some scholars in the past have viewed the chronological formulas as somehow involved in the overall structure of the book, they have always remained hesitant to use them exclusively and definitively as the book’s literary structure. Chapter Three provides the detailed argument for this thesis. In Part Two (chapters 4–6), I discuss the topic of literary setting using the new surface structure presented in Chapter Three as an interpretive tool. These three chapters ask the seminal question: “How does a macrostructure aid in interpreting a prophetic book?” One particular response to this question, and the one emphasized in this study, is that structures provide the parameters by which to read the book within its various literary settings. Thus, Chapters Four and Five provide a particular type of contextual reading in which one reads within literary units among various subunits therein. Ezek 24–25 and 32:17–33:20 serve as exemplar units for this type of reading. Chapter Six provides another type of contextual reading in which one reads within the whole book among five literary units spanning Ezek 29:1–32:16. Chapter Seven serves as the conclusion to the study.

Part One

Literary Structure

Chapter Two

Structuring Prophetic Books A fresh approach to structure within the book of Ezekiel as presented in chapter three requires first focus on the more methodological aspects of structure as it relates to prophetic literature in general. Prophetic books with all their innovative differences – theological agenda, historical background, length – still share certain, similar attributes (e.g., an association with a prophetic figure) that are pertinent to consider when interpreting this particular genre of biblical literature. In addition, the prophetic books present a unique set of issues with regard to structure, especially when compared to treatments of other types of literature such as prose narrative (e.g., Judges, Ruth) or legal texts (e.g., Holiness Code), both of which are often unhelpful when wading into the waters of prophetic books. While prophetic literature contains narrative materials and can be poetic and literarily sophisticated, on the whole, prophetic literature contains more formulaic language, characteristic genres, and predictable patterns than other types of biblical literature. 1 Therefore, the issues surrounding structure and prophetic books deserve special consideration in this chapter in order to ascertain the most appropriate way to delineate literarily the various units within a book such as Ezekiel. The motivating question of this chapter is simply stated: What constitutes a superior literary structure? This question is not novel to this work or to form-critical inquiries in general; astute readers of biblical texts have instinctively described informal literary structures of prophetic books for centuries. It is relatively safe to assume that ancient writers and readers used a system (or systems) for dividing their texts into units. 2 However, few contemporary scholars have reflected intentionally on the methodology of structuring literarily; in other words, the modern interpreter, in establishing a structure for a text, has largely ignored the necessity of laying down criteria for such a process. Seldom do commentators pause to argue in full and with systematic rigor for their proposed structure; frequently 1 For an indication of these various genres and formulas, see Marvin A. Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, with an Introduction to Prophetic Literature (FOTL 16; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 512–47. 2 This is true of the Masoretes, who, however, date to a much later time period than the biblical materials. See E.J. Revell, “Masoretes,” ABD 4:593–94.

34

Chapter Two: Structuring Prophetic Books

they simply assert structures as if no argumentation is warranted. 3 These assertions leave other scholars guessing as to the specific criteria used in structuring a particular text – an inclusio? a genre designation? a formula? a change in time or place? If a structure aims to provide interpretive power to the reader, then the scholar must explain the structure at every turn. The criteria used for establishing every level of the text must be forthcoming. Ancillary questions, even more complex, stand behind this chapter as well: Can a relatively standard set of criteria or a stable process be established and applied to determine the structure of prophetic books? 4 As a genre, do prophetic books (or a subset of specific prophetic books) have similar structures? Do prophetic books even have structures? Or do they have multiple structures? These questions plunge the interpreter into the heart of this inquiry since it is the goal of this chapter to discuss the process whereby one comes to a structure for a biblical passage with an emphasis on applying this process to the prophetic corpus. This chapter attempts to answer the aforementioned questions by first engaging in discussion of structure in general and then by proffering some examples of structure from prophetic books. Thus, this chapter describes explicitly a procedure that is often used by form critics, yet is rarely reflected upon systematically. Biblical scholars who have offered their structures of prophetic books are legion; those who have attempted to reflect on the process of structuring are few. Cloudy interpretations with vague structures devoid of interpretive power result from this lack of methodological clarity. Almost any criterion establishes a supposedly legitimate structure. This careless process engenders numerous conflicting structures for books such as Ezekiel, a fact noted clearly in the first chapter. If recent scholarship can argue that a book such as Ezekiel has from two to seven major units, then a scholarly discussion about legitimate structuring is needed. I am not calling for complete consensus on the issue of any prophetic book’s structure – there will be erudite debate among scholars – but I hope to start a better conversation about the way we structure texts. Scholars must reflect carefully on the process of structure-making, on finding (and imposing!) order and pattern onto a text. They must examine their presupposi3

See, for examples, Section 1.4. in the previous chapter. This question apparently preoccupied Rolf Knierim in his teaching for Antony F. Campbell, S.J. “Structure Analysis and the Art of Exegesis (1 Samuel 16:14–18:30),” in Problems in Biblical Theology: Essays in Honor of Rolf Knierim (ed. H. T.C. Sun et al.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 77, notes “one of the tools that Knierim uses most powerfully to introduce students to a text, to involve them in it and enthrall them with it, is what he calls ‘structure analysis.’” Unfortunately, Knierim never published a sustained discussion of structure analysis, although his publications demonstrate a preoccupation with methodology. See Rolf P. Knierim, Text and Concept in Leviticus 1:1–9: A Case in Exegetical Method (FAT 2; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1992), for a masterful example of self-conscious exegesis rooted in reflective methodology. 4

2.1. The Search for a Text’s Structure

35

tions concerning structure and genre and their biases concerning methodological priorities. This chapter can only hope to clarify the situation by answering the questions above. To jump immediately into a discussion of a specific type of structure such as surface structure at this point is premature. First one must take a step back to discuss structure in general for as one will soon discover the word surface is only one adjective used to describe a structure. This multiplicity of valid adjectives for structure stems from the multiple, valid criteria used to establish a structure. Although the previous paragraphs included a small critique of using any criteria for a structure, I acknowledge the existence of several, equally valid criteria for structuring a text. Of course, in order to discuss structure, one must take another step back to differentiate it from genre since there is not a little confusion on these subjects, especially since this chapter has yet to clarify its use of the term structure in relation to the word form. Therefore, I need to clarify in the following section the nuances of terminology related to these concepts. The discussion that follows makes distinctions between various concepts (e.g., genre and form) for the sake of clarity and interpretive power. In other words, these distinctions are not artificial or meaningless, and I harness them later in the chapter and in chapter three in order to interpret a biblical text. After all, every form-critical or exegetical theory must be evaluated eventually based on its usefulness in interpreting a text. The first section of this chapter deals primarily with theoretical issues surrounding structure, critiquing previous attempts to establish the structure of the book of Ezekiel, which serves in this study as an exemplar of a prophetic book. It also raises the secondary issue of genre in several excursuses. In order to present fully all the hermeneutical issues concerning structure, this section commences with a general discussion of the difference between structure, form, and genre; genre structure and text structure; and conceptual structure and surface structure. These three distinctions form the foundation for the entire chapter. Unfortunately, scholarly discussions rarely maintain such distinctions as they are bantered around in such a way that a large, loosely-wound ball of threads has developed. Naturally, this confusion testifies to the complexity of these topics and their interdependence but also to the failure of scholars to clarify their terms and use them consistently. 5 This discussion strives to pick out various threads from the ball individually, hold them up to the light, and explicate them thoroughly. In order to understand completely the significance of a text’s surface structure – this is the major thread of the ball which I seek – and to appreciate why so many scholars are confused about structure in general, we need the distinctions and nuances of the various terms and concepts. So 5

Again the goal here is not a uniformity of opinion but clarity of thought.

36

Chapter Two: Structuring Prophetic Books

while this section will discuss conceptual structure, it will also offer some weaknesses to this approach so as to demonstrate that the priority of a surface structure. The second section applies this theoretical discussion to the prophetic book of Zephaniah by comparing Sweeney’s surface structure of the book to Ben Zvi’s conceptual structure of the book. Zephaniah provides a relevant test case because of its supposed tripartite structure, a feature it shares with Ezekiel. 6 I conclude that, while this three part structure provides a conceptual structure for this prophetic book, it does not reckon adequately with all of the text’s literary features. Hopefully, these examples help make concrete the theoretical nature of the first section. The third and final section of the chapter deals with the prophetic books that use, like Ezekiel, chronological markers as literary structural devices in the text. Haggai and Zechariah have many similarities with Ezekiel related to the topic of surface, literary structure so a brief discussion of those two books round out the preliminary treatment of structure and prophetic books. The conclusion to this final section simply notes that scholars are often eager to use the chronological formulas in both of these prophetic books for structure.

2.1. The Search for a Text’s Structure 2.1.1. Preliminary Distinctions: Structure, Form, and Genre As in all academic fields, discussions of complex, theoretical issues that take place in multiple research languages (early form critics wrote mostly in German) with competing viewpoints and disagreements engender a certain confession of terminology. Within form criticism, scholars often confuse and interchange the terms genre, form, and structure. 7 Thus, all three terms need initial clarifications since they pertain to distinct ideas within form criticism. First, form and genre have often been collapsed into a single concept so that scholars still call a genre such as woe oracle a form. 8 Blum summariz6 For two primary examples of the assertion of a tripartite structure for Zephaniah, see Otto Kaiser, Introduction to the Old Testament: A Presentation of its Results and Problems (trans. John Sturdy; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1975), 230; Georg Fohrer, Introduction to the Old Testament (trans. David E. Green; Nashville: Abingdon, 1968), 457. 7 This list does not include other form-critical terminology such as social setting and literary setting since they are not immediately relevant to the present discussion. 8 The source of the most confusion is the way in which older form-critical scholarship mixed the terminology. E.g., Martin Buss, Old Testament Form Criticism (ed. John H. Hayes; San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1974), 2, defines form as “a pattern of relationships.” Furthermore, in his Biblical Form Criticism in its Context (Sheffield: Shef-

2.1. The Search for a Text’s Structure

37

es well the current situation by noting the problematic use of the word form: “The concept ‘form,’ as it is used by ‘form critics,’ presents considerable problems of definition.” 9 However, the confusion need not exist since form and genre are separate, although related, concepts. Furthermore, the distinction is not trivial; a differentiation must be made for methodological precision and for proper exegesis. Progress within the form-critical methodology can only happen with a proper understanding of the differences between these two concepts. Every individual unit of text has a unique expression that differentiates it from all other units. This is its form. Steck approaches this understanding in his definition: “linguistic shape of a text.” 10 While this definition does highlight the concept of linguistic, which is a central aspect, form is actually a broader term that encompasses more than textual shape including features such as the unique vocabulary, distinctive syntax, and distinguishing structure of a text. So, for example, a discussion of the form of a specific prophetic oracle may include its unique structure including any introductory or concluding elements, its usage of particular Hebrew words and/or phrases including repetition or wordplays, its pattern of verb conjugations, etc. Form deals with content; it also deals with structure and lexical meaning. All the elements of a passage that add to its uniqueness constitute its form. 11 That same biblical text with all its individuality also looks similar to other biblical texts in various ways so much so that the unique text requires classification with those other texts in a shared category. It participates in a genre. Newsom in her discussion of genre, summarizes the essentials well: Genre is a social phenomenon, a set of conventions that mediates both the production and reading of texts. From the reader’s perspective, genre is part of the intertextuality that is an aspect of every reading experience. Texts are always read in relation to other texts that serve as points of reference. Patterns of similarity and dissimilarity, that is, the rec-

field Academic Press, 1999), Buss uses the term form throughout as a way of speaking of genre. 9 Erhard Blum, “Formgeschichte – A Misleading Category? Some Critical Remarks,” in The Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty-First Century (ed. M.A. Sweeney and E. Ben Zvi; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 38. 10 Odil Hannes Steck, Old Testament Exegesis: A Guide to the Methodology, Second Edition (trans. James D. Nogalski; SBL Resources for Biblical Study; Atlanta: Scholars, 1998), 101. 11 Within form criticism, this area needs considerable attention even in light of both the call by Muilenburg for more attention to unique aspects of texts [James Muilenburg, “Form Criticism and Beyond,” JBL 88 (1969): 1–18] and the subsequent response by scholars such as Trible [Phyllis Trible, Rhetorical Criticism: Context, Method, and the Book of Jonah (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994)].

38

Chapter Two: Structuring Prophetic Books

ognition that the text at hand is like these and not those, establish the reader’s sense of genre. 12

For my purpose here, the one aspect to focus on in Newsom’s quote concerns the suggestion that “texts are always read in relation to other texts.” When this relational reading occurs, a certain amount of similarities arise that allows a reader to group texts. These categories do not provide all the information needed to interpret the text, but they provide some valuable insight into the text. Another aspect of genre that receives scant attention concerns how a text can participate in more than one genre. Smaller textual units of a few sentences or verses can weave together aspects of more than one genre. Furthermore, whole books such as Ezekiel can participate in a plethora of genres. A discussion of a specific passage within the prophetic literature may include how it shares the genre of oracle or sign act with other passages and what exactly the elements within each passage shares so as to identify each with a common genre. 13 Another confusing issue focuses on whether form and structure are two words for the same concept. Campbell seems to think so: “‘Form’ is a good English word for the shape or structure of something. To avoid confusion in this context, the German Form can be best rendered by the English ‘structure.’” 14 So, one way to clarify the confusion is to avoid the term form altogether (excepting the overall name of the method as form criticism). Then, one can speak of structure and genre as two of the essential elements of form-critical analysis. The weakness of this conflation of terminology is that structure must be defined rather broadly to include all elements of a text’s unique expression. Thus, under this paradigm structure is not the way the parts of a textual unit relate but also involves characteristics such as semantics and style; it represents the unique quality of the text as a piece of communication. In the end, it seems like too much of a burden to place on the more limited term, structure. Alternatively, one can use form as the general form-critical category in opposition to genre. Form in this sense is the unique formulation of a text 12

Carol A. Newsom, The Book of Job: A Contest of Moral Imaginations (Oxford: Oxford University, 2003), 11. 13 For a helpful survey of the issue, see Rolf Knierim, “Old Testament Form Criticism Reconsidered,” Int 27 (1973): 436–449. 14 Antony F. Campbell, “Form Criticism’s Future,” in The Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty-First Century (ed. M.A. Sweeney and E. Ben Zvi; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 25; Erhard Blum, “Formgeschichte,” 33, also maintains “a simple elementary distinction: the distinction between the concrete, individual, particular text and the abstract, transindividual pattern of text formation, that is, the ‘genre.’” Wolfgang Richter, Exegese als Literaturwissenschaft: Entwurf einer alttestamentlichen Literaturtheorie und Methodologie (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971), 46, is the most adamant about the distinction, noting the “disastrous consequences” of confusing the two concepts.

2.1. The Search for a Text’s Structure

39

that includes structure and other elements such as semantics and style. Then, structure becomes a more specialized, subcategory within form; it is one of several elements that together constitute form. This is the way in which the terminology is employed in this study. Thus, a structure does not represent the totality of the unique formulation of a text; it is only one important piece of that formulation. Therefore, when discussing the structure of Ezekiel, I do not claim to attend to all the unique features of this book that make it different from other prophetic books. In the end, this main distinction – between the unique features of a text and the typical ones – is the most essential one for form criticism. It highlights an important tension within a text insofar as it stands simultaneously as a unique expression (form) and within a general category (genre). Structure, then, represents an important element within the category, form, and can be further divided into specific types. I will return to these specific types of structure later in this chapter after a brief excursus. For now, hopefully, the following schematic helps to visualize the relevant categories. Form-Critical Categories Form Genre Setting Form Categories Structure Semantics Style Other Unique Elements 2.1.2. Excursus: The Genre of Prophetic Book In order to clarify the overall form-critical discussion in this chapter, I offer two excursuses related specifically to genre (Sections 2.1.2. and 2.1.5.) in order to demonstrate the critical differences between form and genre. A prophetic book is a type of large, literary genre that operates at one of the highest levels of categorization for prophetic literature, even as it serves as a subset of the general category of book. So, for example, Genesis, Esther, and Jeremiah are all books, but only the last is a prophetic book. These books differ significantly from modern examples of books, e.g., textbooks, novels, self-help books. In fact, they differ to such an extent that it is probably best to speak of ancient Israelite books in order to

40

Chapter Two: Structuring Prophetic Books

add an historical element to the genre designation. Ben Zvi proposes the following definition for an ancient Israelite book: a self-contained written text that was produced within ancient Israel and characterized by a clear beginning and conclusion, by a substantial level of textual coherence and of textually inscribed distinctiveness vis-à-vis other books, and that, accordingly, leads its intended and primary readers (and rereaders) to approach it in a manner that takes into account this distinctiveness. 15

This definition pertains mostly to the literary qualities of the genre but also mentions the historical setting of the genre in the ancient world. 16 Ben Zvi defines prophetic books as follows: …books that claim an association with a prophetic personage of the past (e.g., Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, Amos, Micah) and that are presented to their intended and primary readership as YHWH’s word and, accordingly, as such books claim to convey legitimate and authoritative knowledge about YHWH. 17

Although lengthy, the two definitions above highlight important characteristics of the genre such as its essential unity as a text, its propensity to be read that way, its intentional rhetorical goals, and its association with a prophetic figure. 18 These helpful definitions also move the conversation away from a fixation on the extemporaneous speech of a prophet and toward the phenomenon of literature. 19

15 Ehud Ben Zvi, “The Prophetic Book: A Key Form of Prophetic Literature,” in The Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty-First Century (ed. M.A. Sweeney and E. Ben Zvi; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 279–80. 16 Although my study emphasizes the literary nature of a genre such as prophetic book, I do not want to downplay the importance of historically-oriented studies of book production and scribal activity. Three important, recent works on this issue include Karel van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible (Harvard University Press, 1997); William M. Schniedewind, How the Bible Became a Book: The Textualization of Ancient Israel (Cambridge University Press, 2005); David M. Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature (Oxford University Press, 2005). 17 Ehud Ben Zvi, “The Prophetic Book,” 282. 18 Contra Walther Zimmerli, The Fiery Throne: The Prophets and Old Testament Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 23, who states, “The books of the so-called classical prophets of the eighth through the sixth centuries are for the most part collections of the prophet’s words that were simply recorded without comment and transmitted in written form.” Surely there is more to a prophetic book than this—more organization, more forethought, although maybe not modern organization or forethought. I reject the terminology of “collection” because of its connotation of a haphazard arrangement. 19 Edgar W. Conrad, Zechariah (Readings: A New Biblical Commentary; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 12, observes, “Biblical scholarship during this [20th] century has associated prophecy with creativity and spontaneity. The spoken word rather than the written word has been the focus of interpretation. Prophetic books have been viewed as blocking access to the essential orality of prophetic speech.”

2.1. The Search for a Text’s Structure

41

It also should be noted that the genre, prophetic book, encompasses both shorter books such as Obadiah in which the reader can keep in mind the whole message of the book throughout a reading of it and massive ones such as Jeremiah in which one can still easily discern the arc or intention of the whole although probably not with all its accompanying details. Simply because the book is rather lengthy, as in the cases of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, it does not follow that it cannot be treated as a unity. While all prophetic books – large and small – have been divided redactionally using modern scholarly methods, it seems that the larger the book, oftentimes, the more redactional activity is posited. However, this assumption should not prevail uncritically; length of prophetic book does not necessarily relate to redactional growth (or literary unity). A longer book such as Ezekiel could have few redactional layers, while Obadiah could have several. No matter how extensive the redactional activity of a prophetic book, this study focuses on the whole of the book. Thus, the focus of chapter three is on the prophetic book of Ezekiel in its entirety. For too long, form and redaction critics examined short literary (or oral) units within prophetic books (e.g., oracle, disputation) without proper regard for larger literary units. 20 In many ways this short-sightedness results from an emphasis within the guild on the prophet’s ipsissima verba instead of the prophet’s book. 21 In other words, scholars often began with smaller units of text in order to determine the actual words of a prophet such as the 8th century person named Micah. In their search for the historical Micah, scholars forgot what exactly it was they had in front of them – a prophetic book, not a prophet. Words, phrases, or units of texts that were deemed secondary, i.e., not the very words of the prophet, were extracted from the prophetic book and not studied. For example, as noted in chapter one, Hölscher attributed only 170 verses from the entire book of Ezekiel to the prophet. 22 Thus, Hölscher failed to read the book of Ezekiel with all its verses as a prophetic book, as a book that claimed to be associated with the figure of Ezekiel. In his search for authentic prophetic sayings, he did not 20

For example, Claus Westermann, Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967). However, it is interesting to note that as early as 1971, Gene M. Tucker, Form Criticism of the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), 12, could note, “An entire prophetic book is an appropriate unit for form-critical analysis, since that completed book represents a stage in the growth of the material.” Furthermore, Gerhard Von Rad, “The Form-Critical Problem of the Hexateuch,” in The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (trans. E. W. Trueman Dicken; London: SCM Press, 1984), 1–78, examined the Hextateuch as a literary unit as early as 1938. 21 See Ronald E. Clements, Old Testament Prophecy: From Oracles to Canon (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 1–19, for a summary of scholarship on this topic from 1965–1995. 22 G. Hölscher, Hesekiel, der Dichter und das Buch (BZAW 39; Gießen: A. Töpelmann, 1924).

42

Chapter Two: Structuring Prophetic Books

take seriously the nature of the literature. Sweeney comments on this type of methodology as follows: It essentially dismisses the written literary character of the text at hand and postulates that an entirely different genre of literature, that is, the oral oracular or prophetic speech form, is embedded in the present form of the text….Furthermore, it is based upon the presupposition that ancient prophetic texts were originally oral and that by necessity they were very short as it would be difficult for such primitive thinkers to memorize longer oracular utterances for presentation to their ancient listeners. 23

This regard for short, self-contained units is also the result of the lingering influence of source criticism throughout the 20th century. Scholars such as Wellhausen assumed that the basis of exegesis was originally short units, since the ancient Israelites were rather simplistically minded and could not handle larger units of text. In the end, it is essential to treat a prophetic book in its entirety as a genre of prophetic literature, especially since this is the way in which it is presented to its readers. 24 As Conrad notes in his discussion of prophetic books, “I understand prophetic books to be scribal constructions in which material was collected, ordered, and arranged. Therefore, to read these books as literary wholes it is necessary to understand them in terms of their compilational rather than their compositional unity.” 25 Of course, this unity occurs at a macro-level and can include much diversity on a micro-level; in other words, a prophetic book can contain diverse textual materials and genres from different time periods. A call for understanding a prophetic book as a genre should never override a concern for the multifarious textual materials within it and the literary complexity of the book. As Collins notes, “A prophetical book can have a disjointed, almost random, appearance, and yet it still makes a single impact because of its inner coherence. There is a unified vision which makes the contradictory elements respond to one another in a dialogue that produces harmony out of tension.” 26 In its 23

Marvin A. Sweeney, “Zephaniah: A Paradigm for the Study of the Prophetic Books,” CR:BS 7 (1999): 120. 24 Ehud Ben Zvi, Hosea (FOTL XXIA/1; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 5, notes “There is no indication that the intended readership of the book was asked to divide it into potential sources, read each of them separately and then reconstruct the possible redactional processes that led to the book in its present form. There is also no reason to assume that any historical (ancient) community read the book in such a manner.” For a discussion of how prophetic books were produced, see Michael H. Floyd, “The Production of Prophetic Books in the Early Second Temple Period,” in Michael H. Floyd & Robert D. Haak (eds.) Prophets, Prophecy, and Prophetic Texts in Second Temple Judaism (LHBOTS 427; New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 276–97. 25 Edgar W. Conrad, Reading the Latter Prophets: Toward a New Canonical Criticism (JSOTSup 376; London: T&T Clark, 2003), 1. 26 Terence Collins, The Mantle of Elijah: The Redaction Criticism of the Prophetical Books (The Biblical Seminar 20; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 30.

2.1. The Search for a Text’s Structure

43

literary unity, each prophetic book has its own unique structure and intent. 27 2.1.3. Genre Structure & Text Structure Now that a distinction has been made among form, genre, and structure, a key division is needed within the category of structure. After all, the question of the object of a structure must be addressed. In addition to a text’s unique structure, every genre has a particular structure that is unique to the genre itself. 28 In other words, individual texts present themselves in unique ways (from other texts) that yield a structure, and individual genres present themselves in unique ways (from other genres) that yield a structure. So, a distinction is necessary between text structure and genre structure. For example, there is a certain structure to the genre, prophetic judgment speech. Sweeney notes three elements of the genre as follows: “(1) a statement of the reasons for judgment; (2) a logical transition, such as laken, ‘therefore,’ with the messenger formula; and (3) the prophetic announcement of punishment.” 29 He also notes two additional elements that may appear in the genre, demonstrating the flexibility of the genre’s structure. 30 This structure is exclusive to the genre, prophetic judgment speech, meaning that these elements do not appear in other genres. Another example: the prophetic proof saying includes a prophetic announcement of punishment but not the other two elements listed above. Instead, this particular genre has a recognition formula. 31 Each genre has certain elements that constitute its structure, although one should not be rigid in defining this structure. In fact, when dealing with the concept of genre one has to be flexible, since the concept is defined, in the end, by the typical elements found within a number of varying individual texts. The prophetic judgment speech, for example, can also reverse the order of the elements listed above for rhetorical purposes in order to highlight the punishment piece of the oracle at the beginning. Thus, a genre structure must remain flexible enough to encompass the individual textual examples in all their renditions. 27

Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, 17, states, “While research into the structure and intention of prophetic books is a relatively recent phenomenon, it has nonetheless already made clear that each book has a distinctive structure that indicates a specific intention in composing the book in the first place.” 28 Similarly, genres also have unique semantic fields. 29 Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, 533. 30 These two elements include: “call to attention” and/or “the oracular formula.” 31 For a discussion of the prophetic proof saying, see Hals, Ezekiel, 353–54 and bibliography there.

44

Chapter Two: Structuring Prophetic Books

In conclusion, the difference between text structure and genre structure centers around the issue of the object of the structure. One must distinguish between the particular features of a biblical text such as the prophetic book of Joel or Isa 6 and the particular features of a genre such as prophetic book or prophetic judgment speech. Again, I provide the following schematic to help visualize the distinctions. Form-Critical Categories Form Genre Setting Form Categories Structure Semantics Style Other Unique Elements Structure Categories Related to Object Genre Structure Text Structure 2.1.4. Conceptual Structure & Surface Structure One must make another distinction when discussing structure since it is equally as important to think about the appropriate criteria which one wishes to use in order to establish a structure. In other words, how does one make valid, defensible standards for establishing a structure? Surveys of recent scholarship on prophetic books and their macro- and microstructures demonstrate that many different criteria are used in order to set structure. 32 The review of scholarship in the previous chapter also demonstrates the diversity of criteria used in constructing the structure of Ezekiel. Scholars frequently have literary patterns in mind when they discuss structure, patterns such as chiasmus or concentric sections. 33 Butterworth, 32

E.g., criteria might include genre patterns, formulas, content, change in time, change in place, etc. 33 Examples abound. For concentric structures, see, e.g., Robert H. O’Connell, Concentricity and Continuity: The Literary Structure of Isaiah (JSOTSup 188; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994); A. Lenglet, “La structure littéraire de Daniel 2–7,” Biblica 53 (1972): 169–90. For chiasmus, see Pierre Auffret, “The Literary Structure of Exodus 6:2–8,” JSOT 27 (1983): 46–54; J. David Pleins, “Death and Endurance: Reassessing the Literary Structure and Theology of Psalm 49,” JSOT 69 (1996): 19–27; Lloyd M. Barré, “Recovering the Literary Structure of Psalm 15,” VT 34 (1984): 207–211; Donald W.

2.1. The Search for a Text’s Structure

45

for example, investigates this type of structure within the book of Zechariah and proposes a method for finding structure. 34 Another well-known study by Lundbom, Jeremiah: A Study in Ancient Hebrew Rhetoric, looks at inclusio and chiasmus as structural devices within the book of Jeremiah. 35 For the book of Ezekiel, Garner has examined some of these figures of speech such as wordplay, chiasmus, and metaphor in an attempt to discover the techniques the prophet Ezekiel used in his communication. 36 Scholars who study narrative literature often speak of plot structures in which the actions taken by the characters dictate the structure; scholars who study Hebrew biblical poetry speak of stanzas, meter, or parallelism. 37 Other scholars simply use content as the determining factor for a structure so that when the interpreter perceives a shift in content, then a division occurs. Knierim, in his discussion of structure, lists three principles that may govern a text as a structure: “rhetorical or stylistic devices” such as an acrostic poem or chiasm; “(institutional) patterns” such as the Decalogue or itinerary; and “systematic viewpoint” such as climax/anti-climax and a central theme. 38 For my purposes here, these criteria, including numerous others, break down into two categories: conceptual and surface. Since the current chapter concerns itself generally with the surface structure of prophetic books and the following chapter concerns the surface structure of Ezekiel in particular, the division into conceptual and surface clarifies the primary differences between the approach of this study and other approaches to structure. One should, however, keep in mind the natural diversity of structures within the conceptual category; by labeling them all as conceptual I do not Wicke, “The Literary Structure of Exodus 1:2–2:10,” JSOT 24 (1982): 99–107; Nils Wilhelm Lund and Henry Hammersley Walker, “The Literary Structure of the Book of Habakkuk,” JBL 53 (1934): 355–370. 34 Mike Butterworth, Structure and the Book of Zechariah (JSOTSup 130; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 18–61. 35 Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah: A Study in Ancient Hebrew Rhetoric (SBLDS 18; Missoula, Montana: Scholars, 1975). 36 Donald William Garner, “Forms of Communication in the Book of Ezekiel,” (Ph.D. diss., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1980). 37 See Terence Collins, Line-Forms in Hebrew Poetry: A Grammatical Approach to the Stylistic Study of the Hebrew Prophets (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978); S. Geller, Parallelism in Early Biblical Poetry (HSM 20; Missoula: Scholars, 1979); M. O’Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1980); A. Berlin, The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism (Bloomington: Indiana University, 1985); W.G.E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to Its Techniques (JSOTSup 26; Sheffield: JSOT, 1986); Dennis Pardee, Ugaritic and Hebrew Poetic Parallelism: A Trial Cut (‘nt and Proverbs 2) (VTSup 39; Leiden: Brill, 1988). For a recent, shorter treatment of this subject, see David Toshio Tsumura, “Vertical Grammar of Parallelism in Hebrew Poetry,” JBL 128 (2009): 167–181. 38 Knierim, “Old Testament Form Criticism Reconsidered,” 460.

46

Chapter Two: Structuring Prophetic Books

mean to rid them of their particularities, only to group them for convenience. As noted in the paragraphs above, scholarly discussions of conceptual criteria rarely take place, whether it is in relation to their validity or their vitality. The fact that I have provided a general label of conceptual to this type of structure demonstrates well the ambiguous understanding of this structure type. This ambiguity does not stem, however, from my label; in other words, I am not using an intentionally general label in order to discredit the structure’s usefulness or validity. Instead, the label serves as a way to distinguish these various types of structure from a surface structure. The best way perhaps to summarize this type of structure is by noting its basis on concepts or themes derived from the text, or even a deep structure found under or within the text. 39 Thus, it is not based on the arrangement of the words in a certain order. This language of concept is used by Rolf Knierim in his discussion of structure. For example, regarding the macrostructure of the books of Exodus through Deuteronomy, he states, What are the criteria according to which this work is organized? Under this question it is immediately clear that our traditional exegetical methods do not provide the primary tools for determining the structure of this work. For the macrostructural level, something like concept criticism seems to be of primary importance since the work on this level appears to be organized conceptually. 40

In fact, Knierim uses the term concept along with text to articulate and, in a way, summarize his overall exegetical method. 41 In an important monograph, which combines both exegesis and reflection on methodology, he provides more of a definition of concept. He relates it directly to the “implicit thought” of a text, that is, “what is operative in, and even the presup-

39

The entire discussion in this section about conceptual structure among biblical scholars is largely based on, and influenced by, the method, structuralism, as presented by thinkers such as anthropologist, Claude Levi-Strauss, and linguistic, Ferdinand de Saussure. See Claude Lévi-Strauss, Structural Anthropology (trans. Claire Jacobson and Brooke Grundfest Schoepf; [New York]: Basic, 1963); Ferdinand de Saussure, Course in General Linguistics (trans. Roy Harris; Chicago: Open Court, 1972). Biblical scholars began to incorporate this methodology into their scholarship in the 1970s. See, e.g., R.C. Culley, Studies in the Structure of Hebrew Narrative (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976); R. M. Polzin, Biblical Structuralism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977); Francis Bovon, ed. Structural Analysis and Biblical Exegesis (trans. A. M. Johnson; Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1974). In fact, one New Testament scholar, Daniel Patte, wrote a guide on the subject, What is Structural Exegesis? (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976). 40 Rolf P. Knierim, “The Composition of the Pentateuch,” in The Task of Old Testament Theology: Substance, Method, and Cases (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 355. 41 Knierim, Text and Concept, iii, notes in the foreword to his work, “In this study, the relationship between a text’s expression and its implicit thought is called Text and Concept.”

2.1. The Search for a Text’s Structure

47

position for, that text.” 42 Therefore, it appears that concept, to Knierim, deals largely with the author’s unstated thoughts and presuppositions, perhaps even unintended or unconscious thoughts. Haney, a student of Knierim, defines concept as, “that governing focus or concern presupposed and controlled by the surface text itself which is ultimately accountable for all the surface level features of a text.” 43 This definition links conceptual and surface structure with the former clearly accounting for the latter. Knierim’s use of concept, however, should not be confused with motif or theme. Instead, it pertains more to deep structure, a structure that is embedded within the text, not at the surface level of syntax or words or sentences. It is infratextual. Knierim continues, A concept governing a text may be, e.g., genre-, style-, or situation-specific; it may be a particular theme, plot, concern, or intention. Its presence beneath the surface of a text may be strictly pericope-immanent, i.e., intratextual, but it may also be determined contextually as in larger literary works, or intertextually as in the coherence of separate literary works or documents, or even supratextually as, e.g., by certain worldview concepts. 44

Despite his definition and theoretical discussion of this type of structure, in the end, it seems that Knierim’s understanding of conceptual structure often mixes with a type of surface-focused structure. For example, in his discussion of form-critical theory, Knierim advocates for beginning any exegesis with a structural analysis that takes into account literary features such as linguistics and syntax since the text, after all, is a text. 45 This type of structure is not conceptual at all; in fact, this is a concise summary of a surface structure, as discussed in the next section. Furthermore, Knierim’s process for establishing a structure, as explained by Campbell, has little to do explicitly with concept. 46 Haney explains it thus: It is the concern of a Knierim text and concept study to look not only for the signs of form(s) and content(s) but also for those indicators in the surface level of the texts that reveal the infratextual concepts and to spell out explicitly those infratextual aspects and

42

Knierim, Text and Concept, iii. Randy G. Haney, Text and Concept Analysis in Royal Psalms (Studies in Biblical Literature 30; New York: Peter Lang, 2002), 73. 44 Knierim, Text and Concept, 3. 45 Knierim, “Old Testament Form Criticism Reconsidered,” 460, states, “Form-critical understanding of structure is, therefore, different in that it investigates that kind of structure which is the basis for the formation of a text and into which a text is cast. It asks for the structure of the text as text.” 46 Knierim’s three step process for structure analysis: 1) identify the text’s beginning and end, 2) find the major building blocks of the text like introduction, conclusion, etc., and 3) note the relationship between the blocks. See Campbell, “Structure Analysis,” 78. 43

48

Chapter Two: Structuring Prophetic Books

presuppositions beneath the text which not only operate in the text but also effectuate and control the form and content of the text. 47

In summary, Knierim wishes to examine conceptuality within biblical texts, but like many form critics, he begins with the question of the surface structure of the text. In this way, he often obfuscates his notion of structural analysis by conflating the differences between surface structure and conceptual structure. Knierim’s student, Mignon Jacobs, further separates the notions of a surface structure and a deep structure in her examination of the book of Micah and its conceptual coherence, i.e., the way in which this prophetic book is united at the level of conceptualization. 48 Her proposed structure of the book of Micah is not based on literary concerns or features. In fact, she criticizes scholars for examining only the literary features of the book since this process yields an incomplete structure. 49 Furthermore, she notes that sometimes literary features are not apparent or present within the text. So, she wishes to use “literary and conceptual elements” to formulate the structure of Micah. 50 However, in the end, her structure does not appeal to literary features such as formulas (e.g., the summons to hear) at all within the book; instead, she divides the book of Micah into chapters 1–5 and 6–7 based on criteria such as how the units cohere and the unit’s content. The literary is completely subsumed by the conceptual. 51 Won Lee, another student of Knierim, takes up the work of his doctoral advisor and proposes a structure of Numbers 10:11–36:13 using conceptual analysis. He explains Knierim’s method as follows: “Among various struc47

Haney, Text and Concept Analysis, 72. Knierim also made a distinction between cohesion at the surface level of a text and coherence at the conceptual level of a text based on the work of Helmut Utzschneider in Das Heiligtum und das Gesetz: Studien zur Bedeutung der sinaitischen Heiligtumstexte (Ex. 25–40; Lev. 8–9) (OBO 77; Fribourg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988). 49 Mignon R. Jacobs, The Conceptual Coherence of the Book of Micah (JSOTSup 322; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001), 61, notes “the trend is to focus on literary features, often to the exclusion of conceptual elements, or else to measure the significance of the conceptual elements by the presence of typical literary and generic features associated with them.” 50 Jacobs, Conceptual Coherence, 61. notes “Structure – a function of coherence which is itself conceptual – is an exhibitor of the conceptual organization of the literary work. Structure does not define, but is defined by coherence. By the same token, structure is exhibited by cohesion such that the grammatical and syntactical aspects of the text are indispensable to the analysis of structure.” 51 Chapter three of the present study can be viewed as a reversal of Jacobs’s prioritization. While noting that sometimes the literary features of the text are indeed difficult to find, especially in a prophetic book such as Micah, the book of Ezekiel has very clear literary features, e.g., formulas, which structure quite nicely the book. 48

2.1. The Search for a Text’s Structure

49

turing elements, Knierim contends that concepts of a text, which are operative in that text, are more fundamental than the generically typical; thus, they govern the analysis of the structure of the text.” 52 With this explanation, Lee highlights the difficulty of using the typical elements of a genre to structure a particular example of the genre. As a way of moving away from using typical elements in structures, Knierim proposes using the implicit concepts that lie underneath the text. This becomes the new way of providing structure to a text as Lee defines it: “‘Structure,’ however, refers to the systematic configuration of conceptualities that reveals the conceptual coherence of the text.” 53 Lee has relegated the use of literary features to composition analysis, which looks for cohesion. Finally, Richter’s distinction between outer form and inner form within his category of structural form (as opposed to ornamental form) is relevant to the discussion here. 54 He proposes that the outer (structural) form of a text is based on linguistic phenomenon such as syntax and semantics and not on content, while inner (structural) form is related to linguistic meaning, i.e., deep structure. 55 Yet, Richter creates much methodologically confusion in that he argues earlier in his monograph that form (e.g., structural form) is the opposite of content, while later in the same monograph he relates inner structural form explicitly to content. His examples of inner structural form bear out this conclusion, this methodological imprecision. 56 He sets out a distinction between form and content but does not follow it. Richter’s student, Irsigler, uses his teacher’s methodology to support a three step process of exegesis that includes a third step of form criticism. 57 This third step examines the outer form and inner form of a text. Focusing on Zephaniah, Irsigler divides the text into three major units which constitute both the outer and inner form. Unfortunately, the tripartite structure relates more to Richter’s inner form and not the outer form in that it is based mostly on content, not linguistic criteria. So, Irisgler’s application of Richter’s distinction is not helpful in understanding Richter’s use of outer form or in understanding how one establishes a text’s outer form because it aligns the outer form so closely with the inner form. In conclusion, Knierim’s idea of concept suffers from several weaknesses. First, he often overlooks the literary features as the surface of the 52

Won W. Lee, Punishment and Forgiveness in Israel’s Migratory Campaign (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 54. 53 Lee, Punishment, 59. 54 Richter, Exegese, 75ff. For a brief discussion of these concepts, see Erhard Blum, “Formgeschichte,” 38–40. 55 Richter, Exegese, 92. 56 Richter, Exegese, 92ff. See Blum, “Formgeschichte,” 38–40, for a similar critique. 57 H. Irsigler, Gottesgericht und JHWHtag: Die Komposition Zef 1,1–2,3 untersucht auf der Grundlage der Literarkritik des Zefanjabuches (St. Ottilien: EOS, 1977).

50

Chapter Two: Structuring Prophetic Books

text in order to give priority to the supposed infratextual elements of the text. Lee notes that for Knierim “the presuppositions of the text are more important than its statements. In other words, the linguistic and literary features of a text are in service to the composition and the structure of the text.” 58 This type of structuring of a text, however, is less helpful within the prophetic literature, which is full of formulas and other literary features that provide clear textual boundaries. Second, the presuppositions of the texts remain more elusive than the explicit statements, which are often complicated in their own right. This sort of preference by Knierim to use the criterion of presumptions over the criterion of explicit expressions makes specific arguments for a particular structure even more different. A basic question needs to be addressed: How does one access the presumptions of an ancient text? It is certain that the biblical authors assumed certain information, certain cultural elements when penning their works. It is less certain how one can access this information today. It seems better to begin with what the reader has in front of her – a text – than with a reconstruction of the presumptions underlying this text. This assessment leads to another problem with this type of structure: the process of structuring conceptually lacks methodological precision since it is left unclear how concept and content interrelate. More research is needed in this area in order to understand how these two notions are both similar and different. Finally, it is also unclear how this type of structural analysis should be paired with the linguistic-based structure that pays close attention to the surface features of a text. Attempts so far to bring these two types of structure into conversation have failed. While many of Knierim’s observations are helpful – including his view of a text as a linguistic-semantic entity, his notion of beginning with the extant text, and his acknowledgement of the need for structural analysis – he steps into murky waters in his discussion of the assumptions underneath the text. 59 I turn now away from the primary language of concept as it relates to structure to the language of content exclusively. By including the following example of a structure based on content, I demonstrate the diversity of criteria within structures and the diversity of opinions concerning how to structure texts in general. An example of a structure based on content occurs in Noble’s examination of Amos. 60 In this article, he proposes a new “literary structure” of the 58

Lee, Punishment, 56–57. Additionally, I should point out that Knierim’s research focused mainly on the Pentateuch; therefore, his methodology is obviously affected by that particular narrative material. 60 Paul R. Noble, “The Literary Structure of Amos: A Thematic Analysis,” JBL 114 (1995): 209–226. 59

2.1. The Search for a Text’s Structure

51

book of Amos, yet his structure is more specifically based on “thematic considerations.” 61 In fact, Noble’s tripartite division of Amos (1:2–3:8; 3:9–6:14; 7:1–9:15) ignores the divine speech (and other) formulas found within the book, preferring instead the criteria of “structural parallelism and thematic correspondence.” 62 In the end, Noble argues “that whoever produced the complex and subtle structure of Amos saw no need to mark formally its main divisions.” 63 Yet, this sort of argument is difficult to sustain in light of Amos’s clear use of introductory and closing formulas, which contribute in some way to the division of the book. However, it is still possible that Noble has found a literary structure within the book, a structure that accounts for the differing themes. Unfortunately, such a structure suffers from its ambiguity concerning how a reader divides a text that is essentially unmarked. It seems more methodologically precise to argue about the surface structure of a prophetic book by using formal markers within the text. These structures, in the end, may be helpful interpretively – although they are not without problems as noted in this section – because of their ability to explain the grouping of a majority of similar oracles within a prophetic book. For example, it is certainly not to be denied that most of the oracles of judgment within Ezekiel occur within chapters 1–24. Therefore, this half of the book contains a similar theme. However, this theme should not be confused with the issue of structure. Structure concerns the way in which the oracles are divided and their relationship to each other. To conclude momentarily: although this study acknowledges with Ben Zvi the possibility of “alternative” or “complementary” structures within the same prophetic book, the concern expressed in this chapter to define and establish the surface structure (as opposed to another type of literary structure), i.e., the shape or form the book takes when one examines the linguistic markers found within it. 64 In the end, as Campbell notes, there is a major difference between structure (focusing on form) and a table of contents (focusing on content). 65 Turning now to surface structure, a fundamental shift occurs in methodology as one moves away from structuralism into the field of form and

61

Noble, “Literary Structure of Amos,” 209–210. Noble, “Literary Structure of Amos,” 226. 63 Noble, “Literary Structure of Amos,” 226. 64 Ben Zvi, “Prophetic Book,” 285, avers, “at times the same book not only allows alternative structures…to be discerned…, but also seems to be written so as to encourage the intended, and likely the primary, readerships to develop a set of complementary rereading of the book that inform one another, and each one is informed by one possibly structure of the book.” 65 For examples of this distinction, see Campbell, “Structure Analysis,” 78. 62

52

Chapter Two: Structuring Prophetic Books

rhetorical criticism. This section discusses the concept of a surface structure and offers a definition. 66 Bar-Efrat, in his discussion of biblical narratives, defines structure as follows: “the network of relations among the parts of an object or a unit.” 67 This definition helps to begin a conversation about surface structure since it captures a sense of relationship between various parts of a whole. It also speaks of the organizing principle and function behind structure. In other words, the whole is made up of parts; and it is the relationship between these prophetic readings, between the various parts, that constitutes the structure. However, Ben-Efrat’s definition remains too general to be useful in that it seems rather obvious to note that textual units of a whole book are in relation to each other. 68 One needs greater nuance and further definition in order to determine exactly how the parts are defined and how they relate. Surprisingly, form critics, who posit that studying a text’s structure is a unique and required feature of their type of exegesis, rarely discuss the definition of structure. There are a few exceptions. Campbell offers the following as a short definition of literary structure: “the Text Itself, in All Its Individuality.” 69 Unfortunately, this definition is fairly general and points more to the concept of form, not structure, as discussed earlier in the chapter. Furthermore, in Campbell’s discussion of how one establishes the unique structure of a particular text, he makes an explicative move toward the more abstract. He speaks of the boundaries of a text and the component parts of a text, but he does not paint a clear picture as to how one arrives at structure. 70 Tucker, in his handbook on form criticism, discusses the first step of a form-critical analysis as “structure.” 71 Much of his discussion on this subject focuses on “the determination of the appropriate, original unit for analysis.” 72 In other words, he advises readers to figure out the parameters 66

For a brief history of scholarship on literary patterns and structure, see Henry Van Dyke Parunak, “Structural Studies in Ezekiel” (Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1978), 2–24; David A. Dorsey, The Literary Structure of the Old Testament: A Commentary on Genesis-Malachi (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 18–20. 67 S. Bar-Efrat, “Some Observations on the Analysis of Structure in Biblical Narrative,” VT 30 (1980): 155. 68 This rather obvious observation has not led to an agreement about structuring from scholars however. We know that a relationship exist among the units, but we do not agree on that exact relationship. 69 Campbell, “Form Criticism’s Future,” 29. 70 Campbell, “Form Criticism’s Future,” 30, describes Campbell’s steps in interpretation as a conclusion to his discussion of literary structure. However, the steps do not really relate directly to ascertaining structure. 71 Tucker, Form Criticism, 12. 72 Tucker, Form Criticism, 12.

2.1. The Search for a Text’s Structure

53

of a unit by examining beginning and ending formulas and “conventional patterns of different genres.” 73 Then, he turns his attention in one brief paragraph to “the structure of each specific unit.” 74 He concludes that the individual structure of a given unit relates “primarily to matters of form and secondarily to matters of content.” 75 This helpful assessment provides an excellent, although too brief, introduction to structure. Tucker demonstrates his awareness of the strong connection between a text’s form and its structure. Likewise, he realizes the potential weakness of relating content and structure. Other scholars sometimes equate genre distinctions with a text’s structure. For example, Mary Douglas in In the Wilderness: The Doctrine of Defilement in the Book of Numbers divides the book of Numbers based on the alternation of “story” and “law” found therein. 76 Similarly, Christopher R. Smith, divides Leviticus into seven units based on an alternation in genre. 77 However, this type of structuring allows a genre to define the text unduly. Recent discussions of genre posit that genres participate in texts, but they do not define the text. Genre is only one factor within a text, not the determining factor. Thus, one cannot allow genre alone to dictate a structure. Other than these sporadic mentions of structure, form critics do not usually provide a definition of the concept. Therefore, I offer now the following extended definition of a specific type of literary structure, surface structure, within prophetic books. The definition contains four critical parts. First, surface structure is a specific subcategory of literary structure, which as a category contributes together with other categories such as content, semantics, and style to the overall form of an individual text or genre. Thus, surface structure does not in any way exhaust the larger category of literary structure. 78 Second, surface structure is an organizing principle that draws together, and provides clear demarcation to, a unit of text. In other words, a surface structure delineates, setting borders around units of text so that a text is read within and among particular textual boundaries. Surface structures

73

Tucker, Form Criticism, 13. Tucker, Form Criticism, 13. 75 Tucker, Form Criticism, 13. 76 Mary Douglas, In the Wilderness: The Doctrine of Defilement in the Book of Numbers (JSOTSup 158, Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993). 77 Christopher R. Smith, “The Literary Structure of Leviticus,” JSOT 70 (1996): 17– 32. 78 This study also uses the term structure as shorthand for literary structure. It may be, in fact, that literary structure is redundant as a term anyway. 74

54

Chapter Two: Structuring Prophetic Books

exclude certain textual materials, while including others, all in an attempt to organize the text. Third, a surface structure uses linguistic markers to delineate these units, not content. These linguistic markers serve as the disjunctive and conjunctive syntactical features of the text. A prevalent and simple example of one of these features is a conjunction, which clearly ties information together. Moreover, verbal chains and patterns and other grammatical and/or syntactical features such as tense shifts also help to mark units. Another example of these linguistic, textual markers concerns levels of discourse such as direct speech and narration. 79 In the highly-formulaic prophetic literature, these syntactical features often appear as formulas. These formulas generally begin or conclude a textual unit. Schweizer’s discussion of “metaphorical grammar” is helpful here. 80 In his work on this subject, Schweizer applies structural linguistics and modern literary criticism to an assessment of “grammar,” a term that for Schweizer refers to linguistic work beyond traditional grammar that examines “discourse units” as if they are words. He proposes three levels of grammar: syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. His level of syntax correlates roughly to this study’s use of surface structure in that Schweizer argues that syntax is an organizing principle that does not provide meaning or content but helps arrange words so that they can be read together to create meaning (i.e., semantics and pragmatics). So, syntax examines an element’s position within a unit; it organizes the textual material; it does not relate to the text’s content. Unfortunately, Schweizer only focuses on textual units at the level of sentence, paragraph, passage, and chapter, not entire biblical books so he does not comment on syntax, i.e., structure, as it relates to larger, compositional units. In summary, a surface structure pays close attention to surface, literary features as opposed to overarching themes or concepts. Fourth, a surface structure does not mix criteria so that any level of structure uses two different criteria. An obvious example is synchronic and diachronic criteria, but other subtle mixtures are sometimes used such as two different formulas. Surface structures may use different criteria to demarcate various levels of text, but different criteria cannot be used to sup79

For a general introduction to discourse analysis, see Robert E. Longacre, The Grammar of Discourse, Second Edition (Topics in Language and Linguistics; New York: Plenum Press, 1996); Robert D. Bergen (ed.), Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics (Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994); Walter R. Bodine (ed.), Discourse Analysis of Biblical Literature: What It Is and What It Offers (SBLSS; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995). For one specific study using this methodology, see Robert E. Longacre, Joseph: A Study of Divine Providence: A Text Theoretical and Textlinguistic Analysis of Genesis 37 and 39–48 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003). 80 Harald Schweizer, Metaphorische Grammatik: Wege zur Integration von Grammatik und Textinterpretation in der Exegese (ATSAT 15; St. Ottilien: EOS Verlag, 1981).

2.1. The Search for a Text’s Structure

55

port a demarcation at the same level. So, one must look for the repetition of a particular literary marker within prophetic books. This four-part definition of surface structure provides a starting point for the discussion that follows in this chapter. To summarize: a surface structure, as a subcategory of structure, organizes a unit of text using linguistic markers in a consistent way at each level of the structure. The following schematic delineates the distinctions made so far in this chapter. First, it identifies three general categories within form-critical theory; these are the major issues related to form-critical theory. Then, it provides examples of some of the subcategories of form. For the purposes of this study, I do not list any of the subcategories of genre and setting; however, this listing is possible. Next, the schematic demonstrates how to distinguish between different types of structure based on both the object of the structure and the criteria used to create the structure. Form-Critical Categories Form Genre Setting Form Categories Structure Semantics Style Other Unique Elements Structure Categories – Object Genre Structure Text Structure

Structure Categories – Criteria Conceptual Structure Surface Structure

The last set of distinctions at the bottom of the above schematic yield four possible structures. Possible Structures Genre Conceptual Structure Genre Surface Structure Text Conceptual Structure Text Surface Structure

56

Chapter Two: Structuring Prophetic Books

2.1.5. Excursus: Genre Conceptual Structure & Genre Surface Structure Although I am less concerned with issues of genre in this study, I have included a brief excursus here in order to continue to clarify the different types of structures possible. As a genre, the prophetic book has a certain structure that is typical to the genre. As noted previously, this is entitled the genre structure. Ben Zvi argues that this structure consists of three parts: 1) introduction, 2) body of the book, and 3) conclusion. 81 According to him, the body of the book consists of prophetic readings: literary units within a prophetic book that show textually inscribed, discursive markers that were likely to suggest to its intended and primary readership that they were supposed – or at least invited – to read and reread these sections as cohesive subunits within the frame of the prophetic book as a whole. 82

For Ben Zvi, the typical elements of this genre are based on content alone. Thus, it is labeled genre conceptual structure. This type of structure is different from the surface structure of a genre such as prophetic book, since the former does not take into full account the literary uniqueness of an individual exemplar of the genre, e.g., the book of Ezekiel or the book of Joel. 83 Thus, a genre surface structure attends to literary features at the surface of the text that inform the generic designation. For example, certain genres may begin and/or end with precise formulaic expressions. While Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve share a genre designation thereby making some of their material typical, they are also all unique books, each with their own individual expression. Therefore, some of the prophetic books share similar structures (and similar structuring devices), while others are vastly different. For example, Haggai and Zechariah both use chronological formulas in the surface structure of the prophetic books. Thus, one can speak of a genre surface structure for certain prophetic books that includes the use of chronological formulas. Furthermore, another literary feature of a genre surface structure may be the particular way in which a genre such as prophetic book begins in that several books claim literarily that a divine word has come to the given prophetic figure. In conclusion, the primary concern of this chapter is the surface structure of a particular text; however, this brief treatment of the genre of prophetic book as it relates to structure provides basically a preliminary understanding of how the categories interact.

81

Ben Zvi, Hosea, 7. Ehud Ben Zvi, Micah (FOTL 21B; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 188. 83 For further discussion of this methodological point, see Blum, “Formgeschichte,” 32–35. 82

2.1. The Search for a Text’s Structure

57

2.1.6. Text Conceptual Structure & Text Surface Structure This section is devoted mainly to the two main types of literary structure of a particular text – a conceptual structure and a surface structure. Since Section 2.1.4. of this chapter provides an initial discussion of conceptual and surface structure in general, this section elaborates on this crucial distinction by focusing on a particular text, the book of Ezekiel. Furthermore, I provide a critique of three criteria – content, delimitation criticism, and diachronic growth – often used in the creation of conceptual structures within the book of Ezekiel. First, scholars frequently use implicitly or explicitly the criterion of content in creating their structures. However, the surface structure of a prophetic book is more appropriately based on discernible literary (i.e., linguistic) criteria. Unfortunately, most biblical scholars in general and form critics in particular are not explicit in their discussion of the process by which they arrive at a particular structure. In other words, structures are ubiquitous; discussions of structuring (as a process or action) are few. Upon further scrutiny of these scholarly structures, one begins to notice the major, implicit role of content. Most commentators do not lay out argumentation for their tripartite structure of Ezekiel with the notable exception of Hals. Thus, Hals becomes the scapegoat in this discussion of criteria. It should be noted, however, that Hals does appeal to the single most popular criterion among biblical scholars. So, a disproportionate amount of attention is paid to his three paragraph discussion of the book’s overall structure as a way to frame the issue. Hals provides several arguments to bolster his structure, the typical three part structure of chapters 1–24, 25–32, and 33–48. First, he notes the vast differences in content among the sections. 84 Second, he suggests that the fall of Jerusalem divides the prophet’s two-part message into chapters 1–24 and 33–48. Third, he highlights several passages within the aforementioned sections that correspond: 3:16–22//33:1–9; 6:1–7//36:1–15; 18//33:10–20. Fourth, Hals defers to the structure of other so-called prophetic books such as First Isaiah and Jeremiah, both of which are divided into “an earlier message, a later message, and a collection of prophecies against foreign nations.” 85 To begin with his weakest points, the second and third: Hals’s use of the fall of Jerusalem to separate the book into two sections suffers from its obvious lack of accounting for the function of the Oracles concerning the Na84

Ronald Hals, Ezekiel (FOTL 19; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 3, uses the phrase, “the obvious factor of the contrast in overall content.” 85 Hals, Ezekiel, 4. One could add Zephaniah to this list, although Hals does not mention it.

58

Chapter Two: Structuring Prophetic Books

tions, which constitute eight chapters in the middle of the book, not to mention the fact that it contradicts his earlier stated three part structure. In other words, Hals outlines three sections for the book, but then dismisses the Oracles concerning the Nations as “largely unrelated” to the other two “major components” of the book. 86 Certainly, the fall of the city is pivotal to the book’s message and in fact probably plays the largest role in the considerable shift in content from primarily, although not exclusively, oracles about judgment to restoration oracles. However, two literary units – one pre-fall and one post-fall – do not exist within the book. They do not even exist in Hals’s proposed structure. If Hals wishes to argue for the fall of Jerusalem as the seminal structuring device for the book, then he needs to adapt his structure to a twofold division between chapters 24 and 25 (or is it between chapters 33 and 34?). 87 Otherwise, he must account for the Oracles concerning the Nations. One suspects upon a closer look, they are not completely unrelated to the other portions of the book. The third argument – the correspondences between passages including the themes of a watchman and the mountains of Israel – indeed points to the book’s revisiting of concepts. However, Hals again fails to acknowledge his middle book section in this argument. The fact that concepts are repeated throughout the book does not lend support to a clear bifurcation of the text. Furthermore, there is no recognizable pattern with the thematic repetitions (e.g., chiastic structure). The correspondences seem relevant to the message of the book but add little to a discussion of its structure. In the end, Hals states that the book has three sections, but he argues for only two. Hals first argument for his structure brings up the issue of content-based structures. He notes the “obvious factor of the contrast in overall content” as a reason for the three sections of the book. 88 Yet, one must question if content is the best way to divide a prophetic book literarily, especially if confusion exists regarding exactly which content is intended (actual prophet vs. book). After all, the subject of inquiry is a literary production. The message of the prophet including his historical and sociological settings certainly influences a book, yet a text conveys his message. In other words, the diachronic issues concerning the sixth-century prophet Ezekiel are certainly pertinent to any discussion of the book; however, these issues do not take into account fully the final, literary nature of the current biblical book.

86

Hals, Ezekiel, 3. It is unclear whether the fall of Jerusalem takes place literarily in chapter 24 with the death of Ezekiel’s wife or alternatively in chapter 33 with the announcement (“the city has falled”) from the escapee. 88 Hals, Ezekiel, 3. 87

2.1. The Search for a Text’s Structure

59

Furthermore, even if one is clear that the content used in the structure is the book’s content as opposed to the historical prophet’s (Hals does focus on the book’s content), it is still a questionable criterion because of its imprecision, flexibility, and subjectivity. Because the concept of content requires a person to read and interpret a textual unit in order to render its content, then this criterion is extremely unstable. One scholar may think the content of the passage changes radically at a certain place, while another researcher sees continuity of content. While it is certainly true that scholars argue about the significance of explicit markers within a text such as transitional words and formulas, these markers are actually present within the text on a level that cannot be argued against. In summary, content is always open to interpretation; the presence of a literary marker is not. In the end, dividing the book into discernible units is a literary task. In addition, multiple weaknesses of the content-based framework with regard to Ezekiel exist. First, as Greenberg notes, each section of the book is not homogenous with regard to content. Certainly, most of the judgment against Israel comes at the beginning of the book, while most of the good news concerning the nation’s fate appears at the end. However, the content is not as tidy as it is usually presented. For example, Ezek 17:22–24 contains a prophecy of restoration for Israel, although it stands within the traditional judgment section of the book. Oracles concerning the Nations occur outside of chapters 25–32, e.g., a prophecy against Mount Seir (Edom) comprises chapter 35. Furthermore, Ezek 33 and 34:1–10 do not contain news of restoration for Israel although they appear in the final, third section. In fact, this disconnect between the suggested tripartite structure of the book and its content is summarized unintentionally by Zimmerli in the first few lines of his commentary on the passage, Ezek 33:1–20, “The section 33:1–20 introduces the great third part of the book of Ezekiel. In that third part the proclamation of the coming salvation dominates the stage from chapter 34 onwards.” 89 It never strikes Zimmerli as odd that Ezek 33 starts the unit, but Ezek 34 is where the shift in content occurs. It is tempting to view these anomalies within the sections as secondary additions to the text, editorial accretions that disrupt the “pure” content of each section. However, note Greenberg’s astute observation: These ‘irregularities’ are, for the most part, well integrated in their contexts from both a topical and literary viewpoint; nothing but hypercritical expectations of consistency and simplicity in ancient writings underlies the judgment of those critics who treat them as 90 intrusions.

Although generalities concerning the book’s content may be helpful for understanding the general message of the prophet, a literary structure 89 90

Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 182. Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 5.

60

Chapter Two: Structuring Prophetic Books

based solely on content is not possible for Ezekiel even if one lays aside the methodological confusion inherent to this type of structure. The content of the book (and any other prophetic book) resists uniformity. Hals’s fourth point appeals to other prophetic “books” such as First Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Zephaniah for a typical tripartite book division. Again, the criterion is content. Furthermore, just as with the book of Ezekiel, these prophetic books also do not have clearly defined content-related sections. For example, although the book of Isaiah, since the work of Duhm, is often divided diachronically into three sections, the structure of the book if better explained if it is examined as a complete literary book. 91 Hals’s contention that Isaiah 1–39, or First Isaiah, somehow constitutes a prophetic book is incorrect. No literary markers or features exist at the beginning of Isaiah 40 or 55 that warrant a literary division in those places. Thus, the two major literary sections of the book are chapters 1–33 and 34–66. Furthermore, recent literary analysis of Zephaniah disputes its three part structure as noted later in this chapter. 92 Finally, Jeremiah, which will be discussed later in the chapter in more detail, also does not demonstrate a uniformity of content. In fact, Jeremiah’s complexity with regard to content (and redactional layers) make it difficult to divide based on this criteria. Therefore, these arguments and the resulting tripartite structure for the book of Ezekiel are not ultimately a compelling literary reading of the text. They are based primarily on concerns with content. 93 This is probably the lasting result of Gunkel, who very often used content over form/structure to define a genre. 94 An alternative, specifically literary criterion is needed to explain the division of the book. However, the above assessment does not preclude recourse to content in forming a conceptual structure for the book. The general scholarly consensus – two different types of oracles (judgment and promise) with two different fictive audiences (Judah and the nations) that make up three distinct book sections – has interpretive merit in its ability to summarize in broad 91

Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, 41. There are even literary links between the different diachronic sections of the book, e.g., chapters 1 and 66, which demonstrate a literary unity to the book. 92 Marvin A. Sweeney, “A Form-Critical Reassessment of the Book of Zephaniah,” CBQ 53 (1991): 388–408; B. Renaud, “Le livre de Sophonie: le jour de YHWH thème structurant de la synthèse rédactionnelle,” RevScRel 60 (1986): 1–33; idem, Michée – Sophonie – Nahum (SB; Paris: Gabalda, 1987), 177–78; R. Rendtorff, The Old Testament: An Introduction (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 234. 93 Marvin A. Sweeney, “Zephaniah: A Paradigm,” 121, goes so far as to suggest that this tripartite structure is “the product of later readers who impose the perspectives of later theological notions concerning the course of world history and divine revelation.” 94 W. Eugene March, “Prophecy,” in Old Testament Form Criticism (ed., John H. Hayes; San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1974), 147.

2.1. The Search for a Text’s Structure

61

strokes the conceptual movement of the book. Nevertheless, it must be distinguished from the book’s surface structure. It is difficult to rule out the possibility of multiple literary structures as well, especially with regard to smaller units of texts. For example, Kim argues for two structures within the pericope, Joel 2:21–27. 95 However, one of the structures involves the literary pattern of a chiastic structure, which is more of a pattern than a structuring device. Furthermore, the two structures proposed by Kim seem to overlap very well. In summary, the criterion of content is not sufficient for a surface structure given that content is a malleable concept which requires interpretation into the text’s meaning. With particular regard to the book of Ezekiel, content does not work as a valid criterion because of the diversity of content within the book. Second, another recent scholarly methodology, delimitation criticism, has been used as a criterion for structuring literarily. This type of criticism attempts to divide units of text into divisions based on markers found within ancient biblical manuscripts. For example, it examines textual markers such as the Masoretic tradition’s petuhah and setumah, which group the text into paragraphs. 96 While this endeavor is certainly worthwhile in that it demonstrates how the biblical text was divided (and read) at a certain point in time, it is not without problems for establishing structure. First, the paragraph markers do not occur in the same place throughout all the manuscripts. This is either the result of a difference of opinion concerning the text’s division among the ancient tradents or the result of scribal error. 97 Second, it is not possible to connect these paragraph markings in ancient manuscripts to the original text. Although the makers of the Masoretic tradition stand in basic agreement to markers of proto-Masoretic texts at Qumran, they demonstrate only an ancient tradition of text division. They do not prove that the ancient authors and editors of books such as the pro95

Hyun Chul Paul Kim, “Form Criticism in Dialogue with Other Criticisms: Building the Multidimensional Structures of Texts and Concepts,” in The Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty-First Century (ed. M.A. Sweeney and E. Ben Zvi; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 88–90. 96 Delimitation Criticism is best exemplified in the monograph series Pericope: Scripture as Written and Read in Antiquity. E.g., Marjo Korpel and Josef Oesch, eds., Delimitation Criticism: A New Tool in Biblical Scholarship (Van Gorcum: Assen, 2000). For an introduction to the method, see Marjo C.A. Korpel, “Introduction to the Series Pericope,” Marjo Korpel and Josef Oesch, eds., Delimitation Criticism: A New Tool in Biblical Scholarship (Van Gorcum: Assen, 2000), 1–50. These textual markers should be distinguished from the chapter markers in modern versions. Chapters did not enter the manuscript tradition until the thirteenth century C.E. See Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (2nd ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 52. 97 Tov, Textual Criticism, 51 notes the possibility of the former: “It is possible that the subjectivity of this exegesis created the extant differences between the various sources.”

62

Chapter Two: Structuring Prophetic Books

phetic literature used such markers. 98 Finally, the divisions seem to be based on content as noted by Tov: “the subdivision itself into open and closed sections reflects exegesis on the extent of the content units; in the Torah the paragraph system often coincides with the beginning of divine speech…but this is merely one aspect of a developed system which reflects content exegesis in other details as well.” 99 In the end, the Masoretic notations are helpful for interpretation; they are even useful for dividing a text. Yet, they do not reveal the structure of the biblical text. Third, scholars frequently use the criterion of diachronic growth to structure a text from a literary perspective. However, the use of redactional layers or other evidence of historical development within a prophetic book in order to structure the book suffers from several weaknesses. First, a structure is a decidedly synchronic concept insofar as it takes the final form of the text as its subject so that it is not accountable to diachronic features such as textual growth. In other words, although synchronic and diachronic approaches are complementary in many ways, one must begin with the synchronic approach first so that the whole textual piece is included in the discussion. Then, after one has taken into account the text as it currently stands, one can move to diachronic observations about the text. Efforts at obtaining the redactional history of a book often pre-judge the material so that the whole form is not examined. Second, sections within texts in which one can perceive diachronic growth do not necessarily represent the final, redactional shaping of the text. The structure of any given passage is typically the result of the final editor’s shaping of the material. Thus, earlier redactional layers do not take this final shaping into account. Third, oftentimes earlier textual material and later material are reworked together leaving it nearly impossible to identify redactioncriticism distinctions. 2.1.7. Establishing the Text’s Surface Structure Now that I have provided an extended discussion of structure and a definition for surface structure, it is appropriate to turn to the specifics of establishing such a textual structure. So far, I have only provided the theoretical issues involved in determining surface vis-à-vis conceptual structures; it is now time to provide more detailed information about the process of structure-making. This section concentrates on the process whereby one establishes a surface structure. Dorsey imagines three steps in this process of analyzing structure: 1) identify the constituent parts, 2) analyze the arrangement of those parts, 98 99

Contra Korpel, “Introduction to the Series Pericope,” 5. Tov, Textual Criticism, 51.

2.1. The Search for a Text’s Structure

63

and 3) consider the relationship of the structure to its meaning. 100 Setting aside the second and third step for later consideration in chapter four, this leaves the first step, which is essentially a recapitulation of Muilenburg’s program of rhetorical criticism. 101 In fact, it is worth quoting Muilenburg at length to get a sense of his understanding of structural analysis: The second major concern of the rhetorical critic is to recognize the structure of a composition and to discern the configuration of its component parts, to delineate the warp and woof out of which the literary fabric is woven, and to note the various rhetorical devices that are employed for marking, on the one hand, the sequence and movement of the pericope, and on the other, the shifts and breaks in the development of the writer’s thought. 102

Although Muilenburg conceives of this as but one concern, he in fact lists two primary concerns. Above all, the scholar must “recognize” structure and “discern” individual units. The reason behind the conflation probably originates with these actions going hand in hand, as Dorsey notes above. In fact, Dorsey’s first step is actually the only step for establishing a structure: the way to recognize structure is to discern the literary units. Knierim also proffers a three step process for structure analysis: 1) identify the text’s beginning and end, 2) find the major building blocks of the text like introduction, conclusion, etc., and 3) note the relationship between the blocks. 103 Step one is obvious when examining a large textual unit such as a prophetic book since it is a self-contained unit. Obviously, when dealing with smaller textual units, this step becomes more crucial and less self-apparent. Step two echoes the process of both Dorsey and Muilenburg above insofar as it assumes that the text is clearly divided into discernible units which the scholar can differentiate rather easily. Step three concerns itself more with meaning and less with literary structure proper. But, how does one delineate the literary units of text? Muilenburg highlights the way forward in his mention of rhetorical devices in the quotation above. According to him, these devices are either disjunctive or conjunctive; they either move the text along or break the text apart. He then proceeds to discuss various literary markers (e.g., phrases, words, formulas, etc.) that service this function. In a similar way, Dorsey argues for three ways for a biblical author to signal units: 1) beginning markers, 2) end markers, 3) shape unit into a cohesive whole. 104 This technique is fully aligned with form-critical examinations of prophetic literature in that scho100

Dorsey, Literary Structure, 16. Step two straddles the fence between concern for the structure of a text and the literary meaning of the text, while step three concerns itself completely with meaning. 102 James Muilenburg, “Form Criticism and Beyond,” JBL 88 (1969): 10. 103 Campbell, “Structure Analysis,” 78. 104 Dorsey, Literary Structure, 21–24. 101

64

Chapter Two: Structuring Prophetic Books

lars often pay close attention to formulas and other literary markers and how they function at the beginning and end of textual sections. Both scholars agree that the literary units are not based on shared content. Furthermore, Dorsey notes that beginning markers are “used more than any other method to delineate units.” 105 Prophetic literature provides numerous formulas 106 and markers (e.g., behold! woe! therefore). So, to establish a surface structure, one looks for literary markers within the text that begin or end a unit. In prophetic literature, these markers tend to be formulas such as the prophetic word formula (the word of YHWH was to PN) or messenger formula (Thus says PN). Furthermore, after finding the relevant literary markers, one must decide how they function within the particular text. In other words, do they introduce a textual piece or conclude it? It may be that the same literary marker occurs more than once in order to begin (or end) multiple sections. In addition, one must take notice of how all the literary markers work together. There may be multiple levels of structure within the text, each of which is marked by a different type of literary feature. In the end, the establishment of a surface structure within the prophetic literature is a matter of noting the presence and relationship between literary features. 2.1.8. Excursus: Multiple Structures in a Text? Ben Zvi maintains the prospect of different structures within a single text: “That one finds both textual markers that point to particular structures but also those that to some extent subvert them seems to suggest to the readership that no structure should be taken as the only acceptable one.” 107 While it is certainly true that multiple redactions over time may impose several, contradictory structures upon a text, Ben Zvi’s conclusion, however, does not seem entirely necessary, since the confusion of different surface structures usually can be explained in one of two ways. First, diachronic growth within a prophetic book creates a certain amount of literary tension. 108 In

105

Dorsey, Literary Structure, 21, notes eighteen examples of beginning markers and nine examples of end markers. 106 Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, 544–547. 107 Ben Zvi, “Prophetic Book,” 288. 108 In his discussion of the book of Numbers, Rolf P. Knierim, “The Book of Numbers,” in Die Hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte: Festschrift für Rolf Rendtorff zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. E. Blum, C. Macholz, and E. W. Stegemann; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990), 156–7, notes “distinctions and tensions of overlapping structures are possible – and can be observed especially – in composite literary works in which different literary strata have been amalgamated. Each literary stratum imported its original structural system into the new composition….when synthesiz-

2.2. An Example of Surface Structure and Conceptual Structure: Zephaniah

65

this case, one (older) surface structure is oftentimes subsumed into another (newer) surface structure. Partial literary structures may remain and sit in tension with the overall surface structure that has been established later. 109 Second, the literary markers may point to one surface structure with differing levels of demarcation. In other words, certain markers will note the primary surface structure, while other markers will note the secondary surface structure. One must always look for the ways in which the formulas or other literary features are working together to create a coherent structure.

2.2. An Example of Surface Structure and Conceptual Structure: Zephaniah I turn now to an example within the prophetic corpus in order to demonstrate the discussion above. The book of Zephaniah is particularly useful and appropriate since recent scholarly consensus posits a tripartite structure for the book, not unlike Ezekiel. Indeed, the structure contains the same three parts as the majority opinion for Ezekiel. Childs summarizes well the division: “threats against Judah (1.2–2.3), threats against the nations (2.4–3.8), and promises (3.9–20).” 110 This section of the chapter, therefore, compares two different literary structures – that of Ehud Ben Zvi and Marvin Sweeney – in order to highlight the difference between a conceptual structure and a surface structure. 111 The emphasis of this section is ing different strata, including their own, [editors] often did not erase the original structures of adopted traditions.” 109 David M. Carr, “Reaching for Unity in Isaiah,” JSOT 57 (1993): 78, takes this argument even further to suggest that no coherent macrostructure exists for the book of Isaiah because of the long, complex redaction history of the book: “Not only does it seem that no editor intervened deeply enough into the book to make it all conform to an overall conception, but the materials are diverse enough that the Isaianic tradition did not end up unintentionally coalescing into a coherent literary statement.” 110 Childs, Introduction, 458. Note, however, that W. Rudolph, Micha – Nahum – Habakkuk – Zephanja (KAT; Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1975) noticed that Zephaniah 3:1– 8, as a woe oracle against Jerusalem, does not fit into this neat tripartite structure. 111 The discussion does not include the results of delimitation criticism, although one should note that the Leningrad Codex divides the book of Zephaniah into six units (1:1– 9; 1:10–18; 2:1–4; 2:5–15; 3:1–13; 3:14–20), while the Aleppo Codex has seven divisions (1:1–11; 1:12–18; 2:1–4; 2:5–15; 3:1–13; 3:14–15; 3:16–20). The Cairo Codex has eight units and the Petersburg Codex of the Prophets has nine units. This example alone calls for more clarity regarding the use of Masoretic spacing and divisions. Even if one uses this rather old system for interpretive purposes, one must give priority to an individual manuscript’s construal of the divisions. For example, Adele Berlin, Zephaniah (AB 25A; New York: Doubleday, 1994), 19, simply follows the Leningrad Codex, although she is clearly aware of the other manuscript traditions. She notes that “these subdivisions are not meant to indicate compositional units.”

66

Chapter Two: Structuring Prophetic Books

not on Zephaniah per se, but on the process each scholar uses to establish a structure. 112 2.2.1. Conceptual Structure Beginning with Ben Zvi as representative of conceptual structure, one notices almost immediately that Ben Zvi never provides support for his tripartite structure of the book of Zephaniah. 113 This, however, is not particularly extraordinary since scholars typically create structure without argumentation. 114 So, in some ways, Ben Zvi serves nicely as an exemplar of the conceptual structure; this type of structure is frequently discerned by scholars without their making explicit the criteria. Ben Zvi asserts that the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah (LXX), Ezekiel, and Zephaniah all share a “general structure.” 115 He does nuance his discussion to allow for differences “in style and content,” and “redactional process” among the books. In addition, he admits that some specific units within these books do not fit this literary pattern given that he knows that the content is not completely uniform within each section of the structure. His structure is as follows: I. “a section that concerns mainly with announcements of judgment against Judah/Israel and whose general message is judgment” II. “oracles against the ‘nations’ (OAN) in medial position” III. “a section that concerns mainly with announcements of salvation and whose general message is salvation.” 116

One is left to assume that Ben Zvi is using content as a criterion, one that is apparently so obvious that it is left unsaid. It is left unstated as well that most scholars who argue for a tripartite structure in the prophetic books base their structure on both the content of the prophetic oracles and the addressee of the oracles; they are using themes or motifs to structure the book. In spite of his lack of explicit argumentation, Ben Zvi has noted a similarity between these prophetic books that cannot be explained by “assum112

Of course, the two scholarly structures discussed below are not the only structures proffered. E.g., Paul R. House, Zephaniah: A Prophetic Drama (Bible and Literature Series 16; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1988), 55–61, argues for a structure based on dialogue between God and the prophet which yields seven speeches in the book. 113 It is not enough to cite the consensus of modern scholarship as Ben Zvi does in “Understanding the Message of the Tripartite Prophetic Books,” Restoration Quarterly 35 (1993): 93. 114 See this study’s first chapter and the review of criteria used for structure there. 115 Ehud Ben Zvi, A Historical-Critical Study of the Book of Zephaniah (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1991), 325. See also Ben Zvi, “Understanding the Message,” 93–100. 116 Ben Zvi, Book of Zephaniah, 325.

2.2. An Example of Surface Structure and Conceptual Structure: Zephaniah

67

ing a series of random coincidences, and certainly not as the result of the idiosyncratic character of a certain prophet, or of the author/redactor of a certain prophetic book, or of the tridents of a particular prophetic tradition.” 117 Indeed, Ben Zvi has recognized a structure within these books, a conceptual structure that depends on content. It does not rely upon linguistic features like textual makers, syntax, or formulas. In the end, his conceptual structure is difficult to assess in view of the fact that there is little objective data to confirm or reject it. As one reads through these prophetic books, one intuits these divisions even if they are not confirmed by literary markers. 2.2.2. Surface Structure Sweeney, in two articles and two separate commentaries, provides the best example of a well-argued surface structure of Zephaniah. 118 He begins by noting the prevalent tripartite structure and its weakness as a literary structure: “although the threefold concerns. . .frequently dominate discussion of the structure of the book, such concerns do not correlate with the linguistic features of the text.” 119 Instead, the three part structure points to “motifs [which] clearly underlie the theological or conceptual outlook of the book.” 120 So, Sweeney clarifies that the literary or surface structure is his goal; implicitly, he affirms that the surface structure has priority for aiding interpretation. The first step in Sweeney’s structuring process is to separate out the superscription found in Zeph 1:1 from the rest of the book (Zeph 1:2–3:20). In so doing, he follows the argument of Tucker, who understands superscriptions as, in Sweeney’s words, “generically and structurally distinct from the material which follows, in that their function is to identify that material.” 121 In addition, the superscription is in the third person form when it mentions Zephaniah as opposed to the rest of the book which has the prophet as the speaker. So, for Sweeney, v. 1 “functions as an introduction to the book as a whole that sets the parameters of its reading” and “constitutes the initial statement of the fictive narrator who presents the 117

Ben Zvi, Book of Zephaniah, 325–6. In chronological order: Marvin A. Sweeney, “A Form-Critical Reassessment,” 388–408; Sweeney, “Zephaniah: A Paradigm,” 119–145; Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets, Volume Two (Berit Olam; Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical, 2000); Sweeney, Zephaniah (Herm; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003). 119 Sweeney, Zephaniah, 6. 120 Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets, Volume Two, 494. 121 Sweeney, “A Form-Critical Reassessment,” 391–92. See Gene M. Tucker, “Prophetic Superscriptions and the Growth of the Canon,” Canon and Authority (ed. G.W. Coats and B.O. Long; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 56–70. 118

68

Chapter Two: Structuring Prophetic Books

entire book to the reader.” 122 In the end, the book divides first and foremost into Zeph 1:1, the superscription, and Zeph 1:2–3:20, the body of the book based on speaker and genre distinctions. This assessment is a fairly standard one within form criticism, although scholars are often reluctant to make such an obvious, but important, observation that a prophetic book includes a superscription and a body. Next, Sweeney divides the body of the book of Zephaniah into two sections: 1:2–18 and 2:1–3:20. 123 At first, Sweeney labels these sections “the prophet’s announcement of the Day of YHWH” and “the prophet’s parenetic address to the people,” leading one to think that the division is based on content or genre alone. 124 However, Sweeney immediately notes that the division is based on “a combination of linguistic and thematic factors, including speaker, addressee, object of the prophet’s speech, and the organization and interrelationship of its basic syntactical subunits.” 125 One example of a linguistic factor is that the first subunit does not have an explicit addressee, whereas the second unit is addressed to the people of Jerusalem and Judah/Israel. The first subunit contains no direct address forms, no second person verbs, no imperatives; the second subunit does. Another linguistic factor concerns Zeph 2:1, which is a “major syntactical break” that begins with an imperative that is not linked to the preceding material. 126 One semantic factor is the focus on the Day of the Lord in the first subunit. Another argument Sweeney uses to support his two-part division is the internal unity of each subunit. In other words, each subunit forms a nice coherent unit; they are held together “by a combination of thematic and linguistic factors.” 127 Sweeney continues this process of structuring the book of Zephaniah with four levels of structure in his latest treatment of the book 128 and as many as eight levels in an earlier discussion. 129 His structure of Zephaniah is as follows: I. Superscription: The Word of YHWH to Zephaniah in the Days of Josiah II. The Body of the Book: Zephaniah’s Parenetic Speech: Seek YHWH A. Announcement of the Day of YHWH B. Parenesis: Seek YHWH and Avoid Punishment on the Day of YHWH

122

1:1 1:2–3:20 1:2–18 2:1–3:20

Sweeney, Zephaniah, 6. Sweeney, Zephaniah, 7. 124 Sweeney, Zephaniah, 7. 125 Sweeney, Zephaniah, 7. 126 Sweeney, Zephaniah, 7. Elsewhere, Sweeney, “A Form-Critical Reassessment,” 393, notes “There is absolutely no syntactical connection between 1:2–18 and 2:1–3.” 127 Sweeney, Zephaniah, 7. 128 Sweeney, Zephaniah, 9–10. 129 Sweeney, “A Form-Critical Reassessment,” 407–8. 123

2.3. Surface Structure and Chronological Formulas: Haggai and Zechariah

69

2.2.3. Conclusion In the end, Sweeney and Ben Zvi represent well the alternate ways in which to structure a prophetic book, using multiple criteria. This chapter calls for more sustained attention to the surface structure of prophetic books.

2.3. Surface Structure and Chronological Formulas: Haggai and Zechariah This section of the chapter demonstrates that the literary markers, chronological formulas, serve as the primary way to structure the prophetic books of Jeremiah, Haggai, and Zechariah. This discussion concerning the surface structure of these three prophetic books also serves as an introduction to the next chapter which argues for a new surface, literary structure of Ezekiel based on chronological formulas. Whereas numerous scholars have seen a conceptual tripartite structure among several prophetic books, this study argues for a shared surface, literary structure among four prophetic books: shared in that it is based on a common literary marker, unique in that each book uses the chronological formula in a different way. The discussion above has narrowed from a general discussion of structure to discussion of a text’s surface structure. It has also demonstrated what constitutes such a structure including the important role of literary markers within the text. When examining a book’s structure it is just as important to focus on literary features as when establishing the microstructure of a smaller unit. 2.3.1. The Structure of Haggai The book of Haggai is a good place to begin since the book is rather short with thirty-eight verses and has a generally agreed upon structure, a structure that takes note of the chronological formulas within the text. 130 So, by beginning with Haggai one notices how chronological formulas can be used, and in fact are used, by scholars to structure a text. Before turning to the formulas, however, one must note the way the book of Haggai begins. Just like Ezekiel and Zechariah and unlike the other prophetic books, the book of Haggai does not begin with a superscrip-

130

For a fuller discussion of scholarship on Haggai, see Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8 (AB 25B; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1987), lxviiilxx; Hans Walter Wolff, Haggai: A Commentary (trans. Margaret Kohl; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988), 23–26.

70

Chapter Two: Structuring Prophetic Books

tion. 131 Instead, a date formula in narrative form introduces the book so that verse one does not stand alone from the body of the book. Interestingly, all the prophetic books, which do not begin with a superscription, commence with a date formula. Chronological formulas occur in Haggai 1:1a, 1:15b-2:1a, 2:10a, and 2:20. 132 The first three formulas include a regnal year of Darius, a month, and a day, while Haggai 2:20 provides only the day, since it is the same day as the previous chronological formula in 2:10a. All four formulas are also immediately followed (or in the case of 2:20 are immediately preceded) by the prophetic word formula. These two formulas – chronological and prophetic word – are repeated in order to divide the book into four distinct literary units, each with one divine oracle. Therefore, the literary structure of the book of Haggai is as follows: I. First Oracle via Haggai to Zerubbabel and Joshua II. Second Oracle via Haggai for Haggai to speak to Zerubbabel and Joshua III. Third Oracle to Haggai for Haggai to dialogue with priests IV. Fourth Oracle to Haggai for Haggai to speak to Zerubbabel

1:1–1:15a 1:15b-2:9 2:10–2:19 2:20–23

The formulas are indeed varied in their presentation. Hag 1:1a follows year-month-day, the most frequently used sequence in the Hebrew Bible. 133 Hag 1:15b-2:1a is also year-month-day. Hag 2:10a is day-monthyear. Hag 2:20 is day-month. Most commentators recognize the importance of the chronological formulas for structure. For example, Floyd, 134 Petersen, 135 Kessler, 136 Wolff, 137 Reventlow, 138 Sweeney, 139 and Meyers & Meyers 140 collectively 131

Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets Volume Two, 533. An additional date is recorded in Hag 1:15a, but it is not part of a formula and provides simply a date for when people began to work on the temple. This distinction between a date formula and a simple date is often ignored and/or confused by scholars. 133 P.A. Verhoef, “Notes on the Dates in the Book of Haggai,” in Text and Context: Old Testament and Semitic Studies for F.C. Fensham (JSOTSup 48; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988), 260. 134 Michael H. Floyd, Minor Prophets Part 2 (FOTL 22; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000). 135 David L. Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984). 136 John Kessler, The Book of Haggai: Prophecy and Society in Early Persian Yehud (VTSup 91; Leiden: Brill, 2002). 137 Hans Walter Wolff, Haggai: A Commentary (trans. Margaret Kohl; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988). 138 Henning Graf Reventlow, Die Propheten Haggai, Sacharja und Maleachi (ATD; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993). 139 Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets Volume Two. 140 Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8 (AB 25B; Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1987). 132

2.3. Surface Structure and Chronological Formulas: Haggai and Zechariah

71

divide the text at these major junctions; although, three also divide the text elsewhere. For example, Petersen has five major units (Hag 1:1–11; 1:12– 15; 2:1–9; 2:10–19; 2:20–23), claiming that the date formula concludes the section, Hag 1:12–15. Meyers & Meyers also have these exact five units; yet, they argue that Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 are a composite work. 141 Floyd only notes three divisions, preferring to group the two prophecies of Hag 2:10–23 together, apparently on the basis of the partial date formula in Hag 2:20b. 142 Sweeney concurs with the three divisions. 143 However, this particular rendering of the text fails to attend to the prophetic word formula as it is used in conjunction with the chronological formula. In summary, scholars are aware of the need to use these chronological formulas for dividing the book into literary units. The chronological formulas are repeated substantially within this short book – and in fact, a formula begins the book – to alert readers to this literary feature. Furthermore, scholars use the chronological formulas to make interpretive claims about the meaning of the text. Petersen notes “since each subdivision in the book is provided with a chronological notation, it is perhaps not an overinterpretation to state that concern for history, the recitation and interpretation of the past, was an important consideration for the author of this book.” 144 What is more, he goes on to claim that the date formulas are central to the message of the book: “the person who composed the book of Haggai has provided a narrative structured on the basis of chronological sequence.” 145 Therefore, he concludes that the book is less a prophetic collection and more accurately “a chronicle or historical narrative.” 146 Wolff notes how Zechariah and Ezekiel also share the precise dating of Haggai – to the very day. 147 Thus, he refers to refers to the writer as “the Haggai chronicler.” 148 Verhoef, in an article on the dates in Haggai, concludes, “in the prophetic literature the purpose of a precise date is not only to establish the historic reality of the occasion on which the prophecy was pronounced, 141

Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, xliv-l. Floyd, Minor Prophets, 253–255. 143 Marvin A. Sweeney, The Prophetic Literature (IBT; Nashville: Abingdon, 2005), 201. 144 Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 32. However, it is then rather strange to read from Petersen a few lines later that other prophetic books are not ordered chronologically 145 Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 33. This quote is in line with the following study: W.A.M. Beuken, Haggai-Sacharja 1–8: Studien zur Überlieferungsgeschichte der frühnachexilischen Prophetie (Studia Semitica Neerlandica 10; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1967) among others. Contra Reventlow, Die Propheten Haggai, and Peter R. Ackroyd, “Studies in the Book of Haggai,” JJS 2 (1951): 171–173. 146 Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 33. 147 Wolff, Haggai, 32. 148 Wolff, Haggai, 32. To be distinguished from the Chronicler of Chronicles-EzraNehemiah fame. 142

72

Chapter Two: Structuring Prophetic Books

but especially to emphasize the authenticity of the prophetic message.” 149 Mason agrees with the scholarly consensus exemplified by Beuken, who takes several verses – including all the date formulas – as an editorial framework, a redactional layer that dates to a time after the prophet Haggai. 150 Whether original to the book or a late redaction, both Mason and Beuken ignore the literary purpose of the chronological formulas. In the end, a consensus of scholarship agrees that Haggai is divided literarily into units based on the chronological formulas in the book. Minor disagreement centers on the partial formula in Haggai 2:20. 2.3.2. The Structure of Zechariah Moving from the rather obvious and basically agreed upon literary structure of Haggai to the book of Zechariah is an easy step. Together these two prophetic books constitute the tenth and eleventh books of The Book of the Twelve. 151 They both date literarily to the early reign of Darius, the king of Persia. 152 And Zechariah, like Haggai, contains chronological formulas which contribute to the structure of the book. Zechariah begins with a chronological formula. Its prominence at the beginning of the book serves to inform the reader of its ordering purpose. This formula occurs thrice in the book: Zechariah 1:1, 1:7, and 7:1. All three of these instances of the date formula are also combined with a prophetic word formula just as in the book of Haggai. The two formulas together create quite a compelling literary feature for the book’s structure. 153 In other words, the book of Zechariah does not provide any other reoccurring literary patterns, vocabulary, or features that attempt to divide the text into sections. Scholars, however, often prefer diachronic criteria for their structures and therefore seek a division between chapters eight and nine, between so-

149

Verhoef, “Notes on the Dates,” 263. Rex A. Mason, “The Purpose of the ‘Editorial Framework’ of the Book of Haggi,” VT 27 (1976): 413–421; Beuken, Haggai-Sacharja, 1–8. 151 A fuller discussion of the ordering of the individual books within the Book of the Twelve is beyond the scope of this study. However, one should note the literary connections between Haggai and Zechariah in their use of chronological formulas in addition to the historical connections, the latter of which are typically developed more in such discussions. 152 For more information on Darius, who reigned from 521 to 486 B.C.E., see T. Cuyler Young, Jr., “Darius,” ABD (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 2:37–38. 153 See Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 110, who uses the chronological formulas to structure Zechariah 1–8, treating it as a separate composition or literary work distinct from the entire book of Zechariah. 150

2.3. Surface Structure and Chronological Formulas: Haggai and Zechariah

73

called Proto-Zechariah and Deutero-Zechariah. 154 For example, Floyd uses the chronological formulas in his structure, although in an inconsistent way. He labels 1:1–6 as “Introduction” and 1:7–14:21 as the “main body” of the book. 155 Here Floyd follows the date formulas apparently in verses one and seven. Next, he divides the body of the book into two parts: 1:7– 8:23, “Reports of revelations to Zechariah during the reign of the Persian emperor Darius” and 9:1–14:21, “Prophecies reapplying Zechariah’s insights to the events of a later time.” 156 Even though Floyd continues to use the chronological formulas in 1:7 and 7:1 to subdivide the first subsection of the main body, he allows diachronic criteria to influence his major division between chapters eight and nine. Unfortunately, the text in no way supports this claim; especially since chapter nine does not contain any indication of a shift in historical or literary time. Floyd’s placement of a divider between chapters eight and nine undermines his overall structure for the book in that it introduces another criterion – that of content or compositional layer – into the discussion. Although a diachronic, redactional break may occur at the level of composition (i.e., Zechariah 9–14 stems from a later hand), it does not accord well with the literary evidence. The book in its final form is intended as a single, unified whole. 157 In addition to diachronic issues of compositional dating, some scholars argue for the structure of Zechariah based on generic criteria. 158 They note the two types of material – visions and oracles – found within the book. For example, Conrad divides the body of the book into nine scenes and two oracles. 159 The introductory label of “oracle” maa’ in Zechariah 9:1, 12:1, and Malachi 1:1 indeed looks like a structuring device. In its final form, the generic formulation of maa’ is subsumed under the chronologi-

154 E.g., Butterworth, Book of Zechariah, divides the book into two major sections without much argumentation, except scholarly consensus on the issue. In the end, the individual units of Zechariah 1–8 are more clearly structured than Zechariah 9–14 according to Butterworth. Also, studies exist on the literary structure of Zechariah 9–14 as a self-contained unit. See Paul Lamarche, Zacharie IX-XIV: Structure Littéraire et Messianisme (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1961). 155 Floyd, Minor Prophets, 303. 156 Floyd, Minor Prophets, 303. 157 Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets Volume Two, 565–566. 158 Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 110–125; Petersen, Zechariah 9–14 and Malachi (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1995), 2–3; Together these two commentaries argue for a structure of Zechariah based on generic criteria. Likewise, Meredith G. Kline, “The Structure of the Book of Zechariah,” JETS 34 (1991): 179–193, argues for a diptych structure for Zechariah based on the symbolic actions contained in the book. 159 Edgar W. Conrad, Zechariah (Readings: A New Biblical Commentary; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 42–44.

74

Chapter Two: Structuring Prophetic Books

cal formulas and therefore serves as a subdivision of the text, not a first level division. 160 The chronological formulas divide the final form of the book into three sections as follows: I. Introduction II. Oracle with 8 Accompanying Visions III. A Series of Oracles

Zechariah 1:1–6 Zechariah 1:7–6:15 Zechariah 7:1–14:21

This reading has the advantage of elegance; it uses the reoccurring literary feature of date formulas without introducing redactional concerns into the final form of the text. In conclusion, the book of Zechariah serves as another example of how chronological formulas are used to structure some prophetic books. Both Haggai and Zechariah use these date formulas in conjunction with the prophetic word formulas as a reoccurring literary feature within their respective books. In addition, each book begins with the combined formula in order to signal its importance and its use in the ordering of the book.

2.4. Chapter Summary In the first section of this chapter, I begin with an explanation of several terms within form-critical theory, a delineation that enables me to provide eventually a definition of surface structure, which essentially concerns a subcategory of literary structure that serves as an organizing principle, providing clear demarcation to textual units by means of linguistic markers at the surface of the text. I also argue for a specific process that aids in establishing a surface structure. These theoretical issues become especially salient in the next chapter when I argue for a surface structure for the book of Ezekiel, a structure that is based fully on literary features such as formulas within the book. In order to provide an example of a surface structure, in the second section of this chapter, I provide exemplars of a surface structure and a conceptual structure with regard to the prophetic book of Zephaniah. Sweeney’s surface structure pays careful attention to the literary features on the surface of the text, while Ben Zvi’s conceptual structure is concerned mostly with content. This section demonstrates effectively how different scholars use different criteria to structure textual units. It also shows the methodological problems intrinsic to conceptual structures. 160

For more information on maa’, see Richard D. Weis, “A Definition of the Genre Maa’ in the Hebrew Bible” (Ph.D. dissertation; Claremont Graduate School, 1986); Michael H. Floyd, “The )#m (Maa’) as a Type of Prophetic Book,” JBL 121 (2002): 401–22.

2.4. Chapter Summary

75

In the third section of this chapter, I examine briefly the surface structures of the prophetic books of Haggai and Zechariah in order to show the use of chronological and prophetic word formulas in structuring these books. Scholars generally agree that these two formulas contribute fundamentally to the structure of these books. Therefore, the discussion provides an excellent transition to the following chapter in which I argue that the book of Ezekiel also uses these same two formulas in its surface structure.

Chapter Three

Structuring Ezekiel To structure a prophetic book from a clear, synchronic perspective requires judicious attention to the unique, significant literary features of the text on the surface level. Compositional considerations such as the specific date of the prophet’s proclamation (or inscribing of the proclamation) or any other diachronically-oriented criteria, such as the historical setting of various units, must be set aside as irrelevant for this literary exercise. When discussing literature qua literature it matters less how the material originated, that is, how it developed gradually or suddenly into a coherent text, and more how the finished product reads as a whole, a complete textual unit. For example, when reading one of Shakespeare’s plays, it behooves one to follow along each scene in the order it is presented in its final form instead of the proposed reconstructed order of Shakespeare’s composition. Conceivably, pieces of dialogue may have been inserted by the author after the completion of the first draft, but the final form of the play receives the most attention. 1 In fact, to appreciate fully a piece of literature, it can be argued that the final form is the most important form since it alone claims to be a coherent work, a finished product. In addition, the search for literary features must encompass the entire work of literature, here the prophetic book, so that the piece of literature is viewed as a whole comprised of various parts. Previous scholarship on Ezekiel, however, generally agreed on a tripartite structure for the book that overlooked the important literary features in lieu of a focus on the prophetic event, thereby ignoring explicitly literary ways to structure the book. 2 Some recent nonconformists, as noted in 1

It is worth repeating at the beginning of this chapter that diachronic questions concerning such matters as compositional levels within the text are valid for scholarly inquiry. However, they are not my concern in this study, especially given both their tendency to dominate the discussion of prophetic literature and their sometimes speculative nature. See, e.g., Karl-Friedrich Pohlmann, Das Buch des Propheten Hesekiel (Ezechiel): Übersetzt und Erklärt (2 vols.; ATD 22; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996– 2001), in which Pohlmann argues for at least a dozen different redactional layers within the book of Ezekiel. 2 E.g., Claus Westermann, Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech (London: Lutterworth Press, 1967), brushes away the narratives and superscriptions in prophetic literature to come to the very speech of a prophet. The content of this speech in turn is used to create

78

Chapter Three: Structuring Ezekiel

chapter one, suggest a variation of the basic three-part structure, e.g., dividing chapters 1–24 into multiple units, but the fundamental sense of three major sections remains prevalent today in commentaries and introductions to the book. This type of decidedly conceptual structure affects the reading of Ezekiel as a whole, thereby contributing to its assessment as a basically random collection of prophetic speeches directed at various people groups with either positive or negative messages. 3 So it is not surprising that the same scholars who advocate for a tripartite structure also note both how the book moves from oracles of punishment to oracles of restoration and how the oracles of punishment focus not only on Israel and Judah, but also the neighboring nations. This is a basic reading of their simplified structure, not necessarily of the book. The decision to structure the book in three parts goes hand in hand with the decision to read the book in this particular manner. Put otherwise: form affects meaning. In fact, it becomes difficult to ascertain which came first for the interpreter – the structure or the reading. For example, Hals labels the first twenty-four chapters of the book a “collection,” when in fact it does not reflect any sort of textual unit at all, much less a collection of judgment units. 4 Yet, his structure demands this collection: while the structure of the book as a whole requires the existence of a collection of judgment units within the whole book, there seems to be no evidence that any such collection ever existed independently before its incorporation into the book as a whole (emphasis added). 5

This example shows how his structure drives his exegetical decision, a method not to be condemned; yet, his argument for the structure does not stand outside his final exegetical decision. Hence, Hals engages in circular reasoning by entangling his discussion of structure and meaning. He does not have any evidence for his claim, but his structure requires this reading. the structure for the book, which is not just full of prophetic speeches but includes those excluded (and ignored) superscriptions and narratives. Note also how the prophetic event dominates Zimmerli’s form-critical discussions in his commentaries: Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2 (ed. Paul Hanson with Leonard Jay Greenspoon; trans. James D. Martin; Herm; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983); trans. Ezekiel 2, II. Teilband (BKAT 13/2; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungsvereins, 1969); Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1 (ed. Frank Moore Cross and Klaus Baltzer with the assistance of Leonard Jay Greenspoon; trans. Ronald E. Clements; Herm; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979); trans. Ezechiel 1, I. Teilband (BKAT 8/1; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungsvereins, 1969). 3 This assessment in turn leads to redactional decisions concerning the originality of certain aspects of Ezekiel’s speech, such as his prophecies of promise/salvation, based on a criterion of consistency of prophetic message. 4 Ronald M. Hals, Ezekiel (FOTL 19; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 8. 5 Hals, Ezekiel, 9.

3.1. Formulas as Literary Features

79

In the end, creating three major groupings of text allows the scholarly reader to view those sections separately, that is, without recourse to the rest of the book, and often prevents a unified reading of the entire book. In addition, these three separate sections with their differing content lead to the three groupings in the first place. The macro-level question of the intent and general message of the book of Ezekiel is usurped by a tripartite message: punishment first to Israel, then to the nations, and finally, promise. This standard understanding of the book leaves the following questions unanswered: How can one read the book of Ezekiel as a whole from beginning to end? Or how can one place the various literary units of Ezekiel in conversation with each other? Finally, how does a surface structure help with this endeavor? This chapter challenges the prevailing tripartite paradigm and its assumptions by offering a new understanding of the structural markers within the book of Ezekiel. After the discussion of structure in Chapter Two, it is only appropriate to turn to the literary features within Ezekiel in an effort to discern surface structure. The previous chapter laid crucial groundwork in its definition of surface structure and its critique of the assumed structure of Ezekiel. A case has been made that most proposed structures do not attend sufficiently to the literary features of the text. While these structures may be helpful as a convenient way of remembering the contents of the book, they have their limitations insofar as they typically ignore the final form of the book with its surface-level, literary markers. It is clear now that the division, Ezek 1–24, 25–32, 33–48, which is based mostly on the general content of the oracles, cannot be supported by an appeal to literary markers. In other words, there are no explicit markers at the beginning of Ezek 1, 25, and 33 that signal a new macro-unit. Furthermore, the previous discussion concerning the structure of Haggai and Zechariah proves helpful since those books illuminate well the need to examine formulas within prophetic books. In fact, those two books demonstrate scholars’ easy reliance on chronological formulas for structuring purposes in some instances. In the same way, the theoretical discussion of chapter two, with its discussion of surface versus conceptual structures and its examples of structures, will be helpful in the ensuing discussion. Fortunately, two key formulas located throughout the book offer a compelling division of the book and serve as the primary literary features that structure Ezekiel. This new division of the text does not coincide with the aforementioned paradigm; in fact, the older, accepted divisions are replaced entirely with new ones. So, strikingly, there will not be a major break between chapters 24 and 25 and 32 and 33. The book of Ezekiel, in the end, is divided into thirteen sections.

80

Chapter Three: Structuring Ezekiel

3.1. Formulas as Literary Features The previous chapter provides an introduction to literary features and demonstrates their strength as signals for a surface structure. Formulas represent some of the most common literary features within the prophetic literature. Many different types of formulas appear, e.g., messenger formula, prophetic utterance formula, recognition formula, prophetic word formula, and oath formula. 6 This section of the chapter examines some of the literary features present in Ezekiel and argues that the book’s formulas are the key features both for the surface structure and for the overall understanding of the book’s message. As one examines the particular, literary features of Ezekiel, one notices unique qualities such as the prophet’s double title for the deity (hwhy 7 8 ynd)) or the title of the prophet (Md) Nb) alongside more typical qualities such as the language of prophetic visions and oracles. These features certainly have literary and theological import for the message of the book; they secure aptly the book’s categorization within prophetic literature even as they set it apart from some of the more typical elements of the corpus. For example, prophets undoubtedly experience visions and oracles within the prophetic books, but rarely do prophetic figures self-designate as a son of man. Additionally, the book is written almost entirely in the first person, an autobiographical point of view. 9 Again, this provides a certain, unique point of view for the book. All of these aforementioned features must be considered in any structuring of the book since peculiar and ordinary literary characteristics aid in establishing a structure. Yet, all literary features do not by definition structure a book. Thus, it is not enough simply to locate literary features within a given book. An important evaluative question is needed: Do the literary features contribute to the division of the book into sections or do they serve another literary purpose? For example, a title such as hwhy ynd), which according to Zimmerli occurs 217 times in the book, does not function as a marker to separate texts. 10 Instead, it func6 For a more thorough discussion of these formulas as they relate to the book of Ezekiel, see Hals, Ezekiel, 359–63. 7 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 556–62. 8 For a redactional argument concerning the editorial layers in Ezekiel based on the different presentations of Md) Nb in the book, see Cornuelius B. Houk, “Md)-Nb Patterns as Literary Criteria in Ezekiel,” JBL 88 (1969): 184–90. 9 Given this feature, it is especially intriguing that the prophet’s voice is actually rarely heard. See Samuel A. Meier, Speaking of Speaking: Marking Direct Discourse in the Hebrew Bible (VTSup 46; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 231, who notes, “But in this uniquely sustained autobiographical format in Ezekiel, the voice of God ironically overwhelms that of the prophet.” 10 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 556.

3.2. Five Formulas Not Affecting the Structure

81

tions as the typical divine name for the book of Ezekiel. This use of the divine name is therefore quite important to an overall understanding of Ezekiel’s theology, but it is not as relevant to a discussion of surface structure. So, what other literary features are present in the book that might play this role? The answer to this question lies in the formulas found throughout the book. Ezekiel is by all accounts a formulaic book. 11 At least seven different types of formulas appear within the book with a total of over 300 occurrences. This ubiquitous use of formulas is unique within the prophetic literature and requires further consideration. Indeed, prophetic literature typically relies upon certain, standard formulaic language in order to describe prophetic activities such as oracles or divine speech; this type of language also allows the authors of the literature to emphasize their relationship to the deity and the deity’s message for the people or nation. 12 Ezekiel’s frequent use of these types of expressions, however, is extreme. In fact, one could argue that the formulas are the primary literary markers within the book of Ezekiel and hence a good place to start when seeking structural devices. Yet, it is not only their abundance that signals their importance, but their placement within the book. For example, a chronological formula begins the book of Ezekiel, and these formulas are found throughout the book. Likewise, the prophetic word formula is located throughout the book as an introduction to a particular genre, the oracle. Therefore, this chapter focuses on the formulas within the book of Ezekiel especially two specific formulas, which play the central role in structuring the book.

3.2. Five Formulas Not Affecting the Structure This section identifies briefly five formulas within the book of Ezekiel that are not used for structuring purposes. While they certainly should not be ignored in an attempt to structure smaller units of texts, they do not contribute to the first or second level structure of the whole book. The placement and possible function of each formula is addressed below. It may seem odd to treat here formulas that are not crucial to the overall structure of the 11

Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 30, notes “the reader of Ezekiel’s oracles is struck by the preponderance and repetition of formulaic expressions in the book, some of which are common among the prophets, others unique to Ezekiel.” See also, Hals, Ezekiel, 359–63. 12 For a partial listing of these formulas, see Marvin A. Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39 with an Introduction to Prophetic Literature (FOTL 16; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 544– 47.

82

Chapter Three: Structuring Ezekiel

book; however, by examining first these formulas – their placement, rhetorical function, and frequency – we hope to clarify why the two additional formulas treated later in the chapter contribute to the surface structure of the book. These five formulas serve as representative of the varied formulas within the book, all of which do not affect macrostructure. Clear differences exist between them and the two formulas dealt with in the remainder of the chapter. First, the messenger formula (Botenformel) occurs approximately 120 times in the book of Ezekiel. 13 The expression, hwhy ynd) rm) hk, translates, “Thus says the Lord YHWH.” Found abundantly in the prophetic books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, the formula does not occur in Hosea, Joel, Habakkuk, and Zechariah. 14 It occurs outside of prophetic literature in literary settings where a messenger receives a message (Gen 32) or delivers a message (Num 22:15–16). This formula typically marks the beginning of direct speech in which the prophet delivers a message from the deity. The book of Ezekiel’s use of the messenger formula varies widely. It is often used within the framework of an oracle whereby the deity speaks to the prophet, addressing him as a ben adam and instructing him to prophesy to a certain group. The formula is used at this literary point to initiate the divine speech to the group. Therefore, it helps to separate the divine instructions to the prophet from the divine speech to the prophet’s audience. For example, in Ezek 20, an oracle is presented in vv. 2–44 in which the messenger formula is used throughout (vv. 3, 5, 27, 30, 39) to mark divine speech. This formula unquestionably provides aid in establishing the structure of chapter 20, but it cannot be used for the macrostructure of the book since some genres within the book (e.g., the vision of chapters 8–11) do not use the formula regularly. Additionally, the formula does not automatically appear at the commencement of a divine speech, but can occur within the speech. 15 For example, the messenger formula found in Ezek 5:5 occurs in the middle of a long divine speech including instruction regarding a sign act. The prophetic utterance formula, translated frequently as utterance of YHWH, occurs often in the prophetic books of Jeremiah (175 times) and Ezekiel (85 times). 16 Block provides a discussion of this formula including the helpful observation that the formula appears regularly at the conclusion 13

Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 32. The formula occurs in the following chapters of Ezekiel: 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47. 15 Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 33. 16 Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 33. Block prefers the term “signatory formula.” See also, Rolf Rendtorff, “Zum Gebrauch der Formel ne’um jahwe im Jeremiabuch,” ZAW 66 (1954): 27–37; Friedrich Baumgärtel, “Die Formel ne’um Jahwe,” ZAW 73 (1961): 277–90. 14

3.2. Five Formulas Not Affecting the Structure

83

of an oracle beginning with the messenger formula. In these 20 occurrences in the book of Ezekiel, the formulas work together to mark the textual boundaries of an oracle. However, this is not their exclusive purpose; more often, they are found within an oracle at the occurrence of a change of subject (27 times). 17 Finally, they also occur arbitrarily within an oracle without any discernible reason. In the end, Block argues for the following function of the formula: “this formula adds solemnity to the prophetic announcement by pointing to its divine source. Indeed, it functions as a kind of verbal signature, placing the divine imprimatur upon the oral word.” 18 The formula functions within an oracle and has some potential as a structuring device therein; yet, one should be vigilant when interpreting it in this role due to its sometimes odd, even random, position within the oracle. It does not serve on a macro-level to structure the entire book, especially given its placement within oracles. Third, the hand of YHWH revelatory formula (Hand Yahwes Offenbarungsformel), or in Block’s terminology, the “divine coercion formula,” occurs seven times in the book of Ezekiel. 19 It is typically expressed as “The hand of YHWH was upon me” and occurs mainly within visionary experiences of the prophet (except Ezek 33:22 which harkens back possibly to a visionary experience the day before). 20 Like the previous formula, its occurrence within a particular genre limits its ability to structure an entire book. In addition, although it sometimes occurs at the beginning of a vision, it does not necessarily function to introduce or complete a vision (or any section of text). Fourth, the self-introduction formula (Selbstvorstellungsformel) is a short formula of two Hebrew words: ‘ani yhwh, “I am YHWH.” 21 Found frequently in Ezekiel, it is typically followed by an infinitive construct, a participle, or a perfect verb. 22 Its frequent occurrence in numerous literary 17

Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 33. Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 33. 19 Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 35. Those occurrences include Ezek 1:3; 3:14, 22; 8:1; 33:22; 37:1; 40:1. 20 J.J.M. Roberts, “The Hand of Yahweh,” VT 21 (1971): 244–51, argues that the ancient Near Eastern parallels point to the use of this phrase in relation to human illness. Therefore, “it is possible, then, that the expression, ‘hand of Yahweh,’ was applied to the prophetic phenomenon precisely because that phenomenon bore a remarkable similarity to the symptoms of human illness normally designated by the expression.” However, Roberts also provides the positive usages of this exact phrase (248n5). See also, Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 118. 21 For the definitive treatment of this formula, see Walther Zimmerli, “I Am Yahweh,” and “Knowledge of God According to the Book of Ezekiel,” in I am Yahweh (trans. D. W. Scott; Atlanta: John Knox, 1982): 1–98. 22 See Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 37, for a discussion of the possibilities. 18

84

Chapter Three: Structuring Ezekiel

contexts limits its use as a structuring device. In fact, it seems to have more of a theological purpose than a purely literary one. Fifth, the divine-recognition formula is simply an expansion of the selfintroduction formula, in which the verb “to know” is added. 23 In the third person (“And they will know that I am Yahweh”) it occurs 54 times; in the second person (“And you will know that I am Yahweh”) 18 times. In summary, the five formulas above perform important rhetorical roles within the book of Ezekiel. Some even help to structure various smaller units of text such as oracles or visions. However, none of them participate in the macrostructure of the book.

3.3. Chronological Statements as Primary Structural Markers Previous scholarship has noted the significance of the chronological statements within the book of Ezekiel for providing some aspect of structure for the work. For example, Childs notes “the backbone of the structure is provided by a chronological framework which extends throughout the book and joins the sections together.” 24 This structuring is, according to Childs, the result of later, canonical ordering within the book, but he is imprecise as to whether this process involved the prophet or later tradents. Thus, Childs clearly affirms the importance of the chronological formulas in providing coherence to the book. Similarly, Block notes how the dates attached to certain oracles provide a “chronological framework” for Ezekiel’s ministry. 25 This observation, however, pertains more to the historical argument for dating the life and times of the prophet, less to the literary function of the date formulas within the book. Yet, Block does hint at the possible literary goal of the formulas in his use of the term framework. So, both Childs and Block understand the way in which the chronological formulas provide a sense of progress through time as one reads the book, even as Childs stresses their literary role and Block their diachronic role. According to these two commentators, by noting the passing of time, the formulas serve the limited purpose of framing the book, of binding the book together. Neither scholar uses the chronological formulas fully to divide the book into literary units. Wilson, on the other hand, sees the dates as both literary features and structuring devices within the book. Nevertheless, they are not the only structuring devices, and it is unclear how they work with the other two de23

Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 37. Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 365. 25 Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 26. 24

3.3. Chronological Statements as Primary Structural Markers

85

vices he suggests, given that he never proffers a complete structure for the book. 26 Furthermore, he does not provide criteria by which to prioritize the various structures within the book, preferring that they stand independently of each other in apparent tension. In the end, he is unwilling to use the chronological formulas as the primary indicators of structure within Ezekiel. Blenkinsopp likewise mentions, almost in passing, that the date formulas serve as a structural feature. 27 He does not elaborate on how the formulas accomplish this task – is it more like a framework, similar to Childs and Block? Finally, Darr notes the dates occupying certain oracles contribute to the “reader’s sense of its coherence.” 28 Here she seems to follow Childs in her assessment of the formulas: their repetition throughout the book provides coherence and a sense of historical movement. All of the above scholars note the importance of the chronological formulas; yet, they are unable to specify the way in which the formulas function within the text, i.e., their role with regard to the book as a whole. Building on these insights, this chapter section argues that the chronological formulas are the primary structuring devices for the book of Ezekiel. They create the structure for the book by beginning each of the thirteen book sections. The formulas bring not only a sense of cohesion to the prophetic book, not only a general chronological framework for the text; they provide the first level of structure in their division of the book into literary units. The formulas function as consistent literary markers found throughout the text. They are intended to mark the time of all the oracles or other narrative material that occurs between any two chronological formulas. They serve the literary roles of structuring the book, providing cohesion to a reading of the whole book, and marking the progression of time within the book. 29 In order to argue this thesis, one must address many complex interpretive issues regarding the chronological formulas. Therefore, the section divides into two parts. The first section addresses the pertinent issues of the formulas taken as a whole. The second part deals with each individual formula in detail.

26

Robert R. Wilson, “Ezekiel,” in The HarperCollins Bible Commentary (rev. ed.; San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2000), 586–7. 27 Joseph Blenkinsopp, Ezekiel (Interpretation; Louisville: John Knox, 1990), 3. 28 Katheryn Pfisterer Darr, “The Book of Ezekiel: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible (Nashville: Abingdon, 2001), 6:1089. 29 For an assessment of all the date formulas in Ezekiel with regard to their historical accuracy and relation to other dating systems found in Jeremiah and Kings, see Ernst Kutsch, Die Chronologischen Daten des Ezechielbuches (OBO; Fribourg: Editions Universitaries; Göttingen: Vandenboeck & Ruprecht, 1985).

86

Chapter Three: Structuring Ezekiel

3.3.1. Chronological Statements in General This section provides general information regarding the chronological formulas’ placement within the text, their common features as a fixed formula, their function within the context, their sequence, and more. This section aims to be rather comprehensive in its treatment of the material, while demonstrating all along their function as structural devices. 3.3.1.1. Placement in Book Chronological formulas occur in 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. 30 Other references to dates and time appear in the book, but they do not constitute a formula as outlined in the following section. Thus, the book (and hence the first vision) begins with a chronological formula and the last vision of the book (generally considered the last book unit) begins with another chronological formula. This literary phenomenon helps the reader appreciate the importance of the formulas for the remainder of the book. Unlike some other prophetic books, which begin with an independent superscription, Ezekiel commences with a narrative, which immediately provides a precise date – the year, the month, the day. 31 This date notice instantly supplies historical and literary context insofar as the marker specifies an exact day in the past as the historical setting for this unit, and the marker unites the unit literarily in its portrayal of all the following events on that particular day. Unfortunately, scholars have focused their comments on the date’s function as an historical marker (e.g., What precisely is the correct year in question? What was happening historically in the Ancient Near East during that month and year?). Few have paid attention to the way in which this initial date serves an important literary function within the book. The first date in Ezek 1:1 signals the beginning of the first unit and attaches a literary setting, which happens to be tied to a specific date in history, to the material found thereafter. According to the timeline of the book, all the events between any two date formulas occur together in time. There is never any indication within the book that time has moved on between the specific date formulas with the exception of Ezek 3:16, as dis30 Astute readers will notice that other occurrences of time are found in the book. For example, Ezek 3:16 begins “At the end of seven days . . . .” However, this is not a chronological formula in that it differs drastically from the standard form so much so that it cannot even be considered an abbreviated version of the formula. It may be referred to more simply as a date reference just as in Ezek 3:15, which notes that the prophet sat for seven days. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 9, concurs, although with differing terminology: “it is not reckoned among the independent date references.” 31 Such a level of specification is rare in prophetic literature.

3.3. Chronological Statements as Primary Structural Markers

87

cussed above. One can debate whether a historical prophet such as Ezekiel could conceivably receive multiple visions or oracles on a single day in the sixth century B.C.E., or whether the various oracles stem ultimately from different time periods, but the book of Ezekiel makes the literary claim that the units have a common date. While the way in which the book begins and ends clues the reader into the use of the chronological formulas, their sustained use and placement throughout the book also guides the reader through a coherent reading of the whole piece of literature. The formulas do not group together within one particular section of the book; for example, all of the chronological formulas do not occur in the first half of the book or only in the oracles concerning judgment. They do not correlate to a particular genre or a certain section of the book. Instead, one finds the chronological formulas spread rather evenly throughout the book. Admittedly, the formulas do not create perfectly uniform literary units with regard to size: some of the units do not span an entire chapter, while some encompass multiple chapters. Yet, the formulas occur consistently within the book. This consistency provides the first indication for taking them seriously as structural devices. 3.3.1.2. The Formulas’ Parts Now that I have established the formulas’ position within the book of Ezekiel, it is important to note how precisely the formula appears in each of its 13 renditions and to decide if the consistency warrants the use of the term formula. Three features are relevant to explore – how the formulas begin, how they end, and their basic composition – in order to establish the formula’s existence. First, the chronological formulas are a part of the larger narrative of the book; they do not stand apart from the remainder of the book or unit. In fact, the chronological formulas of Ezekiel (including Ezek 1:1) typically begin with yhyw, an imperfect verb, used frequently in narrative literature. Other biblical books that begin with yhyw include Joshua, Judges, I and II Samuel, Jonah, Ruth, and Esther – all of which are fundamentally narratives. 32 Likewise, Ezekiel is presented as a narrative. For whatever reason, two of the chronological formulas (Ezek 29:1 and 40:1) do not have the initial imperfect verb, yet they participate still in the narrative of their context. Next, the concluding, transitional element that bridges the chronological formula to the rest of the ensuing narrative occurs typically with the last

32

See Edgar W. Conrad, Reading the Latter Prophets: Toward a New Canonical Criticism (JSOTSup 376; New York: T&T Clark International, 2003), 63–91, 161–181.

88

Chapter Three: Structuring Ezekiel

word of the formula itself, #dxl. 33 This word, meaning of the month, serves as the standard conclusion of the formula for wholly practical reasons since the last part of the chronological formula gives the day of the month. Thus, both the beginning and ending of the formula are fairly standard across all occurrences in the book. There are four basic parts to the chronological formula in Ezekiel. First, the imperfect verb yhyw occurs in 11 of the 13 formulas, making it a typical beginning element of the form. Second, the year is given in two alternative ways: a) b + year # + hn# b) b + hn# + year #.

or

The former rendering (a) is the most common and is found in Ezek 1:1, 26:1, 29:17, 30:20, 31:1, 32:1, 32:17, 33:21, and 40:1. The latter (b) occurs four times: Ezek 8:1, 20:1, 24:1, and 29:1. The different forms do not appear to represent a meaningful difference in meaning; they simply signify a variance in form. Third, the month is given in three basic forms: a) b + month # or b) b + #dx + month # or c) b + month # + #dx.

The first way (a), with the Hebrew word for month implied, is the most common, found in Ezek 1:1, 8:1, 20:1, 29:1, 29:17, 30:20, 31:1, and 33:21. Thus, the lack of the explicit use of the word month is tolerated within constructions of time in biblical Hebrew. The second form (b) occurs only in Ezek 24:1, while the third form (c) occurs only in Ezek 32:1. In these two instances, the word month is overtly expressed, although without any apparent reason. Finally, no month is given in three formulas: Ezek 26:1, 32:17, 40:1. Fourth, the day is given in only one form: b + day # + #dxl.

These four parts make up the basic form of the chronological formula. As noted above, however, some parts of the formula are missing in different appearances throughout the book. For example, Ezek 29:1 and 40:1 are missing part one, the imperfect verb. Ezekiel 26:1, 32:17, 40:1 are missing part three, the month. Two of these three instances are easily explained. In Ezek 32:17, the month is probably assumed to be the same as the previous month listed in Ezek 32:1 since the year did not change. In Ezek 40:1, the month is not listed because the text plainly says “at the beginning of the year.” This could, of course, refer to the first month of the 33

Ezek 33:21a adds wntwlgl after #dxl. Ezekiel 40:1 has an extended formula which adds “in the fourteenth year after the city was struck down, on that very day” after #dxl.

3.3. Chronological Statements as Primary Structural Markers

89

year or to a New Year’s festival that occurs in the seventh month on the tenth day (Ezek 40:1 mentions the tenth day). Thus, variation exists within the above five formulas but only to a slight degree. There are also excessive parts in a couple of instances. Ezekiel 33:21 adds wntwlgl “of our exile” to the end of the chronological formula. Ezekiel 40:1 is an extended chronological formula in three ways: a) wntwlgl “of our exile” is added after the year #, b) instead of the month #, it reads “at the beginning of the year”, c) adds “in the fourteenth year after the city was struck down, on that very day” after the standard chronological formula.

The first addition to Ezek 40:1 is equivalent to the addition in Ezek 33:21, as shown at the beginning of this paragraph. It reiterates the reference marker for all the chronological formulas as the Babylonian exile; it perhaps also plays a further literary role within each unit since a reference to the exile may help strengthen the message that follows. The second excessive part in Ezek 40:1, i.e., the lack of a month, is noted above in this section and seems insignificant since two other chronological formulas also lack a month. The last addition to Ezek 40:1 is a rather striking deviation from the other formulas and lengthens the typically short formula considerably. Scholars such as Tuell have noted the double date here and in Ezek 1:1–3 with the implication that some sort of literary bookend or connection is created. 34 The expansion of the formula to include a reference to the fall of Jerusalem is also especially pertinent to the literary unit that follows, in which a new temple is envisioned. The narrative quality of these chronological formulas must be emphasized insofar as the formula is connected to both the subsequent, larger narrative and the immediate sentence in which it is a part. The formula does not stand alone as a complete sentence or title in Ezekiel; instead, it functions as a subordinate clause that only introduces the Hebrew sentence by supplying the reference to time. A similar technique is used in English, as, for example, “On Monday night, January 5, I went to the theater.” In this short sentence, the date provided would not be considered a title or an entity that stands outside the sentence. Likewise, the chronological formula in Ezekiel does not stand apart from its literary unit in any significant way, as a header or section title might. Rather, it is embedded within the unit – at the beginning – in order to mark a separation within the text. Finally, the consistency within all the occurrences of these date references demonstrates clearly their function as a formula. The formula appears as a reasonably fixed expression within the book that marks time precisely to the day. In addition, the date reference in Ezek 3:16 is not con34

Steven Tuell, Ezekiel (NIBC; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2009), 283.

90

Chapter Three: Structuring Ezekiel

sidered a chronological formula because it does not contain the basic parts. This distinction is important for structuring the book since it is the formulas that provide the primary structure, not just the references to time. 35 3.3.1.3. Chronological Sequence The chronological formulas mainly follow a chronological sequence beginning in Ezek 1:1 in Ezekiel’s thirtieth year, which in verse 2 is noted as the fifth year of King Jehoiachin’s exile (593/92 B.C.E.), and ending in Ezek 40:1 in the twenty-fifth year of the exile. Thus, the book clearly demonstrates a progression of time of 20 years as the reader moves through the formulas. The sequencing of these 13 formulas also demonstrates a steady march through the first quarter of the sixth century B.C.E., with a few exceptions. The book in its literary presentation does not assume an ahistorical approach to Ezekiel’s prophetic task (i.e., Ezekiel prophesied all these things at once). One is not left to wonder about the historical parameters of the prophet’s work, nor compelled to view the book as “flat” historically, as presenting a set of texts without delineation of their historical timeframe. In other words, the book does not record the details of the prophet’s visions and oracles as if the timing of those events does not matter. In fact, exactly the opposite is true: the chronological formulas demonstrate that the dating of each unit within the overall sequence is a salient feature of the book. The steady sequence, covering 20 years, from Ezek 1:1 to 40:1, functions, at the very least, as a literary device to aid in reading the book in an orderly way. Yet, the sequence is not as perfect as one may think upon first glance at the formulas of Ezek 1:1 and 40:1 for one should not miss the detail that the first two oracles concerning Egypt (Ezek 29:1–16 and 29:17–30:19) are out of place sequentially. This, of course, does not invalidate the use of the formulas as structural devices or literary features, and it does little to prevent the overwhelmingly time-oriented nature of the prophetic book; it does, however, disrupt the historical flow of the book, as should be properly noted. In fact, for a book that is so well designed, with so much literary cohesion and unity, it is surprising indeed to find some of the units out of order chronologically. Two dates in particular are peculiar within the book. Ezekiel 29:1 dates to the tenth year of the exile, which is earlier in time than a reference to the eleventh year in Ezek 26:1. Thus, a reader first feels the chronological disruption in the sequence at Ezek 29:1 with a jump backward in time of a few months. Ezekiel 29:1 also corresponds to a topical/content shift from 35

Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 9, concurs with this assessment.

3.3. Chronological Statements as Primary Structural Markers

91

oracles concerning Tyre, Sidon, and Israel in Ezek 26–28 to oracles concerning the Egyptian Pharaoh in Ezek 29:1–16. This last unit is followed immediately by several, additional oracles concerning Egypt, leading scholars such as Greenberg to posit a possible movement of the Egyptian oracles “en bloc” to this particular place in order to gather together all the oracles related to Egypt. 36 Others have suggested that the problem lies instead with the chronological formula in Ezek 26:1, which can be viewed as the misplaced, out-of-sequence date. 37 In other words, diachronic approaches sometimes frame the problem in terms of Ezek 26:1 jumping ahead in the timeline, not Ezek 29:1 going back in time. It should be noted, however, that the disruption from a literary point of view occurs at Ezek 29:1. In addition, Ezek 29:17 provides the latest date in the book, the twentyseventh year of the exile, which is two years after the final date given in Ezek 40:1. This date represents the most radical departure from the chronological sequence in that it stands outside the time frame imagined by Ezek 1:1 and 40:1. This detail has, of course, only helped scholars view the passage as an appendix 38 or the date as a later modification. 39 These suggestions are both diachronic solutions to the issue, however, and do not resolve the literary problem of reading the book in sequence. For my purposes at this point, it is simply necessary to note the disruption in the sequence and to stress its exceptional nature; the majority of dates are ordered chronologically and span 20 years. The sequence of dating also reveals an interesting suggestion concerning Ezekiel’s time of ministry and his background as a priest. The first date reference in the book is equivalent to 593 B.C.E. and the last is 573 B.C.E., a twenty year span that strikingly corresponds to the levitical priests’ length of service (Num 4:3, 23, 30). 40 Furthermore, the first date mentions the thirtieth year, which possibly specifies Ezekiel’s age at the time of his first vision, corresponding to the year the Levites begin service. 41 Ezekiel was certainly not a levitical priest, but a priest in the line of 36

Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37 (AB 22A; New York: Doubleday, 1997), 613. Tuell, Ezekiel, 178, ascribes the formula in Ezek 26:1, along with the one in Ezek 1:2, to the final editor of the book since both do not contain a reference to the month. 38 G. A. Cooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1936), 328. 39 Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 616–17. 40 Numbers 8:23–25 notes however that the Levites commence their service at age twenty-five. 41 For the proposal that the thirtieth year refers to Ezekiel’s age, see Otto Eissfeldt, Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Tübingen: Mohr, 1934), 412; Karl Budde, “Zum Eingang des Buches Ezechiel,” JBL 50 (1931): 20–41; S. G. Taylor, “A Reconsideration of the ‘Thirtieth Year’ in Ezekiel 1:1,” Tyndale Bulletin 17 (1966): 119–20; James E. Mil37

92

Chapter Three: Structuring Ezekiel

Zadok, so one cannot speculate too much on this issue. The biblical tradition does not relay any specifics concerning the Zadokite tradition of priestly service with regard to initial age of service. Sweeney is more confident in making this connection: “it would appear that Ezekiel’s active career as a visionary prophet coincides with the time and ages of the active career of a Levitical priest.” 42 In the end, both Miller and Odell view the reference to a thirtieth year as a part of a “larger autobiographical structuring of the book.” 43 The chronological sequence of the formulas strengthens the argument for their use as structural devices since a structure does more than divide a work into sections; it also sets the various sections in relationship with each other. In other words, a good structure provides more than a table of contents for a given text; it demonstrates how the various pieces of the text fit together in a coherent fashion. The chronological formulas of Ezekiel accomplish this task well by noting how the days, months, and years pass for each new section of text. One notices the movement of time with each new literary section. 3.3.1.4. Exile of King Jehoiachin as Reference Point in Formulas All of Ezekiel’s chronological formulas share an implied, common element: the exile of King Jehoiachin of Judah to Babylon. This event, occurring historically in 597 B.C.E., is mentioned explicitly in Ezek 1:2 and obviously has significance – theologically, historically, and literarily – for the entire book. In fact, every declaration of a date, every occurrence of a chronological formula, engenders thoughts of exile and the exact number of years since the first deportation into exile. Petersen suggests that the date of the king’s exile corresponds to the date of Ezekiel’s own exile. 44 There is textual support for this suggestion in Ezek 33:21 and 40:1 where the year is reckoned according to “our exile” as noted above. This phraseology, along with the general tone and setting ler, “The Thirtieth Year of Ezekiel 1:1,” RB 99 (1992): 499–503; Tuell, Ezekiel, 9, 18– 19. For other proposals, see Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 113–114; Anthony D. York, “Ezekiel I: Inaugural and Restoration Visions?” VT 27 (1977): 82–98. 42 Marvin A. Sweeney, Ezekiel: Zadokite Priest and Visionary Prophet of the Exile (Occasional Papers 41; Claremont: Institute for Antiquity and Christianity, 2001), 8. 43 Margaret S. Odell, “You Are What You Eat: Ezekiel and the Scroll,” JBL 117 (1998): 239; Miller, “The Thirtieth Year,” 499–503. 44 David L. Petersen, The Prophetic Literature: An Introduction (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 141. In fact, given both that the king is only mentioned in Ezek 1:2 and this is generally considered a later editorial addition, it is tempting to suggest (from a diachronic perspective) that the original reference point for all the dates in the book is Ezekiel’s own exile (which does indeed correspond to the king’s), but this was later changed subtly to reflect the king’s exile.

3.3. Chronological Statements as Primary Structural Markers

93

of the whole book, demonstrates that Ezekiel, the prophet, is also in exile, and, as a priest (a high ranking leader), was probably deported from Judah at the same time as the reigning king. Yet, King Jehoiachin is mentioned only in the explanatory note of Ezek 1:2, which relates the date given in Ezek 1:1 to the king’s exile. It appears that the thirtieth year for Ezekiel (in Ezek 1:1) – no matter how one reads its referent – corresponds to the fifth year of the king’s exile. From that point on in the book, every other year is reckoned according to the king’s (and Ezekiel’s) exile. The use of the exiled king as a chronological marker certainly points toward a book written from the perspective of the exiles. After all, the people of Judah have a new ruler, Zedekiah, but he is not mentioned in the book of Ezekiel. Time in Ezekiel is directly related to, and measured according to, the first deportation to Babylon of the reigning king and other important figures. Petersen takes this observation a step further to argue that dating the book according to the king of Judah, Jehoiachin, served to differentiate Ezekiel and the exiles from those who stayed behind. 45 On the other hand, it is possible to de-emphasize the use of King Jehoichin as a marker within the book and instead understand the pivotal marker as Ezekiel’s own deportation to Babylon. This reading takes seriously the two references to “our exile” and devalues the explanatory remark in Ezek 1:2 concerning the king. Thus, the reader emphasizes the exilic context of the prophet’s work. Either way, the date around which all the other chronological formulas align is the first deportation to Babylon. This sort of common reference point for all the chronological formulas again unites them as a literary feature within the book. They point to a specific event in the past that is used both to highlight the importance of that initial event and the amount of time that has transpired since that event’s occurrence. 3.3.1.5. Macro-Genre Considerations It is important to examine the genre patterns within the book of Ezekiel especially with regard to the chronological formulas and their demarcation of the literary units. By this statement, I mean simply that one should focus on what macro-genres occur within the units in order to see if a discernible pattern is present. If one can establish a certain rhythm to each literary unit, a certain way in which they all unfold, then their existence as literary units becomes more certain. This is, of course, not to say that each literary unit should be expected to conform to a strict blueprint of various genres, e.g., every unit must have two oracles followed by three visions. This type 45

Petersen, Prophetic Literature, 141.

94

Chapter Three: Structuring Ezekiel

of rigid expectation is unrealistic even within a methodical book such as Ezekiel. Indeed, one can demonstrate a reliable pattern of macro-genres within each literary unit of Ezekiel. The chronological formulas, as noted above, are part of a narrative thread within Ezekiel. This prophetic book is shaped from the beginning as a narrative work (not unlike other biblical books such as Ruth or Judges). Each occurrence of the chronological formula contributes to this defining characteristic. Each new literary unit within the book of Ezekiel begins with a chronological formula and hence a narrative. This narrative material can be quite long (e.g., the visions in Ezek 1:1–3:15; 8:1–11:25; and 40:1–48:35), very brief (e.g., Ezek 20:1), or a paragraph (e.g., Ezek 33:21–22). The narrative can contain only the date, or additional information such as an entire vision or other relevant information such as the announcement of the fall of Jerusalem (Ezek 33:21–22). For example, Ezek 8:1 begins with a chronological formula, which establishes a new literary unit within the book, and continues with a narrative that reports a vision that Ezekiel experiences while sitting in his house with the elders of Judah. This vision (or visions) continues for four chapters until the end of Ezek 11. All of this material is – at the macro-genre level – narrative. So, in many respects, the book of Ezekiel can be viewed as one long narrative that is subdivided into 13 smaller narratives. Following the narrative material within each literary unit, oracle(s) occur. The number of oracles differs according to each unit, with some of the shorter units having only one oracle. For example, the literary unit Ezek 20–23 has nine oracles, while Ezek 24–25 has three oracles. Each of these oracles is introduced by the standard prophetic word formula, “The word of the Lord came to me.” This specific formula not only introduces the genre but also serves as a subdivision within the literary unit. It does not begin a new literary unit altogether, only a new section. All of the oracles are embedded within the larger framework of the narrative material. Thus, the basic macro-genre pattern throughout the book is surprisingly consistent and simple: narrative followed by oracles. Every unit follows this pattern with the exception of the last one, Ezek 40–48. No prophetic word formulas (hence no oracles) occur within this literary unit. Instead, all nine chapters are narrative materials that present an elaborate vision. 46 So, in sum, the three great visions of the book – all set within a narrative context – begin with a chronological marker, yet the same cannot be said for the oracles since they occur later in every literary unit. However, the chronological formulas do not coincide with every vision in the book 46

Steven Tuell, The Law of the Temple in Ezekiel 40–48 (HSM 49; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), argues that embedded within this vision report is a law code.

3.3. Chronological Statements as Primary Structural Markers

95

of Ezekiel; Ezek 37 – The Vision of the Valley of Dry Bones – does not contain an introductory chronological formula because it is placed within the literary context of an oracle. In other words, the chronological formula does not signal the existence of a vision, only a narrative text of varying size. Furthermore, the chronological markers do not divide the text evenly, e.g., the largest unit is twelve chapters (Ezek 8–19), while the shortest contains seven verses (Ezek 30:20–26). The chronological formulas occur more frequently in the Oracles concerning the Nations, especially the oracles concerning Egypt. However, this increased frequency is difficult to explain. This section demonstrates how consistently each literary unit presents itself with regard to its macro-genres. This pattern lends support to the existence of these literary units within the text. 3.3.1.6. The Formulas’ Literary “Reach” within the Book One question seldom asked about the chronological formulas concerns their function in relation to the textual materials presented between the chronological markers. Asked more concretely: does Ezek 1:1–3 provide the literary/chronological setting for the content of chapters 1–7, that is, the content that follows until the next chronological formula in Ezek 8:1? Moreover, does Ezek 8:1 provide context for chapters 8–19 since the next chronological formula occurs in Ezek 20:1? Or does the chronological formula only apply to a shorter unit of text such as one oracle (Ezek 20:1– 44) or one vision? This is a question of the literary reach of each chronological formula, i.e., the extent to which the formula controls the literary setting and demarcation of each textual unit. Commentators do not generally address this question and its ramifications for an overall, literary interpretation of the book. There are several reasons for their oversight, including the basic assumption that the chronological formulas are of little interpretive importance given their editorial nature. Scholars treat the formulas as secondary to the real message of the book. Thus, their placement within the book and coverage of certain texts remains a low priority. Second, scholars often use other criteria for their division of the prophetic text so that the chronological formulas are not viewed as critical to this particular enterprise. Scholars apply the criterion of content in order to establish literary units, a criterion that lessens, unintentionally perhaps, the import of the formulas. For example, Hals, Greenberg, Odell, and Zimmerli do not read Ezek 8–19 as a literary unit. 47 Instead, Odell breaks these chapters into nine sections; Hals, 20 sections; 47

Hals, Ezekiel, 8; Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 164ff.; Odell, Ezekiel, 101ff.; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 215ff.;

96

Chapter Three: Structuring Ezekiel

Greenberg, 12 sections. Furthermore, these commentators generally treat chapters 8–11 as a literary unit, a decision that ignores the chronological markers of Ezek 8:1 and Ezek 20:1 and the prophet word formula in the middle of chapter 11 (verse 14). Third, scholars view the formulas as positioned randomly throughout the book in such a way as to be almost unintelligible. They do not look for an overall pattern to the chronological formulas and therefore do not see one. Wevers notes – in passing, without argumentation – that the dates only apply “to the section for which it was presumably originally intended rather than to all the materials which follow up to the next date.” 48 This observation is necessarily a diachronic one, and can hardly been proven since “originally intended” is too ambiguous a descriptor for this biblical text. In other words, how does one delineate the original intention of coverage for each chronological formula? Presumably, Wevers means that the date formula controls only the oracle or vision that immediately follows it; in this way his “originally intended” unit includes a single example of a genre. Kraetzschmar, Herrmann, and Cooke also address the issue and argue, in Cooke’s words, “the date in each case will be found to apply only to the narrative or discourse which immediately follows.” 49 In this case, a more precise demarcation of the literary reach of the date formula is provided; however, their argument is based largely on their assumption regarding each unit’s compositional date. For example, Cooke argues that Ezek 21 cannot be dated with Ezek 20 and its chronological formula because the former “represents the final catastrophe as near at hand.” 50 In other words, according to this line of thought, the date formulas do not apply to all the textual materials in-between each of their occurrences because some of that material was not written at the same time. Again, a diachronic criterion tries to solve a literary question. So, the question is not a compositional one, to be clear; it is not whether any one chronological formula from the beginning of its inscription stood at the beginning of an entire unit until the next chronological formula. There is probably not enough information within the book to determine this diachronic concern anyway. The central issue here concerns the present form of the book, and how the chronological formulas currently serve as division markers. As noted above, each literary unit within the book of Ezekiel begins with a chronological formula within a narrative framework and then moves 48

John W. Wevers, Ezekiel (NCBC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 2. Cooke, Ezekiel, xviii. See also Richard Kraetzschmar, Das Buch Ezekiel (HKAT; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1900); Johannes Herrmann, Ezechiel: übersetzt und erklärt (KAT; Leipzig: Deichert, 1924). 50 Cooke, Ezekiel, xviii. 49

3.3. Chronological Statements as Primary Structural Markers

97

into at least one oracle. The length of the narrative varies and the number of oracles varies, but the basic form exists within each unit. This consistency lends support to the contention that the chronological formulas are meant to establish the literary and chronological setting for the entire unit with its narrative and subsequent oracles. Sweeney, in his introductory volume on prophetic literature, uses only the chronological markers to determine the major units of the book of Ezekiel. 51 Furthermore, he discusses each of the units as a literary whole; however, due to the broader scope of his work, he is relegated to summarizing the contents of the units and not to providing a reading of the unit as a unit. This type of demarcation has the clear advantage of using literary features in order to arrive at a structure. If the primary literary feature of the book of Ezekiel is the chronological formula as it is found 13 times in the text, then the primary surface structure should follow directly from this; each formula creates a new literary unit, and that unit extends until the next chronological formula occurs. Likewise, the overall, literary function of the formulas supports their use as a framework for the book. In other words, the chronological formulas provide the setting for each literary unit because of their overall impact within the book. They have the ability to separate the units and the power to join the different units together. In effect, if the formulas only apply to their immediate oracle or vision, then their placement seems arbitrary and their function is questionable. Childs also argues that the chronological statements apply to all passages between their occurrences: “although it has often been remarked that the dates apply only to those passages explicitly recorded, the literary effect of the framework is clearly intended to include the other passages as well within the larger temporal pattern.” 52 This assessment seems to stem from Childs’s argument concerning the formulas as a means of coherence, as a backbone. 3.3.1.7. Formulas’ Relation to Historical Events Another question associated with the chronological formulas concerns their relation to historical events. This question does not relate directly to my literary concerns within this work. Therefore, the discussion is necessarily brief. The chronological formulas all date to the time of the Babylonian exile, demonstrating the centrality of this event for those taken captive during the first deportation from Judah in 597 B.C.E. The dates provided also make 51 Marvin A. Sweeney, The Prophetic Literature (IBT; Nashville: Abingdon, 2005), 131–2. 52 Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, 365.

98

Chapter Three: Structuring Ezekiel

sense as the actual dates of Ezekiel’s oracles; in other words, his visions concerning the temple, the impending punishment, etc. fit historically to the time period provided by the book. 53 The last date given in Ezek 40:1 also seems plausible as a date for the oracle, since the temple Ezekiel envisions in chapters 40–48 does not correspond to the actual Second Temple. It would have been difficult for later redactors to add these nine chapters to Ezekiel’s prophetic book, since it would have been in obvious tension with the Temple as it stood at that time. 54 The close proximity in time of the chronological formulas not only lends credence to their origin within the ministry of the prophet, but it also speaks to the purpose of the entire book. All of the dates occur during the Babylonian exile so that the book must be read from this unique perspective, as exilic literature. 3.3.1.8. Redactional Considerations Another major interpretive issue regarding the chronological formulas concerns their redactional history within the book. In other words, do the formulas come from the prophet himself, or are they the work of a later redactor? Again, this is a decidedly diachronic issue that is incidental to a literary reading of the text, but it does remain a valid question especially as one strives to discern how the current pattern of the book with its literary units based on formulas originated. Many scholars have argued for a redactional layer that contains the chronological formulas, including Hitzig, 55 Hölscher, 56 Torrey, 57 Berry, 58 and Buttenwieser. 59 These scholars represent the basic consensus of the early 20th century, a consensus that relied heavily on redaction critical understandings of the text. This consensus highlights well the problematic methodological assumption that redactional layers can be based on content alone. These scholars, with their Wellhausenian disdain for priestly minutiae such as dates, viewed the 13 date references as so similar in content 53 Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20 (AB 22; Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1983), 12–17. 54 Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 15; Contra Tuell, Ezekiel, 276–281. 55 F. Hitzig, Der Prophet Ezechiel Erklärt (Leipzig: Weidmann’sche Buchhandlung, 1847), x. 56 G. Hölscher, Hesekiel: Der Dichter und das Buch (BZAW 39; Gießen: Töpelmann, 1924), 108. 57 Charles Cutler Torrey, Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Original Prophecy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1930), 59. 58 G.R. Berry, “The Title of Ezekiel (1:1–3),” JBL 51 (1932): 54–57. 59 Moses Buttenwieser, “The Character and Date of Ezekiel’s Prophecies,” HUCA 7 (1930): 1–18.

3.3. Chronological Statements as Primary Structural Markers

99

that they must make up a redactional layer within the book. This assessment continues into the second half of the 20th century with the work of Garscha and Boadt. 60 More recently, scholars have begun to see the chronological formulas as original to the book. This argument was made quite early by Cooke 61 and followed by Rowley 62 and Howie. 63 Zimmerli concurred with this assessment and influenced heavily the prevailing consensus in his direction. 64 This study sets aside this discussion in order to ask an explicitly literary question concerning the structure of Ezekiel. Therefore, I take the final form of the book as the basis for my structure and not a reconstructed, hypothetical form. The question of whether or not the chronological formulas date back to the prophet Ezekiel is an important one, but it does not have relevance to the question of the structure of a prophetic book. 3.3.1.9. Why Use Chronological Formulas? Finally, a fundamental question concerning the chronological formulas: why does the book of Ezekiel employ these literary markers? Of all the potential ways of structuring a prophetic book, what are the advantages of introducing each literary unit with a chronological formula? First, Zimmerli posits that the notion of providing precise dates within the prophetic literature is a development within the tradition that authenticates the prophet’s message. 65 The prophetic literature during the time of the exile and afterwards contains a greater number of dates (e.g., Haggai) than pre-exilic prophetic literature, so Zimmerli views this time period as one of crisis for prophecy. Thus, the prophetic literature begins to use this convention to strengthen the individual prophet’s connection to historical settings. He argues that Ezekiel’s use of dates fits in well between Jeremiah’s use of chronology and Haggai and Zechariah’s use. He implies that the inclusion of dates became a standard convention for the exilic and postexilic time. It seems that, as prophetic literature changed over time, the authors became more interested in tying specific events to a certain time frame – either a specific year or an individual day. At least, this is the deduction one can 60 J. Garscha, Studien zum Ezechielbuch: Eine redaktionskritische Untersuchung von 1–39 (Europäische Hochschulschriften 23; Bern: Herbert Lang, 1974), 141–49; Boadt, “Ezekiel, Book of,” ABD 2: 712–13. 61 Cooke, Ezekiel, xvii-xx. 62 Rowley, “The book of Ezekiel,” 180. 63 Howie, Date and Composition, 29–46. 64 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 9–11, 112. 65 It is interesting to note here that, although Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 10, is not hesitant to identify secondary layers within the book, he concludes that “the dates of the book of Ezekiel deserve our basic confidence.”

100

Chapter Three: Structuring Ezekiel

make based on the limited prophetic corpus; the later prophetic books simply have more date formulas because of a new interest in this feature. Yet, this explanation carries remarkably little interpretive weight insofar as it simply notes the development within the literature without any theory as to why this progression takes place. Second, Odell suggests that the chronological formulas structure the book as a “prophetic diary” in order to “document the prophet’s words on particular occasions.” 66 This observation, although limited since the book of Ezekiel clearly has an intended audience outside of the prophet, highlights the importance of the dates for understanding Ezekiel’s message. Each oracle or vision is then tied to a specific time, even a specific month and day, in which the message was conveyed. 3.3.1.10. Summary The above discussion of the chronological formulas in Ezekiel argues that these literary markers provide the foremost divisions for the prophetic book and establish the surface structure. Several literary observations within the book support this thesis. First, to take a step back, a surface structure is based on literary features found at the surface of the text, not concepts or themes that one can discern as arising from the text. So, the best represented and most apparent literary features within Ezekiel are the formulas, and in particular, the chronological formulas. The formulaic nature of Ezekiel is indeed striking compared to other prophetic books. Upon further examination of these formulas, two especially stand out as structural devices. The chronological formulas establish the first level of structure within the book by noting the beginning of each new literary unit. The following characteristics of the chronological formulas confirm the above observation. First, the chronological formulas occur fairly frequently throughout the book and are spread out relatively evenly within it. Second, the use of a chronological marker to begin the book of Ezekiel notes the importance of the formula for this particular piece of literature. Third, the rather consistent chronological order of the formulas marks the progression of time that occurs as one reads through the book. Furthermore, the markers establish a twenty year span of priestly service for the prophet Ezekiel, a span that serves as the setting for the book. Fourth, the chronological markers set up a nice pattern within each new literary unit, a pattern that consists of a narrative followed by oracle(s). This pattern can be found in all the units, excepting Ezek 40–48, if one uses the chronological formulas as the beginning of a textual unit. 66

Margaret S. Odell, Ezekiel (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary; Macon, Ga.: Smyth & Helwys, 2005), 1.

3.3. Chronological Statements as Primary Structural Markers

101

3.3.2. Specific Chronological Statements This section of the chapter examines each individual chronological formula in order to provide a better understanding of its placement and function within the text. By incorporating some of the secondary literature contained within the commentaries into this section, I hope to demonstrate how infrequently commentators have discussed the placement of the formulas and their literary function. The commentaries typically provide only the historical date as it would appear in a contemporary calendar (e.g., August 591 B.C.E. in Ezek 20:1) and note if this date coincides with another historical event known from other biblical or Ancient Near Eastern literature. Some scholars wrestle with text-critical issues that arise from the formulas. Most authors ignore the literary role of the formula within the textual unit and/or book. 3.3.2.1. Ezekiel 1:1 “In the thirtieth year, in the fourth month, on the fifth day of the month. . . ” 67

It can hardly be stressed enough that a chronological statement commences the book of Ezekiel, for as Joyce aptly notes, “the way a book starts is important.” 68 Whereas some prophetic books begin with a genre designation (e.g., Nah, Hab) and most begin with reference to “the word of the Lord,” Ezekiel (along with Hag and Zech) begins with a chronological formula (with reference to “the word of the Lord” to follow in verse 3). Immediately, one understands that time is central to the general message of the book. Furthermore, the narrative nature of the book is readily apparent with the use of the imperfect verb as the first element of the formula. In fact, the book begins with the same narrative-framing verb as many narrative biblical books such as Ruth and Judges. Also, as Block notes, the opening of the book of Ezekiel differs from typical prophetic book’s beginnings in that the formula does not provide a “comprehensive heading” that contextualizes historically the entire book (e.g., Isa, Jer, Hos). 69 In other words, the book does not provide a single, introductory historical setting for the whole book; it also resists the temptation to title in some way the whole

67

Throughout this study, all translations from the book of Ezekiel are mine. Paul M. Joyce, Ezekiel: A Commentary (LHBOTS 482; New York: T&T Clark, 2007), 65. See also, Conrad, Reading the Latter Prophets, 65–69, for his assessment of the superscriptions and dates at the beginning of prophetic books. 69 Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 80. 68

102

Chapter Three: Structuring Ezekiel

book. 70 Instead, a chronological formula that functions to introduce only the first literary unit occurs. 71 The date given in Ezek 1:1 is immediately clarified in Ezek 1:2, which sets the vision in the fifth year of King Jehoiachin’s exile – a seminal reference point for all other dates within the book. This initial double dating raises several issues. First, to what does the thirtieth year in verse one refer? Could this potentially ambiguous reference be the reason a literary (and/or redactional) addendum is given in verse two? Second, is verse two, with its second date reference, a later addition to the text by an editor? And if so, how does it relate to the other dates found in the book since it more clearly aligns with them compared to verse one? In addition, setting aside the question of redactional layers, how does one read the two verses in their current literary form? Joyce reviews the three main proposals for the reference to thirtieth year and suggests that the “most natural interpretation” of this reference is the thirtieth year of the Babylonian exile. 72 This reading has the advantage of aligning with the other dates in the book even as it would represent the latest date in the book (568 B.C.E.). However, this interpretation has the significant disadvantage of creating a mismatch of dates at the beginning of the book since verse 1 would not be the same date as verse 2. 73 It portrays the final redactor as somehow ignorant of this glaring mistake at the beginning of the book and is therefore difficult to maintain. It is better to see the double dates as representing the same year especially since the dates now function in tandem, with verse 2 assuming the same month as verse 1. Therefore, it is necessary to see the thirtieth year as referring to Ezekiel’s age, an interpretation that dates back to Origen. 74 This interpretation also has the added weight of referring to the age at which an ancient Israelite man became a priest (at least a Levite one; Num 4:3; 1 Chr 23:3). 70 Contra Odell, Ezekiel, 14, who labels vv. 1–3 a superscription and argues for its function as an introduction to the book. 71 If one wishes to argue that v. 1 or vv. 1–3 somehow function as a heading or title for Ezekiel, then one must explain sufficiently how this particular chronological formula relates to the whole book. 72 Joyce, Ezekiel, 65. See also Georg Fohrer, Die Hauptprobleme des Buches Ezechiel (BZAW 72; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1952), 113–6. 73 J. Begrich, Die Chronologie der Könige von Israel und Juda, und die Quellen des Rahmens der Königsbücher (BHT 3; Tübingen: Mohr, 1929), 206f, argues that since the month and the day are the same in both dates, then the year must surely be the same as well. 74 Joyce, Ezekiel, 65. Supporters of this position include: Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 82; Blenkinsopp, Ezekiel, 16–17; Miller, “The Thirtieth Year,” 499–503; Odell, Ezekiel, 16. A third reference for the thirtieth year is Josiah’s reform in 623 B.C.E., which is the interpretation preferred by the Targum and Jerome. See Cooke, Ezekiel, 7, for a critique of this position and for more proposals.

3.3. Chronological Statements as Primary Structural Markers

103

It also aligns with the last date in the book in Ezek 40:1 to create a 20 year time span—the exact length of service set out for a priest. 75 This confluence of particulars creates a rather strong argument for the above interpretation. The second aforementioned question deals primarily with a redaction critical question. Wilson sees verses 2–3 as an “editorial comment” 76 as does Block 77 and others. This is mainly because of the switch from first person narrative in verse 1 to third person in verses 2–3. It is certainly true that third person narrative is exceedingly rare in the book, and Ezek 1:2–3 do appear to be a redactional element that further clarifies the date in verse 1 (not to mention that the verses provide the actual name of the prophet). In its current literary form, the double dates work together to specify the age of the prophet, and the time that has passed since the exile began. One clue that the chronological formulas do indeed cover all the material between each occurrence is found in this first unit, Ezek 1–7. Most scholars assume that the date refers to the vision as it is portrayed in chapter 1; however, in Ezek 3:15, one reads that Ezekiel sits among the exiles for seven days. Then, Ezek 3:16 announces that, after seven days, the word of the Lord comes to the prophet. This time reference is clearly in relationship to the original formula in Ezek 1:1. Furthermore, and perhaps more significantly, the remainder of the proposed unit, Ezek 1–7, does not mention a change in time. The sign acts and oracles that occur are portrayed as happening within the same time period. No literary marker exists to indicate change in time until Ezek 8:1. This lack of another literary marker occurs within all the proposed literary units. Each unit begins with a time designation, and that specific day is the setting for the entire unit. Scholars often find much significance literarily in the three “great” visions of Ezek 1, 8–11, and 40–48. For example, Joyce argues that all three begin with three key motifs: “the dating formula specific to the day; the phrase for expressing prophetic ecstasy, here ‘the hand of the Lord GOD fell upon me’. . . ; and also reference to ‘visions of God.’” 78 There is no doubt that these three textual passages are related; yet, the relationship lies in their shared genre, not in their function as literary structuring devices. The first of Joyce’s key motifs is found throughout the book a total of 13 times; the second and third motifs signal the visionary genre of the literature.

75

Sweeney, “Ezekiel: Zadokite Priest,” 8. Wilson, “Ezekiel,” 591. 77 Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 82. 78 Joyce, Ezekiel, 97. 76

104

Chapter Three: Structuring Ezekiel

The chronological formula in Ezek 1:1 commences and delineates the literary unit Ezek 1–7. This unit contains a narrative, Ezek 1:1–3:15, then a series of oracles beginning in Ezek 3:16 through chapter 7 as follows: I. Ezekiel’s Vision and Oracles Concerning His Call and Message to Israel A. Narrative concerning vision of divine glory B. Oracle concerning watchman, siege of Jerusalem C. Oracle to prophesy against the mountains of Israel D. Oracle proclaiming the end of the land of Israel

1–7 1:1–3:15 3:16–5:17 6:1–14 7:1–27

Thus, the narrative is marked at the beginning by a chronological formula. Each of the three oracles is then marked at the beginning by a prophetic word formula. This pattern of a narrative portion of text followed by a series of oracles (or at least one oracle) is found in almost every literary unit within the book, lending major support to the use of these chronological formulas and prophetic word formulas as structural devices. 3.3.2.2. Ezekiel 8:1 “In the sixth year, in the sixth month, on the fifth day of the month. . . ”

First, a text critical issue warrants discussion briefly. The Old Greek reads “fifth month” instead of MT’s “sixth month.” 79 Block suggests the OG reading is due to the influence of the fifth day; in other words, perhaps the translator read the wrong number with regard to the month. 80 Zimmerli calls the OG variation “obscure” and provides no rationale for it. 81 It is difficult to say more with confidence about this variant in the text. Cooke assesses scholarly attempts to match the date of Ezek 8:1 with the date of Ezek 1:1 by counting the time passed in Ezek 3:16 and in the sign acts of chapter 4, since, in assuming that all these events happened somewhat sequentially, Ezekiel’s vision of Ezek 8–11 must have occurred during one of his previously recorded sign acts. However, this overly literal rendering of the text misses the point of the unit. 82 In fact, this problem on an historical level – although Ezekiel conceivably could have had the vision while still lying on his side – in fact bolsters an argument for a primarily literary, not diachronic, function of the chronological statements. It is true that a little over a year has elapsed since the formula of Ezek 1:1, but more importantly a new literary unit is beginning with Ezek 8:1, marked by a different time period. 79

For a fuller discussion of the history of scholarship on this text critical issue, see Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 216; Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 166. 80 Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 276n13. 81 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 216. 82 Cooke, Ezekiel, 89. Note also Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 166, who also worries about getting the historical relationship between Ezek 1:1 and 8:1 correct.

3.3. Chronological Statements as Primary Structural Markers

105

Most scholars assume the date refers only to the vision in chapters 8– 11; however, chapter 12 does not signal in any way a new date or time period. Instead, the literary unit follows the same form as Ezek 1–7. There is a narrative introduction including the vision of Ezek 8–11, then a sequence of visions in 12–19. This pattern creates the largest literary unit within the book, 12 chapters in length. So, the book commences with two similar literary units in chapters 1–19. The literary unit, Ezek 8–19, contains an introductory narrative that narrates Ezekiel’s great vision and then a series of 14 oracles as follows: II. Ezekiel’s Visions and Oracles Concerning God’s Departure from Jerusalem 8–19 A. Narrative concerning vision of Jerusalem and the Deity’s departure 8:1–11:13 B. Oracle of promise 11:14–25 C. Oracle concerning preparing baggage for exile 12:1–7 D. Oracle concerning interpretation of baggage for exile 12:8–16 E. Oracle concerning eating and drinking with anxiety 12:17–20 F. Oracle concerning a proverb 12:21–25 G. Oracle concerning the immediacy of God’s words 12:26–28 H. Oracle concerning false prophets 13:1–23 I. Oracle concerning elders’ idols 14:1–11 J. Oracle concerning judgment against Jerusalem 14:12–23 K. Oracle concerning Jerusalem like a vine given to the fire 15:1–8 L. Oracle concerning Jerusalem’s unfaithfulness 16:1–63 M. Oracle concerning the riddle of two eagles and a vine 17:1–10 N. Oracle concerning Jerusalem’s king’s [Zedekiah] rebellion 17:11–24 O. Oracle concerning individual judgment and the princes of Israel 18:1–19:14

The narrative is marked at its beginning with a chronological formula. Each of the succeeding oracles is then marked at the beginning with a prophetic word formula. This is the exact same literary pattern as the previous literary unit, Ezek 1–7. 3.3.2.3. Ezekiel 20:1 “In the seventh year, in the fifth month, on the tenth day of the month. . . ”

Beginning with this chronological formula, one can sense modern commentators’ impatience with the apparently lackluster references to dates in the book of Ezekiel. For example, Cooke barely provides the date here, much less a discussion of its literary (or historical!) significance. 83 Greenberg notes simply, and without further exploration, that the date is exactly five years before the burning of Jerusalem as reported in Jer 52:12. 84 Odell 83

Cooke, Ezekiel, 214. Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 363. Diachronic concerns compel even Greenberg to find a significant historical event for this date. But, if this date does correspond to the city’s forthcoming burning, why? 84

106

Chapter Three: Structuring Ezekiel

discusses the possible historical setting of this date, including its relation to international events at the time. 85 The point is thus: the chronological formulas become increasingly less useful to contemporary scholars as they work through the book; their literary role is almost completely ignored, and their function as it relates to history diminishes as well. Block, however, correctly notes this formula’s literary function: it signifies the beginning of a new literary unit. 86 This use of the formula does not negate its obvious historical setting, but it does highlight another equally important aspect of the verse. By placing a chronological formula at Ezek 20:1, the author designates the beginning of a new literary unit that spans four chapters. In effect, the formula binds these four chapters together and demands that they be read together; similarly, the formula instructs the reader to separate chapters 19 and 20 sharply. Most commentators note in passing that the date is 11 months since the date in Ezek 8:1. 87 Other scholars simply provide, as noted above, the historical date, August 14, 591 B.C.E., with a possible reference to the fall of Jerusalem five years later. 88 This leads to the question of the historical significance of the dates within the books. Are these dates, as provided by the book, supposed to correlate to important historical moments in the life of the exiles or those in Judah or any ancient Near Eastern people? Are they carefully chosen by Ezekiel because of their relevance to another event? Or are the dates chosen by the prophet because they are the dates on which certain events happened to him? In other words, do the dates have extrinsic value to the prophet or intrinsic value? It appears on the whole to be the latter, which in turn supports their function as a literary marker, since it downplays somewhat their historical significance. Scholars labor to find the extrinsic value of the formulas without noting their literary value. Ezekiel 20:1, with its chronological formula, sets the parameters for the literary unit, Ezek 20–23. This unit begins with a short narrative and then a series of oracles follows. This pattern is by now familiar, although one should note the shorter nature of the initial narrative in comparison to the previous two sections. III. Ezekiel’s Oracles Concerning Judgment and Promise for Israel A. Narrative concerning elders’ consultation B. Oracle concerning God’s history with and promise for Israel

85

20–23 20:1 20:2–44

Odell, Ezekiel, 248. Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 611. 87 Cooke, Ezekiel, 214; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 406. 88 Joyce, Ezekiel, 149; Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 363. Odell, Ezekiel, 248, argues that the correspondence between this date and the fall of Jerusalem would have been significant for the “second generation of exiles, who see in retrospect that the rebellion of Zedekiah eventuated in the destruction of Jerusalem.” This is most likely true. 86

3.3. Chronological Statements as Primary Structural Markers C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J.

Oracle concerning the Negev Oracle concerning judgment against Israel with sword Oracle concerning judgment with sword Oracle concerning king of Babylon as instrument of judgment Oracle concerning Israel’s disobedience Oracle concerning melting of Israel as dross Oracle concerning Israel’s bad leadership Oracle concerning Oholah and Oholibah’s unfaithfulness

107

21:1–5 21:6–12 21:13–22 21:23–37 22:1–16 22:17–22 22:23–31 23:1–49

This structure is based on the chronological formula, which begins the narrative portion of the unit at the beginning, and the series of nine prophetic word formulas, which designate unmistakably the nine oracles. This is the established literary pattern of the book as I have demonstrated in the previous two units. 3.3.2.4. Ezekiel 24:1 “In the ninth year, in the tenth month, on the tenth day of the month. . . ”

Zimmerli dates this historical marker to January 15, 588 B.C.E. and notes its significance as it precisely dates the beginning of the siege of Jerusalem. 89 Furthermore, it corresponds to the date of the event as given in 2 Kgs 25:1 and Jer 52:4. Zimmerli argues that this correspondence is no coincidence because Ezekiel is dependent upon the date in 2 Kgs, including the way in which the date is formulated. 90 While this issue of intertextuality (and the direction of the dependence) is important, it does not address adequately the formula’s current function within the book of Ezekiel. Instead, it speaks fittingly to the issue mentioned in the section immediately above concerning the extrinsic or intrinsic value of the dates to Ezekiel. In Ezek 24:1, the book has included an important date that was obviously well-known in the ancient world of Judah. In fact, this noteworthy date is emphasized within the text in verse 2 when Ezekiel is commanded to “write down the name of the day, this very day.” Odell notes the thrice repetition of the word day within this passage and its function as an element of emphasis. 91 Thus, it is without doubt a significant date in the life of the community. However, it is also vital to the literary shape and message of the book. As a chronological formula, it marks the beginning of a new literary unit, a unit that must speak de facto to this seminal issue of the fall of Jerusalem. The message of Ezek 24–25 must be read with this literary setting of Ezek 24:1 in mind. These two chapters must take seriously the magnitude of the literary setting. 89

Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 498. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 498. 91 Odell, Ezekiel, 311. 90

108

Chapter Three: Structuring Ezekiel

As noted in the above paragraph, the formulation of this particular date is unique within the book. Whereas most dates occur at the very beginning of the verse and the new unit, this formulation has the prophetic word formula first with the chronological formula following. The literary consequences of this rearrangement are rarely discussed, although Block suggests that the current arrangement “intentionally highlights the timing of the prophetic event by inserting the date notice into the word-event formula [prophetic word formula].” 92 Indeed, the inversion of the typical order demonstrates well the special nature of this date and this unit. The chronological formula is Ezek 24:1 begins the literary unit, Ezek 24–25, an unusual unit in terms of content, but one that follows the same pattern as outlined above – a narrative followed by oracles. IV. Ezekiel’s Oracles Concerning the Siege of Jerusalem A. Narrative concerning the date B. Oracle concerning allegory of boiling pot C. Oracle concerning death of Ezekiel’s wife D. Oracle concerning Ammon, Moab, Edom, and Philistia

24–25 24:1a 24:1b-14 24:15–27 25:1–17

This structure uses the chronological formula at the beginning of the unit to demarcate the narrative, while the three occurrences of the prophetic word formula signal the series of three oracles. The literary pattern, as established in the three previous units, involves a much shorter narrative in this unit; the first two literary units of the book contained longer narratives, while the third literary unit contained a verse-long narrative. In Ezek 24:1a, the narrative introduction contains simply the chronological formula. It is immediately followed by the prophetic word formula, signaling the first of three oracles. 3.3.2.5. Ezekiel 26:1 “In the eleventh year, on the first day of the month. . . ”

This date is unique for several reasons. First, it is the first to appear within the Oracles concerning the Nations. Seven – a majority – of the chronological formulas occur within these oracles: Ezek 26:1, 29:1, 29:17, 30:20, 31:1, 32:1, 32:17. Yet, Ezek 26:1 does not introduce the book section concerning the Oracles concerning the Nations for Ezek 25 already contains an oracle against four of Israel’s neighbors. This oracle (Ezek 25), although typically grouped together with the material in Ezek 26–32, does not belong with the literary unit here, but with the previous unit since chronological formulas occur at Ezek 24:1 and 26:1. This literary observation stands

92

Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 773.

3.3. Chronological Statements as Primary Structural Markers

109

in direct tension with the typical tripartite structure of the book as promulgated by contemporary scholarship. Second, it is the first date in the book in which the month is missing. This makes precise dating impossible, and although the text is not unreadable, it is less than clear. The textual versions basically follow the Masoretic text and its ambiguous dating. One major manuscript from the Septuagint tradition, Codex Alexandrinus, reads “twelfth year of the first day of the first month,” but this is most likely a later clarification as noted by Zimmerli. 93 In Cooke’s discussion of the historical issue of the news of the destruction of Jerusalem not reaching Ezekiel until the twelfth year according to Ezek 33:21, he proposes a change in the date in Ezek 26:1 to the twelfth year without any textual support, relying only on the probable historical setting. 94 He further argues that the month number was probably the eleventh or twelfth, again with no textual support. 95 Van Dijk supports the reading of MT given the agreement within the witnesses. 96 This seems the most prudent text critical reading, but leaves a rather confusing text. 97 The historical date would be sometime between March/April 587 and 586 B.C.E. In the end, the reader must take into account the rather long time span of the date reference; the setting seems to be intentionally ambiguous. Third, this date is also the first to complicate the chronological order in that it records the eleventh year, whereas the following chronological formula in Ezek 29:1 reads the tenth year. However, this is not readily apparent to the reader until Ezek 29:1; at this point in the book, one is not aware of the chronological disorder. Ezek 26:1 begins the literary unit, Ezek 26–28, with its narrative introduction and series of five oracles, as follows: V. Ezekiel’s Oracles Concerning Tyre, Sidon, and Israel A. Narrative concerning the date B. Oracle concerning judgment of Tyre C. Oracle concerning lament over Tyre D. Oracle concerning Tyre’s prince E. Oracle concerning Tyre’s king F. Oracle concerning Sidon and regathering of Israel

93

26–28 26:1a 26:1b-21 27:1–36 28:1–10 28:11–19 28:20–26

Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 26. See also Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 34–35. 95 Cooke, Ezekiel, 288. 96 H.J. Van Dijk, Ezekiel’s Prophecy on Tyre (Ez. 26,1 – 28,19): A New Approach (Biblica et Orientalia 20; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1968), 2–3. 97 For a fuller discussion, see Leslie C. Allen, Ezekiel 20–48 (WBC 29; Dallas: Word, 1990), 71n1. 94

110

Chapter Three: Structuring Ezekiel

This structure is based on the chronological formula found at the beginning of the unit, a formula which signals the beginning of the narrative. The five prophetic word formulas found in the unit designate the series of five oracles therein. Just as in Ezek 24–25, this literary unit contains a short narrative introduction that contains only the chronological formula. 3.3.2.6. Ezekiel 29:1 “In the tenth year, in the tenth month, on the twelfth day of the month . . . ”

This date is January 7, 587 B.C.E. Some scholars have suggested that the historical setting of this oracle is the Egyptian Pharoah’s failed attempt to stop the siege of Jerusalem by the Babylonians. 98 This type of historical speculation dominates diachronically-minded scholarship of this chapter. It would unmistakably be helpful to know the historical circumstances surrounding each of Ezekiel’s oracles; however, speculation of this type distracts from a literary reading of the formula. The date of Ezek 29:1 is out of sequence. Cooke argues that this is the result of the oracles concerning Egypt being placed together as a collection. 99 Greenberg takes this notion further and argues as follows: “the Egypt oracles are a unit, self-contained chronologically and topically, that has been inserted en bloc with disregard for the slight chronological disturbance at either end.” 100 Unfortunately, both astute commentators stop their analysis of the date reference with this redactional argument. Ancient translators also noticed the disruption in sequence given that Codex Vaticanus changes the year to the twelfth in order to maintain the sequence. All of these diachronic arguments obstruct a literary reading between the units. At the literary level, one takes seriously the sequencing of the units without recourse to proposed redactional layers and versional changes. Thus, the first literary observation is that the chronological formula, although out of sequence, still begins a new literary unit. No matter how complicated the process of deriving the historical setting for this unit, the essential literary function of the formula remains. The second literary observation concerns how one might read this short unit of 16 verses. It must first be treated as an individual unit of text; then, it must be read in relation to the units surrounding it. Included in this reading must be recognition of the sequence and how this affects a literary reading. For example, one reads the textual units as they are presented in their current sequence (Ezek 29:1–16 is read immediately after Ezekiel 26–28), but one also reads

98

Cooke, Ezekiel, 325 Cooke, Ezekiel, 325. 100 Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 613. 99

3.3. Chronological Statements as Primary Structural Markers

111

Ezek 29:1–16 as happening before the previous unit. In this way, it serves as a flashback to a previous time period. 101 This chronological formula begins one of the shortest literary units in the book, Ezek 29:1–16. It contains a concise narrative introduction that leads into a single oracle. VI. Ezekiel’s Oracle Concerning Judgment of Egypt A. Narrative concerning date B. Oracle concerning Judgment of Egypt

29:1–16 29:1a 29:1b-16

This structure is based on the chronological formula in Ezek 29:1a, which signals the beginning of the literary unit. The one prophetic word formula designates the single oracle within this unit. 3.3.2.7. Ezekiel 29:17 “In the twenty-seventh year, in the first month, on the first day of the month . . . ”

This unit is dated to the first day of the year. However, this year – the twenty-seventh – is much later than one would expect given the sequence. In fact, it corresponds to April 26, 571 B.C.E. and serves as the latest date in the entire book of Ezekiel. It is two years after the date given for the final literary unit, Ezek 40–48; it is nearly 17 years after the previous date in Ezek 29:1; it is almost 16 years after the following date in Ezek 30:20. By all accounts, the date fits awkwardly, jarringly, into the sequence. A literary reading of this unit requires one to deal both with its literary setting within the book insofar as the unit is one in a series of oracles concerning Egypt, and with its historical setting insofar as the unit is dated last in the book. In some ways, the “final” words of the book – and not simply redactionally speaking – are set literarily in this unit. Even a synchronic reading must take seriously the narrative’s leap in time: the reader must jump ahead – a flash forward – when reading this unit and then go back in time when presented with the following literary unit. In addition, a literary reading of this unit must attend to the apparent shift in tone concerning the destruction of Tyre. In the end, this unit jumps ahead in time in order to say that Tyre has not yet fallen by the hand of Babylon. 102 This literary unit consists of a short narrative that provides the chronological formulas and then two oracles.

101 This sort of flashback is a common narrative technique within literature, occurring also in biblical literature, e.g., Judges 1. Also, see Isa 38–39 with regard to Isa 36–37, and see Peter R. Ackroyd, “An Interpretation of the Babylonian Exile: A Study of 2 Kings 20, Isaiah 38–39,” SJOT 27 (1974): 329–52. 102 For possible solutions to this issue, see Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 147–149.

112

Chapter Three: Structuring Ezekiel

VII. A. B. C.

Ezekiel’s Oracle Concerning the fate of Egypt Narrative concerning date Oracle concerning King Nebuchadnezzar’s defeat of Egypt Oracle concerning Egypt’s defeat

29:17–30:19 29:17a 29:17b-21 30:1–19

This structure is based on the initial chronological formula, which begins with narrative. The two prophetic word formulas within the unit begin the two oracles therein. 3.3.2.8. Ezekiel 30:20 “In the eleventh year, in the first month, on the seventh day of the month . . . ”

Commentators note foremost the correlation of this date, April 29, 587 B.C.E., with Pharaoh Hophra’s incursion into Judah in 588 B.C.E. 103 Greenberg also proposes Pharaoh Necho’s defeat at Carchemish in 605 B.C.E. and the Babylonians’ invasion of Egypt in 601 B.C.E. as historical background events. 104 Although all three proposals are entirely possible, this type of historical conjecture ultimately distracts from the literary function of the formula in that the scholars limit their comments to battles and international affairs. Yet, as demonstrated throughout this chapter, the chronological formulas function as more than historical reference points or indicators of possible battles. This chronological formula performs the crucial literary function of introducing the new textual unit. This unit has a similar theme as the previous two in that Egypt remains the subject of the oracle; however, this unit sees the return of the chronological sequence. This literary unit, the shortest in the book, contains a narrative with the chronological formula and one oracle. It is here that the literary pattern of each individual unit is in its most compressed form. VIII. Ezekiel’s Oracle Concerning Babylon’s defeat of Egypt A. Narrative concerning date B. Oracle concerning Babylon’s defeat of Egypt

30:20–26 30:20a 30:20b-26

This structure is based on the chronological formula, which begins the narrative in Ezek 30:20a. The presence of one prophetic word formula signals the beginning of the single oracle within the unit. 3.3.2.9. Ezekiel 31:1 “In the eleventh year, in the third month, on the first day of the month . . . ”

103 104

Cooke, Ezekiel, 335; Odell, Ezekiel, 387–88. Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 633–34.

3.3. Chronological Statements as Primary Structural Markers

113

The historical reference for this chronological formula is June 21, 587 B.C.E., a fact that is repeated again and again in the commentaries. 105 The date does not seem to relate to any significant historical event in the ancient world so scholars are at a loss as to how to deal with its significance for the unit. No historical event can be found for its setting, so the commentators – with their diachronic inclinations – must remain brief in their comments. It is significant to note here that most scholars take this chapter as a complete literary unit. 106 However, their criterion for this literary observation is the genre designation, oracle. By using this criterion, scholars are able to divide each oracle into a literary unit. It is undeniably important to observe the oracles, each one with their prophetic word formula, as a structural feature of the book; oracles should be separated from each other and interpreted singly. But the book of Ezekiel also utilizes another structural device, the chronological formulas, which function at a higher level on the structure, in order to group narratives and oracles together into larger textual units. This formula begins a chapter-long textual unit that contains a narrative with its reference to the date and a single oracle. IX. Ezekiel’s Oracle Concerning Pharaoh A. Narrative concerning date B. Oracle concerning Pharaoh

31 31:1a 31:1b-18

This structure is based on the chronological formula, which begins the literary unit in Ezek 31:1a. The single prophetic word formula in Ezek 31:1b designates the single oracle within the unit. 3.3.2.10. Ezekiel 32:1 “In the twelfth year, in the twelfth month, on the first day of the month . . . ”

The date of the Masoretic text is March 3, 585 B.C.E. However, there is a text critical issue since the Old Greek refers to the eleventh year, which Cooke takes as an attempt to date the oracle before the fall of Jerusalem. 107 As it now stands – and the MT is to be preferred – the date is after Jerusalem’s fall and almost two years after the previous date in Ezek 31:1. 105

E.g., Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 636, whose only comment on Ezek 31:1 is to note the date in June. This is in complete agreement with Cooke, Ezekiel, 338, who also simply notes the June date. Both of these are marginally better than Walther Eichrodt, Ezekiel (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970), 424–5, who completely skips over the date reference altogether. 106 See Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 124; Odell, Ezekiel, 391–99. 107 Cooke, Ezekiel, 346.

114

Chapter Three: Structuring Ezekiel

This unit represents a very well-defined, literary unit according to most scholars. They note the date notice and the “colophon” in verse 16 as definite textual demarcations. 108 Yet, sometimes, these same scholars completely ignore another chronological formula when dividing the text. This type of inconsistent use of structural criteria weakens their overall structure of the book. This literary unit contains a short narrative and one oracle as follows: X. Ezekiel’s Oracle Concerning a lament over Pharaoh A. Narrative concerning date B. Oracle concerning a lament over Pharaoh

32:1–16 32:1a 32:1b-16

This structure follows the general literary pattern of every literary unit. The chronological formula begins the narrative in Ezek 32:1a; the prophetic word formula designates the beginning of the single oracle in Ezek 32:1b. 3.3.2.11. Ezekiel 32:17 “In the twelfth year, on the fifteenth day of the month . . . ”

This chronological formula lacks a month, which the Old Greek readily supplies as the first month. This textual addition, however, seems like a later interpretive one that is fairly typical of the Old Greek’s treatment of the dates in Ezekiel. 109 The better reading is probably to take the month from the previous formula – hence, the twelfth. 110 The twelfth year as a whole would be April 13, 586 to April 1, 585 B.C.E.; if the twelfth month is supplied then the date is more precisely March 17, 585 B.C.E. – two weeks after the previous date in Ezek 32:1. This literary unit is rather unusual since two seemingly different oracles are placed side by side. First, the final oracle concerning Egypt is given in Ezek 32:17b–32. This oracle brings to an end a whole series of Oracles concerning Nations; however, this oracle does not literarily end a section of the book (e.g., Ezek 25–32) like scholars frequently suggest. 111 Following the standard pattern, outlined by the chronological formulas, this oracle is the first of two oracles within a literary unit. The second oracle concerns an entirely different subject: the watchman role of the prophet. While the grouping of these oracles may appear odd, the use of the chronological 108

E.g., Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 197. Contra Eichrodt, Ezekiel, 436, who takes the Greek as reliable. 110 Cooke, Ezekiel, 350; Lawrence Boadt, Ezekiel’s Oracles against Egypt: A Literary and Philosophical Study of Ezekiel 29–32 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980), 152. 111 See the history of scholarship section of chapter one for the majority opinion that the book of Ezekiel divides here. 109

3.3. Chronological Statements as Primary Structural Markers

115

formula and prophetic word formulas remain consistent with the remainder of the book of Ezekiel. The generic pattern for this literary unit is the same for all the previous ones: a narrative introduction with the date and a set of oracles. XI. Ezekiel’s Oracles Concerning Egypt and the watchman A. Narrative concerning date B. Oracle concerning more lament over Egypt C. Oracle concerning watchman

32:17–33:20 32:17a 32:17b–32 33:1–20

This structure is based on the formulas found within the unit. The chronological formula in Ezek 32:17a designates the beginning of the literary unit. The presence of two prophetic word formulas within the unit designates the occurrence of two oracles. 3.3.2.12. Ezekiel 33:21 “In the twelfth year, in the tenth month, on the fifth day of the month of our exile . . . ”

The date given here, January 19, 585 B.C.E., is about five months, according to Greenberg, after the actual fall of Jerusalem. He views this time lapse as historically plausible. 112 Allen, on the other hand, notes the difficulty of the date, and the attraction of some textual versions’ reading, eleventh year, given that the fall occurred a year and a half earlier. 113 This discrepancy brings up the thorny issue of dating the fall of the city and the different chronological systems used by various modern scholars to calculate ancient dates. This confusion in dates by modern commentators does not imply the prophet’s (or the book’s) confusion on the dating schema. However, one should note the rather random dates provided throughout the book, especially if one is keen on the historical, diachronic use of the chronological formulas. The literary function of this chronological formula is to introduce a new literary unit – the twelfth – within the book, a unit that reports a seminal event and provides reflection on that event in the form of a series of oracles. This is one of the few units that contain a longer narrative at the beginning before the set of oracles. The other units that also have this long narrative are Ezek 1–7 and Ezek 8–19. This introductory narrative highlights the incredible importance of the report. In fact, these two verses are a turning point for the whole book insofar as they describe the capture of the city of Jerusalem. The literary unit includes a narrative report about Jerusalem’s fall and then six oracles as follows. 112 113

Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 681. Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 152.

116 XII. A. B. C. D. E. F. G.

Chapter Three: Structuring Ezekiel Ezekiel’s Report and Oracles Narrative Report of Jerusalem’s Capture Oracle concerning dispossessions of the land Oracle concerning shepherds of Israel Oracle concerning Mount Seir and the mountains of Israel Oracle concerning Israel’s restoration because of God’s holy name Oracle concerning joining of Judah and Israel 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

This structure follows precisely the literary pattern of every literary unit. The chronological formula begins the unit and provides the narrative piece. The series of prophetic word formulas, six total, designates the beginning of the six oracles. 3.3.2.13. Ezekiel 40:1 “In the twenty-fifth year of our exile, at the beginning of the year, on the tenth day of the month, in the fourteenth year after the city was struck down, on that very day . . . ”

Ezekiel 40:1 provides the last chronological formula for the book, sectioning off the last unit, Ezek 40–48. It provides a double date reference insofar as the date is given both in terms of the exile and the time elapsed since the fall of Jerusalem. This parallels nicely the double date provided in the first chronological formula of the book. The date here is April 19, 573 B.C.E. The repetition of on that very day stresses the importance of the day (see also Ezek 24:1 for a similar feature). Ezek 40–48 is typically regarded by scholars as a coherent literary unit in its current form. 114 This assessment is based primarily on the shared content of the chapters, but scholars also use the chronological formula in 40:1 to structure the unit. The literary pattern of a narrative followed by a set of oracles is lacking in this unit. Instead, these nine chapters form one extended narrative. This is the only literary unit within the book that does not follow the standard pattern. In this way, Ezek 40–48 certainly stands out, since it does not contain any prophetic oracles. This can be explained in any number of ways. For example, some scholars doubt the authenticity of this material to the exilic prophet. 115 This unusual pattern within the book could possibly sup114 Jon Levenson, Theology of the Program of Restoration of Ezekiel 40–48 (HSM 10; Missoula, MT; Scholars Press, 1976); Moshe Greenberg, “The Design and Themes of Ezekiel’s Program of Restoration,” Interpretation 38 (1984): 181–208; Hals, Ezekiel, 285–89. Yet, scholars disagree considerably concerning its redactional history. 115 E.g., Hartmut Gese, Der Verfassungsentwurf des Ezechiel (Kap. 40–48): Traditionsgeschichtlich untersucht (BHT 25; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1957), 110–114; Michael Konkel, Architektonik des Heiligen: Studien zur zweiten Tempelvision Ezechiels (Ez 40–48) (BBB 129; Bodenheim: Philo, 2001), 349–50.

3.4. Prophetic Word Formulas as Secondary Structural Markers

117

port this argument. However, this is a diachronically-oriented solution to a literary problem. Thus, from a literary perspective, it is better to view Ezek 40–48 as the culmination of the whole book. The time for prophetic oracles has ended for the book of Ezekiel, and a vision of the new Temple is needed in order to conclude the work. 3.3.3. Macro-Structure of the Book of Ezekiel, First Level Using the chronological formulas as a guide, the literary macro-structure of the book of Ezekiel is as follows: I. Ezekiel’s Vision and Oracles Conc. His Call and Message to Israel II. Ezekiel’s Visions and Oracles Conc. God’s Departure from Jerusalem III. Ezekiel’s Oracles Concerning Judgment and Promise for Israel IV. Ezekiel’s Oracles Concerning the Siege of Jerusalem V. Ezekiel’s Oracles Concerning Tyre, Sidon, and Israel VI. Ezekiel’s Oracle Concerning Judgment of Egypt VII. Ezekiel’s Oracle Concerning the fate of Egypt VIII. Ezekiel’s Oracle Concerning Babylon’s defeat of Egypt IX. Ezekiel’s Oracle Concerning Pharaoh X. Ezekiel’s Oracle Concerning a lament over Pharaoh XI. Ezekiel’s Oracles Concerning Egypt and the watchman XII. Ezekiel’s Report and Oracles XIII. Ezekiel’s 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

In labeling these literary units, I have resorted to describing their most prominent genre(s); however, this nomenclature misrepresents the actual literary pattern (narrative plus oracles) noted repeatedly above. To be clear: when a unit is labeled oracle(s) in the outline above, it does not follow that the unit begins with a prophetic word formula since all of the above units begin with a chronological formula.

3.4. Prophetic Word Formulas as Secondary Structural Markers Another reoccurring formulaic statement in the book of Ezekiel is the prophetic word formula, which typically serves as an introduction to the genre, oracle. 116 This formula occurs 48 times in the book of Ezekiel, seven of which are in conjunction with a chronological marker. 117 This last observation aids in understanding this formula’s relationship to the chronological formulas. The chronological formulas – all 13 – stand at the highest level of the macrostructure because they occur first within the textual unit. 116

Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 32, describes the formula as introducing divine speech. This number is disputed because of some variations that occur with the formula. Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 32, counts more than 50 occurrences of the formula. 117

118

Chapter Three: Structuring Ezekiel

As noted above, the chronological formula begins the first unit of Ezekiel and the last recognized unit. From a literary point of view, it stands at the beginning of each narrative. After the chronological formula at the commencement of a unit, a variety of narrative elements occur including the prophetic word formula, a report of a vision, or another report. The prophetic word formula begins an oracle, which is a distinctive subunit within the larger unit. Sometimes, another prophetic word formula occurring later in the unit will subdivide the unit again. All the literary units of the book of Ezekiel, with the exception of Ezek 40–48, have at least one prophetic word formula. One can discern their role as a secondary structural device by noting their occurrence within the opening sentence of a literary unit as the second element or by their repeated occurrence within the larger unit to designate another oracle and subunit. Thus, the book uses the prophetic word formulas to demarcate subunits within the larger units. For example, Ezek 1–7, the first major section of the book, contains a prophetic word formula in 3:16, 6:1, and 7:1, thereby creating four clear subunits: 1:1–3:15, 3:16–5:17, 6:1–14, 7:1–27. The first subunit is a narrative element, while the next three subunits are oracles. Furthermore, in the long section of Ezek 8–19, the prophetic word formula occurs eleven times. Each occurrence of the formula in Ezekiel signals a divine oracle to Ezekiel. Ezekelian scholarship generally has used the prophetic word formulas more than chronological formulas to structure or demarcate literary units. 118 However, some still ignore the prophetic word formulas. For example, Hals’s discussion of the book’s overall structure does not mention the prophetic word formula, and he does not use the formula to demarcate units in a consistent fashion. 119 Whereas he will typically begin a new literary unit at any occurrence of a prophetic word formula, he does not continue that unit until the next formula. Instead, he often divides the subunit into even smaller units based on other criteria. Therefore, Hals sees new literary units beginning with the prophetic word formulas in Ezek 11:14, 12:1 and 12:17, but he does not denote a new literary unit at the occurrence of the same formula in Ezek 12:8. 120 Furthermore, he divides Ezek 11 into 11:14–21, 22–23, and 24–25 even though no formula exists in vv. 22 and 118 I would suggest here that one probable reason for this usage concerns the fact that the prophetic word formulas appear less “priestly” than the chronological formulas and therefore less editorial or redactional. Furthermore, the prophetic word formulas appear more closely tied literarily to the divine oracles they introduce. Scholars’ continued use of these formulas to structure highlights their sustained resistance to chronological formulas as fundamental literarily to the book. 119 Hals, Ezekiel, 3–4. 120 See his structure in Hals, Ezekiel, 74–76.

3.4. Prophetic Word Formulas as Secondary Structural Markers

119

24. 121 This inconsistent use of the prophetic word formula is confusing, and one must assume that various criteria – literary or not – are in use to create the structure. Somewhat differently, Odell often combines more than one oracle into her larger units (e.g., Ezek 12:1–28, which contains five oracles), showing a general preference for chapter divisions in her structure. 122 In this way, she overlooks the crucial prophetic word formulas as they separate each individual oracle. Greenberg generally deals with smaller units than Odell; however, he still combines multiple oracles into one literary unit. 123 For example, he takes Ezek 12:1–16 as a literary unit, although v. 8 contains a prophetic word formula just like v. 1; Ezek 12:21– 28 also is a unit for Greenberg, even though vv. 21 and 26 both begin with this formula. In sum, commentators use the formula inconsistently to delineate the literary units of the book. Yet, I have demonstrated that the prophetic word formulas provide the secondary level of structure for the book of Ezekiel consistently. They work in tandem with the chronological formulas to organize the literary units and subunits of Ezekiel. Thus, the surface structure of Ezekiel with these units and subunits is as follows. Macro-Structure of the Book of Ezekiel, First and Second Level I. Ezekiel’s Vision and Oracles concerning His Call and Message to Israel A. Narrative concerning vision of divine glory B. Oracle concerning watchman, siege of Jerusalem C. Oracle to prophesy against the mountains of Israel D. Oracle proclaiming the end of the land of Israel II. Ezekiel’s Visions and Oracles conc. God’s Departure from Jerusalem A. Narrative concerning vision of Jerusalem and the Deity’s Departure B. Oracle of Promise C. Oracle concerning preparing baggage for exile D. Oracle concerning interpretation of baggage for exile E. Oracle concerning eating and drinking with anxiety F. Oracle concerning a proverb G. Oracle concerning the immediacy of God’s words H. Oracle concerning false prophets I. Oracle concerning elders’ idols J. Oracle concerning judgment against Jerusalem K. Oracle concerning Jerusalem like a vine given to the fire L. Oracle concerning Jerusalem’s unfaithfulness M. Oracle concerning the riddle of two eagles and a vine N. Oracle concerning Jerusalem’s king’s [Zedekiah] rebellion O. Oracle concerning individual judgment and the princes of Israel 121

Hals, Ezekiel, 72–74. Odell, Ezekiel, 135. 123 Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, xi-xii. 122

1–7 1:1–3:15 3:16–5:17 6:1–14 7:1–27 8–19 8:1–11:13 11:14–25 12:1–7 12:8–16 12:17–20 12:21–25 12:26–28 13:1–23 14:1–11 14:12–23 15:1–8 16:1–63 17:1–10 17:11–24 18:1–19:14

120

Chapter Three: Structuring Ezekiel

III. Ezekiel’s Oracles concerning Judgment and Promise for Israel A. Narrative concerning elders’ consultation B. Oracle concerning God’s history with and promise for Israel C. Oracle concerning the Negev D. Oracle concerning judgment against Israel with sword E. Oracle concerning judgment with sword F. Oracle concerning king of Babylon as instrument of judgment G. Oracle concerning Israel’s disobedience H. Oracle concerning melting of Israel as dross I. Oracle concerning Israel’s bad leadership J. Oracle concerning Oholah and Oholibah’s unfaithfulness IV. Ezekiel’s Oracles concerning the Siege of Jerusalem A. Narrative concerning the date B. Oracle concerning allegory of boiling pot C. Oracle concerning death of Ezekiel’s wife D. Oracle concerning Ammon, Moab, Edom, and Philistia V. Ezekiel’s Oracles concerning Tyre, Sidon, and Israel A. Narrative concerning the date B. Oracle concerning judgment of Tyre C. Oracle concerning lament over Tyre D. Oracle concerning Tyre’s prince E. Oracle concerning Tyre’s king F. Oracle concerning Sidon and regathering of Israel VI. Ezekiel’s Oracle concerning Judgment of Egypt A. Narrative concerning date B. Oracle concerning Judgment of Egypt VII. Ezekiel’s Oracle concerning the fate of Egypt A. Narrative concerning date B. Oracle concerning King Nebuchadnezzar’s defeat of Egypt C. Oracle concerning Egypt’s defeat VIII. Ezekiel’s Oracle concerning Babylon’s defeat of Egypt A. Narrative concerning date B. Oracle concerning Babylon’s defeat of Egypt IX. Ezekiel’s Oracle concerning Pharaoh A. Narrative concerning date B. Oracle concerning Pharoah X. Ezekiel’s Oracle concerning a lament over Pharaoh A. Narrative concerning date B. Oracle concerning a lament over Pharaoh XI. Ezekiel’s Oracles concerning Egypt and the watchman A. Narrative concerning date B. Oracle concerning more lament over Egypt C. Oracle concerning watchman XII. Ezekiel’s Report and Oracles A. Narrative Report of Jerusalem’s Capture B. Oracle concerning dispossessions of the land C. Oracle concerning shepherds of Israel D. Oracle concerning Mount Seir and the mountains of Israel E. Oracle concerning Israel’s restoration because of God’s holy name F. Oracle concerning joining of Judah and Israel

20–23 20:1 20:2–44 21:1–5 21:6–12 21:13–22 21:23–37 22:1–16 22:17–22 22:23–31 23:1–49 24–25 24:1a 24:1b–14 24:15–27 25:1–17 26–28 26:1a 26:1b–21 27:1–36 28:1–10 28:11–19 28:20–26 29:1–16 29:1a 29:1b–16 29:17–30:19 29:17a 29:17b–21 30:1–19 30:20–26 30:20a 30:20b–26 31:1-18 31:1a 31:1b–18 32:1–16 32:1a 32:1b–16 32:17–33:20 32:17a 32:17b–32 33:1–20 33:21–39:29 33:21–22 33:23–33 34:1–31 35:1–36:15 36:16–37:14 37:15–28

121

3.5. Excursus: Diachronic (Redactional) Considerations G. Oracle concerning Gog of Magog XIII. Ezekiel’s Vision of the Temple

38:1–39:29 40–48

This structure is careful in its use of the term oracle, employing this label only when a prophetic word formula is given. Therefore, the three great visions of the book, which begin in 1:1, 8:1, and 40:1 are obviously not labeled as oracles. Furthermore, in Ezekiel 33:21–22 a short report is given concerning the capture of Jerusalem; it is neither an oracle nor a vision. Finally, all of the literary units begin with a narrative, not an oracle. This surface structure represents the literary form of the book and accounts for the surface features of the text. 124 It, therefore, demonstrates how the book is constructed as a piece of literature, how various literary units and subunits are related, and how the plot or message develops and changes. Additionally, this surface structure represents an understanding of the book that is quite different from the more conceptual structures of previous commentators.

3.5. Excursus: Diachronic (Redactional) Considerations The above discussion limits itself mostly to the literary function of the chronological and prophetic word formula within the book of Ezekiel. It is largely a synchronic approach to reading and dividing this prophetic book, an approach that, by its very nature, brackets at least temporarily discussion of the book’s redactional history, i.e., the way in which the various textual sections came together to establish the present version of the text. Thus, this chapter accepts the challenge to take seriously the final form of this prophetic book and to look for, and establish, a structure for this form. However, obvious redactional issues present themselves as one works through these formulas. Cooke also notices this possibility: “A study of these dates may well provide something like a clue to the way in which the Book arrived at its present state.” 125 As one begins to examine the whole book as an entire piece of literature, certain tensions or breaks within the text appear. These “fractures” are particularly acute with reference to the Oracles concerning the Nations. 126 The current excursus examines briefly two of these issues in order to bolster the literary argument above.

124

Sweeney, Prophetic Literature, 130. Cooke, Ezekiel, 1. 126 For the terminology of “fractures,” see David M. Carr, Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary Approaches (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996), who combines the diachronic and synchronic approaches. 125

122

Chapter Three: Structuring Ezekiel

3.5.1. The Diachronic Growth of the Chronological Formulas The first clue to understanding the editorial history of the book comes in the relationship between the chronological formulas and the Oracles concerning the Nations. As noted above, a slight majority of these particular formulas (seven of thirteen) are used in conjunction with these oracles. Literary units V through XI in the surface structure above begin with a chronological formula and contain at least one oracle concerning a foreign nation. Furthermore, units VI through X contain only one oracle concerning another nation. These units tend to be rather short, and one can imagine that dating each Oracle concerning a Nation would have been simple and straightforward. The literary pattern would be a chronological formula attached immediately to a prophetic word formula from which a brief oracle follows. For example, Ezek 30:20–26 contains precisely this arrangement. Therefore, I suggest that this scenario or literary arrangement provides the genesis of the chronological formulas within the book of Ezekiel. Of course, I am not suggesting that the Oracles concerning the Nations were written first, only that the chronological formulas are attached to them in such a manner as to signal that the formulas were first identified with these particular oracles. The result, at the beginning stage, is one short oracle with its introductory prophetic word formula and its historical setting provided by the chronological formula. Examples include Ezek 29:1–16; 30:20–26; 31:1–18; 32:1–16. The next step in the literary growth process may have been to attach multiple Oracles concerning the Nations to one chronological formula. For example, Ezek 29:17–30:19 contains a short narrative with the chronological formula plus two oracles concerning Egypt, each with an introductory prophetic word formula. This is a slightly more sophisticated literary pattern in that more than one oracle is given the historical and literary setting of a date reference. Another example within Ezekiel is Ezek 26–28, which contains a chronological formula in Ezek 26:1a and then a series of five oracles concerning Tyre, Sidon, and Israel. This arrangement represents an attempt to pull together all related oracles about these neighboring cities into one literary unit with a single date reference provided by a chronological formula. The final stage in the growth process of the chronological formulas and the Oracles concerning the Nations is the arrangement of one oracle concerning a foreign nation to other oracles that concern different matters altogether with the result that these oracles are held together by a single chronological formula. This type of literary pattern results in the perhaps odd literary units, Ezek 24–25 and Ezek 32:17–33:20. These units are unique because of their mix of content. Ezek 24–25 begins with a chronological formula and then includes two oracles in Ezek 24 about the im-

3.5. Excursus: Diachronic (Redactional) Considerations

123

pending defeat of Jerusalem. The first oracle provides an allegory of a boiling pot, while the second relays the death of the prophet’s wife. These oracles are followed immediately by a third oracle in Ezek 25 which concerns neighboring Ammon, Moab, Edom, and Philistia. In a way, this literary unit serves as a transition into several literary units concerning the nations; however, the chronological formulas in Ezek 24:1 and 26:1 demand that a literary separation occur after the oracle with its focus on Israel’s neighbors, not before. Ezek 32:17–33:20 reverses this order in order to transition out of the series of Oracles concerning the Nations. This literary unit begins with a chronological formula, and then includes the last oracle concerning Egypt, a lament over the country. This is followed immediately with another oracle concerning the role of the watchman in Ezek 33:1–20. At this point in the editorial history, the literary idea of providing a chronological formula in order to group certain narratives and a series of oracles was taken up throughout the book in order to create the current thirteen literary units, each with an introductory narrative and a set of oracles. 3.5.2. A Diachronic View of the Oracles concerning the Nations The literary units treated immediately above, Ezek 24–25 and 32:17– 33:20, also point to an additional way of understanding how the Oracles concerning the Nations, historically treated by modern scholarship as a textual block, became an integral part of the overall prophetic book. Instead of constituting its own section of the book, e.g., Ezek 25–32, the Oracles concerning the Nations were inserted into the middle of the book in such a way as to become incorporated fully into the larger message of the book. The first and last of these oracles – concerning Ammon, Moab, Edom, and Philistia in Ezek 25 and Egypt in Ezek 32:17–32 – were woven into the literary units that stood immediately before and after the place of insertion. Further evidence for this diachronic, editorial move comes from a comparison of the chapters that may have originally been separated in order for the insertion to take place: Ezek 24 and Ezek 33. Block notes how chapter 33 resembles Ezek 4–24 significantly more than Ezek 34 and following. He concludes, “The chapter contains no hint at all that a new era in Ezekiel’s preaching is about to begin.” 127 Indeed, it appears likely that at one point in the editorial history of the book, Ezekiel 24 and 33 were read together insofar as Ezek 24 speaks of the imminent fall of Jerusalem and the death of Ezekiel’s wife, who represents the city of Jerusalem, and Ezek 33 takes up this same theme and the role of the watchman to forewarn the 127

Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 235.

124

Chapter Three: Structuring Ezekiel

people during this time. The result is a previous, now reconstructed, literary unit that begins in Ezek 24 with the chronological formula and then contains three oracles (Ezek 24:1–14; 24:15–27; 33:1–20). So why were the Oracles concerning the Nations inserted at this particular point in the book? Block asserts that the Oracles concerning the Nations are inserted between chapters 24 and 33 in order to put “a buffer” between the prediction of the fall of Jerusalem in Ezek 24 with its actual occurrence in Ezek 33:21–22. 128 Perhaps this is the reason. Whatever the motive for the insertion, in its present position, the Oracles concerning the Nations undeniably provide literarily a certain pause within the overall narrative concerning Jerusalem, as Ezekiel relays it.

3.6. Chapter Summary In this chapter, I argue for the use of two literary features in structuring the book of Ezekiel. The two formulas – the chronological and the prophetic word – serve as the major, structural devices for the book. First, the chronological formulas, found 13 times throughout the book, provide the first level of macrostructure for the book, dividing it into 13 distinct, literary units. They also contribute to a stable, literary pattern within each of the literary units by introducing a narrative element at the beginning of the unit. Second, the prophetic word formulas, found within each of the 13 units, further subdivide the book into subunits. They contribute to the literary pattern within the larger unit by delineating the beginning of each of the oracles, which are typically found in a series within the overall unit. The use of the chronological formulas and the prophetic word formulas as structural elements signifies a dramatic departure from previous scholarship’s thematic, tripartite division of the book. This new, surface structure attends to literary features at the surface of the text rather than to thematic elements. Therefore, it provides a more methodologically-controlled approach to the book by consistently highlighting certain formulas. This surface structure also does not allow the redactional history of the book – a thoroughly diachronic concern – to dictate the book’s literary presentation. Finally, the formulas make possible a truly synchronic reading of the whole book by delineating the book’s units and subunits.

128

Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 235.

Part Two

Literary Setting

Chapter Four

Reading Contextually Within Units: Ezekiel 24–25 4.1. Contextual Reading The second part of this study provides a selection of readings from Ezekiel’s Oracles concerning the Nations based on the earlier work in Part One. I use the newly-proposed surface structure as a guide to read the book, since this structure clearly provides the various units and subunits of the book with multiple literary relationships, i.e., several literary contexts. According to my structure, various subunits within Ezekiel, either narratives or oracles, are gathered together into larger units based on the chronological formulas found 13 times throughout the book. Likewise, the 13 larger units of the book relate to each other in a way that is fundamentally different from the assumed tripartite, conceptual structure used in previous scholarship. I have chosen to focus on a portion of the Oracles concerning the Nations, as opposed to other literary units within the book such as Ezek 1–7 or Ezek 40–48, because of their oft-ignored status within scholarly discussions of the book (despite comprising, to most scholars, one of three major sections of the book!) and because of their particular set of challenges with regard both to the book’s surface structure and the disorder of the chronological sequence found in the book. Although some monographs have been published on these oracles within prophetic books, they are among the most overlooked within the prophetic material. 1 Scholars are often at a loss 1

The most well-known examples for Ezekiel are as follows: H.J. Van Dijk, Ezekiel’s Prophecy on Tyre: A New Approach (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1968); Duane L. Christensen, Transformations of the War Oracle in Old Testament Prophecy: Studies in the Oracles against the Nations (Harvard Dissertations in Religion 3; Missoula, Montana: Scholars, 1975); Lawrence Boadt, Ezekiel’s Oracles Against Egypt: A Literary and Philological Study of Ezekiel 29–32 (Biblica et Orientalia 37; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980); Markus Saur, Der Tyroszyklus des Ezechielbuches (BZAW 386; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008). For these types of oracles within the prophetic literature in general, see Y. Hoffman, The Prophecies against Foreign Nations in the Bible (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1977) (in Hebrew); For these types of oracles in Isaiah, see S. Erlandsson, The Burden of Babylon: A Study of Isaiah 13:2–14:23 (ConBOT 4; Lund: Gleerup, 1970). Unpublished dissertations on the subject include: John H. Hayes, “The Oracles against the Nations in the Old Testament: Their Usage and Theological Impor-

128

Chapter Four: Reading Contextually Within Units: Ezekiel 24–25

as to how to relate these materials to the rest of a prophetic book, a phenomenon that results often in the Oracles concerning the Nations being treated ipso facto as a separate collection within the book, a collection that need not affect the interpretation of the rest of the book. The Oracles concerning the Nations within Ezekiel are regularly treated in this same manner; they are relegated to their own independent section within the book. 2 Their relevance to the other chapters within the book is seen as negligible. They also present a unique challenge for the interpreter because of the disordered chronological sequence within this section of the book. All of these complications and puzzles make these oracles excellent candidates for interpretation. A careful reader will notice that I have not treated the oracles against Tyre and Sidon in the following chapters. This lack of treatment is mainly because I want to avoid the perception that I am discussing all the Oracles concerning the Nations as a whole, textual unit, or even a random collection of oracles. The surface structure of the previous chapter demonstrates that these assumptions are mistaken, since a clear structure is present throughout the whole book, a structure that divides the Oracles concerning the Nations into many different literary units. So, I want to demonstrate that one can speak of the Oracles concerning the Nations on a literary, unit-by-unit basis. I do not see any literary markers within the text to justify the entire series of oracles from Ezek 25 until Ezek 32 being treated altogether. So, while it is fair to summarize Part Two of this work as a treatment of the Oracles concerning the Nations within Ezekiel, it is not entirely accurate insofar as I do not comment on all of these oracles, and, in fact, I also discuss some subunits that stand outside of this general generic category. The general argument of Part Two is that surface structure makes an interpretive difference in the reading of a literary unit in isolation and the reading of multiple units collectively. Thus, this half of the study shifts the chief question from “what is the surface structure?” to “why does the surface structure matter?” In other words, what do I gain in the exegetical task by establishing a structure of a prophetic book? Campbell has previously answered that question quite strongly: “The meaning of a text can emerge only from the study of its shape or structure.” 3 Whether meaning is tied tance,” (Ph.D. diss., Princeton Theological Seminary, 1964), although see Hayes, “The Usage of the Oracles Against Foreign Nations in Ancient Israel,” JBL 87 (1967): 81–92; Barry Baruch Margulis, “Studies in the Oracles against the Nations,” (Ph.D. diss., Brandeis University, 1966). 2 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 60–62; Hals, Ezekiel, 3–4. 3 Antony F. Campbell, “Form Criticism’s Future,” in The Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty-First Century (ed. M.A. Sweeney and E. Ben Zvi; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 25.

4.1. Contextual Reading

129

exclusively to the structure of a text remains debatable, but structure is undoubtedly imperative to the meaning of a given passage. After all, it is not the concluding task of biblical scholarship to establish only a tidy structure; anyone who walks away from the text after that accomplishment will surely be criticized as too short-sighted and limited in their exegetical scope. The literary structure of any given passage or book must provide the interpreter with specific guidelines for reading the textual unit, for attaining a unit’s meaning. And structure, if viewed as a way of setting textual units in proper relation to each other, is also important in establishing an interpretation that values the placement of any given unit within the larger framework. In fact, this is the real benefit of a surface structure: it provides the necessary parameters for a contextual reading of the text. So, what is a contextual reading? One way to move from the surface structure of a particular text or book to its interpretation is via literary setting. In recent years, the discipline of form criticism has expanded its purview from principally diachronic concerns about the historical-sociological setting (Sitz im Leben) of short, original prophetic utterances to the synchronic concerns of literary setting (Sitz in der Literatur) for a piece of prophetic literature. 4 This shift in attention captures a missing piece of exegesis, especially as it deals with the ways in which a passage’s surrounding literary unit and its placement within a larger book affect the overall interpretation. Paying close attention to the literary setting of a unit yields a contextual reading, a reading that focuses on the intentional placement of the text in relation to other textual units or subunits both immediately before and after it, as well as the way in which these units join together to comprise even larger units. So, a surface structure automatically places in relationship many different textual elements within a book, all of which are functioning at differing levels of organization so that contextual readings of any given piece of text – be it book or subunit – can exist in relation to any other piece of larger text in which it finds itself situated. Each prophetic book is comprised of different units; Ezekiel has thirteen. These are the first divisions of the book and constitute the highest level of organization. For Ezekiel, the units are easily recognized because 4 For an assessment of Sitz im Leben, see Martin J. Buss, “The Idea of Sitz im Leben – History and Critique,” ZAW 90 (1978): 157–70. For information on Sitz in der Literatur, see Wolfgang Richter, Exegese als Literaturwissenschaft: Entwurf einer alttestamentlichen Literaturtheorie und Methodologie (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971), 145–48. For a good example of the use of historical setting in a discussion of Ezekiel, see Martin Alonso Corral, Ezekiel’s Oracles against Tyre: Historical Reality and Motivations (Biblica et Orientalia 46; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2002), 20–65, and his treatment of the Tyrian oracles in Ezek 26:1–28:19.

130

Chapter Four: Reading Contextually Within Units: Ezekiel 24–25

they all begin with a chronological formula. In fact, this feature of the unit is one of the strongest arguments for the overall structure of the book. In addition, each literary unit can be divided into subunits. For example, the literary unit of Ezek 1–7 has four subunits (Ezek 1:1–3:15; 3:16–5:17; 6:1–14; 7:1–27). These function as the second level of organization for the book. In Ezekiel, these subunits are either the introductory, narrative material at the beginning of every unit, or the series of oracles within the unit, oracles which begin characteristically with a prophetic word formula. This literary pattern is followed consistently throughout the book. Finally, each subunit contains further demarcations on an even smaller level; I label these paragraphs because, although they vary in size, they function in a similar way as a modern paragraph, i.e., to express a single idea with some elaboration. Within Ezekiel, these paragraphs are not introduced uniformly. Yet, they are usually discernable in that some sort of syntactic marker (e.g., a formula) is employed to distinguish a break. So, given these textual demarcations, a certain number of literary relationships are possible. For the book of Ezekiel, each paragraph (i.e., the smallest complete, coherent textual block) has at least three literary settings within the book: a) its literary setting within the entire book taken as a prophetic book, a literary construct with characteristics of coherence, stability, and independence, 5 b) its literary setting within the largest literary unit in which it is situated, a unit that is demarcated at the beginning with a chronological marker, and c) its literary setting within a smaller literary subunit in which it is situated, a subunit that is demarcated at the beginning typically with a prophetic word formula.

A contextual reading focuses on how each passage or paragraph relates to these three literary settings. In other words, a contextual reading observes the position of an individual passage within the book in order to understand both how all the material prior to the passage influences the current passage and all the material after the passage relies on the current passage. Or, it pays attention to the position of an individual passage within the larger, literary unit or smaller subunit. A contextual reading assumes that the specific placement of each passage within the book, the literary unit, and the literary subunit happens intentionally and meaningfully. Likewise, contextual readings exist at different levels of the given structure as one moves from smaller units to larger ones such as subunits, units, or books. Thus, each subunit should be read in light of its literary setting within a larger, literary unit and within the book. Each literary unit should be read

5

For a fuller discussion of the genre, prophetic book, see Marvin A. Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39 (FOTL; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 532–3.

4.1. Contextual Reading

131

in light of its setting within the book. And each book should be read in light of its setting within a collection of books. 6 Previously, scholars have undertaken studies that include contextual readings. For example, Sweeney, in his monograph on Isaiah, provides a structural analysis of the entire book and then offers a detailed reading of Isa 1–4 in which he argues that Isa 1 serves as a prologue to the entire book. 7 Even though much of Sweeney’s analysis is oriented toward diachronic concerns and focuses on redactional activity, his reading also sets the literary units of the book in relation to each other based on the book’s structure. Sweeney’s assertion that Isa 1 summarizes the message of the book sets this major unit in relationship to the other major unit within the text, Isa 2–66. 8 Another example comes from Frolov’s examination of 1 Sam 1–8 in which he situates these chapters within the literary context of three larger units: 1) “the sequence of six ‘biographies’ covering Judg 13:2–1 Sam 12:25,” 2) “the sequence of apostasy/oppression/repentance/deliverance cycles including Judg 3:7–2 Kgs 25:30,” and 3) “the narrative account of Israel’s progressive degeneration and ultimate failure in the promised land that begins in Judg 1:27 and stretches all the way through 2 Kgs 25:30.” 9 Indeed, this is a contextually-rich reading insofar as the passage under examination is shown to be a part of multiple literary settings. 10 Thus, the question becomes how the passage relates to these larger, textual settings. What role does it play within the larger whole? Finally, a third example comes from the work of Stulman on the book of Jeremiah. 11 Stulman argues, in opposition to the consensus view, that Jeremiah “reflects an intentional literary organization and final theological message.” 12 Thus, the book contains certain macrounits that shape its 6

This last type of contextual reading takes the idea of literary setting to its most macro level. The readings at this level are part of the agenda of canonical criticism. 7 Marvin A. Sweeney, Isaiah 1–4 and the Post-Exilic Understanding of the Isaianic Tradition (BZAW 171; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1988), 186. For a slightly different understanding of the book’s structure at a later time, see also Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, 39– 41. 8 For Sweeney’s structure of the book of Isaiah, see Sweeney, Isaiah 1–4, 98, but see now his Isaiah 1–39, 39–41, for a revised structure. 9 Serge Frolov, The Turn of the Cycle: 1 Samuel 1–8 in Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives (BZAW 342; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004), 203. 10 It should be noted, however, that Frolov’s contextual readings are based on reconstructed literary units that are diachronic and redactional in nature. 11 Louis Stulman, Order Amid Chaos: Jeremiah as Symbolic Tapestry (The Biblical Seminar 57; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998). For a more complete discussion of this topic, see now his full-scale commentary, Louis Stulman, Jeremiah (AOTC; Nashville: Abingdon, 2005). 12 Stulman, Order Amid Chaos, 17.

132

Chapter Four: Reading Contextually Within Units: Ezekiel 24–25

present literary form. For example, the prose sermons within Jeremiah play the most important role in structuring the book. Stulman supports his argument by providing a contextual reading of Jer 1–25 and Jer 26–52 in which he reads the various subunits of these textual blocks together in order to present a unified message for the book. Intuitively, scholars realize that passages or subunits that are placed beside each other should be read together. Therefore, literary interpreters of Genesis often attempt a reading of Gen 1–2 (or 1–3), even though they recognize its divergent compositional history; a synchronic, contextual reading necessitates taking seriously the editor’s decision to place these two creation accounts together as a narrative. My contextual readings of Ezekiel, as found in Part Two of this study, actually build on the observations of earlier scholars who have noticed the remarkable organization of the entire book. For example, Smend in 1880 notes, “The whole book is…the logical development of a series of ideas in accordance with a well thought-out, and in part quite schematic, plan. We cannot remove any part without disturbing the whole structure.” 13 If this assessment is true, then the necessity for contextual readings is assured. More recently, Ronald Clements has argued, with reference to Isaiah, that an interpreter must consider the whole when reading the particular: The Book of Isaiah comes to us as a single literary whole, comprising sixty-six chapters, and this given datum of the form of the book must be regarded as a feature requiring explanation. It establishes a basis for the interpretation of the individual sayings and units of which it is made up and provides a literary context which must inevitably affect the interpretation of the several parts of the whole. 14

Even more recently, synchronically-oriented scholars such as Conrad have sounded similar notes: To read prophetic books as compilations aimed at conveying a meaning requires that the reader also be concerned with the constructed whole. I understand that a prophetic book represents a kind of collage, but it is this very collage as a whole that creates a literary world. To understand the meaning of a prophetic book means that we must read it according to its order and arrangement. 15

In summary, prophetic speech, although originating from the mouth of the ancient Israelite prophets, presents itself as embedded within the frame-

13

Smend, 1880, xxi, quoted from Joyce, Ezekiel, 7. Ronald E. Clements, Old Testament Prophecy: From Oracles to Canon (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 93. This volume is a collection of previously published articles. The quote above is found originally in Ronald E. Clements, “The Unity of the Book of Isaiah,” Interpretation 36 (1982): 117–29. 15 Conrad, Reading the Latter Prophets, 3. 14

4.1. Contextual Reading

133

work of literature. 16 Thus, this study focuses on reading these textual units with an awareness of their context within the larger setting of the prophetic book. So, the next two chapters provide one particular type of contextual reading in relation to two literary units within the book of Ezekiel, Ezek 24–25 and Ezek 32:17–33:20. Literary units such as these two constitute the largest textual blocks within this prophetic book and are delineated as coherent, literary blocks based on the criteria set forth in Chapter Two and the proposed surface structure as explained in detail in Chapter Three. Therefore, the following two chapters read contextually among the subunits within the units. In other words, I contend that all of the subunits within Ezek 24–25 and Ezek 32:17–33:20 are intentionally part of the larger unit and should thus be read together in order to constitute a complete reading of this unit of the book. This type of reading, therefore, privileges the work of the final editor/author, who shaped the biblical text into its current form and used the chronological formulas to create literary units. Additionally, a reading of these literary units beside their neighboring units is outside the scope of this chapter, although it is certainly possibly and fruitful. I address these two, non-sequential, larger units here because of their unusual, if not, controversial nature as a textual unit. Most scholars posit major divisions in the book of Ezekiel exactly within these two units, a fact noted repeatedly in Chapter One’s review of scholarship. In fact, the oft-cited tripartite structure of the book creates its major divisions precisely between chapters 24 and 25 and between chapters 32 and 33. Yet, it is my contention that this division lacks literary evidence. I counter this argument by reading across scholars’ proposed divisions and reading with the new structure. This attempt at a new contextual reading not only aligns better with the surface structure of the book, and thereby constitutes a more natural reading, but also corrects the tendency of scholars to read only sections of Ezekiel instead of the whole of the book. Thus, I am focusing on the literary form of the book as distinguished from the historical event of prophetic speech and/or the original composition of the book. By singling out Ezek 24–25 and Ezek 32:17–33:20 as examples of a literary unit, I hope not only to provide examples of contextual readings, but also

16

Although Ellen F. Davis, Swallowing the Scroll: Textuality and the Dynamics of Discourse in Ezekiel’s Prophecy (JSOTSS 78; Bible and Literature Series 21; Sheffield: Almond, 1989), has recently argued that the book of Ezekiel originated as a textual composition, not as oral speeches. This position, with which I am in essential agreement, makes the need for contextual reading all the more important since the inherent textuality of the book contributes to its highly structured nature and its deliberateness in the placement of certain literary units.

134

Chapter Four: Reading Contextually Within Units: Ezekiel 24–25

to alleviate both the need for the tripartite structure and the fragmented reading of the book. These two literary units also demonstrate how diachronic concerns dominate the field, since bringing these subunits together as a coherent unit immediately causes tension in the minds of scholars, who see them as coming from different hands or from different time periods in the life of the prophet. Scholars have allowed their diachronic commitments to trump certain literary readings of the book. For example, Zimmerli describes the chapters concerning the nations as “a homogeneous compositional unit,” when no evidence supports this conclusion. 17 Various types of contextual readings exist (since multiple literary settings exist) so that one could easily attempt a reading of Ezek 24–25, a unit, within the context of the whole of the book. Alternatively, one could take the first oracle, a subunit, of one of the larger literary units (e.g., Ezek 24:1–14) and read it contextually with regard to the whole book. Both of these contextual readings are vital to the exegetical enterprise and should not be ignored. All textual units – large and small – should be situated within larger textual units. Likewise, this contextually-oriented reading could be performed on any of the literary units in the book, e.g., Ezek 1–7 or Ezek 8–19. However, I expect that the greatest amount of concern with my surface structure will revolve around the literary units examined in this chapter. Scholars, who have no qualms about some of the other literary units, may pause when assessing the two literary units discussed below; for at first glance; they are indeed quite peculiar. In other words, the units stand in direct opposition to the scholarly consensus on the structural division of the book. What I am calling contextual readings then is an attempt to examine explicitly the various literary settings of certain textual units. Scholars have long considered this a part of their work so that my readings here are not methodologically new. My only claim to novelty concerns my extended focus on this practice as it relates to Ezekiel and my use of a new surface structure of the book.

4.2. Ezekiel 24–25 as a Literary Unit This chapter reads Ezek 24–25 contextually as a textual unit. This reading focuses intently on the literary presentation of these two chapters, these three subunits, as they are placed side by side in the final form of the book. Moreover, they are purposely bound together as a literary unit with the 17

Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2 (Herm; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 3.

4.2. Ezekiel 24–25 as a Literary Unit

135

chronological formula of Ezek 24:1 serving as the introduction. Thus, the reading below strives for deliberate awareness about the literary setting of each oracle or other literary elements within the overall unit. The first section takes up each of the three subunits of Ezek 24–25 separately so as to understand thoroughly the literary qualities of the whole unit. I discuss the translation, structure, and genre for each of these subunits. This section of commentary serves as a foundation for the second section and reviews recent scholarship as well as proffers new proposals on various issues. But these individual readings of the subunits are only preparatory work for the second section, which presents a reading of Ezek 24–25 as a literary unit within the book of Ezekiel. 4.2.1. Ezekiel 24:1b–14 This passage with its intense imagery of a boiling pot and bloody city includes several quickly-stated commands and a range of evocative descriptions of judgment toward Jerusalem. The following section provides a translation of the passage, lays out a structure based on speaker, and discusses the multiple genres present in these 14 verses. 4.2.1.1. Translation & Critical Notes 18 1 And the word of YHWH was to me in the ninth year, in the tenth month, on the tenth of the month, saying: 2 “Son of man, write down the name of today, this very day. 19 The king of Babylon has laid siege 20 to Jerusalem on this very day. 3 And speak a parable to the rebellious house and say to them: Thus says the Lord YHWH: Set the pot on, set it! 21 Also pour water in it. 4 Gather its 22 meat-pieces to it, every good meat-piece – thigh and shoul18

All translations from the book of Ezekiel are mine. The appearance of two direct object markers here has confounded modern scholars, who wish to delete the first phrase the name of today as repetitive. This textual emendation has support in the Syriac and Vulgate traditions, but not the Old Greek or Targum versions. The rhetorical function of the repetition is obvious and powerful; therefore it appears original to the text. Is repetition always a signal of an editorial hand? 20 Literally, leaned on or pressured. See Psalm 88:8 for a similar use as here. 21 The second imperative set it is missing from most textual versions. Again, as in verse two, the repetition is striking. Furthermore, as Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1 (Herm; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 493n3b, quips, “Ezekiel loves doubled repetitions.” Indeed, MT Ezekiel does. 22 The suffix on the noun meat-pieces is missing in the Old Greek and Syriac. The problem with the MT, as it currently stands, is that the suffix has no clear antecedent un19

136

Chapter Four: Reading Contextually Within Units: Ezekiel 24–25

der. Fill it with choice bones. 5 Take 23 the choicest of the flock. Also pile up the bones 24 under it. Boil its boilings. Also, its bones cook 25 in it. 6 Therefore, thus says the Lord YHWH: Woe to the city of blood, to the pot which has corrosion 26 in it. And its corrosion has not left it. Piece by piece, take it out. No lot has fallen on it 7 for her blood is within it. Upon a bare rock she 27 placed it. She did not pour it upon the ground to cover dust upon it. 8 In order to arouse wrath, to take vengeance, I have placed her blood upon the bare rock so that it may not be covered. 9 Therefore, thus says the Lord YHWH: Woe to the city of blood. 28 Also, I will make the pile great. 10 Pile up the wood, kindle the fire, cook the meat, and mix the spices. 29 And let the bones burn. 30 11 And make it stand on its coals empty so that it becomes hot, and its copper glows, and its uncleanness in the midst of it melts away. Its corrosion consumed. 12 She exhausted her strength. 31 Its great corrosion will not come off from her in the fire. 13 On account of your depraved uncleanness, I purified you, but you would not be purified from your uncleanness (so) you will never be clean again until I have satisfied my wrath against you. 14 I, YHWH, have spoken, it is coming, I will do it. I will not hold back, I will not spare, I

less it is again repetitive with two references to the pot. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 493n4a, suggests the suffix is added under the influence of the next word which has a suffix; Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 766n6, concurs. 23 An infinitive absolute fulfils the role of an imperative. 24 Scholars generally agree on reading ‘es#im as wood here for sense. There may be confusion with the bones found later in the verse, bones which are in the pot. It is difficult to see how the bones are cooked while under the pot. 25 Literally, ripen. The perfect verb here interrupts the string of imperatives, but brings nicely this section to a close. 26 See J. L. Kelso, “Ezekiel’s Parable of the Corroded Copper Caldron,” JBL 64 (1945): 391–93. 27 Old Greek reads this verb and the following one in the first person, an influence from the following verse. 28 Old Greek deletes this clause, probably because of the repetition from verse 6. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 494n9b, questions its originality because it fits better in verse 6 than here. Yet, is it possible for a scribe to rewrite an entire sentence unknowingly? The continued repetition in MT serves a rhetorical purpose. 29 The last command here is unclear. Commentators often emend to agree with the Old Greek which reads “and the broth becomes little.” See Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 767n22. 30 This clause is missing from the Old Greek. In addition, the verb sequence switches to the imperfect from the imperative, a fact that worries Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 495n10c, but not Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 767–68n23. 31 This is a very unclear clause within a difficult verse altogether.

4.2. Ezekiel 24–25 as a Literary Unit

137

will not relent. 32 According to your ways and your doings, they judge you. An utterance of the Lord 33 YHWH. 34 4.2.1.2. Structure The main divisions of this passage are fundamentally apparent because of the presence of significant formulas therein. Greenberg, for example, divides the passage into three main sections, vv. 3–5, 6–8, 9–14, based on the messenger formulas. 35 This is essentially the division of Allen and Odell as well. 36 Joyce divides the heart of this passage (vv. 3–14) into two parts: vv. 3–5 and 6–14 principally because of the series of commands in the first part and the appearance of therefore in verse 6. 37 Curiously, he does not give equal weight to the second therefore in verse 9. 38 Perhaps the sense of shared content within vv. 6–14 led him to this conclusion; however, it overlooks an essential literary feature within the passage. In addition, all three of these commentators fail to tie the initial two verses into their overall structure as a consequence of their commitment to diachronic concerns such as the speech of the prophetic figure. Block does not fall into this trap, although he rather simplistically labels the first two verses as “Introduction.” 39 He maintains the familiar divisions at vv. 3, 6, and 9, while arguing for a separate section in verse 14 for a conclusion. 40 Hals’s structure is the most detailed as he deals with the initial verses and their relationship to the passage. 41 Furthermore, Hals agrees with the others on the 32

Old Greek omits the last clause: I will not relent. The first name for the deity is missing in the Old Greek. 34 The Old Greek includes a long addition here as follows: “Therefore I will judge you according to your bloodshed, and according to your wanton behavior I will judge you, the defilement of the name and the greatness of rebellion.” 35 Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37 (AB; New York: Doubleday, 1997), 503. 36 Leslie C. Allen, “Ezekiel 24:3–14: A Rhetorical Perspective,” CBQ 49 (1987): 406; Leslie C. Allen, Ezekiel 20–48 (WBC; Dallas: Word Books, 1990), 56–58; Margaret S. Odell, Ezekiel (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary; Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2005), 312. 37 Paul M. Joyce, Ezekiel: A Commentary (LHBOTS 482; New York: T&T Clark, 2007), 165. 38 For a more complete assessment of the particle lkn, see W. Eugene March, “Lkn: Its Function and Meanings,” in Rhetorical Criticism: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg (ed., Jared J. Jackson and Martin Kessler; Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series 1; Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press, 1974), 256–284. 39 Daniel I. Block, “Ezekiel’s Boiling Cauldron: A Form-Critical Solution to Ezekiel XXIV:1–14,” VT 41 (1991): 20. By using this label for vv. 1-2, Block basically follows the standard diachronic commitment to prophetic speech. He does not connect these verses to the larger subunit. 40 Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 781–783. 41 Ronald M. Hals, Ezekiel (FOTL 19; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 170–172. 33

138

Chapter Four: Reading Contextually Within Units: Ezekiel 24–25

major divisions of the passage and with Block on the nature of verse 14 as a conclusion. Thus, the central interpretive issue regarding the structure of this passage concerns the way in which the three sections of vv. 3–5, 6–8, and 9– 14 relate to the each other and the opening verses, particularly the divine command to the prophet to speak an allegory. The literary structure of Ezek 24:1b–14 is as follows: I. Oracle concerning allegory of boiling pot A. Prophetic Word Formula B. Divine Address to son of man concerning boiling pot 1. Title: Son of man 2. Command #1: Write down day 3. Command #2: Speak an allegory a. Command proper b. Divine Speech #1 1) messenger formula 2) divine speech proper c. Divine Speech #2 1) messenger formula 2) divine speech proper d. Divine Speech #3 1) messenger formula 2) divine speech proper

24:1b–14 24:1b 24:2–14 24:2a1 24:2a2–b 24:3–14 24:3aa 24:3ab–5 24:3ab 24:3b-5 24:6–8 24:6a1–4 24:6a5–8 24:9–14 24:9aa 24:9ab-14

The oracle of Ezek 24:1b–14 divides into two unequal parts based on literary voice: the introductory prophetic word formula and the divine address. The literary voice of the prophet, Ezekiel, speaks the introductory formula; the remainder of the passage is the literary voice of the deity. This divine address contains first a title, son of man, and then two unique commands. Verse two provides the first command, which is to note today’s date significance. The second and longer of the commands contains the contents of the allegory the prophet is told to speak. This allegory (vv. 3ab–14) is presented as a series of three divine speeches, all of which are introduced by the messenger formula. Allen also notes the occurrence of opening and closing formulas and an inclusio via wordplay within the allegory. 42 This is the heart of the subunit, the central message, and, for this reason, the commentators often focus their structural analysis on these verses only. The first divine speech proper (Ezek 24:3b– 5) is a list of commands, using a string of imperative verbs, that imagine a boiling pot with choice pieces of meat boiling in it. The second divine speech proper (Ezek 24:6a5–8) contains woe to the city because of its “corrosion.” The third divine speech proper (Ezek 24:9ab–14) contains a second woe to the same city. 42

Leslie C. Allen, “Ezekiel 24:3–14,” 405.

4.2. Ezekiel 24–25 as a Literary Unit

139

4.2.1.3. Genre At the macro-level, this passage represents an oracle, signaled by the prophetic word formula in Ezek 24:1b. Yet, as noted above, this genre designation is rather broad for the material included within these 14 verses in that the divine oracle uses other genres in order to present its message. So, several scholars suggest more specific genres for this passage. Fohrer viewed this passage as a report to perform a symbolic action with a subsequent interpretation of the action. 43 This designation makes a salient distinction between the performance of an action and the report of that performance, a difference that would be needed in this text since the prophet does not literally perform an action. Furthermore, this generic label also deals well with the commands given to manipulate physically an object, although not with the earlier commands to speak an allegory. 44 Yet, this interpretation takes too literally the divine command to cook the pieces of meat in a pot, especially since this culinary action is often intertwined with the imagery of a bloody city. This genre designation also only accounts for a portion of the text, namely, the verses beginning at the end of verse 3 until the end of verse 14 that feature the boiling pot imagery. Finally, there are stronger generic elements within the passage that point to a better understanding of its function. Hals uses the general designation of prophecy of punishment before noting that vv. 3b–5 is a song, while 6–13 are two interpretations of this song. 45 This concept of a song, which for Hals is sung by “those preparing a meal…[who] sing joyfully to one another about their actions,” is borrowed from Zimmerli, who in turn follows van den Born. 46 This generic label envisions the prophet as going about the quotidian business of cooking when he receives a divine oracle that uses his cooking utensils to relay the message. However, this designation does not account for the initial command to speak. Furthermore, there are simply no explicit clues as to the musical nature of the subunit. In fact, the reader is never told that the prophet is preparing a meal. In the end, the text provides no link between domestic actions, such as cooking, and the act of singing.

43 Georg Fohrer, Ezechiel (Tübingen: Mohr 1955), 138–40. W. H. Brownlee, “Ezekiel’s Copper Cauldron and Blood on the Rock (Chapter 24:1–14),” For Me to Live: Essays in Honor of J. L. Kelso (ed. R.A. Caughenour; Cleveland: Liederbach, 1972), 21–43, concurs with this generic assignment. 44 Fohrer, in fact, moves this command to speak to a later place in the chapter. 45 Hals, Ezekiel, 172. 46 Hals, Ezekiel, 172; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 496; A. van den Born, Ezechiël uit de grondtekst vertaald en uitgelegd (Roermond: Romen & Zonen, 1954), 154.

140

Chapter Four: Reading Contextually Within Units: Ezekiel 24–25

Ziegler, Zimmerli, Cooke, and Odell label the passage, at least vv. 3– 14, a parable because of the direct command to speak a parable found within the passage. 47 Odell goes on to label vv. 3–5 the parable proper, while vv. 6–14 constitute announcements of judgment. This is basically in line with Greenberg’s assessment, although he uses the word “clarification” for vv. 6–8 and 9–14. This is an important generic distinction since a parable and an interpretation of a parable function differently within a text. In sum, these scholars identify only a small section of the overall passage as a parable and label the majority of the passage as interpretations. Indeed, if one were to use the label parable for the entire subunit, then it must be in a general sense, similar to labeling the whole passage an oracle. Thus, two general categories would exist for this particular passage: a divine speech or oracle that takes the form of a parable, and its interpretations. The key to understanding the generic quality of Ezek 24:1–14 appears then to center on how the parable is used within the whole subunit. Block designates this passage as a disputation speech in which the opening lines (vv. 3b–5) with their “metaphorical quality” serve as a quotation, which is here a popular saying (or an ad hoc composition used to state the thesis). 48 Then, the refutation is given in verses 6–13. Block points out the links to another disputation speech in Ezek 11:1–12 including the motif of the pot. 49 One problem with this genre suggestion is that the quotation, which is indeed common to the disputation speech, would be implied in this passage and quite subtle, instead of introduced properly as a quotation. In other words, as Block admits, he must rely on a “tripartite logical deep structure involving thesis, counter-thesis, dispute” for the genre, instead of a “rhetorical surface structure” because of the latter’s problematic nature in this passage. 50 However, Block is perhaps correct to note that the saying in vv. 3b–5 may have been widely known or popular enough that a signal as to its nature as a quotation was unnecessary. 51 In summary, the passage should be read first as an oracle insofar as a prophet receives a divine speech. The more specific contents of this oracle concern a disputation speech in which a common parable is quoted and 47

J. Ziegler, Ezechiel (Echter Bibel; Würzburg: Echter, 1963), 78; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 496; G. A. Cooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Book of Ezekiel (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1960), 264; Odell, Ezekiel, 312–15. 48 Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 770; Daniel I. Block, “Ezekiel’s Boiling Cauldron: A FormCritical Solution to Ezekiel XXIV: 1–14,” VT 41 (1991): 12–37; For more information on disputation, see A. Graffy, A Prophet Confronts His People (AnBib 104; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1984); D. F. Murray, “The Rhetoric of Disputation: Re-examination of a Prophetic Genre,” JSOT 38 (1987): 95–121. 49 Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 771. 50 Block, “Ezekiel’s Boiling Cauldron,” 13. 51 Block, “Ezekiel’s Boiling Cauldron,” 22.

4.2. Ezekiel 24–25 as a Literary Unit

141

then refuted by twisting the pleasing image of cooking a tasty meal into one of a bloody city full of woe. 52 4.2.2. Ezekiel 24:15–27 This oracle, announcing the impending death of the wife of Ezekiel and Ezekiel’s subsequent sign act, connects these events with the profanation of the Jerusalem sanctuary and the death of the exiles’ children. This section examines this text using a form-critical methodology in order to understand better both the sign act and the connection between the wife, the sanctuary, and the children. This section also proffers an original structure based on speaker and audience and demonstrates a new understanding of the multiple genres woven together in Ezek 24:15–27. 4.2.2.1. Translation & Critical Notes 15 And the word of YHWH was to me saying: 16 “Son of man, behold I am taking from you the desire 53 of your eyes in a blow. 54 Then you will neither wail nor weep, and your tears will not come. 55 17 Groan, be still 56 like dead ones, mourning 57 do not make. Bind

52

As Block, “Ezekiel’s Boiling Cauldron,” 28, notes “the actual dispute that follows consists of a shocking reinterpretation of the status of the meat and its significance within the cauldron.” 53 The word, dmxm, occurs only three times in Ezek, all of which are in this passage. The reference shifts interestingly from Ezekiel’s wife to the Jerusalem sanctuary to the people’s children. 54 The word, hpgm, appears in two contexts in the Hebrew Bible: 1) divine judgment in the form of plagues or pestilence and 2) battle. Greenberg derives from these contexts a meaning related to quick death or stroke as opposed to a long illness. However, the possibility of a death by a plague is not unreasonable. Even Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 508, notices that the Syriac translates “by a sudden plague” here. 55 The phrase Kt(md )wbt )wlw does not appear in the Old Greek, leading Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 502, to dismiss it as “superfluous.” It is rather redundant and breaks the tight parallelism of the preceding two verbs. However, as pointed out in the previous subunit’s discussion, the repetitive nature of MT Ezekiel serves a possible rhetorical purpose. 56 The other meaning of the verb, Mmd, “to be silent” creates a nonsense phrase, since one cannot physically groan and remain silent. Thus, I have chosen the meaning of stillness. See B.A. Levine, “Silence, Sound, and the Phenomenology of Mourning in Biblical Israel,” JANES 22 (1993): 101-103; E.D. Reymond, “The Hebrew word hmmd and the Root d-m-m I (‘To Be Silent’),” Biblica 90 (2009): 374-88. 57 The phrase up to this point in the verse is difficult to translate. The construction includes a Niphal infinitive construct, a Qal imperative, and two absolute nouns.

142

Chapter Four: Reading Contextually Within Units: Ezekiel 24–25

your head-dress 58 upon you and place your sandals on your feet. Do not cover your beard, and the bread of men 59 do not eat.” 18 And I spoke 60 to the people in the morning 61 and my wife died in the evening. Then I did in the morning 62 just as I was commanded. 19 And the people said 63 to me, “Will you not tell us, what is this to us 64 that you are doing?” 20 And I said to them, “The word of YHWH was to me saying: 21 ‘Say to the house of Israel Thus says the Lord 65 God: Behold I am about to profane 66 my sanctuary, the pride of your strength, the desire of your eyes, and the care 67 of your life. And your sons and your daughters whom you left behind by the sword, they will fall. 22 And you will do as I have done: you will not cover your beard and the bread of men you will not eat. 23 And (you will bind) your head-dress upon your heads and sandals upon your feet. 68 You will neither wail nor weep and you will pine away in your wickedness and you will groan 69 one to another. 24 And Ezekiel will be to you a sign. Just as he has done, you will do. When it comes you will know that I am the Lord God. 25 And you, son of man, will it not be on the day I 58 Interestingly, the first letter of the word contains a dagesh in many Hebrew manuscripts; however, Leningrad Codex contains no such dagesh. 59 The BHS apparatus suggests Mynw), “mourning,” in agreement with the Targum and Vulgate. Additionally this emended phrase appears in Hosea 9:4. This proposed emendation certainly clarifies the difficult MT at this point, although no reasons for the change to My#n) are forthcoming. Furthermore, the exact phrase is repeated in verse 22. 60 The suggested reading of BHS (trbdw) is noted but rejected, because it has no textual support. 61 This first phrase of v. 18 is considered an addition by BHS; likewise Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 503, reads it as a “clumsy addition.” The main reason for this proposal is the order of the verse. However, Ezekiel’s action of speaking at this point in the narrative need not be an explanation of all the subsequent events. He may have told the people simply the word of YHWH in vv. 16–17. 62 Syriac makes explicit what is implicit: “on the morning of the next day.” 63 Singular subject, M(h; plural verb, wrm)yw. 64 The second wnl is absent in the Old Greek, Syriac, and Vulgate. It is repetitive in the sentence, but may function to strengthen the people’s emphasis on the effect of Ezekiel’s action on them. 65 Missing in Old Greek 66 Participle translated as imminent future. 67 lmxm is a hapax legomenon; it stands in parallel to )#m in v.25. A few Hebrew manuscripts have dmxmw. 68 The Hebrew clause does not contain a verb. 69 Old Greek reads Mxn instead of Mhn, which as Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 511, notes completely subverts the theme of this passage.

4.2. Ezekiel 24–25 as a Literary Unit

143

take from them their strength, the exultation of their glory, the desire of their eyes, and the yearning of their life, their sons and their daughters, 26 on that day an escapee will come to you to make your eyes hear? 27 On that day your mouth will be opened with the escapee and you will speak and not be silent any longer. And you will be to them a sign, and they will know that I am YHWH.’” 4.2.2.2. Structure This subunit, Ezek 24:15–27, distinguishes itself within the larger unit in that the prophet does not relay only a divine speech. Instead, the autobiographical narrative includes a report of divine speeches, Ezekiel’s speeches, and the people’s speech. In other words, this subunit moves from the initial divine word to Ezekiel’s subsequent explanation of the oracle for the people, an important role of the priesthood according to Lev. 10:10. Zimmerli divides the passage into two parts based on the double address to the prophet which begins in vv. 16 and 25 and the double recognition formula which ends the sections in vv. 24 and 27. 70 Therefore he splits the chapter into vv. 16–24 and vv. 25–27 with the prophetic word formula (v.15) standing outside of the structure, implying its secondary nature. These two features, double addresses and formulas, are important to the passage but do not form the primary division of the subunit. Zimmerli seems to structure the passage based on diachronic issues. Therefore, he neglects the final structure of the passage and the way in which the report shifts regarding both speaker and audience. The formulas and addresses are secondary to these larger literary elements. Allen notices the parallelism and chiastic structure of the passage. 71 Verse 16a, with its comment concerning the loss of Ezekiel’s wife, parallels v. 21a with its comment about the loss of temple and v. 21b which notes the loss of family members. Furthermore, vv. 16b–17 give three instructions concerning mourning which are repeated in vv. 22b–23a. While these parallels add an aesthetic quality to the text and emphasize important themes within the passage, they do not provide overall structure. They do not address the issue of speaker and audience, only the issue of content. Hals’s structural analysis captures well the literary nature of the passage. 72 However, he fails to justify or comment in any significant way on his proposed structure, leaving one to infer his criteria. One major difference between his structure and the one below is that he separates vv. 20–27 into two sections based on the criteria of genre. Therefore, since vv. 25–27 70

Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 504. Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 58. 72 Hals, Ezekiel, 173–174. 71

144

Chapter Four: Reading Contextually Within Units: Ezekiel 24–25

contain a prophetic proof saying, they constitute a separate section for him. One minor difference is Hals’s tendency to group various actions and verbs together thematically instead of listing each individual action. The literary structure of Ezek 24:15–27 is as follows: II. Oracle Concerning the Death of Ezekiel’s Wife A. Prophetic Word Formula (1st person) B. Divine Address to son of man concerning Death of Wife 1. Direct Address: “son of man” 2. Take away “delight of eyes” 3. Restrictions on mourning a. Do not wail b. Do not weep c. No tears d. Groan e. Be still f. Do not mourn g. Bind your head-dress h. Place sandals on feet i. Do not cover head j. Do not eat bread C. Report of the Response of Ezekiel to Divine Address 1. Spoke to People 2. Wife died 3. Prophet did as commanded D. Report of the Response of People to Ezekiel 1. Ezekiel’s Narrative Introduction 2. People’s Direct Response: explanation wanted E. Report of Ezekiel’s Response to People 1. 1st person Narrative Introduction 2. Prophetic Word Formula 3. Divine Speech a. Command to Ezekiel to speak to Israel b. Messenger formula c. Speech to Israel: proof saying 1) God to people a) Profanation of sanctuary b) Death of sons and daughters 2) Ezekiel to people a) You will do as me b) You will not cover your beard c) You will not eat bread d) Bind head-dress and sandals e) You will not wail f) You will not weep g) Pine away in wickedness h) Groan one to another 3) God to people: Ezekiel a sign 4) Recognition formula

24:15–27 24:15 24:16–17 24:16aa 24:16ab 24:16b–17 24:16ba1–2 24:16ba3–4 24:16bb 24:17aa1 24:17aa2–3 24:17aa4–5 24:17aa6–8 24:17ab 24:17ba 24:17bb 24:18 24:18aa 24:18ab 24:18b 24:19 24:19a 24:19b 24:20–27 24:20a 24:20b 24:21–27 24:21aa1–3 24:21aa4–6 24:21aa7–24 24:21aa7–b 24:21aa7–15 24:21b 24:22–23 24:22a 24:22ba 24:22bb 24:23aa 24:23ab1–2 24:23ab3–4 24:23ba 24:23bb 24:24a 24:24b

145

4.2. Ezekiel 24–25 as a Literary Unit d. Speech to son of man: proof saying 1) Escapee will come 2) Ezekiel dumbness will end 3) Ezekiel a sign 4) Recognition formula

24:25–27 24:25–26 24:27a 24:27ba 24:27bb

The division of the subunit into five sections (A-E) is based on speaker and audience as it is formulated by the prophet. Ezekiel is the speaker on the macro-level for the entire unit; however, as he presents his narrative report he brings in various speakers and audiences. Section A (v.15) contains a first person prophetic word formula with the narrator, i.e., Ezekiel, as the speaker. The formula occurs frequently in the book of Ezekiel and often helps to demarcate the individual units within the larger book sections (cf. discussion above on Ezek 24–25 & also Ezek 26–28). Section B (v.16–17) contains a report of divine speech with Ezekiel addressed directly both as “son of man” and in the second person, “you”. The section includes one statement of divinely-initiated disaster and then a list of ten mourning restrictions (B.3.a–j) addressed to the prophet. The long list of restrictions includes some rather specific actions (place sandals on feet) and some general actions associated with mourning (do not mourn). The restrictions also include actions to undertake and to avoid. In the end, it appears that Ezekiel is not allowed to show any external signs of mourning. 73 Section C (v.18) contains a first person account from Ezekiel of his response to the divine command. There are three main actions: Ezekiel speaks to the people, apparently relaying the divine speech of vv.16–17; 74 Ezekiel’s wife dies in a clause that reports the specific referent of the hitherto unknown “delight of his eyes”; 75 Ezekiel obeys the mourning restrictions. Section D (v.19) contains another first person account from Ezekiel; however, this verse-long section reports the people’s response to Ezekiel’s actions. This verse pushes the narrative forward by introducing the extended response of Ezekiel in section E. Although some scholars have questioned the placement of v.18 before vv.19f, the sequence makes sense 73

Ezekiel’s command to groan may demonstrate that he can perform some sort of internal action that would not be apparent to onlookers; however, this is a rather speculative solution to the quandary of reconciling the other restrictions on the list with the command to groan. 74 The fact that Ezekiel tells the people of the impending personal disaster before it happens helps to bolster his subsequent sign act and the interpretation of the act. 75 While it is true that this is the first mention of Ezekiel’s wife in the passage, it is difficult to imagine, as Greenberg suggests, that the prophet did not know about whom God was speaking.

146

Chapter Four: Reading Contextually Within Units: Ezekiel 24–25

since v.18 reports that Ezekiel performs a certain action which elicits questioning by the people in v. 19. Section E (v.20–27) continues a first person report with a narrative introduction, a prophetic word formula, and finally a lengthy divine speech. This is the second divine speech of the passage, hence the need for an additional prophetic word formula. The first was directed to Ezekiel (vv.16– 17); the second is directed toward the people and then Ezekiel. Ezekiel is still the speaker; but in response to the people’s questioning, the prophet delivers an oracle. This section is obviously the largest of the passage and the climax. The last eight verses of the chapter connect Ezekiel’s personal, tragedy with the national, impending tragedy. The section also contains a very interesting switch in addressee. Whereas vv. 21aa7–24 address Israel, vv. 25–27 switch to address the prophet, Ezekiel. On the synchronic level, the divine speech thereby becomes a report by Ezekiel of what God says to the people and then to the prophet, both of which are spoken to the people. In the end, Ezekiel’s private oracle with the deity becomes part of a public proclamation to the people for ultimately the people should know YHWH (v. 27). Finally, the repetition of the recognition formula and the term sign creates a parallel between v. 24 and v. 27 and between vv. 21aa7–24 and vv. 25–27. Ultimately, my synchronic structure does not coincide with Zimmerli’s observably diachronic understanding of the passage as two sections, vv. 16–24 and vv. 25–27, since I utilize the criteria of speaker and audience. 4.2.2.3. Genre Ezekiel 24:15–27 participates in at least two different genres – report of a prophetic sign act 76 and prophetic proof saying. Zimmerli, working from a more diachronic perspective, also identifies these two genres. He further notes that the sign act is placed in a narrative, comparing the action to Ezek 12:1ff. Sweeney envisions the following three elements of the genre, report of a sign act: a) a command to perform the act, b) a report that the act was performed, and c) an interpretation of the act. 77 This is also the conclusion of Fohrer, who also undertook a form-critical analysis of the sign acts. 78 Therefore, the genre is not defined exclusively by the act itself; it is first 76

Sign act, as a term, is to be preferred over symbolic act since the former is the preferred term within communication theory. See Kelvin G. Friebel, Jeremiah’s and Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts (JSOTSup 283; Sheffield: Sheffield Press, 1999), 12. 77 Marvin A. Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, with an Introduction to Prophetic Literature (FOTL; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, ), 537. 78 Georg Fohrer, Die Symbolischen Handlungen der Propheten (Zürich: Zwingli Verlag Zürich, 1968).

4.2. Ezekiel 24–25 as a Literary Unit

147

and foremost a report. Floyd has a very different understanding of the genre’s elements: a) the prophet’s reluctance to obey the deity’s command to perform the sign act, b) the prophet’s eventual obedience of the command, c) the deity’s oracular message which provides the significance of the sign act. 79 This interpretation is clearly tied more to the prophet’s actions within the text than the structure of the text. Also, this understanding, especially the concept of reluctance, shows dependence on Habel’s study of prophetic call narratives. 80 Neither of these sketches dismisses the questions of the real performance/historicity and significance of the act, but Sweeney’s does demonstrate correctly that the literary genre does not view the action in isolation. 81 In vv. 15–27, the typical pattern is followed in detail, a feature not common to the book. 82 Vv. 16b–17 relay divine orders to the prophet concerning his performance of the sign act. This inclusion of a command is very typical to the genre since prophets like Jeremiah and Ezekiel are not presented within the narrative as doing sign acts, but as commanded to do them. 83 In these verses the prophet cannot show the typical signs of mourning like weeping and wailing. Like most sign acts, this behavior should evoke some curiosity and attention from onlookers, family, or friends. In this way, the sign act functions to communicate a message; however, the full understanding or interpretation of the message is yet to be revealed. Verse 18b reports the second element of the genre: the sign act is performed just as God commands. Although, as Friebel notes, the textual presupposition is that the prophet will follow the divine command, the text makes this explicit in this half verse. Furthermore, this report of confirmation is not always present in a sign act text, e.g., Ezek 4:4–8 and 21:13–22, which complicates the question of whether the acts are actually performed. Finally, Ezekiel’s response is given in v. 20–27 via a quotation of the deity. This is the third element of the genre, which, in fact, Floyd specifically identifies as an oracular message providing significance. 84 One element of the passage which is not a part of the formal elements of the genre is the response of the people in v. 19. A response by an audience

79

Floyd, Minor Prophets, 647. N. Habel, “The Form and Significance of the Call Narratives,” ZAW 77:3 (1965): 297–323. 81 Friebel’s focus on both the sign act itself and modern communication theory does not allow him to explore the form-critical aspects and literary presentations of the sign acts. In other words, he is more interested in diachronic matters than synchronic issues. 82 Reports of prophetic sign acts occur in Ezek 4:1–5:5; 12:1–16; 37:15–28. 83 Friebel, Sign-Acts, 24. 84 Floyd, Minor Prophets, 647. 80

148

Chapter Four: Reading Contextually Within Units: Ezekiel 24–25

does not occur often within a report of a prophetic sign act. 85 Within this passage, it highlights at least two important matters: the audience’s peaked interest in the act and their lack of complete understanding concerning the act’s significance. This genre provides the greatest amount of structure and content to this passage. Fundamentally, Ezek 24:15–27 hinges on God’s command to Ezekiel to perform a sign act. This is presented in a report of the command, the subsequent act, and the interpretation of the act. The passage has adapted the genre somewhat in its use of an audience response; however, for the most part, the genre remains stable. This passage presents Ezekiel as obeying the deity by performing a sign-act. Yet, the sign-act is rather strange because of its personal nature and because the sign is not an inanimate object like a pot or crown or sticks. Instead, Ezekiel is the sign. Whereas the prophets usually find something in the natural environment to use to communicate their message, Ezekiel now must face a personal tragedy without recourse to “normal” expected mourning rituals. The sign acts have invaded the prophet’s marriage so that the prophet himself stands as a sign and a model for others. The second genre is the prophetic proof saying (Prophetisches Erweiswort). 86 It occurs frequently in Ezekiel. Sweeney defines the subgenre (of the larger genre of prophetic announcement) as “the prophet, speaking on behalf of YHWH, announces punishment against an individual, group, or nation, and argues that this punishment will convince the recipient to recognize YHWH’s sovereign identity.” 87 Zimmerli delineates the typical two or three part structure: an announcement of judgment, the recognition formula, and an optional statement of the reason for punishment. 88 Although many earlier scholars such as Hölscher view the recognition formula as secondary, Zimmerli argues that it is “connected in a characteristic way with the preceding context and represents part of a larger structure.” 89 In Ezek 24:15–27, the first proof saying in vv. 21aa7–24 announces judgment to Israel. The desire of their eyes, the object they care for the most, the Temple is about to be profaned. Furthermore, their sons and daughters are about to die by violent means. And all of this judgment will prove to the house of Israel that YHWH is God. However, the first generic 85

See Ezek 12:9; Ezek 21:21; Ezek 24:19; Ezek 37:18; Jer 28:1–4, 10–11. For an analysis of this genre, see Walther Zimmerli, “The Word of Divine SelfManifestation (Proof-Saying): A Prophetic Genre,” I Am Yahweh (trans. D.W. Scott; Atlanta: John Knox, 1982) 87 Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, 535. 88 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 38. 89 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 37. 86

4.2. Ezekiel 24–25 as a Literary Unit

149

element, the announcement of judgment, has a peculiar feature – the switch from a first person quotation of God by Ezekiel to a first person quotation of Ezekiel by Ezekiel. As it is presented literarily, the passage is a first person report by Ezekiel of his response to the people, a response that basically quotes the deity; however, the response shifts back momentarily to Ezekiel as speaker in vv. 22–23. These verses do not make sense when placed within the mouth of YHWH as happens in the preceding and following verses. Furthermore, the verses obviously relate back to the previous actions of Ezekiel in v.17. A diachronic argument concerning a secondary insertion into the text at this point helps to explain this difficult issue. The switch in the first person referent does not make much sense otherwise since Ezekiel is quoting the deity in this section of the passage. Also, in v. 24 the deity’s speech is apparently taken up again, and Ezekiel is referred to in the third person. References to Ezekiel in the third person are rather uncommon within the book as a whole, a fact that further suggests some literary growth within the passage. This element of the announcement of judgment is then followed by an interesting statement that deviates from the genre’s typical formulation. When the first person speech switches back to the deity in v. 24, Ezekiel is named as a sign to the people, a term that harkens back to the previously discussed genre of report of a prophetic sign act. In this verse, the author weaves the proof saying genre and the more foundational genre of report of a sign act together in order to construct a new expression of the genres. The first recognition formula concludes v. 24. This formula rarely stands after the sort of small elaboration that our passage contains, namely w)bb. More often, the elaboration comes after the formula, e.g., Ezek 25:17. As the second element of the genre, the formula includes a form of the verb (dy and is formulated with a first person pronoun, yn). The formula clearly serves the purpose of YHWH’s self identification as God. The second proof saying occurs in vv. 25–27. The announcement of judgment does not occur, although the destruction is mentioned tangentially. Instead, the prophet is told that his mouth will be opened on the day of the Temple’s profanation. This innovation within the genre may be explained by the addressee, the prophet, since he is typically the one who delivers an announcement of judgment, not receives it. Furthermore, the second proof saying does not quite fit with the entire passage. For example, it harkens back to the dumbness motif established earlier in the book of Ezekiel. However, the release from the prophet’s situation of dumbness is tied here to the profanation of the Temple, an event that is central to vv. 15–27. Verse 27 also concludes the passage with the second recognition formula, but not before the element of a “sign” it again raised by the au-

150

Chapter Four: Reading Contextually Within Units: Ezekiel 24–25

thor. God tells Ezekiel that he will be a sign. This flashback to the earlier sign act is again tied to the recognition formula which immediately follows it. This genre only intersects with our passage at the end during the divine speech, which is set up as two proof sayings, one to Israel and the other to Ezekiel. However, the genre has been integrated well with the sign act genre in this section of the text. In fact, the term “sign” and the recognition formula are presented twice with close connections. As mentioned above, the second proof saying seems strangely placed within the passage. In the end, the possibility of vv. 25–27 being an addition cannot be settled. Its repetitive nature can be viewed as evidence for a later redaction or for an emphasis within an originally unified text. Ezekiel 24:15–27 utilizes at least two different genres in order to convey its message. These genres are closely knit. For example, the recognition formula of the proof saying links with the idea that the prophet will be a sign to his people. Furthermore, an understanding of the genres within this text helps tremendously in focusing on the major goals of the passage. The genres are also woven together in order to tie conceptually the most important three figures in the text: Ezekiel’s wife, who serves first and foremost as a harbinger to the exilic community; the Jerusalem sanctuary, which must be declared profane in light of the coming destruction and in order to begin the process of purification; and the children of the exiles, the ones left behind in Judah who will suffer the immediate results of the siege and capture of the city. The author uses the first figure of a wife in order to show the personal, deeply intimate connection between the people and their Temple and offspring. The time immediately before the destruction will be full of difficult scenarios and seemingly hopeless situations. In this report, God does not seem overly concerned with all of this bad news. Instead, God commands God’s prophet, Ezekiel, to stand as a sign to the people of their immediate future. 4.2.2.4. Excursus: Ezekiel’s Priestly Identity Ezekiel’s social context also includes his dual roles of prophet and priest, a characteristic he shares with Jeremiah and Zechariah. Both of these roles play an important part in the identity of Ezekiel and the presentation of the prophet within the book. Ezekiel performs many prophetic actions and delivers oracles. Yet, his actions, language, and worldview also demonstrate a profound interest in priestly matters like purity, holiness, and the Temple. While centuries of scholars have chosen to ignore this emphasis within the book or to view it as a later redaction, it is prevalent enough to warrant a better explanation and a higher level of engagement. The priestly elements of the passage are as follows: a) the title “son of man”, which is

4.2. Ezekiel 24–25 as a Literary Unit

151

used twice; b) the mourning restrictions; c) the head-dress; and d) the dumbness motif. The title “son of man” occurs so frequently in the book of Ezekiel (93 times) that commentators commonly accept the traditional translation of “son of man” or “mortal” and then move on to more problematic semantic issues. However, few recognize that the phrase Md) Nb stems ultimately from a priestly background given that the word Md) occurs in priestly formulations as the subject of a ruling (e.g., Lev 1:2; 13:2; Numbers 19:14). 90 Furthermore, the high priest is identified with Adam, the first human, since the Temple was often compared to the Garden of Eden. 91 Feldman argues that the second priestly element in the passage, the mourning restrictions placed on Ezekiel, apply to any priest simply because they are priests; however the bewilderment of the people at the sight of Ezekiel’s act does not make sense if this is the case. 92 Greenberg suggests a distinction between inactive and active priests, the former of which applies to Ezekiel. Inactive priests would have been able to perform mourning rituals and therefore his abstention from them appears odd to the people. This argument, however, is speculative in that no distinction is ever made between inactive and active priests. The above argument is strengthened by an examination of the next priestly element within the passage: the head-dress. Ezekiel is told to bind his head-dress upon his head. This accessory was, in fact, worn by priests (e.g., Ezek 44:18; Exod 39:28). Therefore, the divine command can be read as a directive to act like a priest. The next priestly element within the passage concerns the motif of dumbness, which is found throughout the book of Ezekiel (e.g., Ezek 3:22– 27; 24:25–27; 33:21–22). Most commentators do not view this aspect of Ezekiel’s prophetic career in light of his identity as a priest. However, Wilson has argued based on the meaning of xykwm in Ezek 3:26 that Ezekiel’s dumbness in chapter 3 means the prophet is “forbidden by Yahweh to be a legal mediator for the people.” 93 In other words, Ezekiel can no longer intercede on behalf of the people to God, a priestly (not necessarily legal) function. So, in Ezek 24, his restriction on intercession comes to an end; Ezekiel can serve in this particular priestly capacity again.

90

Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 131. See C.T.R. Hayward, The Jewish Temple: A Non-biblical Sourcebook (London: Routledge, 1996). 92 E. Feldman, Biblical and Post-Biblical Defilement and Mourning: Law as Theology (New York: Yeshiva University Press, 1977), 103. 93 Robert R. Wilson, “An Interpretation of Ezekiel’s Dumbness,” VT 22 (1972): 101. 91

152

Chapter Four: Reading Contextually Within Units: Ezekiel 24–25

4.2.3. Ezekiel 25: 1–17 This passage contains short messages of divine judgment, including the reasons for such punishment, addressed to four different, neighboring nations, presented in geographically clockwise order. This section of the chapter presents a translation and critical notes, a structure of the passage, and a discussion of genre. 4.2.3.1. Translation & Critical Notes 1 And the word of YHWH was to me saying: 2 Son of man, set your face toward the sons of Ammon and prophesy against them. 3 And say to the sons of Ammon: “Hear the word of the Lord 94 YHWH: Thus says the Lord 95 YHWH: Because you 96 say ‘Aha’ over my sanctuary when it was desecrated, and over the earth of Israel when it desolated, and over the house of Judah when they went into exile, 4 therefore, behold, I am giving you to the sons of the east as a possession and they will set up 97 their encampments in you and they will make in you their dwellings. They will eat your fruit, and they will drink your milk. 5 And I will make Rabbah into a pasture for camels and the sons of Ammon into a resting place 98 for sheep. And you all 99 will know that I am YHWH. 6 For thus says the Lord 100 YHWH: Because you clapped your hand and stamped your feet and rejoiced with all your contempt 101 in your body over the earth of Israel, 7 therefore, behold, I will stretch out my hand against you and I will

94

Missing in Old Greek Missing in Old Greek 96 Whereas earlier (v. 3) the command to hear and later (v. 5) the statement you shall know are masculine plural, reflecting the phrase sons of Ammon, here and in verse 4, the feminine singular is used in the Masoretic Text, reflecting the feminine used often for nations. Vv. 6–7 will use masculine singular with regard to Ammon. See Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 518. 97 This is the only attestation of the Piel form of this verb in the Hebrew Bible, leading some scholars to propose an emendation to Qal, an action which is hardly necessary. See Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 13n25. 98 A hapax legomenon in the Hebrew Bible. See Zeph 2:15 for a similar word with the same root and consonants. 99 Switch to plural here. 100 Missing in the Old Greek 101 Old Greek and Syriac do not have this phrase. 95

4.2. Ezekiel 24–25 as a Literary Unit

153

give you to the nations as plunder 102 and I will cut you off from the nations and I will make you perish from the lands. I will destroy you and you will know that I am YHWH. 8 Thus says the Lord 103 YHWH: Because Moab and Seir 104 say, ‘Behold like all the nations is the house of Judah’ 9 therefore, behold, I will open the flank of Moab from the cities, its cities, from its end, the desire of the earth, Beth-Jeshimoth, Baal-meon, and Kiriathaim. 10 And I will give it to the sons of the east, to the sons of Ammon as a possession so that the sons of Ammon will not be remembered among the nations. 105 11 And in Moab I will execute judgments and they will know that I am YHWH. 12 Thus says the Lord YHWH: Because Edom has acted against the house of Judah by taking bitter vengeance and has greatly offended and avenged themselves on them, 13 therefore thus says the Lord YHWH: I will stretch out my hand against Edom and cut off from it human and beast and I will make it a desolation. From Teman to Dedan, by the sword they will fall. 14 I will place my vengeance on Edom by the hand of my people Israel. And they will act in Edom according to my anger and according to my wrath. And they will know my vengeance. An utterance of the Lord YHWH. 15 Thus says the Lord YHWH: Because the Philistines have acted in vengeance and have taken bitter vengeance with contempt of life to destroy with everlasting enmity, 16 therefore thus says the Lord YHWH: behold, I will stretch out my hand against the Philistines and I will cut off the Cherethites, and I will make perish the remnant of the shore of the sea. 17 And I will execute great vengeance on them with rebukes of rage. 106 And they will know that I am YHWH when I execute my vengeance on them.

102 Reading Qere (zbl) instead of Ketib (gbl) since the latter makes no sense. See Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 14n35. 103 Missing in the Old Greek 104 and Seir is not in the Old Greek. Scholars such as Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 19n54; Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 65; Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2 (Herm; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 8, take this as a gloss or secondary insertion. However, there is no plausible explanation for its inclusion in the Masoretic Text. Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 520, makes the point: “how it came into being is a mystery.” 105 This last phrase is not in the Old Greek. 106 Phrase missing in Old Greek.

154

Chapter Four: Reading Contextually Within Units: Ezekiel 24–25

4.2.3.2. Structure Scholars typically divide this chapter easily into four sections based on the apparent recipient of the judgment. 107 Some such as Allen wish to divide further the first section concerning Ammon into two sections, Ezek 25:1–5 and 25:6–7, because of the messenger formula at the beginning of verse 6. However, the particle ki occurs before the formula demonstrating the clear syntactical link to the previous verses. Verses 6–7 indeed constitute another issue of judgment to the Ammonites, but the verses do not constitute a separate unit within the text. Yet, this tidy structure outlined above relies too heavily on content and pays little attention to the way in which the passage begins, not to mention how each of the individual judgments fit within the overall framework of the chapter, especially the material in the first couple of verses. Most scholars designate these verses as a simple introduction that applies only to the first oracle concerning Ammon, but this imposes diachronic, redactional criteria onto the final, literary form of the text. 108 The divine address is given foremost to the son of man, who, in turn, is commanded to prophesy to the Ammonites. The literary structure of Ezek 25:1–17 is as follows: III. Oracle concerning Ammon, Moab, Edom, and Philistia A. Prophetic Word Formula B. Divine Address to son of man concerning four nations 1. Title: Son of man 2. Command #1: Set your face toward Ammon 3. Command #2: Prophesy 4. Command #3: Say to the Ammonites a. Command proper b. Divine Speech 1) Introduction: Exhortation to hear 2) Proof Sayings Concerning Ammon a) First Proof Saying (2nd pers. fem.) i) Messenger formula ii) Reason for punishment iii) Announcement of punishment iv) Recognition formula b) Second Proof Saying (2nd pers. masc.) i) Messenger formula ii) Reason for punishment iii) Announcement of punishment

25:1–17 25:1 25:2–17 25:2a1–2 25:2a3–6 25:2b 25:3–17 25:3aa 25:3ab–17 25:3ab 25:3b–7 25:3b–5 25:3b1–3 25:3b4–17 25:4–5a 25:5b 25:6–7 25:6aa 25:6ab–b 25:7a–ba

107 E.g., Cooke, Ezekiel, 282–85; Wevers, Ezekiel, 144–46; Steven Tuell, Ezekiel (NIBC; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009), 169–74; Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 13–28; Hals, Ezekiel, 180–82, separates the prophetic word formula in order to arrive at five sections; Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 522, appears to concur. 108 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 11; Wevers, Ezekiel, 195.

155

4.2. Ezekiel 24–25 as a Literary Unit iv) Recognition formula 3) Proof Saying Concerning Moab i) Messenger formula ii) Reason for punishment iii) Announcement of punishment iv) Recognition formula 4) Proof Saying Concerning Edom i) Messenger formula ii) Reason for punishment iii) Announcement of punishment iv) Modified Recognition formula 5) Proof Saying Concerning Philistia i) Messenger formula ii) Reason for punishment iii) Announcement of punishment iv) Modified Recognition formula

25:7bb 25:8–11 25:8a 25:8b 25:9–11a 25:11b 25:12–14 25:12aa 25:12ab–b 25:13–14a 25:14b 25:15–17 25:15aa 25:15ab–b 25:16–17a 25:17b

The passage above divides into two unequal parts based on speaker. Verse one’s speaker is the narrator, the prophet, who uses a prophetic word formula to signal an upcoming divine speech. Verses 2–17 are divine speech to the prophet, who is called son of man. This divine speech has four parts: a title and three commands. All three commands are actually introductions to the speech that follows, although the speech proper naturally falls under the final command. Thus, the entire passage is addressed directly to the Ammonites, not the other people groups. 109 The divine speech proper that is to be given to Ammon (Ezek 25:3ab-17) is divided into five sections, all of which begin and end with a specific type of formula. The first short section is an exhortation to hear the divine word (Ezek 25:3ab). The second through fifth sections are prophetic proof sayings, which have their own unique, four-part structure. 4.2.3.3. Genre As in the two previous passages, this one receives the label, oracle, in a general sense because of the prophetic word formula at the beginning. In fact, some scholars only speak in those terms about the passage. 110 For them, Ezek 25 is comprised simply of a series of oracles. Often, scholars, however, specify the type of oracle used here by labeling them oracles against the nations. This type of oracle exists in various prophetic books such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos, 111 and Zephaniah. 112 109 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 11, appears to intuit the priority given to Ammon in that he argues that the other oracles are attached to this initial oracle. 110 Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 13–28. 111 See John Barton, Amos’s Oracles against the Nations: A Study of Amos 1:3–2:5 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980).

156

Chapter Four: Reading Contextually Within Units: Ezekiel 24–25

Sweeney notes that the genre, which he terms “prophecy concerning a foreign nation,” does not have a particular structure or form; in fact, it can involve a variety of other genres as well. 113 So, its main characteristic obviously involves the oracle’s address to a foreign state such as Babylon or Egypt. In Ezek 25, the nations include Ammon, Moab, Edom, and Philistia. The oracles possibly functioned originally as a taunt against the nation or as a variation of a war oracle. 114 These oracles are addressed directly to the international power; however, this direct address is plainly rhetorical in nature since it is difficult to maintain that the oracle was sent and received by a foreign power such as the king of Moab, or that the prophet delivered the oracle orally to such a foreign ruler or nation. 115 Thus, while the imagined, literary audience is the foreign nation, the message is intended rhetorically for the prophet’s own community. Sweeney summarizes well the overall purpose of these oracles: “The various series of prophecies concerning foreign nations presuppose YHWH’s world sovereignty on the pattern of imperial rulers of the time and YHWH’s capacity to visit destruction on Israel’s and Judah’s enemies.” 116 In the end, Ezekiel’s Oracles concerning the Nations actually concern Ezekiel’s nation, Judah. They are a rhetorical tool in the hand of the prophet in order to demonstrate the deity’s worldwide impact and judgment. Zimmerli, the consummate form-critic, offers another generic designation, prophetic proof sayings, for the textual material in Ezek 25. 117 Zimmerli defines the genre as a “very rigid schema” consisting of three parts. 118 Sweeney finds two main parts: “the prophetic announcement of punishment” and “the recognition formula.” 119 However, he does note that often a reason for the punishment is provided with a transition to the an112

See Daniel Hojoon Ryou, Zephaniah’s Oracles against the Nations: A Synchronic and Diachronic Study of Zephaniah 2:1–3:8 (Biblical Interpretation Series 13; Leiden: Brill, 1995). 113 Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, 528. 114 John H. Hayes, “The Usage of Oracles against Foreign Nations in Ancient Israel,” JBL 87 (1968): 81–92, argues that the background for these oracles is the holy war tradition, and that they are closely related to the taunt. See e.g., Num 21:27–30 for a taunt against Heshbon. See also Duane L. Christensen, Transformations of the War Oracle in Old Testament Prophecy: Studies in the Oracles Against the Nations (Missoula, Montana: Scholars, 1975). 115 Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, 528. 116 Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, 529. 117 See Walther Zimmerli, “The Word of Divine Self-Manifestation (Proof-Saying): A Prophetic Genre,” in W. Zimmerli, I am Yahweh (Atlanta: John Knox, 1982), 99–110. 118 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 11; Although note that Zimmerli, “Word of Divine SelfManifestation,” 107, states elsewhere, “we find in Ezekiel a pronounced loosening of the form and occasionally even its disintegration within the larger discursive context.” 119 Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, 535.

4.2. Ezekiel 24–25 as a Literary Unit

157

nouncement of punishment. This is indeed the case with Ezek 25. In fact, the prophetic proof sayings are fairly uniform in Ezek 25. All of them have an introductory messenger formula, a statement of the reason for the punishment, the statement of the punishment, and finally a recognition formula. 120 This genre occurs frequently throughout the book of Ezekiel. Block summarizes well the rhetorical function of the proof sayings: “to announce each divine intervention in international affairs as a moment of selfdisclosure for Yahweh.” 121 This argument is essentially a recapitulation of Zimmerli’s thesis that the proof saying serves, “no longer merely to announce an event, but rather to refer through this announcement to Yahweh’s historical self-manifestation in his action, a manifestation human beings are to recognize and acknowledge” (author’s emphasis). 122 Both are correct in emphasizing the recognition formula – And you will know that I am YHWH – as the conclusion to the proof saying and its main point. Judgment will take place on the nations, but it is not arbitrary or purposeless. Through this process of judgment and punishment, the deity is recognized. 4.2.4. Reading Ezekiel 24–25 Together Now that I have introduced the structure and genres within each of the subunits of this larger, literary unit, I turn to Ezek 24–25 as a literary unit. I seek to combine all of the above exegetical information in order to provide a coherent, plausible reading of the unit. As a contextual reading, the following takes seriously the boundaries of this particular literary unit and the final form of the book. It is attuned to the literary presentation of the textual material, instead of the compositional concerns of the text, and the ways in which the text reconfigures genres within the unit for specific purposes. This reading includes a general discussion of the unit, followed by specific points that contribute to a contextual reading of Ezek 24–25. 4.2.4.1. General Discussion of Ezekiel 24–25 Ezek 24:1 and Ezek 26:1 contain chronological formulas, thereby creating the literary unit of Ezek 24–25. The previous statement may seem rather obvious at this point in the study, given the specific argument regarding 120 For a fuller treatment of the recognition formula, see Walther Zimmerli, “Knowledge of God According to the Book of Ezekiel,” in W. Zimmerli, I am Yahweh (Atlanta: John Knox, 1982), 29–98. 121 Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 12. 122 Zimmerli, “Word of Divine Self-Manifestation,” 103.

158

Chapter Four: Reading Contextually Within Units: Ezekiel 24–25

surface structure in Chapter Three; however, previous scholarship opposes this new assessment straightforwardly: chapter 24 is regarded by most as the end of the first major section of Ezekiel, while chapter 25 is the beginning of the next major section concerning the Oracles against the Nations. It is as if one has come to a literary cliff at the end of chapter 24 with a deep ravine before it (the division commonly proposed) and then another cliff on the other side (the beginning of chapter 25). This sort of stark division does not lack some justification, since the chapters’ content point to such a conclusion. For example, chapter 24 relates best to the preceding material in the book given that it continues the element of judgment found mainly, although not exclusively, throughout the first 23 chapters. Moreover, Ezek 24:15–27 relates especially well to Ezek 23 and its judgment on Oholibah, who represents Jerusalem, the deity’s metaphorical wife in the book; likewise, in Ezek 24, Ezekiel’s wife dies, representing the imminent death/fall of Jerusalem. Chapter 25 also stands in a curious place since it contains judgment oracles concerning Ammon, Moab, Edom, and Philistia, content that better relates to Ezek 26–32 and the oracles concerning Tyre, Sidon, and Egypt. Yet, even with their content pulling them apart, the two chapters – Ezek 24 and 25 – are bound together as a literary unit with their common chronological formula. Synchronically, the unit divides easily into three sections by using the prophetic word formula found in Ezek 24:1, 24:15, and 25:1. Because of the use of this prophetic word formula three times in this passage and its subordination to the chronological formula in verse one, it is difficult to see how the prophet word formula in Ezek 25:1 could be elevated any higher in a surface structure so as to justify a major division break here within the book. Thus, the literary unit demands a reading as a textual unit within the book of Ezekiel. The literary structure of Ezekiel 24–25 is as follows: Ezekiel’s Oracles concerning the Siege of Jerusalem A. Narrative concerning the date: chronological formula B. Oracle concerning allegory of boiling pot 1. Prophetic Word Formula 2. Divine Address to son of man concerning Boiling Pot C. Oracle concerning death of Ezekiel’s wife 1. Prophetic Word Formula 2. Divine Address to son of man conc. Death of Wife 3. Report of the Response of Ezekiel to Divine Address 4. Report of the Response of People to Ezekiel 5. Ezekiel’s Response to People D. Oracle concerning Ammon, Moab, Edom, and Philistia 1. Prophetic Word Formula 2. Divine Address to son of man concerning four nations

24–25 24:1a 24:1b-14 24:1b 24:2–14 24:15–27 24:15 24:16–17 24:18 24:19 24:20–27 25:1–17 25:1 25:2–17

4.2. Ezekiel 24–25 as a Literary Unit

159

The first oracle (24:1b-14) contains a divine instruction to the prophet to speak an allegory concerning a boiling pot. Thus, the first genre of the unit is an oracle that includes instructions/commands both to write down the date of this event and to speak an allegory. The actions commanded by God appear similar to a command to perform a sign-act. The majority of the subunit, however, is an allegory proper (Ezek 24:3b-13). Yet, this allegory also contains elements of other genres including a disputation speech. The second oracle (24:15–27) does not include only divine address. Certainly, God commands Ezekiel to perform a sign-act. But then, the prophet responds to the divine address, and the people respond to Ezekiel. Finally, Ezekiel responds to the people. The genres include both the report of a sign-act and the prophetic proof-saying. The third oracle (25:1–17) is again solely a divine address that takes the form of Oracles concerning the Nations, specifically Ammon, Moab, Edom, and Philistia. In all three of these subunits, a very broad definition and use of oracle is expressed. In the end, the genres do not help demarcate Ezek 24–25 as a literary unit; virtually every literary unit of the book contains oracles. Furthermore, the different genres of allegory, report of sign-act, disputation speech, and Oracles concerning the Nations do not present a coherent unit from a generic perspective. Instead, the chronological marker signals the demarcation of the unit, leading the interpreter to understand how the various oracles are connected. The literary marker provides the literary structure; the genres provide the literary content. 4.2.4.2. The Unit Begins with a Date The first worthy observation to make in this contextual reading: a specific date introduces the entire literary unit. This chronological formula (Ezek 24:1) provides both a historical and literary setting for the literary unit of Ezek 24–25. For this particular unit, the historical significance of the date is not random or without additional associations outside of the book of Ezekiel; it ties directly to the beginning of the siege of Jerusalem in 588 B.C.E. This connection is particularly significant to the interpretation of the unit insofar as many of the chronological formulas in the rest of the book point to uneventful days in which nothing noteworthy occurred in recorded history. Literarily, the date serves as a demarcation for the beginning of the larger unit so that any interpretation of this unit needs to consider the date by which it is associated. Moreover, the date reference ties together the literary unit and solidifies its position within the book, which is composed of units that begin with a chronological formula. The chronological formula also establishes the literary setting insofar as the three separate occur-

160

Chapter Four: Reading Contextually Within Units: Ezekiel 24–25

rences of the divine word to the prophet in these two chapters are presented as happening on the same date, a feature that is as much literary as historical. This literary presentation is even more important to stress since contemporary scholars often highlight how the oracles concerning the four nations in chapter 25 are written after the destruction of Jerusalem. 123 Whatever their compositional date, their “literary” date is the beginning of the siege of Jerusalem. 124 So, the unit demands that the three oracles be read “simultaneously” to the day. The three oracles are treated separately in the unit; they have different messages. Yet, their messages are related or complementary since they are presented together. Historically, the formula calls for this entire unit to be read with regard to a specific date in 588 B.C.E. However, the formula should not be taken as indicative of the composition date of the unit. It does not demonstrate that this unit was written at this specific time; all of these subunits conceivably predate or postdate the given date in their composition. The only claim of the text is that the prophet received three oracles on this date. The formula also does not speak to the editorial date of the unit; the three subunits did not come together as a unit necessarily on this date. The historical setting – down to the very day – is given in Ezek 24:1 by the precise date (and Ezek 24:2 by explicit reference to an event) of the siege of Jerusalem by the Babylonian king. As readers and re-readers of the text, the interpretation of the whole unit must take into account this historical event as a moment of reflection for Ezekiel, the prophet, as he receives oracles from God. The prophet, having been deported in the first deportation in 597 B.C.E., is presented as among the exiles in Babylon during this event of 588 B.C.E. Finally, Ezek 24:21 also clarifies this exilic setting with its reference to “sons and daughters whom you left behind.” So, why is the date significant to a reading of this unit? Why is Ezekiel told to write down the date? Because, by dating all the content of Ezek 24– 25 – a boiling pot, a bloody city, the death of a wife, foreigners rejoicing over the profanation of the sanctuary – to a time period before it actually occurs establishes Ezekiel, the prophet, as a true prophet and Ezekiel, the book, as true prophetic literature. The text has a persuasive, rhetorical character to it; in other words, the text attempts to persuade the reader of the validity of the prophet’s (and book’s) message. 125 Since modern readers already know the outcome of this historical siege from the sixth century 123

E.g., Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 66. In other words, the current text and its placement of these units together under this chronological formula is the result of diachronic, redactional work, but this work has serious implications on how one reads the resulting text. 125 See Phyllis Trible, Rhetorical Criticism: Context, Method, and the Book of Jonah (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 41-48, on rhetorical criticism and the art of persuasion. 124

4.2. Ezekiel 24–25 as a Literary Unit

161

B.C.E., it is difficult to grasp the ramifications of this date reference, this chronological formula. But ancient readers, even ancient readers from immediately after the time of the siege, could read and reread this literary unit as an obvious prophecy of the imminent destruction that awaits Jerusalem. A contextual reading of this literary unit demonstrates how the date at the beginning sets up a forward-looking, a prospective account, of the fall of Jerusalem. The date highlights the theological notion that God knows the result of the siege from its very commencement, and that God wishes to notify the prophet and the people of these events. 4.2.4.3. Multiple Literary Perspectives Even as the chronological formula in Ezek 24:1 controls the primary perspective of the literary unit, giving it the quality of looking forward to the coming judgment on Jerusalem, other literary perspectives within each individual oracle, each subunit, concerning the destruction of Jerusalem change in increments as one reads through the unit. Therefore, it is not enough to say, as above, that the unit is completely or totally prospective in its outlook of Jerusalem’s fate. The date reference provided by the chronological formula certainly brings a future perspective to the unit and shapes the unit toward that interpretation. Standing literarily at the beginning of the siege of the city, the reader looks ahead to the devastation that is to occur. In fact, all of the judgments pronounced in the subunits of Ezek 24–25 also point forward to a future time of judgment for Jerusalem or the foreign nations. This feature also heightens the overall forward perspective of the unit, even though the exact time for each of the judgments may differ. For example, for the nations, their judgment occurs only after the judgment of Jerusalem. Yet, if one looks closely at the verb tenses within the overall unit, as well as the unique genres, then one sees a different shift in literary perspective occurring. The perspective on the actual fall of Jerusalem changes within the unit. If one focuses on that singular, historical event, then each of the subunits approaches it from a different time perspective. To summarize the discussion below: the first subunit (Ezek 24:1b-14) clearly views the destruction as future in perspective but without a sense of exactly when this destruction might occur; the second subunit (Ezek 24:15–27) also includes a future perspective but with more of a sense of inevitability surrounding the destruction; the third subunit (Ezek 25:1–17) shifts to a retrospective look at the destruction of the city. At the beginning of the siege of Jerusalem, the three different subunits all look ahead to the coming judgment but provide three perspectives on the fall of the city. The first subunit, the oracle concerning the boiling pot, is composed, as previously noted, as a disputation speech with a parable as its thesis. This

162

Chapter Four: Reading Contextually Within Units: Ezekiel 24–25

parable is presented literarily as taking place in the present moment. Likewise, the actions of preparing and cooking meat within the pot occur in the present: “Set the pot on…Fill it with choice bones…Boil its boilings.” The interpretation, however, especially toward the end of the subunit (v. 14), shifts to the future: “I will do it. I will not hold back, I will not spare, I will not relent.” Even some of the actions in the interpretation are future tense: “I will make the pile great” (verse 9). The overall unit is presented as if the actions toward Jerusalem, the city, are coming soon in the future. Yet, there is not a sense of urgency within the subunit; the destruction is not presented as imminent, only certain. The calendar for such a judgment is not clearly laid out, thereby remaining elusive. God will judge at some point in the future, but the length of the siege and the timetable of its completion are basically unknown to the reader. The second subunit shifts the perspective only slightly. Whereas the parable contained a fairly static picture of the bloody city and its coming judgment, the report on the sign act includes both divine instruction as to what actions to take and the prophet’s obedience. The second subunit then moves through literary time even more as it traces the people’s response to Ezekiel’s actions and the prophet’s interpretation. By having this series of actions, the narrator maintains a present perspective and follows the conversation between the prophet and the people. The interpretation provided by the prophet to the people is future-oriented: “I am about to profane my sanctuary…your sons and daughters…will fall” (verse 21). Yet, there is one, important difference in this subunit: the death of Ezekiel’s wife brings a sense of finality to the current situation. In other words, the genre of a report of a sign-act actually brings about the destruction of the city figuratively in the death of the prophet’s wife. The passage does not, in fact, state that the wife of the prophet will die one day soon; instead, she actually dies. Since, in many ways, the wife represents the city of Jerusalem, a sense of inevitability, or an almost past tense quality is felt within the subunit. As Zimmerli notes, “In his sign…he initiates the beginning of a future event. The coming event is in fact already present in the sign act.” 126 The subunit signals and instructs the reader on how to deal with the destruction that is upon them by setting up Ezekiel and his actions after the death of “the delight of his eyes” as a sign for the people. Judgment is coming very soon for city; the city will die. The third subunit clearly takes a retrospective look toward the destruction of Jerusalem given that the oracle concerning Ammon charges this foreign nation with mockery when the Jerusalem sanctuary was profaned, the land of Israel was desolated, and Judah went into exile. The final event 126

Walther Zimmerli, The Fiery Throne: The Prophets and Old Testament Theology (ed., K.C. Hanson; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 110.

4.2. Ezekiel 24–25 as a Literary Unit

163

concerning the city has already occurred within the literary perspective of this subunit. The other oracles within the subunit also seem to imply that the nations are responding wrongly to the calamity that has befallen Judah. Thus, the destruction of Jerusalem has already taken place for this subunit, as noted by Strong, “As seen in the accusations of these oracles, all of the oracles presented in this chapter look backwards to the fall of Jerusalem.” 127 This shift in perspective among the subunits regarding the fall of Jerusalem must be held in tension with the chronological formula in Ezek 24:1, which dates the entire unit to the time of the siege of Jerusalem. The overall purpose of these multiple perspectives lies in their ability to demonstrate the increasing certainty of the destruction of the city from the beginning of the siege. Therefore, the unit takes the reader through a series of oracles that emphasize more and more this very point of assurance regarding Jerusalem. At the end of the unit, the reader knows indubitably about the city’s destruction because the final subunit speaks of this precise event in the past tense and explores the ramifications of it for the foreign nations. 4.2.4.4. The Separate Oracles Share Common Themes in Literary Context Reading contextually allows the reader – ancient or modern – to see that the three oracles of this unit are related to each other thematically. Since previous scholars have treated Ezek 24–25 as essentially unrelated, given that they are addressed to different nations, they have been unable to appreciate certain similarities between the two chapters. 128 This assessment relates to the larger, scholarly trend of resisting integration of the Oracles concerning the Nations into the overall message of the book. Therefore, the seemingly divergent, three oracles in Ezek 24–25 are typically treated individually, not collectively. But do they bear a unified message? First, I turn to the established notion that the Oracles concerning the Nations are distinguishable in message and purpose from the rest of the book. This standard assessment cannot be maintained upon closer scrutiny. For example, Ezek 25 has similarities with Ezek 24 and other portions of the book. In fact, Zimmerli recognized a relationship between the oracles in Ezek 25 and the rest of the book’s message. 129 Although his basic tendency was to separate this group of oracles from the rest of the book, Zimmerli 127

Strong, “Oracles Against the Nations,” 132. Hals, Ezekiel, 3, commences his work with the assertion that all the Oracles concerning the Nations (Ezek 25–32) are “a largely unrelated block” of prophecies. Unrelated, that is, to the other parts of the book of Ezekiel. In the end, Hals does concede that the Oracles concerning the Nations share in the theme of Israel’s election with the oracles concerning Jerusalem and Judah in the rest of the book. 129 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 61. 128

164

Chapter Four: Reading Contextually Within Units: Ezekiel 24–25

viewed the four oracles of chapter 25 differently: “the oracles against the immediate neighbors of the house of Israel…are fully related to the prophet’s own message about the house of Israel.” 130 He notes that the judgment poured out on these nations comes as a direct result of their treatment of Israel. By extension, one can also argue that the Oracles concerning the Nations basically reiterate the very message of the oracles concerning Jerusalem. They do not sound a separate, discordant note. Strong’s dissertation, in fact, argues for exactly this thesis. He suggests that Ezekiel’s Oracles concerning the Nations present the same message as the prophet’s other oracles directly addressed to Judah. 131 This basic message, as Strong sees it, is twofold: possession of the land and Zion theology. He argues that these themes are found both in Ezekiel’s oracles against Judah and the ones against the nations. While the message and themes can be multiplied and nuanced some, Strong is correct to contend that the message of Ezekiel does not change in his Oracles concerning the Nations. These oracles are much more integrated into the overall function and message of the book than modern scholarship commonly grants. Essentially, the final form of the prophetic book, as fixed by the final redactor, demands that the reader establish the similarities among the three oracles/subunits of Ezek 24–25 in order to make sense of the literary unit. The two oracles against Jerusalem and Judah and the one oracle concerning Ammon, Moab, Edom, and Philistia are grouped together into a coherent literary unit so they must work together to present a coherent message. In other words, the redactor saw the materials as related enough to constitute a literary unit. We contend that this relationship is best viewed through various themes. Therefore, the next several sections identify specific topics or themes that Ezek 24–25 share and that contribute to a contextual reading of the literary unit. All of them presuppose the fact that this material was addressed to and written for the people of Judah, not the foreign nations. 4.2.4.5. Destruction of Jerusalem One of the messages running through Ezekiel that is highlighted repeatedly within this literary unit pertains to the doomed fate of Jerusalem. In fact, the city of Jerusalem and her sanctuary are the driving force of the unit. The first subunit begins with the news that the siege has begun. It continues by representing the city as a boiling pot and bloody city. The second 130

Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 61. John Thomas Strong, “Ezekiel’s Oracles Against the Nations within the Context of His Message,” (Ph.D. diss., Union Theological Seminary in Virginia, 1993). 131

4.2. Ezekiel 24–25 as a Literary Unit

165

subunit announces that the city, the “delight of your eyes” is about to be destroyed. The third subunit assumes the destruction of the city. This unit, of course, is not the only one within the book that centers on this historical event; in many ways, the entire book is focused on Jerusalem. 132 Thus, the unit is fully integrated into the overall message of the book. Yet, it must be stated that the subunits, when read together, present a certain picture of the city’s fall. While the above observation is rather obvious, it needs stating simply because it demonstrates clearly a certain, thematic link between Ezek 24 and Ezek 25, even if the link occurs on the literary level of a major theme found throughout the book. In summary, the intense preoccupation within the fate of the city serves to join the Ezek 24-25 together. 4.2.4.6. Knowledge of God The second (Ezek 24:15–27) and third (Ezek 25:1–17) subunits also relate in that both use the recognition formula (“And you shall know that I am Yahweh”) repeatedly. This literary feature speaks to Eichrodt’s notion that all of Ezekiel’s oracles exist in order to bring about knowledge of the deity. 133 He points to the use of the recognition formula throughout the book as support for his argument. The knowledge of God motif does indeed flow through the book as a major theme and appears in this specific, literary unit. The use of the recognition formula in both Ezek 24 and Ezek 25 also demonstrates that this material is not as radically different as generally assumed. Zimmerli addresses the importance of this formula, this “statement of recognition” 134 that “I am Yahweh.” He notes the placement of this formula at the end of textual passages, “suggesting that this recognition of Yahweh is the final goal and actual culmination of what is spoken in the preceding divine discourse.” 135 Furthermore, Zimmerli posits that the formula follows a divine act so that the recognition of Yahweh occurs in light of God’s actions. The crucial feature to note in Ezek 24–25, the defining characteristic of the formula as presented here, is that both Israel and other nations are expected to recognize the deity. Zimmerli notes that the majority of uses of the formula in Ezekiel concerns Israel’s recognition, yet in Ezek 25 the nations of the world are also called to recognize. 136 Thus, if 132

For a study on this topic within the book, see Julie Galambush, Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel: The City as Yahweh’s Wife (SBLDS 130; Atlanta: Scholars, 1992). 133 Eichrodt, Ezekiel, 38. 134 Walther Zimmerli, “I am Yahweh,” in W. Zimmerli, I am Yahweh (Atlanta: John Knox, 1982), 5. 135 Zimmerli, “Knowledge of God According to the Book of Ezekiel,” 33. 136 Zimmerli, “Knowledge of God,” 88.

166

Chapter Four: Reading Contextually Within Units: Ezekiel 24–25

both Israel and other nations are called to the same task, then how does one formulate the relationship between these two groups and their separate relationships with the deity? Are the nations supposed to come to a full recognition of Israel’s God? If so, then are they are different from the Israelites? Strong senses this unique aspect of the formula’s use, i.e., its call for the nations to recognize the deity, and he uses it to address the question of whether Ezekiel views these nations as “covenanted to Yahweh.” 137 In the end, Strong rejects this proposal and concludes that Ezekiel’s nationalistic theology only allows for the other nations such as Ammon and Egypt “to know Yahweh as the great Divine Warrior, who brought order out of chaos, and who fights on Israel’s behalf against the nations.” 138 In order to support this conclusion, he discusses the formula “For the sake of my name” as it is used in the Hebrew Bible, especially Ezek 36, and he consults the ideology of Ezek 20. However, Strong fails to treat, with any significance, the recognition formula as it is found within the Oracles concerning the Nations. The literary unit of Ezek 24–25 uses the recognition formula throughout the subunits in essentially the same way. Both Israel and the nations of Ammon, Moab, Edom, and Philista are characterized as being able to recognize God because of God’s immediate actions. This knowledge of God does not necessarily relate to a covenantal relationship between the deity and a set of people. A particular nation can recognize the power or trueness of a deity without entering into a covenant with that deity. This consistent usage of the formula throughout both chapters demonstrates further that the message of these chapters contain similarities. Both chapters emphasize recognition of God. As Zimmerli notes, this recognition of the divine occurs because of the deity’s actions. In Ezek 24:15–27, the deity causes the prophet to be a sign for the people, a sign of the judgment that is coming. As a result, the people “will know that I am Yahweh.” In Ezek 25, the deity will execute all sorts of judgment and vengeance upon the four nations. Consequently, the nations “will know that I am Yahweh.” The parallel between these subunits is striking and creates a literary link. 4.2.4.7. Destruction for the Whole Area Another theme arises from reading the unit as a whole: a sense of regional destruction and judgment. Ezek 24–25 does not focus all of its attention on 137 John Strong, “Ezekiel’s Use of the Recognition Formula in His Oracles Against the Nations,” Perspectives in Religious Studies 22 (1995): 116. 138 Strong, “Ezekiel’s Use,” 117.

4.2. Ezekiel 24–25 as a Literary Unit

167

the destruction that awaits Jerusalem, but also notes the judgment and destruction that will come to nations such as Ammon, Moab, Edom, and Philistia. This is an important rhetorical feature of Ezek 24–25, because it shows how the siege affects the entire geographical region. The scope of this siege is not limited to the city of Jerusalem. Eventually, destruction comes to the nations as well. This is not a novel reading within the book, especially given that the Oracles concerning the Nations, even if treated as a textual block, makes essentially the same point in that they demonstrate how judgment is given to the whole region (excluding Babylon). However, a contextual reading of Ezek 24–25 makes this type of observation even more striking since it ties together closely the elements of the siege, the judgment against Jerusalem, and the judgment of four small nations. Within this small two-chapter unit, the reader observes the immediate effects of the siege on the whole region; one does not need a block such as Ezek 25–32 to see this emphasis within the book. 4.2.4.8. This Literary Unit is Transitional Ezekiel 24–25 forms a well-conceived literary unit within the book, a unit that represents a turning point in the book as a whole. Gosse identified this turning point as one from judgment to salvation. 139 In fact, he contends that chapter 25 was placed after Ezek 24 precisely to bring about this shift within the book, a shift that is based on the fall of Jerusalem. According to him, after the fall of Jerusalem, which apparently occurs between Ezek 24 and 25, the prophet’s message switches to salvation and the Oracles concerning the Nations are part of this salvation message. Yet, this diachronic argument rests on the faulty notion that salvation for Israel is defined, in some ways, as judgment against other nations. Yet, Ezek 25 does not hint at salvation explicitly for Judah or Jerusalem. The chapters taken together do not express any elements of salvation for any nation. Furthermore, another tenuous assumption lies within his thesis: the fall of Jerusalem occurs between these two chapters in a literary reading of the book. However, the chronological formulas do not support this reading of the book. Ezek 24–25, as discussed above, occurs literarily at the beginning of the siege of Jerusalem. Ezek 24 does not relay the information that the city has fallen, although it does come quite close with its report of the death of Ezekiel’s wife. Still, it is helpful to think of Ezek 24–25 as a Janus structure within the book, not with regard to the fall of Jerusalem, but with regard to some of 139

Bernard Gosse, “Le Recueil d’Oracles Contre les Nations d’Ézéchiel XXV – XXXII dans la Rédaction du Livre d’Ézéchiel,” RB 94 (1986): 535–62.

168

Chapter Four: Reading Contextually Within Units: Ezekiel 24–25

the general content of the book. In many ways, this unit looks backward to previous content and forward to the following content because of its unique, literary setting within the book. Of course, this observation has perpetuated the choice to make a large division at this point in the book, even though no explicit literary features support this decision. Thus, I prefer not to see the unit broken apart, split in two; instead, taken as a whole, the unit serves as a transitional piece within the book. As a literary unit, it does bridge the predominately judgment material of chapters 1–23 (or even just chapters 20–23) and the Oracles concerning the Nations in chapters 26–32 by using both of these materials within the unit. As noted previously, the unit brings together these two types of textual materials in such a way as to show their relatedness. Yet, the differing materials also attempt to pull the contextual reading apart by gravitating toward similar material that stands outside of the unit itself. The date provided at the beginning of the unit is transitional insofar as it marks an extremely important day, the date of the siege. This event principally bridges the time when Jerusalem was under threat but not attack, and the time when the inevitable destruction was upon the city. In this way, this transitional unit brings the reader up to one climax within the book only to have the second major climax occur in Ezek 33:21 when the city falls. 4.2.4.9. Reality and Distraction Does Ezek 24 represent a sort of climax in the book? Not to see a crescendo of literary energy within the text at the end of Ezek 24, especially given the report of the death of Ezekiel’s wife, is to ignore the profound rhetorical nature of this chapter. But I would argue that the climax does not result in the chapter standing independently from the following material. A climax does not have to equal a disjuncture, a hermeneutical separation, a textual division. Instead, the climax of Ezek 24 is so tragic, so full of judgment that it does not stand alone as the final word. It demands a partner passage that helps to mitigate some of the terrible news, to deflect some of the tragedy, to respond to the heavy weight of the judgment against Judah and Jerusalem. Ezek 24 needs Ezek 25 as a distraction. Thus, Ezek 24 presents a quite bleak and disturbing portrait of the fate of the city. This is the horrible reality of the situation: Jerusalem is under siege. Ezekiel 25 serves as a temporary distraction for this horrible reality, this destruction coming to Jerusalem, in that the chapter reminds Judah that other nations – four particular nations – will be destroyed as well. In fact, some of the other nations will be completely wiped away.

4.3. Chapter Summary

169

4.3. Chapter Summary In this chapter, I demonstrate the results of using surface structure both to focus on the multiple, literary settings of passages and to guide a contextual reading of a particular passage. I select Ezek 24–25 for this contextual reading based on its unusual mixture of content, e.g., two oracles of judgment concerning Judah as well as an Oracle concerning the Nations. I provide a detailed reading of each of the three subunits within the unit, attending to issues of translation, structure, and genre. Then, a contextual reading of the overall unit focuses on Ezek 24-25 as a piece of text, as a literarily coherent whole. The contextual reading of Ezek 24–25 highlights several important elements within the unit. First, it demonstrates that the unit serves as a legitimization strategy for the prophet and his book insofar as the literary date of the passage precedes the actual events of which it speaks. Thus, the book of Ezekiel characterizes the figure of Ezekiel as a true prophet. Second, the literary perspective of the unit moves the readers from an initial place of anticipation concerning the fall of Jerusalem to a conclusive sense of certainty regarding this event. Third, the unit, although superficially odd with regard to content, actually shares central themes both within its subunits and within the entire book of Ezekiel. These shared motifs have been overlooked in previous readings of Ezek 24–25 because of the major division usually made between these two chapters. Fourth, the unit is transitional in nature to the extent that it bridges the primarily judgment material of Ezek 1–24 with the Oracles concerning the Nations. Finally, the unit brings the reader to a key milestone in the book, i.e., a direct reference to Jerusalem’s fate, by way of the death of Ezekiel’s wife. The unit subsequently distracts the reader temporarily by shifting the focus to other nations and their impending judgment.

Chapter Five

Reading Contextually Within Units: Ezekiel 32:17–33:20 This chapter presents the same type of contextual reading as Chapter Four except with a different literary unit. I read among the subunits within the unit, Ezek 32:17–33:20. This literary unit also contains differing materials in that the first subunit is an oracle concerning Egypt, while the second subunit is an oracle concerning responsibility and the role of a watchman. Despite their seemingly different content, the literary presentation of the book demands that the reader group them together under the chronological formula in Ezek 32:17.

5.1. Ezekiel 32:17–33:20 as a Literary Unit In this chapter, I emphasize that the two subunits of Ezek 32:17–33:20 are intentionally positioned side by side in the final form of the book. Therefore, I am not as concerned with the placement of this literary unit into the overall surface structure of the book or the relationship of this unit to the units immediately preceding or following it. Instead, the two subunits of Ezek 32:17–33:20, with their vastly different content, are read together as a unit. First, I examine each of the two subunits separately with a discussion of translation, structure, and genre. A review of scholarship is included along with some new proposals, i.e., a basic, brief commentary of the subunits. This section serves as an introduction to the unit, but still treats the subunits separately. Then, the second section presents a contextual reading of Ezek 32:17–33:20 as a literary unit within the book of Ezekiel. This section discusses some of the elements needed in any discussion of the unit as a whole. This literary unit, like the previous one, contains a unique mixture of oracles. Many scholars view these disparate, textual materials as a sign of a major break within the book; however, my surface structure, which is based on the chronological formulas within the book, divides the text into this unique, literary unit. Therefore, my new structure as provided in Chapter Three calls for a contextual reading of Ezek 32:17–33:20.

172

Chapter Five: Reading Contextually Within Units: Ezekiel 32:17–33:20

5.1.1. Ezekiel 32:17–32 This difficult, 1 repetitious 2 subunit concerning Egypt’s descent into Sheol provides the last in a series of oracles concerning Egypt. Using images of swords, the uncircumcised, and the slain, it describes an altogether horrible demise for the nation and its Pharaoh. In order to understand better its difficulties, this section provides a translation with text-critical remarks, and a discussion of structure and genre. 5.1.1.1. Translation & Critical Notes 3 17 In the twelfth year, on the fifteenth day 4 , the word of YHWH was to me saying: 18 “Son of man, wail for the multitude of Egypt and bring it down, her and the daughters of majestic nations, to the lowest earth, with the ones going down to the pit. 19 Whom do you surpass in loveliness? Go down and bed yourself 5 with the uncircumcised. 20 In the midst of the ones slain by the sword, they will fall. A sword was given. 6 They have dragged her off and all her multitudes. 7 21 The mighty men will speak to him from the midst of

1 The text critical problems of this subunit are enormous. The MT does not make sense in several places; the Old Greek presents significant, smaller omissions and demonstrates a misunderstanding of the text at several points. Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 212, summarizes the situation well, “Seldom since Ezekiel’s opening vision has a unit been plagued by such a concentration of truncated sentences, grammatical inconsistencies, and redundancy, yielding a literary/rhetorical style some consider ill befitting the prophet so renowned for his creativity.” 2 The repetitious nature of this subunit leads to an overabundance of speculation concerning its textual transmission history. Zimmerli attempts to smooth out the text by emending all the repetitions so that they are basically exact in their wording with every occurrence. See Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 213f4, for a list of words that occur frequently in this passage. 3 For a much more detailed discussion of the textual issues, see John Thomas Strong, “Ezekiel’s Oracles Against the Nations within the Context of His Message” (Ph.D. diss., Union Theological Seminary in Virginia, 1993), 116–19. 4 The month is not given in this chronological formula; yet, it can be inferred from Ezek 32:1, which provides the twelfth month. However, the OG reads the first month. Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, (Herm; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 163, argues that this OG reading represents an original Nw#)rb in Hebrew. 5 One of two Hophal imperatives in the Hebrew Bible. See Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 215. 6 This clause is missing entirely in the Old Greek. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 165, labels it a “still later addition.” 7 This sentence is terribly confusing in the MT. Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 216, lists four inconsistencies. Leslie C. Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, (WBC 29; Dallas: Word, 1990), 134,

5.1. Ezekiel 32:17–33:20 as a Literary Unit

173

Sheol with his helpers. 8 They have gone down. They have lain down, the uncircumcised, the ones slain by the sword. 22 Assyria is there and all her company, her graves around her. All of them slain, the ones fallen by the sword 23 to whom her graves were given in the remotest pit. Her company is around her grave, all of them slain, fallen by the sword, the ones who had provided terror in the land of the living. 24 Elam is there and all her multitude around her grave, all of them slain, the ones fallen by the sword, who went down uncircumcised to the lowest earth, who provided terror in the land of the living. They bear their shame with those who go down to the Pit. 25 In the midst of the slain, they provided a bed for her with all her multitude. Her graves are around her, all of them uncircumcised, slain by the sword for their terror was provided in the land of the living. They bear their shame with those who go down to the Pit. In the midst of the slain it was provided. 26 Meshech-Tubal is there and all her multitude around her grave, all of them uncircumcised, slain by the sword for they provide terror in the land of the living. 27 And they do not 9 lie with the fallen warriors of the uncircumcised 10 who went down to Sheol with their weapons of war. And their swords were placed under their heads. And their iniquities were upon their bones for the warriors terrorized the land of the living. 28 But you in the midst of the uncircumcised you will be broken and lie with those slain by the sword. 29 Edom is there, her kings and all her princes who are placed in spite of their mightiness with those who are slain by the sword. They lie with the uncircumcised and those who go down to the Pit. 30 The princes of the north are there, all of them, and all the Sidonians, who went down in shame with those slain in spite of the terror of their might. They lie uncircumcised with those slain by the sword, and they bear their shame with those who go down to the Pit.

suggests v. 20b is a marginal note that goes with vv. 25–26 but found its way into the text. 8 The phrase with his helpers is missing in the Greek versions. 9 The OG and Peshitta do not have the negative particle. Strong, “Oracles against the Nations,” 118, suggests that this is the result of these versions failure to distinguish between “the warriors” and “those slain by the sword.” 10 Probably better to read with the Old Greek olam “of old.” See the comments of Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 220f54. See also, Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 168;

174

Chapter Five: Reading Contextually Within Units: Ezekiel 32:17–33:20

31 Pharaoh will see them and console himself concerning 11 all his multitude. Slain by the sword are Pharaoh and all his army, utterance of the Lord YHWH. 32 For I provide terror in the land of the living and he will be laid in the midst of the uncircumcised with those slain by the sword, Pharaoh and all his multitude, utterance of the Lord YHWH. 12 5.1.1.2. Structure The structure of Ezekiel 32:17–32 puzzles modern scholars for at least two reasons. First, text-critical problems abound, creating a sloppy, occasionally incoherent text. Second, confusion exists over the precise genre designation of this oracle, leading to differing structures. This disagreement appropriately hints at the acute methodological problems of using generic designations in order to establish literary structure. Instead of allowing the individual text to have a unique structure, scholars often superimpose the supposed genre structure onto the text and bend the text into the shape of its assigned genre. Block divides his treatment of the subunit into three parts: “Preamble and the Lament” in verses 17–21; “Egypt’s Company in Sheol” in verses 22–30; and “The Final Word Concerning Egypt” in verses 31–32. 13 Observably, Block employs a criterion of content for this structural division. In addition, he fails to integrate the subunit with its introductory divine address and command. Alternatively, Zimmerli’s discussion of this passage’s structure demonstrates his total reliance on diachronic, redactional concerns. He reconstructs an original lament with six sections beginning in verses 19, 22, 24, 26, 27, and 28. 14 Yet, this sort of redaction-critical argument does not withstand closer examination. First, this reconstruction does not take into consideration the overall framework of the lament, i.e., the way in which the lament proper relates to its introduction. Furthermore, it also does not account for the complete, synchronic text as it now stands. His structure is 11 Ellen F. Davis, “‘And Pharaoh Will Change His Mind…’ (Ezekiel 32:31): Dismantling Mythical Discourse,” Theological Exegesis: Essays in Honor of Brevard S. Childs (eds., Christopher Seitz & Kathryn Greene-McCreight; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 234, argues that the phrase console himself concerning should be translated will change his mind concerning denoting “a profound alteration of feeling, understanding, or intention about something.” 12 Lawrence Boadt, Ezekiel’s Oracles against Egypt: A Literary and Philological Study of Ezekiel 29–32 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980), 168, argues that verse 32 contains “all the earmarks of a theological addition.” This suggestion would make verse 31 the original ending. 13 Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 212–231. 14 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 170.

5.1. Ezekiel 32:17–33:20 as a Literary Unit

175

of a hypothetical text, one that does not exist materially. Thus, the final form of the text remains untouched by Zimmerli. Hals does provide a structure for the entire unit and separates v. 17 and v. 18 as “prophetic word formula with date” and “Preliminaries” respectively before labeling vv. 19–32 as “Grief poem.” 15 This structure is only slightly more helpful than Zimmerli’s, since it still does not address how vv. 19–32 relate to the earlier verses. Furthermore, Hals uses a genre designation, grief poem, in order to divide the text. Odell also designates both v. 17 and v. 18 as different sections with vv. 19–28 and vv. 29–32 as the two additional sections. 16 Greenberg argues for three sections: vv. 19–21, 22–28, and 29–32. 17 He notes that the first section contains an envelope structure. The second is a “litany-like section in which each nationality is introduced by ‘there is.’” 18 The final section does not have any distinguishing characteristics that contribute directly to the structure. Greenberg uses both content and textual markers to construct a structure for this difficult passage. Allen provides only notes toward a structure, not an actual structure. He notes the “three stylized parallel strophes relating to Assyria, Elam, and Meschech-Tubal” and the epilogue quality of vv. 29–32. 19 From this brief summary, one gets the clear sense that consensus regarding this passage is not forthcoming. Unfortunately, scholars are at a loss with regard to the structure of this passage mainly because of its text-critical problems and other peculiarities within it. The literary structure of 32:17b–32 is as follows: I. Oracle Concerning Egypt in the Lowest Earth A. Prophetic Word Formula B. Divine Address to son of man concerning Egypt 1. Title: Son of man 2. Command: Wail a. Command Proper b. “Wailing” Proper 1) Egypt descends 2) Assyria is there 3) Elam in there 4) Meshech-Tubal is there 5) Edom is there 6) Princes of the North are there 7) Pharaoh sees them 15

32:17b–32 32:17b 32:18–32 32:18a1 32:18a2–32 32:18a2–b 32:19–32 32:19–21 32:22–23 32:24–25 32:26–28 32:29 32:30 32:31–32

Ronald M. Hals, Ezekiel (FOTL 19; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 226. Margaret S. Odell, Ezekiel (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary; Macon, Georgia: Smyth & Helwys, 2005), 407. 17 Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37 (AB 22A; New York: Doubleday, 1997), 668. 18 Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 668. 19 Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 136. 16

176

Chapter Five: Reading Contextually Within Units: Ezekiel 32:17–33:20

This structure focuses on the introduction of both the divine speech and the entire statement concerning Egypt. In this way, I highlight the text’s command to the prophet to wail over Egypt as the premise for the entire subunit. The structure uses the criterion of speaker in order to distinguish between the prophetic narrator’s voice at the very beginning and the divine address to the prophet. This address to the prophet then includes the title and the command to wail. Finally, the actual content of the wailing or lament concerning Egypt is conveyed. This new structure ties together the entire subunit and demonstrates its cohesiveness insofar as the initial verses are essential to the larger subunit. 5.1.1.3. Genre This subunit commences with a command to wail or lament, leading one to consider a genre of lament or dirge here. Yet, the distinct form of the qina pattern (a 3:2 rhythm) is not apparent within the unit. 20 Furthermore, as Block notes, the prophet does not seem to be grieved by the descent of Egypt into Sheol. 21 Zimmerli follows Jahnow in considering whether this passage is in fact a “mocking lament” such as the one found in Isaiah 14. 22 In other words, this passage represents a parody of the traditional, lament dirge form. 23 However, Hals does not see in Ezek 32 the “scornful blast” of Isaiah 14 and instead labels the passage a “grief poem.” 24 If the element of grief is present, then one must concede, at the very least, that it is not an altogether sincere form of grief. Odell compares this passage to Assyrian historiographical traditions, which use the motif of armies going down to the underworld and also mention some of the very same nations. 25 Odell does not, however, relate these Assyrian traditions to Ezek 32 in a direct way, i.e., by placing this generic 20 For further information on the qinah pattern and the dirge genre, see Marvin A. Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39 with an Introduction to Prophetic Literature (FOTL 16; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 518–19, and bibliography; H. Jahnow, Das hebräische Leichenlied im Rahmen der Völkerdichtung (BZAW 36; Gießen: Töpelmann, 1923). Unfortunately, Jahnow was killed in the Shoah. 21 See Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 214. However, note that the prophetic literature sometimes uses this genre as mockery; therefore, it cannot be taken in a straightforward way. 22 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 171. Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 214n8, lists the ideas that are similar to Isaiah and seems to agree with A. van den Born, Ezekiël uit de grondtekst vertaald en uitgelegd (Roermond: Romen & Zonen, 1954), 193, who argues that Ezekiel is influenced by Isaiah 14. 23 See Gale A. Yee, “The Anatomy of Biblical Parody: The Dirge Form in 2 Samuel 1 and Isaiah 14,” CBQ 50 (1988): 565–86, for a discussion of the dirge genre as presented in 2 Samuel 1 and then its parody in Isa 14. 24 Hals, Ezekiel, 229. 25 Odell, Ezekiel, 406.

5.1. Ezekiel 32:17–33:20 as a Literary Unit

177

designation on the present biblical passage. Instead, the Assyrian parallels offer “useful clues” for interpretation. 26 Indeed, the parallels are striking, although it remains uncertain whether they affect a discussion of the literary genre. Finally, Allen considers this subunit an oracle of judgment, even though it does not have an element of accusation. 27 He does note the resemblance to the qina genre, but prefers the more general label. In summary, confusion is created by the presence of the Hebrew verb “wail” but the absence of a dirge pattern. It is possible that the familiar dirge is obfuscated by the textual problems present in this subunit. As it stands now, it is best viewed as a mockery, as an insincere expression of lament in the style of Isa 14, although certainly not as imaginative and heated as that particular parody. 5.1.2. Ezekiel 33:1–20 This subunit represents the first oracle after the Oracles concerning the Nations; however, it does not begin a new literary unit. Instead, it is linked with the previous subunit to form a single literary unit within the entire book. Many scholars have much difficulty with this assessment in light of the consensus perspective that creates a major division at this point in the book. 28 Yet, the book does not provide any specific clues for a major division at the beginning of this chapter. As shown in Chapter Three, the prophetic word formula which begins Ezek 33:1 does not create a textual unit within the book, only a subunit. This specific subunit deals primarily with questions of responsibility as it relates to death and destruction. It is within this context that the book mentions again the role of the watchman, found earlier in Ezek 3, and designates the prophet as the watchman for the house of Israel. I offer now a translation of the subunit and a discussion of structure and genre. 5.1.2.1. Translation & Critical Notes 1 The word of YHWH was to me saying: 2 Son of man, speak to the sons of your people and say to them: “Suppose I bring a sword over a land, and the people of the land take one man from their midst and appoint him a watchman for them. 3 And suppose he sees the sword coming toward the land and blows the horn and warns the people. 4 And if anyone hears the sound of the horn and does take warning 26

Odell, Ezekiel, 406. Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 136. 28 See Chapter One’s history of scholarship section. 27

178

Chapter Five: Reading Contextually Within Units: Ezekiel 32:17–33:20

and the sword comes and takes him away, then 29 his blood will be upon his head. 5 The sound of the horn he heard, but did not take warning. His blood is upon him. And if he had taken warning, he would have saved his life. 6 But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the horn and the people are not warned and the sword comes and takes a life from them, then he was taken because of his iniquity, but his blood I will seek from the hand of the watchman. 7 Now you, son of man, I have appointed as watchman for the house of Israel. When you heard a word from my mouth then you warn them of me. 8 If I say to the wicked one, “O, wicked one, you shall surely die,” and you do not speak to warn the wicked one of his way, then he, the wicked one, will die because of his iniquity and his blood I will seek from your hand. 9 But if you have warned the wicked one to turn from his way and he does not turn from his way, he on account of his iniquity will die, but you will have saved your life. 10 But you, son of man, say to the house of Israel: Thus you said saying “Our transgressions and our sins are upon us, and in them we are wasting away. So how can we live?” 11 Say to them: “As I live – utterance of the Lord YHWH – I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked but in the wicked turning from his way and living. Turn, Turn from your evil ways for why will you die, O house of Israel?” 12 But you, son of man, say to the sons of your people: “The righteousness of the righteous one will not save him on the day he sins. Nor will the wickedness of the wicked bring him down in it on the day he turns from his wickedness. And the righteous will not be able to live by it on the day he sins. 13 If I say of the righteous ‘He shall certainly live’ but he relies on his righteousness and does evil, none of his righteous actions will be remembered. And because of his evil that he did, for it he will die. 14 But if I say to the wicked ‘You will certainly die’ and he turns from his sin and does justice and righteousness, 15 the wicked one returns a pledge, gives back stolen goods, walks in the statues of life without doing evil, he will live, not die. 16 All of the sins which he committed will not be remembered against him. Justice and righteousness he has done. He will certainly live.” 17 But the sons of your people say: ‘The way of the Lord is not just’ but it is their own way that is not just. 18 If the righteous one turns from his righteousness and does evil, then he will die because of it. 30 19 If a wicked one turns from his wickedness and does justice and righteousness, 29 30

The apodosis of this long sentence finally comes in verse 4b. Literally plural, i.e., them

5.1. Ezekiel 32:17–33:20 as a Literary Unit

179

because of them, he will live. 20 But you say, ‘the way of the Lord is not just’ I will judge each person according to his ways, O, house of Israel.” 5.1.2.2. Structure Odell divides this subunit roughly in half (vv. 1–9 and 10–20) based on “prophetic formulas and thematic emphases.” 31 However, v. 10 does not include any particularly distinctive formula; in fact, the title “son of man” is found in vv. 7, 10, and 12. Hence, Greenberg follows this basic division using the titles as follows: vv. 2–6, 7–9, 10–11, 12–20. 32 Greenberg is following Zimmerli closely in this regard. 33 Allen is likewise attuned to the use of prophetic address in verses 2, 7, 10, and 12 for his structural divisions. 34 Similarly, he is able to marshal several other convincing arguments against the traditional division of vv. 2–9 and vv. 10–20. Block concurs with the four-section structure. 35 Thus, it appears that there is little scholarly debate concerning the structural divisions. The literary structure of Ezek 33:1–20 is as follows: II. Oracle Conc. the Watchman, Wickedness, & Righteousness A. Prophetic Word Formula B. Divine Address to son of man concerning a Watchman 1. Title: Son of man 2. Command to speak to people a. Command proper b. Divine Speech to People C. Divine Address to son of man conc. the Prophet as Watchman 1. Title: Son of man 2. Divine Speech to Prophet D. Divine Address to son of man concerning Repentance 1. Title: Son of man 2. Command to speak to house of Israel a. Command Proper b. Divine speech to House of Israel E. Divine Address to son of man conc. wickedness & righteousness 1. Title: Son of man 2. Command to speak to people a. Command Proper b. Divine Speech to People

33:1–20 33:1 33:2–6 33:2a1 33:2a2–6 33:2a2–5 33:2a6–6 33:7–9 33:7aa 33:7ab–9 33:10–11 33:10a1–2 33:10a3–11 33:10a3–5 33:10a6–11 33:12–20 33:12a1–2 33:12a3–20 33:12a3–4 33:12a5–20

This structure takes seriously the entire shape of the passage including the introductory material such as the commands to speak to the prophet, not 31

Odell, Ezekiel, 413. Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 675. 33 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 183–89. 34 Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 142. 35 Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 236–37. 32

180

Chapter Five: Reading Contextually Within Units: Ezekiel 32:17–33:20

just the divine speech to the prophet. In addition, the structure is influenced heavily by speaker and addressee. This results in a structure that is basically in agreement with the consensus of scholars. The rhetorical refrain “and you, son of man,” aids in the structuring of the text and yields four separate divine addresses to the prophet. 5.1.2.3. Genre This passage compiles several different genres together in order to articulate its message. These genres are reasonably easy to recognize so that the chief interpretive issue lies not in identifying the genres, but in understanding how they interact to create a coherent subunit. The first characteristic to note is the presence of legal language at the beginning of the subunit. Allen views verses 2–6 as examples of legal cases similar in style to the Holiness Code; yet, the content remains unrelated to legal affairs: “the priestly style is used to convey an essentially prophetic concern.” 36 Wilson also notices the legal language used with regard to the watchman, especially in contrast to the expected use of military terms for this position. 37 Odell identifies these verses as using “a formulation from case law” and calls them a parable (vv. 2–6) and its interpretation (vv.7–9). 38 Block also notes the legal style and labels vv. 1–6, “a parable cast in casuistic legal style.” 39 Thus, commentators basically agree about the use of case law here in the first six verses. This case law style presents basically two scenarios. The first scenario explores a situation in which the watchman warns the people by blowing the shofar; the second speaks of a situation in which the watchman does not warn the people. Hals reads verses 7–9 as a commissioning oracle which also uses legal language. 40 Zimmerli suggests that this unit serves as an “oracle of appointment, in which Yahweh gives to the prophet his office and the commission included in that office.” 41 This particular understanding of the subunit tries to make sense of it as the first passage after the Oracles concerning the Nations. Zimmerli sees a second commissioning of the prophet, presumably because the message Ezekiel is about to speak in the following chapters is mostly positive, especially compared to his earlier messages of judgment. Moreover, the passage is repeated almost verbatim from Ezek 3:17–19, which is likewise considered a commissioning oracle. However, this genre designation has multiple problems. First, it lacks any 36

Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 142. Robert R. Wilson, “An Interpretation of Ezekiel’s Dumbness,” VT 22 (1972): 96. 38 Odell, Ezekiel, 414. 39 Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 239. 40 Hals, Ezekiel, 234. 41 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 183. 37

5.1. Ezekiel 32:17–33:20 as a Literary Unit

181

overt signs that point to a commissioning narrative. Instead, the verses use legal language to provide “non-legal” case law concerning Ezekiel’s role as watchman. Furthermore, the entire unit takes up previous themes within the book, thereby pointing backwards instead of forward to a new message. 42 The divine message in this passage warns the wicked; it does not speak of restoration or promise. Thus, Block concludes: “The chapter contains no hint at all that a new era in Ezekiel’s preaching is about to begin.” 43 So, verses 7–9 are best viewed not as a commissioning in the sense of appointing the prophet for a new work or new message. Instead, Ezekiel is appointed a watchman just as earlier in the book (Ezek 3). Verses 10–11 continue the use of legal language in a short disputation. This disputation is set within the context of a divine address to the prophet and a command to speak the disputation to the house of Israel. It takes the form of a quote by the people and then a response by the deity. As Sweeney notes, this is the basic form of the genre: “The genre is based in a twopart structure that includes a statement of the opponent’s viewpoint and argumentation in which the speaker attempts to refute that viewpoint and argue for another.” 44 This same form is also found again in this subunit in verses 17–20. Hals and Block argue that the disputation runs from verse 10 through verse 20 with Block separating it into two separate disputations (vv.10–16, 17–20). 45 This reading allows the genre structure to dominate the text structure. In other words, the pattern or form of this particular genre, disputation, as it is used throughout biblical literature, as a sort of ideal form, overrides the way in which it actually occurs within this individual text. The text of Ezek 33:1–20 certainly uses the genre disputation twice, but it does so within the overall framework of a series of addresses to the prophet, who is called “son of man” at the beginning of each of the sections. 46 Thus, if verses 10–11 and 17–20 participate in the genre disputation, what can one say about vv 12–16? First, much of this material is an expansion and reworking of material from Ezek 18:21–22, 24. Zimmerli notes its didactic quality and labels it a “didactic debate.” 47 Allen follows this sug-

42

Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 235, also notes this criticism. Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 235. 44 Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, 519. See also, A. Graffy, A Prophet Confronts His People (AnBib 104; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1984); D. F. Murray, “The Rhetoric of Disputation: Re-examination of a Prophetic Genre,” JSOT 38 (1987): 95–121. 45 Hals, Ezekiel, 234–36; Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 244. 46 Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 245, reads the repetition of “son of man” in verse 12 as “a rhetorical signal of a change of focus.” For him, this relieves it of its function as a structural marker. 47 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 187. 43

182

Chapter Five: Reading Contextually Within Units: Ezekiel 32:17–33:20

gestion closely. 48 Although Hals views it as part of a larger disputation, he still comes close to its function by labeling this particular section, “legal argument.” 49 5.1.3. Reading Ezekiel 32:17–33:20 Together I turn now to a reading of this major literary unit as a unified whole. This section therefore begins with a general discussion of the unit and then moves to specific features of the unit that must be included in any contextual reading. 5.1.3.1. General Discussion of Ezekiel 32:17–33:20 The chronological formulas found in Ezek 32:17 and Ezek 33:21 set the boundaries for this textual unit. This is the eleventh of thirteen literary units within the whole book of Ezekiel, units which commence uniformly with a chronological formula. This particular unit includes two subunits which have differing content. These subunits are clearly delineated by use of the prophetic word formula, which also signals that each of the subunits constitute an oracle. This division of units and subunits by chronological formulas and prophetic word formulas, respectively, is consistent throughout the entire book. The structure proposed in Chapter Three follows these formulas in order to establish the surface structure of Ezekiel. My delineation of this particular unit is different from the standard understanding of the structure of the book. In fact, most scholarly divisions of the book place a major division exactly within this unit. 50 Thus, Ezekiel 32:17–32 is generally considered a part of the larger block of Oracles concerning the Nations. However, there is not literary signal, no overt feature, at the end of Ezek 32 or the beginning of Ezek 33 to support this argument. Instead, one must follow the formulas within the book in order to see the highly structured nature of the composition. The literary structure of Ezekiel 32:17–33:20 is as follows: Ezekiel’s Final Oracles concerning Judgment A. Narrative concerning the date: chronological formula B. Oracle Concerning Egypt in the Lowest Earth 1. Prophetic Word Formula 2. Divine Address to son of man concerning Egypt C. Oracle Concerning the Watchman, Wickedness, & Righteousness 1. Prophetic Word Formula 2. Divine Address to son of man concerning a Watchman 48

Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 143. Hals, Ezekiel, 235. 50 See Chapter One’s history of scholarship section. 49

32:17a 32:17b–32 32:17b 32:18–32 33:1–20 33:1 33:2–6

5.1. Ezekiel 32:17–33:20 as a Literary Unit

183

3. Divine Address to son of man conc. the Prophet as Watchman 33:7–9 4. Divine Address to son of man concerning Repentance 33:10–11 5. Divine Address to son of man conc. wickedness & righteousness 33:12–20

The first subunit (Ezek 32:17b–32) contains an oracle concerning the nations, focused specifically on Egypt’s descent into Sheol. The oracle also lists other nations who are present within the underworld. The subunit is presented throughout as a divine address to the prophet. The second subunit (Ezek 33:1–20) contains an oracle that speaks of the role of the watchman and the responsibility of the people – both wicked and righteous – to turn from their wicked ways and do what is right. Both of these subunits are presented as oracles, yet they also contain other genres. Since virtually all of the subunits within the book are presented as oracles, this generic designation is often unhelpful when speaking about the specifics of content and message. 5.1.3.2. The Date Reference Creates a Unique Literary Perspective Leaving aside the textual issue of the absence of a month in the MT version, the twelfth year of Jehoiachin’s reign is unmistakably after the fall of Jerusalem. 51 This is not the first chronological formula within the book of Ezekiel that postdates this seminal, tragic event. In this way, this literary unit is not remarkable; it does not signify the beginning of a new era within the book, an era signaled by this calamity. The date does, however, add a twist concerning Ezekiel’s literary presentation of the fall of Jerusalem insofar as the narrative within the book has not acknowledged the city’s fall yet, while the date reference signals to an informed reader that the event has clearly taken place. In short, the date reference (Ezek 32:17a) is post-fall; the unit’s literary presentation (Ezek 32:17b–33:20) is pre-fall. According to the internal, literary narrative of the book, the fall of the city has not been relayed to the exilic community (or the book’s audience). Ezekiel, the literary character, does not actually know that the city has been destroyed at this point in the prophetic narrative. Ezekiel 24 has certainly hinted strongly at this possibility by presenting the death of Ezekiel’s wife, yet the actual “death” of Jerusalem has not taken place. The news of the fall occurs literarily in Ezek 33:21 – the beginning of the next literary unit. At Ezek 33:21, the narrator presents one of the book’s central events: the prophet receives news from an escapee that the city has fallen. Yet, readers – both ancient and modern – of this passage certainly know the general, if not specific, date of the fall of Jerusalem so that the date provided in the formula of Ezek 32:17 alerts them to the fact that this ma51

If one assumes that the same month mentioned earlier in Ezek 32:1 is in view, then we have a date in the middle of March, 585 B.C.E.

184

Chapter Five: Reading Contextually Within Units: Ezekiel 32:17–33:20

jor event has occurred, that this particular unit has to be read in light of the city’s fall. In other words, the chronological formula points to an historical event that has passed, even if that event remains unrevealed literarily within the narrative. So, how does one read this complexly timed unit in light of both the historical reality and the literary presentation? How does one hold in tension these two elements within the literary representation of this unit? First, I note that prophetic judgment within Ezekiel does not cease simply because the literary presentation of date falls after the fall of Jerusalem. Ezekiel’s message – for the nations as well as the house of Israel – does not shift from the minor key of doom to the major key of promise and restoration at this particular moment in the book. To put it otherwise: the city’s fall does not serve as the impetus for a shift in the prophetic message. Readers of the book understand without explicit reference the historical reality of this time period; yet, this unit clearly continues the message of judgment even after the destruction. This obvious observation is quite significant for understanding the overall message of the book. Most scholars have generalized Ezekiel’s message by noting that the pre-fall portions of the book are overwhelming full of judgment oracles, while the post-fall portions are full of hope. Lemke exemplifies well this tendency when he notes, “Such a division of Ezekiel’s ministry into two phrases, the one before and the other after the destruction of Jerusalem, is suggested not only by the radical change in historical circumstances brought about by the events of 586 B.C. but also by the way the prophet’s message is arranged editorially in the book itself.” 52 Yet, it is not the historical event itself that engenders this transition. Instead, the main event that switches the tone of the prophet’s oracles concerns the prophet’s own hearing that the city has fallen via an escapee, an event that occurs some time after the actual fall. In sum, the seminal turning point for the prophet’s message is the literary presentation of the calamity. There is a subtle difference between these two events: the historical destruction of Jerusalem and the literary account of this destruction in the book of Ezekiel. This literary unit (Ezek 32:17– 33:20) is immediately before the presentation of the Jerusalem escapee to the prophet. Second, the literary setting of this unit, with its chronological formula postdating the fall, raises an intriguing question concerning the role of the watchman. Block summarizes the issue well: “Isn’t it too late for the exiles to be lectured on a negligent watchman’s responsibility?” 53 Regardless of 52

Werner E. Lemke, “Life in the Present and Hope for the Future,” in Interpreting the Prophets (eds., James Luther Mays & Paul J. Achtemeier; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 201. 53 Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 240.

5.1. Ezekiel 32:17–33:20 as a Literary Unit

185

its compositional date and its relationship to Ezek 3, this unit’s placement here is peculiar in part because the idea of a watchman warning the people of the coming sword is needed earlier in the book, if one takes seriously the chronological formula’s date. However, if one notes that the next literary unit announces the city’s fall, then the figure of the watchman serves as a last image that represents the judgment and destruction that is occurring to the city, one last note of judgment before the definitive announcement. Therefore, the watchman motif serves a persuasive function within the narrative in that it calls on the readers to take responsibility for their sins in preparation for the announcement of the tragedy. 5.1.3.3. Summarizing Climactic Unit This literary unit, Ezek 32:17–33:20, summarizes well the contents of the book to this point. The first subunit provides closure to the Oracle concerning the Nations, while the second unit doubles back to earlier materials in the book and their message of judgment. This, of course, challenges scholars’ typical understanding of the book’s structure. Scholars, who posit a tripartite structure for the book, divide the book between chapters 32 and 33, but this very division is completely antithetical both to the literary features of the text and to the content of these chapters. 54 Although I clearly prioritize literary features as the primary means to divide the chapter, it is also necessary to point out the weaknesses of using content, especially at this juncture in the book. So, with regard to content, Ezek 33:1–20 fits more closely with Ezek 1–24 than with the material following it. Joyce notes, This chapter is, however, also in significant part retrospective. It shares features with several earlier chapters, notably chs. 3, 18, and 24. Rather than inaugurating a new period of the prophet’s ministry suited to the situation after 587…, 33:1–20 recapitulates themes of chs. 1–24, bringing the pre-587 phase of Ezekiel’s ministry to a climax before the blow falls, serving as a prelude to the announcement of the final judgment that follows in 33:21–22. 55

So Ezek 33 picks up on the motif of a watchman found in Ezek 3:16–21 and the issue of accountability as discussed earlier in Ezek 18 in order to summarize key themes within the book. This summation occurs before the final two literary units of the book, both of which begin to focus more on the restoration of Israel.

54 55

See Chapter One of this study for a history of scholarship on this issue. Joyce, Ezekiel, 190.

186

Chapter Five: Reading Contextually Within Units: Ezekiel 32:17–33:20

5.1.3.4. Final Judgment Unit Greenberg notes that most scholars see the content of Ezek 33 as the beginning of a new section of the book or a new phase in the prophet’s activity. However, Greenberg argues that the watchman motif negates this suggestion. He avers that the watchman passage does not proclaim promise or salvation: Nowhere in it is there so much as a hint that the look-out prophecy proclaims anything but doom. What is new is the benign face put on doom prophecy by comparing it to the blast of the lookout’s horn. The prophet, like the lookout, is charged with protecting the people from disaster.” 56

Thus, Greenberg concludes, “this oracle is the epilogue of his pre-fall mission as a prophet of doom….This is Ezekiel’s last call to repentance.” 57 Indeed, this literary unit represents the final unit within the book in which the message is total judgment. As noted above, this assessment complicates significantly the argument for a tripartite structure, since this type of structure, based typically on content, does not accord with the content of Ezek 33. Instead, the content of judgment demonstrates that a different structure is at work within the book, a structure that brings together Ezek 32:17–32 and Ezek 33:1–20 in order to forge one final unit of judgment. Thus, it is significant that the judgment God wields through the prophet is addressed within this unit both to a foreign nation and its leader and to the house of Israel. 5.1.3.5. Preparation & Purification for New Temple Sweeney offers a brief reading of this unit, along with Ezek 33:21–39:29, in which he argues that these two units concern “the purification of the land of Israel in preparation for the reestablishment of the new Temple.” 58 The units work together then to prepare for the final literary unit of the book, Ezek 40–48, Ezekiel’s vision of the Temple. While Sweeney admits that the current unit is rather strange in its mixture of content, he links the images of the dead of Egypt and the other nations (e.g., Assyria, Elam, etc.) with priestly thought concerning the status of dead persons as impure: “death constitutes the ultimate impurity and the portrayal of the corpses of Egypt and the mighty of the nations symbolizes the impurity of all crea56

Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 680. Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 680. 58 Marvin A. Sweeney, Reading the Hebrew Bible after the Shoah: Engaging Holocaust Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2008), 138; For a fuller discussion, see Marvin A. Sweeney “The Assertion of Divine Power in Ezekiel 33:21–39:29,” in his Form and Intertextuality in Prophetic and Apocalyptic Literature (FAT 45; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 156–72. 57

5.2. Chapter Summary

187

tion…that must be purified before the Holy Temple can be rebuilt.” 59 With this notion of impurity in mind, Sweeney then notes that the subsequent subunit, Ezek 33:1–20, portrays Ezekiel as a priest “responsible for the well-being of the people” and “charged with purifying the people from wickedness.” 60 His role as watchman then is to warn the people. While it is clear that the literary unit, Ezek 33:21–39:29, prepares for the reestablishment of a new Temple through purification and renewal, this is less explicit in the current unit, Ezek 32:17–33:20. Instead, I prefer to read the focal unit here as tying up all the loose ends of the judgment oracles, while the following unit, Ezek 33:21–39:29 prepares for the final, grand vision of the new Temple. Sweeney has certainly identified some priestly influences on the prophet’s imagery within this unit, but it is difficult to relate the role of the watchman with purification.

5.2. Chapter Summary In this chapter, I demonstrate the effects of using surface structure to conduct a contextual reading of a passage. I select Ezek 32:17–33:20 based on its remarkable combination of content. While other literary units of Ezekiel, stemming from the proposed structure of Chapter Three, provide more natural groupings of content, Ezek 32:17–33:20 combines two varied subunits with regard to substance. Initially, I provide form-critical commentary on each of the subunits within the larger unit. Then, I provide a contextual reading of the unit in which I focus on this particular piece of text as a literarily coherent whole. The contextual reading of Ezek 32:17–33:20 engenders a unique, literary presentation of the fall of Jerusalem, one that is in considerable tension with the historical timeline of these events. This reading also highlights the role this unit plays as a recapitulation of some seminal themes within the book of Ezekiel given that Ezek 32:17–33:20 is the final judgment unit of the book of Ezekiel. Finally, my reading highlights the weaknesses of the scholarly tripartite structure, which maintains a major break between Ezek 32 and Ezek 33; this division ignores the function and content of Ezek 33:1–20.

59 60

Sweeney, Reading the Hebrew Bible, 139. Sweeney, Reading the Hebrew Bible, 139.

Chapter Six

Reading Contextually Within The Book: Ezekiel 29:1–32:16 In this chapter, I provide a second type of contextual reading of a series of the Oracles Concerning the Nations by focusing not on reading within literary units among their various subunits (as in Chapters Four and Five), but on reading within the overall book of Ezekiel among literary units. This shift from one sort of contextual reading to another moves one level up the surface structure in order to place into direct relationship a range of literary units (as opposed to various subunits). By reading contextually in this manner, I demonstrate the usefulness of considering a book’s unique structure, as well as the various literary settings of each textual piece within the overall composition. Therefore, the second part of this monograph highlights two of the numerous types of contextual readings that are essential to a comprehensive interpretation of a prophetic book, readings that are based on the establishment of a book’s surface structure. These are, however, not the only kinds of contextual readings, since one can always relate different levels of a surface structure to other levels on the same structure. In other words, one can always read a passage as it relates to its variety of literary settings, settings such as the whole book, one literary unit, or a particular subunit. This chapter focuses on a series of five literary units within the book of Ezekiel and asks two important questions: a) How does one read among these major textual units? To put it otherwise: what difference does it make that these units are placed, in their final form, beside each other in this particular order? and b) How does one read these units in light of their chronological formulations, which are clearly out of sequence at one crucial place? An obvious amount of tension exists between these two questions, since the first question takes seriously the ordering of the literary units, while the second question emphasizes the chronology, which is clearly marked at the beginning of each unit. The first question requires, for example, a reading that places Ezek 29:1–16 before Ezek 29:17–30:19, while the second question requires a reading that takes into account the fact that the latter literary unit dates to a time period almost two decades after the former literary unit.

190

Chapter Six: Reading Contextually Within The Book: Ezekiel 29:1–32:16

The first question raised in the paragraph immediately above deals with the necessity of interpreting passages with an eye to their literary setting. This type of setting, as opposed to historical and/or sociological settings, pays attention to the placement of any given passage within a larger textual framework. Readings that examine a text’s literary setting recognize that passages are framed by what comes before it and after it. The introduction of a certain theme or character at a particular point in the narrative influences decisively the material that follows and casts a new light on the material that precedes it. Thus, this chapter strives to read five literary units within Ezekiel (Units VI through X as labeled in the surface structure presented in Chapter Three) with special attention to their literary placement beside each other. The particular order of these five units is significant; in other words, a rationale exists as to why Unit VIII is in its specific position within the book and not, for example, in Unit X’s position. 1 So, a contextual reading aids the reader in examining larger portions of text as they are laid out in relation to each other. The second question above concerns the fact that the major, structural devices for Ezekiel serve not only an important literary function insofar as they divide the book into 13 literary units, but also serve as a reminder of specific dates within the life of the exiled community of the 6th century B.C.E. These highly specific formulas set up a basic sequential reading of the book. 2 Therefore, it is surprising that sometimes the sequence is broken or disturbed within the book. This is especially true within the Oracles concerning the Nations given that one unit in particular provides the latest date in the entire book. So, a reader must take this literary sequence into account when reading through the book, instead of dismissing a particular oracle as a later interjection. A synchronic reading of Ezekiel does not find it satisfactory to reject various elements as “late,” implying that they are unnecessary to a proper understanding of the book. The dates are important to a literary reading and contain important clues as to how exactly to read the units contextually. I examine these particular units within Ezekiel for two chief reasons. First, the entire second half of this book focuses on a few of the Oracles concerning the Nations with the previous chapters devoted to units IV (Ezekiel 24–25) and XI (Ezekiel 32:17–33:20). These literary units do not 1 This seems an obvious point from a literary perspective; however, one must remember that until recently biblical scholarship on prophetic literature often viewed the prophetic books as untidy, at best, and chaotic, at worst, arrangements of prophetic speech. This assumption has unfortunately prevented some scholars from asking the sorts of intriguing and stimulating questions about literary setting described here. 2 E.g., Katheryn Pfisterer Darr, “The Book of Ezekiel: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible (Nashville: Abingdon, 2001), 6: 1089, notes regarding the book: “Its contents…invite a sequential reading”

6.1. Reading the Units Separately as Introduction

191

consist exclusively of this particular genre of oracles; however, the units do address both the first and last occurrence of this genre in the overall series. So, for the present chapter, I selected several literary units that contain exclusively Oracles Concerning the Nations. This selection does not, of course, mean that other possible contextual readings among literary units are not important. A reader could just as easily attempt a contextual reading of Ezek 1–7; Ezek 8–19; and Ezek 20–23. These three literary units, which occur at the beginning of the book of Ezekiel, are perfect candidates for this type of reading. Second, most of the challenges with the chronological sequence of the formulas in the book Ezekiel lie precisely within the selected units. This phenomenon provides a unique opportunity then to wrestle with the book’s chronological sequence as it relates to the book’s structure. So, I examine intentionally here the sequencing of the oracles without recourse to the easy answers of redaction criticism. For too long, scholars have opted out of this type of synchronic reading, because they could simply label the peculiar elements within the sequence as later additions to the text. This chapter divides in half with the first section dealing with each of the five literary units separately in turn. This background information is necessary in order to introduce the reader to the overall content of these oracles. Then, the second half of the chapter provides a contextual reading of the five literary units.

6.1. Reading the Units Separately as Introduction For each specific text in this section, I provide a synopsis, a structure, and a discussion of the genre. This serves as an introduction to the interpretive issues within each literary unit, an introduction that leads to a reading of each unit within the larger framework of the whole book. 6.1.1. Ezekiel 29:1–16 6.1.1.1. Synopsis This literary unit, which is dated to the 10th year, the 10th month, the 12th day, is an oracle concerning the Pharaoh of Egypt, who is depicted as a great sea dragon that the Israelite deity will catch with a hook and fling into the wilderness to feed the animals and birds. Because Pharaoh claims ownership of the great Nile River, God will make all of Egypt a desolation and scatter the people among the nations. Then, after 40 years, God will gather the scattered Egyptians and set them up as a small, weak kingdom.

192

Chapter Six: Reading Contextually Within The Book: Ezekiel 29:1–32:16

6.1.1.2. Structure Both Zimmerli and Boadt divide the passage into three oracles: vv. 3–6a, 6b–9a, and 9b–16 with little attention to how these sections relate to the introductory materials in vv. 1–2. 3 This division is in basic agreement with Hals, 4 who also attends to the first two verses, and Allen. 5 Cooke has three different sections: vv. 3–6a (later, 6b–7); 8–12; and 13–16. 6 Block proposes different sections: a preamble in the first two verses, “Yahweh’s Disposition toward Pharaoh” in vv. 3–9a, and “Yahweh’s Intentions concerning Egypt” in vv. 9b–16. 7 Strong argues for four sections: vv. 1–6a, 6b–9a, 9b–12, 13–16. 8 Thus, the major structural issues are: a) the division of vv. 9b–16, and b) the incorporation of the introductory materials into the overall outline. The latter of these two issues relates directly to a literary reading of the text, since this type of reading concentrates more on the literary presentation of the entire unit and less on the specific prophetic speech. Scholars such as Zimmerli and Boadt are more interested in isolating the oral speech of the prophetic figure so their structures reflect this diachronic sentiment. The literary structure of Ezek 29:1b–16 is as follows: Oracle Concerning Judgment of Pharaoh and Egypt A. Prophetic Word Formula B. Divine address to son of man 1. Title: Son of man 2. Command #1: Set your face 3. Command #2: Prophesy 4. Command #3: Speak a. Command Proper b. Divine Speech 1) First Proof Saying 2) Second Proof Saying 3) Third Proof Saying

3

29:1b–16 29:1b 29:2–16 29:2a1 29:2a2–6 29:2b 29:3–16 29:3a1–2 29:3a3–16 29:3a3–6a 29:6b–9a 29:9b–16

Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2 (Herm; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 109; Lawrence Boadt, Ezekiel’s Oracles against Egypt: A Literary and Philological Study of Ezekiel 29– 32 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980), 15; Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37 (AB 22A; New York: Doubleday, 1997), 609, basically concurs with this division although he begins the first section with v. 2. 4 Ronald M. Hals, Ezekiel (FOTL 19; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 205–07. 5 Leslie C. Allen, Ezekiel 20–48 (WBC 29; Dallas: Word Books, 1990), 103. 6 G.A. Cooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Book of Ezekiel (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1960), 325–28. 7 Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 133. 8 John T. Strong, “Ezekiel’s Oracles against the Nations within the Context of His Message,” (Ph.D. diss., Union Theological Seminary, Richmond, Va., 1993), 66–70.

6.1. Reading the Units Separately as Introduction

193

This structure begins in a similar way as the oracle in Ezek 25, i.e., with a divine address that includes the title, son of man, and three subsequent commands to the prophet to prophesy. 9 These introductory matters situate the long, prophetic speech within a series of short divine commands to prophesy. Although these commands are rather small compared to the larger unit, it is still important to note that the unit is not simply prophetic speech; the literary presentation of the unit commences with the divine command to the prophet. Again, the textual unit as a piece of literature differs from the original, oral prophet speech. Therefore, the literary structure of the passage relies on the issue of speaker rather than the issue of the boundaries of the speech. The divine address or speech is structured primarily by the recognition formulas found in vv. 6a, 9a, and 16b, creating three prophetic proof sayings. However, another structural element, that of the messenger formula, is also found consistently throughout the unit in vv. 3, 8, and 13 so that scholars such as Van Rooy have suggested this formula as the beginning of each subunit. 10 The primary reason to prefer the recognition formula’s structure over the messenger formula’s structure is the corroborating evidence of the genre, proof saying, which is created by the former. Thus, a certain set of literary features combines with generic characteristics to create the structure. Allen examines more closely each of the individual parts of the three proof sayings and demonstrates the unique way in which each of them is formulated. 11 In the discussion of Ezek 30:1–19 below, the same mixture of messenger formula’s and recognition formulas occurs; however, in that particular passage, the messenger formula appears as the dominant literary feature within the text and creates the less complicated structure. In the end, both sets of formulas need careful consideration since they are used so closely together. 6.1.1.3. Genre The prophetic word formula at the beginning of this unit signals the genre, oracle. However, as seen throughout the book of Ezekiel, virtually all its textual units are construed foremost as oracles. Furthermore, this genre does not have a distinctive literary pattern that distinguishes it from other genres. Therefore, this genre designation is only helpful insofar as it informs the reader that the divine word has come to the prophet, Ezekiel, 9

Strong, “Ezekiel’s Oracles against the Nations,” 61–63, also notes this similarity and links these two introductions with the introductions in Ezek 6 and Ezek 35. All four oracles commence in a similar fashion. 10 H.F. van Rooy, “Parallelism, Metre, and Rhetoric in Ezekiel 29:1–16,” Semitics 8 (1982): 90–105. 11 Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 103.

194

Chapter Six: Reading Contextually Within The Book: Ezekiel 29:1–32:16

here in this particular passage. So, an oracle plays a literary role, while also typically utilizing other prophetic genres in order to convey the more specific message. Additionally, this unit participates in a subcategory of the genre, oracle, namely an Oracle concerning the Nations since the addressee is not Israel, but Egypt (more specifically, Pharaoh of Egypt). Again, this is a rather general designation and does not have a typical form or pattern. 12 The most obvious genre designation used within this unit is the prophetic proof saying. As noted in the previous chapter’s discussion of Ezek 25, Zimmerli views the genre as consisting typically of three parts. 13 In Ezek 29:3a3–6a, the first occurrence of the proof saying in this unit, the unique formulation of this genre does not contain the typical “because” clause. So, instead of providing the reason for the punishment at the beginning of the passage, this section embeds the reason as a quotation within the indictment (Ezek 29:3b). The recognition formula closes the unit at Ezek 29:6a. The next occurrence of the genre in Ezek 29:6b–9a contains all three typical parts. The reason for the judgment is clearly provided as well as the judgment itself. The recognition formula concludes the unit in Ezek 29:9a. The final rendition of the proof saying in Ezek 29:9b–16 is extended and complex. Like the previous section, it begins with a “because” clause and transitions into the pronouncement of judgment. However, this section repeats and expands some of the material of the previous two sections. It also provides a lengthy section on the punishment that includes a prediction of Egypt’s status after 40 years. Taken together, the three formulations of the prophetic proof saying announce not only particular events that are to happen to Egypt, but also provide the reason for these events – the deity’s self-manifestation. 14 6.1.2. Ezekiel 29:17–30:19 6.1.2.1. Synopsis This literary unit, dated to the 27th year, 1st month, 1st day, contains a chronological formula and two distinct oracles: Ezek 29:17–21 and Ezek 30:1– 12

In fact, its validity as a genre has been questioned by Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 3–4. Contra Hals, Ezekiel, 351. 13 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 109; Yet, Walther Zimmerli states elsewhere in “Word of Divine Self-Manifestation (Proof-Saying): A Prophetic Genre,” I Am Yahweh (trans. Douglas W. Stott; Atlanta: John Knox, 1982), 107, the following: “we find in Ezekiel a pronounced loosening of the form and occasionally even its disintegration within the larger discursive context.” 14 This is in agreement with Zimmerli’s thesis concerning the use of the recognition formula. See Zimmerli, “Word of Divine Self-Manifestation,” 103.

6.1. Reading the Units Separately as Introduction

195

19. In the first, shorter oracle, God announces the handing over of Egypt to the King of Babylon as payment for his labor against Tyre. Also, the final verse notes obtusely and randomly how this specific event will affect Israel and the prophet himself. The second, longer oracle provides an extended announcement of judgment against Egypt and the surrounding nations (e.g., Ethiopia) in which Egypt is depicted as being completely destroyed. 6.1.2.2. Structure Scholars generally view Ezek 29:17–30:19 as two separate units because of the prophetic word formulas in Ezek 29:17b and Ezek 30:1. Certainly, there are two oracles here; however, these two prophetic word formulas are both subsumed under the chronological formula found in Ezek 29:17a, thereby establishing both oracles together as a literary unit within the book. This literary pattern follows the use of these two sets of formulas in the rest of the book of Ezekiel. As noted in Chapter Three, the chronological formula always marks the beginning of the literary unit and includes at least one oracle, which begins with a prophetic word formula. So, this specific chronological formula, which is out of sequence, dates both of these oracles. Concerning the first, concise oracle, scholars struggle to make sense of all the formulas contained within these five verses. 15 Yet, most agree that v. 18 provides the reason for the judgment, although it is not in the form of an accusation. Verses 19–20 then provide the response by the deity – judgment. Verse 21 is generally considered a later insertion into the passage as a conclusion of sorts, although many recent scholars defend its authenticity within the unit. 16 No matter its authenticity, its content clearly reveals that oracles of judgment and oracles of promise coincide within the same literary subunit. Thus, Block provides the following structure: “Preamble” in v. 17; “Nebuchadrezzar’s Labors” in v. 18; “Nebuchadrezzar’s Reward” in vv. 19–20; “Concluding Apologia” in v. 21. 17 Hals’s structure fails to integrate fully v. 21 into the passage since he labels it an “appended prophecy of salvation” and considers it a separate section within the wider passage. 18 Obviously, the main structural concern within this 15

See Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 108–9; Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 616–18. Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 146; Allen, Ezekiel 25–48, 109; Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 616–18. Contra Hals, Ezekiel, 210; Boadt, Ezekiel’s Oracles against Egypt, 52. 17 Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 147. See Boadt, Ezekiel’s Oracles against Egypt, 49, who misunderstands the use of the formulas in his proposed structure. 18 Hals, Ezekiel, 209. Hals’s structure is noteworthy here because he generally pays more attention to literary features of texts than other scholars such as Zimmerli. However, in this subunit, Hals resorts to labeling v. 21 an appendix as opposed to integrating it literarily into the larger subunit. 16

196

Chapter Six: Reading Contextually Within The Book: Ezekiel 29:1–32:16

short subunit concerns the relationship between v. 21 and the first four verses. Concerning the second, longer oracle, Allen uses the combination of messenger formulas and recognition formulas to divide the passage into three sections: vv. 1–9, 10–12, 13–19. 19 This division is followed roughly by Hals, who labels vv. 2b–9 and vv. 13–19 as proof sayings. 20 Block proffers a differing four-part structure based on the occurrence of messenger formulas: vv. 2b–5, 6–9, 10–12, and 13–19. 21 This is basically the understanding of the passage that Boadt lays out. 22 Therefore, the main interpretive issues pertinent to the structure of this passage are twofold. First, one has to discern the relationship between all the formulas within the passage. Are they opening or closing sections? Do they work together to create a single structure? Second, one has to figure out how to incorporate the initial verses of the passage, which contain a command to prophesy, with the remainder of the passage, which contains the prophetic speech proper. The literary structure of Ezek 29:17b–30:19 is as follows: Ezekiel’s Oracles Concerning the Fate of Egypt A. Oracle concerning Egypt’s plunder by Babylon 1. Prophetic Word Formula 2. Divine address to son of man a. Title: Son of man b. Reason for punishment c. Punishment d. Promise to house of Israel B. Oracle concerning Judgment on Egypt 1. Prophetic Word Formula 2. Divine address to son of man a. Title: Son of man b. Command to prophesy 1) Command proper 2) Divine address proper a) Address #1 b) Address #2 c) Address #3 d) Address #4

29:17b–30:19 29:17b–21 29:17b 29:18–21 29:18a1 29:18a2–b 29:19–20 29:21 30:1–19 30:1 30:2–19 30:2a1 30:2a2–19 30:2a2–3 30:2a4–19 30:2a4–5 30:6–9 30:10–12 30:13–19

The structure above is based first on speaker insofar as the prophetic word formula, which begins each of the oracles, is spoken by the narrator, the prophet, while the remainder of the unit constitutes divine speech. A modified proof saying structures the first oracle with the recognition formula 19

Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 114. Hals, Ezekiel, 212. 21 Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 155. 22 Boadt, Ezekiel’s Oracles against Egypt, 57–58. 20

6.1. Reading the Units Separately as Introduction

197

concluding the subunit. The second oracle is situated within the framework of a divine command to the prophet to prophesy. The divine message is divided into four parts by the messenger formula, which occurs in vv. 2a4, 6, 10, and 13. This division, however, disrupts the pattern laid out by the recognition formula found in vv. 8 and 19. In an effort to combine the two types of formulas, one can view the latter of these recognition formulas in v. 19 as a conclusion to the last subsection, vv. 13–19; however, the function of the former occurrence of the formula in v. 8 remains unclear given its placement in the middle of the second divine address. In the end, the final form of this particular oracle is literarily complicated by the seemingly confusing use of the two formulas. 6.1.2.3. Genre The generic characteristics of these two oracles are also generally discussed separately. The first oracle unusually combines several different characteristics from different genres. The first part of the prophetic speech provides a reason for the punishment: a statement that the king of Babylon did not receive any payment for his hard work against Tyre. Then, a transition of “therefore” precedes an announcement of punishment. Consequently, Hals labels this section a “prophecy of punishment,” known also as a prophetic judgment speech. 23 The oracle then shifts its message abruptly to pronounce a promise to Israel and to the prophet before ending with a recognition formula. This bit of good news certainly does not fit with the general tone of a prophecy of punishment; in fact, just the opposite is expected. Furthermore, the occurrence of a recognition formula transforms the previous verses, i.e., the entire prophetic speech, into a prophetic proof saying. 24 So, both the punishment of Egypt and the promise to the house of Israel and the prophet become a way for the deity to self-manifest, to be recognized. Additionally, some scholars view the language expressed here, especially the phrase, “I have given” as reminiscent of a holy war oracle, which generally offers an assurance of victory. 25 This adaptation of the genre is quite unusual for this particular literary setting, a fact noted by Hals, “Here, then, we see how the ‘holy war’ assurance has been incorporated a bit awkwardly within the prophecy of punishment structure by making the

23

Hals, Ezekiel, 209; See Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, 533, for a discussion of this genre. For more information on prophetic proof sayings, see Hals, Ezekiel, 353–54, and the bibliography there. 25 Hals, Ezekiel, 209–10; Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 108–109. 24

198

Chapter Six: Reading Contextually Within The Book: Ezekiel 29:1–32:16

assurance a kind of appended summary added on at the point where the structure of the prophecy of punishment had reached its ending.” 26 The second oracle of this unit combines the genres of prophetic proof saying with prophetic judgment speech in order to create this uniquely formulated subunit. Many scholars wish to divide the subunit into roughly vv. 2b–9, 10–12, and 13–19 with the result that the first and third sections constitute prophetic proof sayings, and vv. 10–12 constitute a prophetic judgment speech. 27 However, this division ignores the messenger formulas found evenly throughout the passage. The structure laid out above instead takes the messenger formula as the beginning of each judgment speech. The last unit, vv. 13–19, then becomes a proof saying. And vv. 6–9 includes an admittedly awkward recognition formula in the middle of the unit. 6.1.3. Ezekiel 30:20–26 6.1.3.1. Synopsis This short oracle, which is dated in the 11th year, 1st month, 7th day, announces judgment against the Pharaoh of Egypt. God has broken the arm of the Pharaoh and plans to break the other arm as well. In addition, God plans to strengthen the arm of the king of Babylon. 6.1.3.2. Structure This literary unit begins with a chronological formula followed by a prophetic word formula. Its structure is very similar to Ezek 29:17–21. Block summarizes the correspondences well: [B]oth have similar structures including the following elements: a date notice, the wordevent formula. . . ; the direct address of the prophet. . . ; a divine word to the prophet (cast in the perfect tense); the introduction of the divine response with lkn plus citation formula. . . ; the announcement of the divine response, begun with hinnh, “Take note!”; the recognition formula. 28

The literary structure of Ezek 30:20b–26 is as follows: Oracle concerning Babylon’s defeat of Egypt 1. Prophetic Word Formula 2. Divine address to son of man a. Title: son of man 26

30:20b–26 30:20b 30:21–26 30:21a1

Hals, Ezekiel, 209–10. Hals, Ezekiel, 212–13; Boadt, Ezekiel’s Oracles against Egypt, 57–58. Note, however, that Boadt argues for three divisions within this oracle then produces an outline with five sections. 28 Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 172. 27

6.1. Reading the Units Separately as Introduction b. Reason for punishment c. Punishment d. Extended recognition formula

199

30:21a2–b 30:22–25a 30:25b–26

This structure does have one peculiar feature. The extended recognition formula, which occurs in vv. 25b–26, is rather odd on account of both its length and the inclusion of materials that are strictly speaking not part of the actual formula. Furthermore, the formula is presented twice within these verses, and a recapitulation of the main points of the unit is placed between the formulas. 6.1.3.3. Genre The use of a prophetic word formula signals foremost an oracle. The occurrence of two recognition formulas at the end of the unit suggests a prophetic proof saying. However, the first part of the proof saying is not the typical accusation, but instead a reason for the punishment. 29 The unit also uses the basic form of the prophetic judgment speech with its lkn clause. In fact, if the unit did not include the recognition formulas, then one would conclude that this is a classic, prophetic judgment speech. 6.1.4. Ezekiel 31:1–18 6.1.4.1. Synopsis This literary unit, dated in the 11th year, 3rd month, 1st day, contains an allegory and announcement of punishment in which the Pharaoh of Egypt is likened to a great cedar tree, which is cut down by the nations. This prophetic speech is situated literarily within the context of a divine command to the prophet to speak to the Pharaoh and his army. 6.1.4.2. Structure This literary unit begins with a chronological formula in Ezek 31:1a followed by a prophetic word formula in Ezek 31:1b. These formulas are followed immediately by a divine address to the prophet including the ubiquitous title, son of man, and a command to speak to the Pharaoh and his multitude. After these “preliminaries,” as Hals labels them, Hals places the rest of the chapter (vv. 2b–18) as one section, “Prophecy of punishment in allegorical language.” 30 Block, however, divides these verses into three parts: vv. 2b–9, 10–14, and 15–18. 31 He uses content chiefly as his crite29

See Hals, Ezekiel, 215. Hals, Ezekiel, 218–20. 31 Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 178. 30

200

Chapter Six: Reading Contextually Within The Book: Ezekiel 29:1–32:16

rion, although he does note that the last two sections have messenger formulas at the beginning. Allen uses the messenger formulas at the beginning of v. 10 and v. 15 and the one at the end of v. 18 to designate the same three units. 32 Similarly, Greenberg sees three parts to the “body” of the oracle: vv. 3–9, 10–14, and 15–17. 33 While these scholars basically understand the use of the formulas within this unit, they do not try to connect the prophetic speech to the introductory command to speak. Their diachronic considerations lead them to isolate the speech within the text and then proffer a structure of that speech; however, the text does not present itself as only a speech. The literary structure of Ezek 31:1b–18 is as follows: Ezekiel’s Oracle Concerning Pharaoh A. Prophetic Word Formula B. Divine Address to son of man 1. Title: Son of man 2. Command to speak to Pharaoh a. Command proper b. Divine Address Proper 1) Allegory 2) Announcement of Punishment #1 3) Announcement of Punishment #2

31:1b–18 31:1b 31:2–18 31:2a1 31:2a2–18 31:2a2–5 31:2b–18 31:2b–9 31:10–14 31:15–18

This structure pays close attention to the way in which the prophetic speech is embedded within the narrative framework. Verses 2–18 provide the divine address to the prophet including a command to speak to the Pharaoh. This speech to Egypt’s ruler is broken down into three units by the use of the messenger formula. 6.1.4.3. Genre Ezek 31:1–18 includes the basic genre, oracle, because of the prophetic word formula in v. 1b. Yet, this designation is not completely helpful insofar as this genre occurs frequently throughout the book and takes many more specific forms, using other genres. In addition, this specific unit can be considered one of the Oracles concerning the Nations, although this designation only adds a general sense of the addressee to the discussion. In fact, this particular unit is actually an oracle delivered to the foreign ruler and his army, not the nation as a whole. Therefore, one must search for more specific designations for the unit. The first element to notice in any discussion of a more specific genre designation is, in fact, the lack of an element – the recognition formula, a 32 33

Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 124. Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 644–45.

6.1. Reading the Units Separately as Introduction

201

formula used in every oracle concerning Egypt except this one. Therefore, this literary unit does not constitute a proof saying. The more specific genre used within this literary unit is the prophetic judgment speech, a genre that uses the transitional word “therefore” in order to switch from an accusation to an announcement of punishment. 34 In this unit, the switch occurs in v. 10 with vv. 2b–9 serving as an accusation and vv. 11–18 as the announcement of punishment. This genre announces punishment, which can be either general or specific in nature, to a group of people or an individual and provides the reasoning behind this punishment. Scholars such as Hals have noted the past tense verbs throughout the passage and wondered about the presence of the genre, dirge, within this unit. 35 In fact, the passage speaks of the past glory of the tree, and then turns to its downfall, a literary pattern that is typical of this genre. Hals also points to the motif of the journey to Sheol in vv. 15–18, which is found often in prophetic dirges. 36 This genre designation does seem to explain the odd verb tenses, but one must admit that the unit does not contain the word qinah. Furthermore, other generic characteristics, as noted above, are more dominant. Thus, the specific genres are combined in the following way, according to Allen: “It has the force of a judgment oracle, yet uses the past perspective of a lament.” 37 Hals resists labeling this unit an allegory, because he does not think allegory is a proper genre designation. He provides the following definition of allegory in his glossary: “Not strictly a genre, but rather a speech form closely related to figurative or metaphorical language.” 38 Allen only mentions in passing that the unit “relies heavily on allegory.” 39 He also notes correctly that the allegory begins to break down more and more as one moves through the passage so that it is best not to label the entire unit as an allegory. Yet, one cannot deny the unit’s reliance on figurative language. Block argues that this unit’s connections with Ezek 28 suggest a reading of Ezek 31 as “prophetic satire.” 40 He notes, “The oracle contains most of the principal rhetorical features of prophetic satire: an initial positive portrayal of the accused, a catalogue of evidences of status, the reductive use of natural imagery.” 41 Yet, he admits that the major element of a “quota34

Hals, Ezekiel, 352, describes the genre as a prophecy of punishment. Hals, Ezekiel, 220; Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 124. Contra Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 146. 36 Hals, Ezekiel, 220, lists Ezek 32:17–32; 26:17–21:28:8; Isa 14:9–11, 15–20 as examples of dirges with descents to Sheol. 37 Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 124. 38 Hals, Ezekiel, 348. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 145–48, does not mention allegory in his discussion of form. 39 Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 124. 40 Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 180. 41 Block, Ezekiel 24–48, 181. 35

202

Chapter Six: Reading Contextually Within The Book: Ezekiel 29:1–32:16

tion put in the mouth of the accused to clarify the grounds” is missing. 42 With this assessment, one encounters the classic, form-critical issue of understanding and appreciating how individual texts can shape and mold certain genre patterns for rhetorical purposes. Both the allegorical and satirical elements of the passage cannot be denied; however, one struggles to decide whether either of these is the dominant genre of the unit. 6.1.5. Ezekiel 32:1–16 6.1.5.1. Synopsis This literary unit, dated in the 12th year, 12th month, 1st day, contains an extended dirge or lament over Pharaoh. This ruler is likened to a seadragon, who is caught in a net by the deity and thrown onto the dry ground. Later, the unit specifies that the Babylonian king will conquer Egypt and make it a desolation. 6.1.5.2. Structure Zimmerli uses the messenger formulas in v. 3 and v.11 as well as the prophetic utterance formula at the end of v. 8 and v. 14 to formulate four subunits: vv. 3–8, 9–10, 11–14, 15. 43 This division is followed closely by Allen. 44 Boadt finds only two divisions, vv. 2–10 and vv. 11–15, a partition based on content alone. 45 Hals views the majority of the unit as a threepart prophetic proof saying, but his structure contains seven sections for this subunit. 46 The key to the structure of this unit is the relationship between the formulas found therein. The literary structure of Ezek 32:1–16 is as follows: Ezekiel’s Oracle of Lament Concerning Pharaoh A. Prophetic Word Formula B. Divine Address to son of man 1. Title: Son of man 2. Command to lament Pharaoh a. Command proper b. Divine Address Proper 1) Accusation 2) Punishment # 1 3) Punishment # 2 4) Conclusion 42

Block, Ezekiel 24–48, 181. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 157. 44 Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 130. 45 Boadt, Ezekiel’s Oracles against Egypt, 128. 46 Hals, Ezekiel, 223. 43

32:1b–16 32:1b 32:2–16 32:2a1 32:2a2–16 32:2a2–7 32:2a8–16 32: 2a8–b 32:3–10 32:11–15 32:16

6.1. Reading the Units Separately as Introduction

203

This structure takes into account the difference between the narrator’s voice, which provides the prophetic word formula, and the divine voice. The divine address is to the prophet and contains a command to raise a lament over Pharaoh. The address also contains the precise wording of the lament (with a conclusion that actually labels it a lament). The divine address to Pharaoh in Ezek 32:2a8–16 contains four parts. First, Ezek 32: 2a8–b lays out the basic premise or accusation for the entire speech. It is not demarcated by a formula at the beginning, although the direct address to the Pharaoh is clear. Second, Ezek 32:3–10 begins with a messenger formula and includes prophetic utterance formula in the middle that divides the subunit in half. Third, Ezek 32:11–15 begins with another messenger formula and includes another prophetic utterance formula in the middle of the subunit. This subunit also ends with a recognition formula. Finally, Ezek 32:16 serves as a conclusion, which labels the entire previous speech as a lament; it concludes with an utterance formula. 6.1.5.3. Genre Again, the prophetic word formula at the beginning of this unit signals the genre, oracle. Furthermore, the addressee allows the interpreter to label the unit as part of the Oracles concerning the Nations. Both of these generic designations, however, do not relay much about the content of the unit, especially given that all of the literary units examined in this book’s chapter have been oracles strictly speaking. Ezek 32:2 speaks of raising a lament against Pharaoh; verse 16 concludes the unit by stating emphatically “this is a lament.” Thus, the unit itself speaks to its genre as lament. Yet, this designation is not without problems. First, the distinctive rhythmic pattern (3:2) of many laments is not found in this passage. Furthermore, the unit appears future-oriented as it looks toward punishment of the Pharaoh, whereas lament typically speaks of present doom. 47 In the end, it is difficult to argue against the self-designation of this genre since the text explicitly signifies that the speech is to be read as a lament. Yet, the recognition formula at the end of v. 15 points toward the use of a prophetic proof saying in accordance with the majority of the other oracles concerning Egypt.

47

See Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 591- 95, for a discussion of the genre, lament. See also Hals, Ezekiel, 349, under the entry, “Dirge”

204

Chapter Six: Reading Contextually Within The Book: Ezekiel 29:1–32:16

6.2. A Contextual Reading of the Literary Units in Ezekiel 29:1–32:16 The second half of this chapter provides a contextual reading of the Oracles concerning Egypt, i.e., the five literary units spanning Ezek 29:1– 32:16. While the section above treated each unit separately, the following discussion examines them together as a series of units. I do not make the claim here that these five units constitute an actual block of materials within the book. In other words, the grouping of these particular five units does not imply a meta-unit of any sort. Rather I am simply selecting five literary units within the text and demonstrating how their positions relative to each other are beneficial to the interpretive task. One could easily examine any number of combinations of literary units within the book, e.g., Ezek 1–7, 8–19, and 20–23, in order to see how the literary setting of these units beside each other enhances their message and function. So, the question could just as easily be: How does the placement of the literary unit, Ezek 8–19 between Ezek 1–7 and 20–23 affect its interpretation? This distinction between viewing them as a coherent unit and as individual units situated together is fundamental to my understanding of the book and contrary to previous scholarship, which often treated the Oracles concerning the Nations as a collection or group. I see these oracles more as an integral part of the overall book of Ezekiel. The following reading provides several topics and/or perspectives that are highlighted by the literary setting of the units. 6.2.1. The Prominence of Pharaoh These five units taken together represent almost all of the content within the book concerning the country of Egypt. Thus, they are correctly labeled the Oracles concerning Egypt. Yet, an emphasis exists within these units on the primary ruler of the country, the Pharaoh, not on the country itself. Four of the five units deal almost exclusively with the fate of the Pharaoh: Ezek 29:1–16, 30:20–26, 31:1–18, 32:1–16. This is not a common feature within the larger category of Oracles concerning the Nations. For example, the oracles concerning Ammon, Moab, Edom, and Philistia do not mention their respective rulers. Furthermore, the oracles concerning Tyre relate mostly to the entire country, although Ezek 28 contains two oracles that are addressed to the prince of Tyre (Ezek 28:1–10) and the king of Tyre (Ezek 28:11–19). The level of specification used in Ezek 28 is all the more intriguing given that the next literary unit contains the first oracle concerning Pharaoh. Furthermore, while the ruler of the nation undoubtedly stands as a metaphorical representative of the whole nation, Ezekiel also contains

6.2. A Contextual Reading of the Literary Units in Ezekiel 29:1–32:16

205

oracles that are directed to the entire nation. Thus, some additional reason(s) exists for singly out the Pharaoh for further reproach. One reason for the specificity relates to the obvious metaphors and imagery used. In Ezek 29:1–16, the author uses imagery of a sea dragon, which is easier to relate to a single entity such as a person, than to a group of people. Furthermore, Ezek 30:20–26 speaks of broken arms, which again is easy to relate to a human figure. Finally, Ezek 32:1–16 returns to the imagery of a sea dragon and lion. So, one important reason for the use of Pharaoh, as opposed to Egypt, is the necessary fit with the imagery employed. The appearance of the Pharaoh in these particular oracles also presents a literary inclusio. Unit VI (Ezek 29:1–16) introduces the literary character by stating that the deity is against him and by referring to him as a “great dragon” swimming in the water channels. Similarly, Unit X (Ezek 32:1– 16) delivers a command to raise a lament while referring to the Pharaoh as a sea dragon. A contextual reading of these units is sensitive to this echo from an earlier unit. This emphasis on Pharaoh, as opposed to the whole nation, is heightened even more when one notes that the only literary unit to not mention the Pharaoh is the precise literary unit that disrupts the chronological sequence within the book. Thus, I turn now to this chronological disorder. 6.2.2. Chronological Disorder Ezek 29:17–30:19 disrupts the chronological framework of the book dramatically by providing the latest date within the book, some 16+ years after the date found in Ezek 29:1. In this way, it provides a flash forward within the literary presentation of the book. This literary “preview” of events to come makes sense in light of several unique features within this unit. First, the out-of-sequence unit does not mention the Pharaoh, thereby contributing to its designation as a special, flash forward within the book. As soon as the reader sees the later date and begins to read about other subjects than the Pharaoh, a small literary disconnect is established automatically. The reader intuits that the following information is a literary insertion into the overall chronological framework of the book that provides additional, important information for this particular “section” of the book. This statement does not imply that this is a later, editorial insertion into the text. While many scholars have argued that at least some of this material is secondary, and while this is a compelling diachronic argument, I wish to maintain a synchronic approach here. Thus, from a literary perspective, the later date signals relevant information from a future time period that weighs on the current literary narrative. The literary presentation of the book clearly signals that the prophetic word received by the prophet at a

206

Chapter Six: Reading Contextually Within The Book: Ezekiel 29:1–32:16

later date has relevance to the present narrative so much that the chronological sequence is broken. The literary presentation also demonstrates that, while the chronological sequence is important, the literary setting of each unit is also important. Thus, this particular unit is situated in this position within the book, and not at the very end of the book of Ezekiel where it would fit in the sequence, for a reason. In addition, the literary unit begins in Ezek 29:17 with a discussion of Babylon’s king and his army. In Ezekiel, the nation of Babylon does not receive a judgment oracle, a notable feature of the book. However, in Ezekiel 29:17–21, the nation is mentioned as a (future) recipient of the land of Egypt. The presence of Babylon at the beginning of the unit serves a literary purpose: to mark this unit as distinctive from the surrounding literary units. So, since the unique quality of this unit has been established, a feature that makes it especially important within the overall oracles concerning Egypt, the question of the function of this flash forward can be raised. This literary preview of events occurring 16 years later highlights a rhetorical strategy within the book, a strategy of situating a particular unit within its current literary setting, but with a later date. The unit stands out in an obvious way and points to future situations that potentially affect the neighboring units. To be more specific, Ezek 29:17–30:19 serves literarily a rhetorical role within the text insofar as it shows that after 16 years, judgment is still forecasted for Egypt. It makes clear to the readers of the book that the type of judgment prophesied against Egypt in the 10th year (Ezek 29:1) is still relevant in the 27th year (Ezek 29:17). This type of statement is particularly important in the case of Egypt, which remained a nation in the 27th year. Thus, readers of the book of Ezekiel who lived in, e.g., the 29th or 35th year would not have cause to believe that the prophecy of Ezek 29:1, dated to the 10th, was somehow wrong and outdated. The chronological disorder, which causes so much spilt ink from scholars, actually has a distinct, important literary role. The flash forward to a different time in history, in effect, updates the previous oracle of judgment against the nation of Egypt. It reiterates the basic message of the previous oracles, i.e., those oracles which date to an earlier time, and it affirms Ezekiel’s basic position against Egypt. In fact, it is significant to note that both of the oracles within the unit conclude with the recognition formula: “Then they shall know that I am YHWH.” This formula, which is shared by several of the oracles concerning Egypt, is still valid some 16 years later in narrative time. The message that that Egypt will recognize YHWH because of judgment remains the same throughout this chronological disorder.

6.2. A Contextual Reading of the Literary Units in Ezekiel 29:1–32:16

207

6.2.3. A Literary Progression within the Oracles concerning the Nations toward the Egyptian Oracles The series of oracles concerning Egypt, which are found at the conclusion of a larger series of prophetic oracles concerning multiple nations, are placed in this precise position in order to introduce a specific persuasive element within the book. The earlier Oracles concerning the Nations speak of Ammon, Moab, Edom, Philistia, Tyre, and Sidon as recipients of judgment. All of these countries or city-states were conquered (or forced into submission) presumably by the Babylonians around the same time as the siege and fall of Jerusalem. Thus, the four smaller countries in Ezek 25 (Ammon, Moab, Edom, and Philistia) are promised punishment rhetorically and receive it historically. Then, Tyre, the ancient island in the midst of the sea, in Ezek 26–28, is condemned to punishment, a fate that is accomplished historically. Finally, Egypt, in Ezek 29–32, receives its share of condemnation, although it never quite receives that level of destruction historically. So, why is there a progression from smaller, weaker countries such as Moab to the mighty Egyptians at the end? The progression takes on special significance when one notes that the countries and cities listed in the oracles before Egypt were destroyed during the general time period of the fall and exile of Judah. It would have been a known historical fact during the Babylonian exile that these countries were devastated. Thus, the literary progression demonstrates that Egypt’s final outcome is also full of destruction and despair. By showing the havoc wreaked on the other countries, the text makes an argument about the coming fate of Egypt. The series of Oracles concerning the Nations builds literarily so as to make the claim that Egypt will fall soon. As evidence for this claim, the book cites the examples of other nations. In sum, just as Ezekiel prophesied correctly doom for these nations, Ezekiel also prophesied correctly the downfall of Egypt, even if that particular prophecy has not been realized yet. To put it otherwise: the literary progression in some way sets up a deterministic perception of the fate of Egypt, one in which the destruction of each country leads naturally to the destruction of another. The book of Ezekiel lists methodically the oracles concerning these countries in order to assert the inevitability of the fall of Egypt. Thus, the submission of Tyre to the Babylonians leads to the destruction of Egypt. 6.2.4. Oracles concerning the Nations Build toward Book’s Conclusion The literary progression described immediately above can be expanded outside of the Oracles concerning the Nations to demonstrate that these series of prophetic oracles concerning neighboring nations such as Ammon,

208

Chapter Six: Reading Contextually Within The Book: Ezekiel 29:1–32:16

Tyre, and Egypt also point toward later chapters in the book, specifically the fate of Edom in Ezek 35 and Gog of Magog in Ezek 38–39. In other words, the story of the fate of the nations surrounding Judah is not complete with the oracles concerning Egypt. Although Egypt is the final nation mentioned in the progression, it is not the last nation to receive judgment. Even as the book shifts to a more positive tone, with the end of the oracles concerning Egypt, it does not shift its gaze away from other nations. In a significant way, the restoration of Judah, Jerusalem, and the Temple are tied to the fate of the nations. Thus, in Ezek 35, an oracle concerning Edom’s horrible desolation occurs. Furthermore, in Ezek 38–39, a long oracle concerning Gog (Babylon) appears. Each of the nations, beginning with Ammon and concluding with Babylon, are judged by God through the prophet Ezekiel as one element of the process of restoration and purification of the Jerusalem Temple. The book makes a persuasive case that virtually all known nations are impacted during the crucial time in the life of Judah. All nations will face judgment as Judah’s religious institutions such as the Temple are restored.

6.3. Chapter Summary In this chapter, I reveal the effects of using surface structure to guide a contextual reading of a certain series of literary units. I select the five literary units within Ezekiel 29:1–32:16 because of their common interest in the ancient nation of Egypt. I provide a contextual reading of these units in a way that exemplifies the importance of recognizing the literary settings of each literary unit within the book of Ezekiel. First, a contextual reading of Ezekiel 29:1–32:16 emphasizes the role of Pharaoh within the Egyptian oracles. In addition, the series of oracles represent a literary progression within the larger Oracles concerning the Nations, a progression which leads to a culmination centered on the fate of Egypt. Finally, the literary progression or trajectory continues outside of Ezek 25–32 in that Ezek 35 and 38–39 also speak of judgment against Edom and Gog, respectively. Thus, for the book of Ezekiel, the fate of all the nations is tied together with the restoration of Judah and the purification of the Temple.

Chapter Seven

Conclusion 7.1. Summary of Study In this monograph, I advance contemporary biblical scholarship along two critical fronts. First, on a methodological level, I examine at length the concepts of literary structure and literary setting within prophetic literature. By engaging both the exegetical and theoretical aspects of these formcritical topics, I provide clarity to the discussion and show their importance to the overall enterprise of reading biblical texts. Ultimately, this study’s form-critical, synchronic methodology opens up avenues of interpretive work concerning the purpose and function of the book of Ezekiel. Second, on a textual level, I proffer a new surface structure for the book of Ezekiel and several contextual readings based on this new structure. I present Ezekiel as a highly-structured book in relative consensus with modern scholarship, but I depart significantly from the typical tripartite, conceptual structure in order to focus more sharply on the ways in which the formulas aid in an establishment of structure. This chapter summarizes these broad and specific theses and demonstrates their importance for future research. 7.1.1. Summary of Methodological Theses Methodological theory remains important to the enterprise of reading biblical literature. Of course, it is not everything; at some point, one moves beyond an overly conscious attention to theory in order to apply some working theory to an interpretation of the text. One must arrive at a certain reading. However, critically examined methodologies strengthen interpretations and engender alternative readings. Thus, this study discusses formcritical theory frequently in order to clarify the seminal issues of structure and literary setting. While form criticism has generally focused on these issues, they were typically examined within an unconsciously diachronic paradigm. Recently, however, scholars have begun to focus on the synchronic aspects of form-critical interpretations of prophetic literature. In other words, structure and setting, in previous scholarly discussions, did not relate directly to the concerns of literature, but instead to the historical

210

Chapter Seven: Conclusion

dimensions of the text, aspects such as the original structure, i.e., the prophet’s actual speech, and the historical setting of the prophet’s oral speech. With the advent of literary studies, structure and setting, as interpretive categories, have taken on additional concerns, explicitly literary ones. In this study I provide an in-depth, chapter-length discussion of structure in order to elucidate the differences between structures that are based primarily on content (conceptual structure) and structures based on formal, literary features such as formulas (surface structure). This important distinction aids in understanding better the divergent criteria used to establish textual structures. Hopefully, my attention to methodology beckons scholars to be explicit about their structural criteria in a way that allows for it to be assessed by other scholars. So, Chapter Two examines these questions by highlighting the weaknesses of various structural criteria, while also advocating for attention to literary features within prophetic literature as a means to establish a surface structure. This type of structure is alert to the formal features of the text, not the thematic content. I also provide examples from the prophetic books of Zephaniah, Haggai, and Zechariah to demonstrate the importance of locating and using literary features within the text to arrive at a surface structure. Likewise, methodological precision is needed to determine a text’s literary setting. Early renditions of form criticism hoped to establish the Sitz im Leben of the text, i.e., the way in which a text worked within a societal setting. Contemporary form-critical theory, with its greater focus on synchronic matters, has turned its gaze to literary setting, i.e., Sitz in der Literatur. This concept refers to the way in which the textual passage is situated within the literature. In other words, the way in which any given passage participates in larger and smaller textual units. These literary settings are therefore based on the surface structure of the book given that the structure determines the settings in which a specified text participates. I have used the phrase, contextual reading, to refer to the type of interpretation that emphasizes the literary setting of a passage. Contextual readings accentuate some aspect of the given text’s situation within a larger textual unit. 7.1.2. Summary of Theses related to Ezekiel At the heart of this work rests two specific arguments concerning the book of Ezekiel. First, I argue that the book of Ezekiel is structured literarily by the chronological formulas that are found 13 times throughout the book. These formulas create the first and highest level of structure for the book. Second, I argue that this new surface structure has a profound effect on a literary reading of the book of Ezekiel.

7.2. Further Study

211

The book of Ezekiel contains a series of chronological formulas, which are found throughout the book, that give the book a sense of movement through time. The book commences with this exact type of formula; the final vision of the new Temple in Ezek 40-48 begins with this formula; the vision of Ezek 8 starts with this formula. They clearly play a central role in the overall shaping of the book. Moreover, these formulas serve as the major structural elements within the book. They create and commence the book’s 13 literary units. Their function as the signals to the first level of structure within Ezekiel is unmistakable in that each unit contains a welldefined literary pattern. First, each literary unit begins with the chronological formula. Next, each unit contains some narrative material. This material can be quite long or remarkably short. Finally, each unit (except Ezek 40–48) contains at least one, but usually several, oracle(s). These prophetic oracles consistently begin with the prophetic word formula, which serves as the signal of the second level of structure within Ezekiel. If one takes seriously this literary division of the book, then one must reckon with the layout of the literary units, i.e., their unique placement and progression within the book. I label these interpretations that emphasize literary settings, contextual readings, and offer several examples of the interpretive power of these readings. In the case of two literary units (Ezek 24–25 and 32:17–33:20), I read the subunits within these units in order to determine how best these subunits fit together to form larger, literary entities. I read the subunits in a contextually-rich manner, paying careful attention to the neighboring passages that surround the subunits. In another example of contextual reading, I read among five literary units spanning Ezek 29:1–32:16 to examine their literary progression. I set these units contextually within the overall vision of the book itself.

7.2. Further Study I conclude my study by calling for additional contextual readings of Ezekiel that take into account this new surface structure. This process of reassessment of the text in light of the chronological formulas has already begun, e.g., in an article by Sweeney on Ezek 33:21-39:29 in which he reads these chapters as a complete, literary unit. 1 However, much work remains insofar as each literary unit created by an initial chronological formula needs attention as a unique section of the book of Ezekiel. For example, scholars need to ask how the new literary unit of Ezek 1–7 affects a read1 Marvin A. Sweeney, “The Assertion of Divine Power in Ezekiel 33:21-39:29,” in his Form and Intertextuality in Prophetic and Apocalyptic Literature (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 45; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 156-72.

212

Chapter Seven: Conclusion

ing of the introductory chapters of the book. Additionally, scholars should investigate the literary function of each chronological formula as it introduces literary units. Furthermore, the ways in which these larger units work together to present the overall message of the prophet book needs considerable rethinking. Now that I have identified 13 clear, literary units, a new picture of the entire sweep of the book is possible. Larger questions regarding the rhetorical function of the book are easier to ascertain now that a clear structure is in place. Indeed, one can see the possibility of a complete, literary reading of the whole prophetic book as a narrative with a distinct literary presentation and pattern.

Bibliography Ackroyd, Peter R. “An Interpretation of the Babylonian Exile: A Study of 2 Kings 20, Isaiah 38–39.” Scottish Journal of Theology 27 (1974): 329–52. –. “Studies in the Book of Haggai.” Journal of Jewish Studies 2 (1951): 171–173. Allen, Leslie C. Ezekiel 1–19. Word Biblical Commentary 28. Dallas: Word, 1994. –. Ezekiel 20–48. Word Biblical Commentary 29. Dallas: Word, 1990. –. “Ezekiel 24:3–14: A Rhetorical Perspective.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 49 (1987): 404–414. Alt, Albrecht. “The Origins of Israelite Law.” Pages 101–71 in Essays on Old Testament History and Religion. Garden City: Doubleday, 1967. Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Basic Books, 1981. Andrew, M.E. Responsibility and Restoration: The Course of the Book of Ezekiel. Dunedin, New Zealand: University of Otago Press, 1985. Auffret, Pierre. “The Literary Structure of Exodus 6:2–8.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 27 (1983): 46–54. Bandstra, Barry L. Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Hebrew Bible. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1995. Bar-Efrat, S. “Some Observations on the Analysis of Structure in Biblical Narrative.” Vetus Testamentum 30 (1980): 154–173. Barré, Lloyd M. “Recovering the Literary Structure of Psalm 15.” Vetus Testamentum 34 (1984): 207–211. Barton, John. Amos’s Oracles against the Nations: A Study of Amos 1:3–2:5. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980. –. “Historical-critical Approaches.” Pages 9–20 in The Cambridge Companion to Biblical Interpretation. Edited by John Barton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. –. Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984. Baumgärtel, Friedrich. “Die Formel ne’um Jahwe.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 73 (1961): 277–90. Begrich, J. Die Chronologie der Könige von Israel und Juda, und die Quellen des Rahmens der Königsbücher. Beiträge zur historischen Theologie 3. Tübingen: Mohr, 1929. Ben Zvi, Ehud. A Historical-Critical Study of the Book of Zephaniah. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1991. –. Hosea. Forms of Old Testament Literature XXIA/1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. –. Micah. Forms of Old Testament Literature 21B. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. –. “The Prophetic Book: A Key Form of Prophetic Literature.” Pages 276–297 in The Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty-First Century. Edited by M.A. Sweeney and E. Ben Zvi. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.

214

Bibliography

–. “Understanding the Message of the Tripartite Prophetic Books.” Restoration Quarterly 35 (1993): 93–100. Bergen, Robert D., ed. Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics. Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994. Berlin, Adele. The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985. –. Zephaniah. Anchor Bible 25A. New York: Doubleday, 1994. Berry, G.R. “The Title of Ezekiel (1:1–3).” Journal of Biblical Literature 51 (1932): 54– 57. Bertholet, Alfred. Das Buch Hesekiel. Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament. Freiburg: J.C.B. Mohr, 1897. Beuken, W.A.M. Haggai-Sacharja 1–8: Studien zur Überlieferungsgeschichte der frühnachexilischen Prophetie. Studia Semitica Neerlandica 10. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1967. Biggs, Charles R. The Book of Ezekiel. Epworth Commentaries. London: Epworth Press, 1996. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Ezekiel. Interpretation. Louisville: John Knox, 1990. –. A History of Prophecy in Israel. Rev. ed. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996. Block, Daniel I. The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. –. The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. –. “Ezekiel in Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium.” Pages 227–39 in Ezekiel’s Hierarchical World: Wrestling with a Tiered Reality. Edited by S.L. Cook and C.L. Patton. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 31. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004. –. “Ezekiel’s Boiling Cauldron: A Form-Critical Solution to Ezekiel XXIV:1–14.” Vetus Testamentum 41 (1991): 12–37. Blum, Erhard. “Formgeschichte – A Misleading Category? Some Critical Remarks.” Pages 32–45 in The Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty-First Century. Edited by M.A. Sweeney and E. Ben Zvi. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. Boadt, Lawrence. “Ezekiel, Book of.” Anchor Bible Dictionary 2:711–722. –. Ezekiel’s Oracles against Egypt: A Literary and Philological Study of Ezekiel 29–32. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980. –. Reading the Old Testament. New York: Paulist Press, 1984. –. “Rhetorical Strategies in Ezekiel’s Oracles of Judgment.” Pages 182–200 in Ezekiel and His Book. Edited by J. Lust. Leuven: University Press, 1986. Bodine, Walter R., ed. Discourse Analysis of Biblical Literature: What It Is and What It Offers. The Society of Biblical Literature Semeia Studies. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. Bovon, Francis., ed. Structural Analysis and Biblical Exegesis. Translated by A. M. Johnson. Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1974. Brownlee, W. H. “Ezekiel’s Copper Cauldron and Blood on the Rock (Chapter 24:1– 14).” Pages 21–43 in For Me to Live: Essays in Honor of J. L. Kelso. Edited by R.A. Caughenour. Cleveland: Liederbach, 1972. Brueggemann, Walter. An Introduction to the Old Testament: The Canon and Christian Imagination. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003. Budde, Karl. “Zum Eingang des Buches Ezechiel.” Journal of Biblical Literature 50 (1931): 20–41. Buss, Martin. Biblical Form Criticism in its Context. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.

Bibliography

215

–. “The Idea of Sitz im Leben – History and Critique.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 90 (1978): 157–70. –. Old Testament Form Criticism. Edited by John H. Hayes. San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1974. Buttenwieser, Moses. “The Character and Date of Ezekiel’s Prophecies.” Hebrew Union College Annual 7 (1930): 1–18. Butterworth, Mike. Structure and the Book of Zechariah. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 130. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992. Campbell, Antony F. “Form Criticism’s Future.” Pages 15–31 in The Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty-First Century. Edited by M.A. Sweeney and E. Ben Zvi. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. –. “Structure Analysis and the Art of Exegesis (1 Samuel 16:14–18:30).” Pages 76–103 in Problems in Biblical Theology: Essays in Honor of Rolf Knierim. Edited by H. T.C. Sun et al. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Carley, Keith W. The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel. Cambridge Bible Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974. Carr, David M. “Reaching for Unity in Isaiah.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 57 (1993): 61–80. –. Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary Approaches. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996. –. Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Carroll, Robert P. “Surplus of Meaning and the Conflict of Interpretations: A Dodecade of Jeremiah Studies (1984–1995).” Currents in Research 4 (1996): 115–59. Cassuto, U. Biblical and Oriental Studies, Volume 1: Bible. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1973. Childs, Brevard. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979. Christensen, Duane L. Transformations of the War Oracle in Old Testament Prophecy: Studies in the Oracles Against the Nations. Missoula, Montana: Scholars, 1975. Clements, Ronald E. Ezekiel. Westminster Bible Companion. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996. –. Old Testament Prophecy: From Oracles to Canon. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996. –. “The Unity of the Book of Isaiah.” Interpretation 36 (1982): 117–29. Cody, Aelred. Ezekiel with an Excursus on Old Testament Priesthood. Old Testament Message. Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, 1984. Collins, John J. Introduction to the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004. Collins, Terence. Line-Forms in Hebrew Poetry: A Grammatical Approach to the Stylistic Study of the Hebrew Prophets. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978. –. The Mantle of Elijah: The Redaction Criticism of the Prophetical Books. The Biblical Seminar 20. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Conrad, Edgar W. Reading Isaiah. Overtures to Biblical Theology 27. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1991. –. Reading the Latter Prophets: Toward a New Canonical Criticism. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 376. London: T&T Clark, 2003. –. Zechariah. Readings: A New Biblical Commentary. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.

216

Bibliography

Cooke, G.A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel. The International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1936. Corral, Martin Alonso. Ezekiel’s Oracles against Tyre: Historical Reality and Motivations. Biblica et Orientalia 46. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2002. Crenshaw, James L. Story and Faith: A Guide to the Old Testament. New York: Macmillan, 1986. Culley, R.C. Studies in the Structure of Hebrew Narrative. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. Darr, Katheryn Pfisterer. “The Book of Ezekiel: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections.” Pages 6:1073–1607 in The New Interpreter’s Bible. Nashville: Abingdon, 2001. –. “Ezekiel among the Critics.” Currents in Research 2 (1994): 9–24. Davis, Ellen F. “‘And Pharaoh Will Change His Mind…’ (Ezekiel 32:31): Dismantling Mythical Discourse.” Pages 224–239 in Theological Exegesis: Essays in Honor of Brevard S. Childs. Edited by Christopher Seitz & Kathryn Greene-McCreight. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. –. Swallowing the Scroll: Textuality and the Dynamics of Discourse in Ezekiel’s Prophecy. Bible and Literature Series 21. Sheffield: Almond, 1989. de Moor, J.C., ed. Synchronic or Diachronic? A Debate on Method in Old Testament Exegesis. Oudtestamentische Studiën 34. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Dorsey, David A. The Literary Structure of the Old Testament: A Commentary on Genesis-Malachi. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999. Douglas, Mary. In the Wilderness: The Doctrine of Defilement in the Book of Numbers. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 158. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Driver, S. R. Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament. New York: Scribner, 1913. –. An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament. New York: Meridan Books, 1956. Duguid, Iain M. Ezekiel and the Leaders of Israel. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 56. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Duhm, Bernhard. Das Buch Jeremia. Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament 11. Tübingen/Leipzig: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1901. –. Das Buch Jesaia. Handkommentar zum Alten Testament 3/1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1892. Eichrodt, Walther. Ezekiel. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1970. Eissfeldt, Otto. Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Tübingen: Mohr, 1934. Erlandsson, S. The Burden of Babylon: A Study of Isaiah 13:2–14:23. Coniectanea biblica: Old Testament Series 4. Lund: Gleerup, 1970. Feldman, E. Biblical and Post-Biblical Defilement and Mourning: Law as Theology. New York: Yeshiva University Press, 1977. Fishbane, Michael. “Sin and Judgment in the Prophecies of Ezekiel.” Pages 170–87 in Interpreting the Prophets. Edited by James Luther Mays & Paul J. Achtemeier. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. Floyd, Michael H. “The )#m (Maa’) as a Type of Prophetic Book.” Journal of Biblical Literature 121 (2002): 401–22.

Bibliography

217

–. Minor Prophets Part 2. Forms of the Old Testament Literature 22. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. –. “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 & Robert D. Haak. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 427. New York: T&T Clark, 2006. Fohrer, Georg. Ezechiel. Handbuch zum Alten Testament 13. Tübingen: Verlag J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1955. –. Die Hauptprobleme des Buches Ezechiel. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 72. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1952. –. Introduction to the Old Testament. Translated by David E. Green. Nashville: Abingdon, 1968. –. Die Symbolischen Handlungen der Propheten. Zürich: Zwingli Verlag Zürich, 1968. Freedman, David Noel. “The Book of Ezekiel.” Interpretation 8 (1954): 446–471. Friebel, Kelvin G. Jeremiah’s and Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 283. Sheffield: Sheffield Press, 1999. Frolov, Serge. The Turn of the Cycle: 1 Samuel 1–8 in Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 342. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004. Fuhs, Hans Ferdinand. Ezechiel 1–24. Würzburg: Echter-Verlag, 1984. Galambush, Julie. Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel: The City as Yahweh’s Wife. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 130. Atlanta: Scholars, 1992. Garner, Donald William. “Forms of Communication in the Book of Ezekiel.” Ph.D. diss., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1980. Garscha, J. Studien zum Ezechielbuch: Eine redaktionskritische Untersuchung von Ez 1– 39. Europäische Hochschulschriften 23/23. Bern: Herbert Lang; Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1974. Geller, S. Parallelism in Early Biblical Poetry. Harvard Semitic Monographs 20. Missoula: Scholars, 1979. Gese, Hartmut. Der Verfassungsentwurf des Ezechiel (Kap. 40–48) traditionsgeschichtlich untersucht. Beiträge zur historischen Theologie 25. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1957. Geyer, John B. Mythology and Lament: Studies in the Oracles about the Nations. Society for Old Testament Study Monographs. Aldershot, England: Ashgate, 2004. Gosse, Bernard. “Le Recueil d’Oracles Contre les Nations d’Ézéchiel XXV – XXXII dans la Rédaction du Livre d’Ézéchiel.” Revue biblique 94 (1986): 535–62. Graffy, A. A Prophet Confronts His People. Analecta biblica 104. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1984. Gray, G.B. A Critical Introduction to the Old Testament. New York: C. Scribner's Sons, 1913. Greenberg, Moshe. “The Design and Themes of Ezekiel’s Program of Restoration.” Interpretation 38 (1984): 181–208. –. Ezekiel 1–20. Anchor Bible 22. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1983. –. Ezekiel 21–37. Anchor Bible 22A. New York: Doubleday, 1997. Gunkel, Hermann. Genesis. Translated by Mark E. Biddle. Macon: Mercer, 1997. Habel, N. “The Form and Significance of the Call Narratives.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 77:3 (1965): 297–323.

218

Bibliography

Hals, Ronald M. Ezekiel. Forms of Old Testament Literature 19. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989. Haney, Randy G. Text and Concept Analysis in Royal Psalms. Studies in Biblical Literature 30. New York: Peter Lang, 2002. Hanson, Paul D. The People Called: The Growth of Community in the Bible. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Harrelson, Walter. Interpreting the Old Testament. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1964. Harrison, Ronald K. Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1969. Hayes, John H. An Introduction to Old Testament Study. Nashville: Abingdon, 1979. –. “The Oracles against the Nations in the Old Testament: Their Usage and Theological Importance.” Ph.D. diss., Princeton Theological Seminary, 1964. –. “The Usage of the Oracles Against Foreign Nations in Ancient Israel.” Journal of Biblical Literature 87 (1967): 81–92. Hayward, C.T.R. The Jewish Temple: A Non-biblical Sourcebook. London: Routledge, 1996. Herrmann, Johannes. Ezechiel: übersetzt und erklärt. Kommentar zum Alten Testament. Leipzig: Deichert, 1924. Hitzig, F. Der Prophet Ezechiel Erklärt. Leipzig: Weidmann’sche Buchhandlung, 1847. Hoffman, Y. The Prophecies against Foreign Nations in the Bible. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1977. (in Hebrew) Hölscher, G. Hesekiel, der Dichter und das Buch. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 39. Gießen: A. Töpelmann, 1924. Houk, Cornuelius B. “Md)-Nb Patterns as Literary Criteria in Ezekiel.” Journal of Biblical Literature 88 (1969): 184–90. House, Paul R. The Unity of the Twelve. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 117. Bible & Literature Series 27. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1990. –. Zephaniah: A Prophetic Drama. Bible and Literature Series 16. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1988. Irsigler, H. Gottesgericht und JHWHtag: Die Komposition Zef 1,1–2,3 untersucht auf der Grundlage der Literarkritik des Zefanjabuches. St. Ottilien: EOS, 1977. Irwin, William A. The Problem of Ezekiel. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1943. Jacobs, Mignon R. The Conceptual Coherence of the Book of Micah. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 322. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001. Jahnow, H. Das hebräische Leichenlied im Rahmen der Völkerdichtung. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 36. Giessen: Töpelmann, 1923. Jerome. Commentariorum in Hiezechielem libri XIV, S. Hieronymi presbyteri Opera ¼. Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 75. Turnholt: Brepols, 1964. Joyce, Paul. Divine Initiative and Human Reponse in Ezekiel. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 51. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989. –. Ezekiel: A Commentary. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 482. New York: T&T Clark, 2007. Kaiser, Otto. Introduction to the Old Testament: A Presentation of its Results and Problems. Translated by John Sturdy. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing, 1975.

Bibliography

219

Kelso, J. L. “Ezekiel’s Parable of the Corroded Copper Caldron.” Journal of Biblical Literature 64 (1945): 391–93. Kessler, John. The Book of Haggai: Prophecy and Society in Early Persian Yehud. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 91. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Kim, Hyun Chul Paul. “Form Criticism in Dialogue with Other Criticisms: Building the Multidimensional Structures of Texts and Concepts.” Pages 85–104 in The Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty-First Century. Edited by M.A. Sweeney and E. Ben Zvi. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. Kline, Meredith G. “The Structure of the Book of Zechariah.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 34 (1991): 179–193. Knierim, Rolf. “The Book of Numbers.” Pages 155–163 in Die Hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte: Festschrift für Rolf Rendtorff zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by E. Blum, C. Macholz, and E. W. Stegemann. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990. –. “The Composition of the Pentateuch.” Pages 351–79 in The Task of Old Testament Theology: Substance, Method, and Cases. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. –. “Criticism of Literary Features, Form, Tradition, and Redaction.” Pages 123–65 in The Hebrew Bible and Its Modern Interpreters. Edited by D.A. Knight and G.M. Tucker. Chico, California: Scholars, 1985. –. “Old Testament Form Criticism Reconsidered.” Interpretation 27 (1973): 435–468. –. Text and Concept in Leviticus 1:1–9. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1992. Kohn, Risa Levitt. “Ezekiel at the Turn of the Century.” Currents in Biblical Research 2:1 (2003): 9–31. –. A New Heart and a New Soul: Ezekiel, the Exile, and the Torah. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 358. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. Konkel, Michael. Architektonik des Heiligen: Studien zur zweiten Tempelvision Ezechiels (Ez 40–48). Bonner Biblische Beiträge 129. Bodenheim: Philo, 2001. Korpel, Marjo and Josef Oesch., eds., Delimitation Criticism: A New Tool in Biblical Scholarship. Van Gorcum: Assen, 2000. Korpel, Marjo C.A. “Introduction to the Series Pericope.” Pages 1–50 in Delimitation Criticism: A New Tool in Biblical Scholarship. Edited by Marjo Korpel and Josef Oesch. Van Gorcum: Assen, 2000). Kraetzschmar, Richard. Das Buch Ezechiel: übersetzt und erklärt. Handkommentar zum Alten Testament. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1900. Kutsch, Ernst. Die Chronologischen Daten des Ezechielbuches. Orbis biblicus et orientalis. Fribourg: Editions Universitaries; Göttingen: Vandenboeck & Ruprecht, 1985. Kutsko, John F. Between Heaven and Earth: Divine Presence and Absence in the Book of Ezekiel. Biblical and Judaic Studies 7. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2000. Lamarche, Paul. Zacharie IX-XIV: Structure Littéraire et Messianisme. Paris: J. Gabalda, 1961. Lang, Bernhard. Ezechiel. Erträge der Forschung 153. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1981. Lee, Won W. Punishment and Forgiveness in Israel’s Migratory Campaign. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. Lemke, Werner E. “Life in the Present and Hope for the Future.” Pages 200–214 in Interpreting the Prophets. Edited by James Luther Mays & Paul J. Achtemeier. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. Lenglet, A. “La structure littéraire de Daniel 2–7.” Biblica 53 (1972): 169–90.

220

Bibliography

Levenson, Jon. Theology of the Program of Restoration of Ezekiel 40–48. Harvard Semitic Monographs 10. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976. Levin, B.A. “Silence, Sound, and the Phenomenology of Mourning in Biblical Israel.” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 22 (1993): 101-103. Lévi-Strauss, Claude. Structural Anthropology. Translated by Claire Jacobson and Brooke Grundfest Schoepf. [New York]: Basic, 1963. Lind, Millard C. Ezekiel. Believers Church Bible Commentary. Scottdale, Pennsylvania: Herald Press, 1996. Longacre, Robert E. The Grammar of Discourse, Second Edition. Topics in Language and Linguistics. New York: Plenum Press, 1996. –. Joseph: A Study of Divine Providence: A Text Theoretical and Textlinguistic Analysis of Genesis 37 and 39–48. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003. Lowth, William A. A commentary upon the prophet Ezekiel. London: printed for W. Mears, 1723. Lund, Nils Wilhelm and Henry Hammersley Walker. “The Literary Structure of the Book of Habakkuk.” Journal of Biblical Literature 53 (1934): 355–370. Lundbom, Jack R. Jeremiah: A Study in Ancient Hebrew Rhetoric. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 18. Missoula, Montana: Scholars, 1975. Lust, J., ed. Ezekiel and His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and their Interrelation. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 74. Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 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. March, W. Eugene. “Lkn: Its Function and Meanings.” Pages 256–84 in Rhetorical Criticism: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg. Edited by Jared J. Jackson and Martin Kessler. Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series 1. Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press, 1974. –. “Prophecy.” Pages 141–177 in Old Testament Form Criticism. Edited by John H. Hayes. San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1974. Margulis, Barry Baruch. “Studies in the Oracles against the Nations.” Ph.D. diss., Brandeis University, 1966. Mason, Rex A. “The Purpose of the ‘Editorial Framework’ of the Book of Haggi.” Vetus Testamentum 27 (1976): 413–421. Matthews, Isaac G. Ezekiel. An American Commentary on the Old Testament. Philadelphia: Judson Press, 1939. May, Herbert G. “Ezekiel: Introduction and Exegesis.” in The Interpreter’s Bible. New York & Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1956. Mays, James L. Ezekiel, Second Isaiah. Proclamation Commentaries. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978. McKeating, Henry. Ezekiel. Old Testament Guides. Sheffield: Almond, 1993. Meier, Samuel A. Speaking of Speaking: Marking Direct Discourse in the Hebrew Bible. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 46. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Melugin, Roy F. “The Formation of Amos: An Analysis of Exegetical Method.” Pages 369–91 in SBL Seminar Papers 1978. Vol. 1. Edited by Paul J. Achtemeier. Missoula, Montana: Scholars, 1978. Meyers, Carol L. and Eric M. Meyers. Haggai, Zechariah 1–8. Anchor Bible 25B. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1987. Miller, James E. “The Thirtieth Year of Ezekiel 1:1.” Revue biblique 99 (1992): 499– 503.

Bibliography

221

Mowinckel, Sigmund. Psalmenstudien. 2 vols. Amsterdam: Schippers, 1961. –. Zur Komposition des Buches Jeremia. Kristiana: Dybward, 1914. Muilenburg, James. “Ezekiel.” Pages 568–90 in Peake’s Commentary on the Bible. London: Thomas Nelson, 1962. –. “Form Criticism and Beyond.” Journal of Biblical Literature 88 (1969): 1–18. Murray, D. F. “The Rhetoric of Disputation: Re-examination of a Prophetic Genre.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 38 (1987): 95–121. Newsom, Carol A. The Book of Job: A Contest of Moral Imaginations. Oxford: Oxford University, 2003. Niditch, Susan. Oral World and Written Word: Ancient Israelite Literature. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996. Nielsen, Kirsten. “Ezekiel’s Visionary Call as Prologue: From Complexity and Changeability to Order and Stability?” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 33 (2008): 99–114. Noble, Paul R. “The Literary Structure of Amos: A Thematic Analysis.” Journal of Biblical Literature 114 (1995): 209–226. Noordtzij, A. De Profeet Ezechiël: Opnieuw uit de Grondtekst vertaald en Verklaard. Korte Verklaring der Keilige Schrift. 2 vols. Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1956. Noth, Martin. The Deuteronomistic History. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 15. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981. O’Connell, Robert H. Concentricity and Continuity: The Literary Structure of Isaiah. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 188. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994. O’Connor, M. Hebrew Verse Structure. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1980. Odell, Margaret S. Ezekiel. Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary. Macon, Georgia: Smyth & Helwys, 2005. –. “You Are What You Eat: Ezekiel and the Scroll.” Journal of Biblical Literature 117 (1998): 229–248. Pardee, Dennis. Ugaritic and Hebrew Poetic Parallelism: A Trial Cut (‘nt and Proverbs 2). Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 39. Leiden: Brill, 1988. Parunak, Henry Van Dyke. “Structural Studies in Ezekiel.” Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1978. Patte, Daniel. What is Structural Exegesis? Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. Peckham, Brian. History and Prophecy: The Development of Late Judean Literary Traditions. Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York: Doubleday, 1993. Petersen, David L. Haggai and Zechariah 1–8. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984. –. The Prophetic Literature: An Introduction. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002. –. Zechariah 9–14 and Malachi. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1995. Pfeiffer, Robert J. Introduction to the Old Testament. New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1948. Pleins, J. David. “Death and Endurance: Reassessing the Literary Structure and Theology of Psalm 49.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 69 (1996): 19–27. Pohlmann, Karl-Friedrich. Das Buch des Propheten Hesekiel (Ezechiel): Übersetzt und Erklärt. 2 vols. Das Alte Testament Deutsch 22. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996–2001.

222

Bibliography

–. Ezechielstudien: Zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Buches und zur Frage nach den ältesten Texten. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 202. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992. Polzin, R. M. Biblical Structuralism. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977. Redditt, Paul L. Introduction to the Prophets. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Redpath, H. A. The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel. London: Methuen, 1907. Renaud, B. “Le livre de Sophonie: le jour de YHWH thème structurant de la synthèse rédactionnelle.” Revue des sciences religieuse 60 (1986): 1–33. –. Michée-Sophonie-Nahum. Sources bibliques. Paris: Gabalda, 1987. Rendtorff, Rolf. The Old Testament: An Introduction. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986. –. “Zum Gebrauch der Formel ne’um jahwe im Jeremiabuch.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 66 (1954): 27–37. Renz, Thomas. The Rhetorical Function of the Book of Ezekiel. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Revell, E.J. “Masoretes.” Pages 4:593–94 in Anchor Bible Dictionary. Reventlow, Henning Graf. Die Propheten Haggai, Sacharja und Maleachi. Das Alte Testament Deutsch. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993. Reymond, E.D. “The Hebrew Word hmmd and the Root d-m-m I (‘To Be Silent’).” Biblica 90 (2009): 374–88. Richter, Wolfgang. Exegese als Literaturwissenschaft: Entwurf einer alttestamentlichen Literaturtheorie und Methodologie. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971. Roberts, J.J.M. “The Hand of Yahweh.” Vetus Testamentum 21 (1971): 244–51. Rowley, H.H. “The Book of Ezekiel in Modern Study.” Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 36 (1953): 146–90. Rudolph, W. Micha – Nahum – Habakkuk – Zephanja. Kommentar zum Alten Testament. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1975. Ryou, Daniel Hojoon. Zephaniah’s Oracles Against the Nations: A Synchronic and Diachronic Study of Zephaniah 2:1–3:8. Biblical Interpretation Series 13. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Saur, Markus. Der Tyroszyklus des Ezechielbuches. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 386. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008. Saussure, Ferdinand de. Course in General Linguistics. Translated by Roy Harris. Chicago: Open Court, 1972. Schmidt, Werner H. Old Testament Introduction. Translated by Matthew J. O’Connell. New York: Crossroad, 1984. Schniedewind, William M. How the Bible Became a Book: The Textualization of Ancient Israel. Cambridge University Press, 2005. Schweizer, Harald. Metaphorische Grammatik: Wege zur Integration von Grammatik und Textinterpretation in der Exegese. Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament 15. St. Ottlien: EOS, 1981. Sharp, Carolyn. Irony and Meaning in the Hebrew Bible. Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2009. Smith, Christopher R. “The Literary Structure of Leviticus.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 70 (1996): 17–32. Soggin, J. Alberto. Introduction to the Old Testament: From its Origins to the Closing of the Alexandrian Canon. 3rd ed. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1989. Spronk, K. “Synchronic and Diachronic Approaches to the Book of Nahum.” Pages 159– 86 in Synchronic or Diachronic?: A Debate on Method in Old Testament Exegesis. Edited by Johannes C. de Moor. Oudtestamentische Studiën 34. Leiden: Brill, 1995.

Bibliography

223

St. J. Thackeray, H. The Septuagint and Jewish Worship: A Study in Origins. The Schweich Lectures, The British Academy, 1920. London: The British Academy, 1923. Steck, Odil Hannes. Old Testament Exegesis: A Guide to the Methodology, Second Edition. Translated by James D. Nogalski. SBL Resources for Biblical Study. Atlanta: Scholars, 1998. Sternberg, Meir. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985. Strong, John Thomas. “Ezekiel’s Oracles Against the Nations within the Context of His Message.” Ph.D. diss., Union Theological Seminary in Virginia, 1993. –. “Ezekiel’s Use of the Recognition Formula in His Oracles Against the Nations.” Perspectives in Religious Studies 22 (1995): 115–133. Stulman, Louis. Jeremiah. Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries. Nashville: Abingdon, 2005. –. Order Amid Chaos: Jeremiah as Symbolic Tapestry. Biblical Seminar 57. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Sweeney, Marvin A. and Ehud Ben Zvi, eds. The Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty-First Century. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. –. Form and Intertextuality in Prophetic and Apocalyptic Literature. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 45. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. –. Ezekiel: Zadokite Priest and Visionary Prophet of the Exile. Occasional Papers 41. Claremont: Institute for Antiquity and Christianity, 2001. –. “Formation and Form in Prophetic Literature.” Pages 113–26 in Old Testament Interpretation: Past, Present, and Future. Edited by J.L. Mays, D.L. Petersen, K.H. Richards. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995. –. “A Form-Critical Reassessment of the Book of Zephaniah.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 53 (1991): 388–408. –. “Form Criticism.” Pages 58–89 in To Each Its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and their Application. Edited by S.R. Haynes and S.L. McKenzie. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999. –. Isaiah 1–4 and the Post-Exilic Understanding of the Isaianic Tradition. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 171. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1988. –. Isaiah 1–39, with an Introduction to Prophetic Literature. Forms of Old Testament Literature 16. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. –. “The Latter Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel).” Pages 69–94 in The Hebrew Bible Today: An Introduction to Critical Issues. Edited by S. L. McKenzie and M.P. Graham. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998. –. “On the Road to Duhm: Isaiah in Nineteenth Century Critical Scholarship.” Pages 243–61 in As Those Who are Taught: The Reception of Isaiah from LXX to SBL. Edited by C. Mathews McGinnis and P. Tull. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. –. Reading the Hebrew Bible after the Shoah: Engaging Holocaust Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2008. –. The Prophetic Literature. Interpreting Biblical Texts. Nashville: Abingdon, 2005. –. The Twelve Prophets, Volume Two. Berit Olam. Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical, 2000. –. Zephaniah. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. –. “Zephaniah: A Paradigm for the Study of the Prophetic Books.” Currents in Research: Biblical Studies 7 (1999): 119–145.

224

Bibliography

Taylor, S. G. “A Reconsideration of the ‘Thirtieth Year’ in Ezekiel 1:1.” Tyndale Bulletin 17 (1966): 119–20. Tkacik, Arnold J. “Ezekiel.” in The Jerome Biblical Commentary. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1968. Torrey, C. C. Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Original Prophecy. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1930. Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 2nd rev. ed.. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. Toy, C.H. The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel: A New English Translation with explanatory notes and pictorial illustrations. New York: Dodd, Mead, and Company, 1899. Trible, Phyllis. Rhetorical Criticism: Context, Method, and the Book of Jonah. Guides to Biblical Scholarship. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994. Tsumura, David Toshio. “Vertical Grammar of Parallelism in Hebrew Poetry.” Journal of Biblical Literature 128 (2009): 167–181. Tucker, Gene M. Form Criticism of the Old Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971. –. “Prophetic Superscriptions and the Growth of the Canon.” Pages 56–70 in Canon and Authority. Edited by G.W. Coats and B.O. Long. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977. Tuell, Steven. Ezekiel. New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2009. –. “Should Ezekiel Go to Rehab? The Method to Ezekiel’s ‘Madness’.” Perspectives in Religious Studies 36 (2009): 289–302. –. The Law of the Temple in Ezekiel 40–48. Harvard Semitic Monographs 49. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. Utzschneider, Helmut. Das Heiligtum und das Gesetz: Studien zur Bedeutung der sinaitischen Heiligtumstexte (Ex. 25–40; Lev. 8–9). Orbis biblicus et orientalis 77. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988. van den Born, A. Ezechiël uit de grondtekst vertaald en uitgelegd. Roermond: Romen & Zonen, 1954. van der Toorn, Karel. Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible. Harvard University Press, 1997. Van Dijk, H.J. Ezekiel’s Prophecy on Tyre (Ez. 26,1 – 28,19): A New Approach. Biblica et Orientalia 20. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1968. van Rooy, H.F. “Parallelism, Metre, and Rhetoric in Ezekiel 29:1–16.” Semitics 8 (1982): 90–105. Van Seters, J. The Edited Bible: The Curious History of the “Editor” in Biblical Criticism. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2006. –. “The Redactor in Biblical Studies: A Nineteenth Century Anachronism.” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 29 (2003): 1–19. Vawter, Bruce and Leslie J. Hoppe. A New Heart: A Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel. International Theological Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991. Verhoef, P.A. “Notes on the Dates in the Book of Haggai.” Pages 259–67 in Text and Context: Old Testament and Semitic Studies for F.C. Fensham. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 48. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988. von Rad, Gerhard. “The Form-Critical Problem of the Hexateuch.” Pages 1–78 in The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays. Edinburgh and London: Oliver and Boyd, 1966.

Bibliography

225

Watson, W.G.E. Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to Its Techniques. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 26. Sheffield: JSOT, 1986. Weis, Richard D. “A Definition of the Genre Maa’ in the Hebrew Bible.” Ph.D. diss., Claremont Graduate School, 1986. Wellhausen, Julius. Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Buecher des Alten Testaments. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1899. –. Prolegomena to the History of Israel. Translated by J. Sutterland Black and A. Menzies. Edinburgh: A & C Black, 1885. Westermann, Claus. Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967. Wevers, John W. Ezekiel. The New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982. Wicke, Donald W. “The Literary Structure of Exodus 1:2–2:10.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 24 (1982): 99–107. Wilson, Robert R. “Ezekiel.” Pages 583–622 in The HarperCollins Bible Commentary. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2000. –. “An Interpretation of Ezekiel’s Dumbness.” Vetus Testamentum 22 (1972): 91–104. –. Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980. Wolff, Hans Walter. Haggai: A Commentary. Translated by Margaret Kohl. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988. Yee, Gale A. “The Anatomy of Biblical Parody: The Dirge Form in 2 Samuel 1 and Isaiah 14.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 50 (1988): 565–86. –. Composition and Tradition in the Book of Hosea. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987. York, Anthony D. “Ezekiel I: Inaugural and Restoration Visions?” Vetus Testamentum 27 (1977): 82–98. Young, T. Cuyler, Jr. “Darius.” Pages 2:37–38 in Anchor Bible Dictionary. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Ziegler, J. Ezechiel. Echter Bibel. Würzburg: Echter, 1963. Zimmerli, Walther. Ezekiel 1. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. –. Ezekiel 2. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. –. The Fiery Throne: The Prophets and Old Testament Theology. Edited by K.C. Hanson. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. –. “I Am Yahweh.” Pages 1–28 in I am Yahweh. Translated by D. W. Scott. Atlanta: John Knox, 1982. –. “Knowledge of God According to the Book of Ezekiel.” Pages 29–98 in I am Yahweh. Translated by D. W. Scott. Atlanta: John Knox, 1982. –. “The Word of Divine Self-Manifestation (Proof-Saying): A Prophetic Genre.” Pages 99–110 in I Am Yahweh. Translated by D.W.Scott. Atlanta: John Knox, 1982.

Index of Biblical Passages A page number in italics represents the citation of a biblical verse or passage in the footnotes on that page; a page number in bold represents an extensive discussion of a biblical verse or passage on that page.

Genesis 1–2 32 37 39–48 Exodus 1:2–2:10 6:2–8 15 39:28

132 82 54 54

45 44 20 151

Leviticus 1:1–9 1:2 10:10 13:2

16, 34 151 143 151

Numbers 4:3 4:23, 30 8:23–25 10:11–36:13 19:14 21:27–30 22:15–16

91, 102 91 91 48 151 156 82

Judges 1 1:27ff 3:7ff 13:2ff

111 131 131 131

1 Samuel 1–8 16:14–18:30

131 16

2 Samuel 1

176

2 Kings 20 25:1

111 107

Isaiah 1–4 1–33 1–39 1 2–66 6 13:2–14:23 14 34–66 36–37 38–39 40–55 40 55 56–66 66

131 5, 60 4, 27, 60 60, 79, 131 131 44 127 176, 177 5, 60 111 111 4, 6, 27 60 60 4–5, 27 60

Jeremiah 1–25 26–52 28:1–4, 10–11 52:4

132 132 148 107

228 52:12 Ezekiel 1–2 1–3 1–7

1–11 1–23 1–24 1–33 1–39 1 1:1–3 1:1–3:15 1:1 1:2 1:3 2 3–24 3 3:14 3:15 3:16–22 3:16–5:17 3:16 3:17–19 3:22–27 3:22 3:26 4–5 4–7 4–24 4–33 4 4:1–5:5 4:4–8 5 5:5 6 6:1–7 6:1 7 7:1

Index of Biblical Passages 105

8–11:13 8–11

22 20, 21, 23, 26, 104 23, 95, 103, 104, 105, 115, 117, 118, 119, 127, 130, 134, 191, 204, 211 21, 22, 23 168 4, 7, 19, 21, 22, 24, 51, 57, 78, 79, 169, 185 18 19, 20 103 89, 95, 101–103 94, 118, 119, 130 11, 86, 87, 88, 90, 91, 93, 101–104, 121 90, 92, 93, 102 83, 101 82 22 82, 177, 181, 185 83 86, 103 57, 185 104, 118, 119, 130 86, 89, 103, 104, 118 180 151 83 151 2 26 21, 23, 123 20 104 147 147 82 82 82, 104, 118, 119, 130, 193 57 118 2, 82, 104, 118, 119, 130 118

8–14 8–19

8:1

10 11 11:1–12 11:14–21 11:14–25 11:14 11:22–23 11:24–25 12–15 12–19 12–24 12 12:1–7 12:1–16 12:1 12:1ff 12:8–16 12:8 12:9 12:17–20 12:17 12:21–25 12:21–28 12:26–28 13 14 14:1–11 14:12–23 15–24 15 16–19 16 17 17:1–10 17:11–24 17:22–24 18 18:1–19:14 18:21–22, 24 19

105, 119 26, 82, 94, 96, 103, 104, 105, 208 23 12, 95, 105, 115, 117, 118, 119, 134, 191, 204 83, 86, 88, 94, 95, 96, 103, 104–105, 106, 121 2 82, 118 140 118 105, 119 96, 118 118 118 26 105 21, 23 82, 105, 119 105, 119 119, 147 118 146 105, 119 118 148 105, 119 118 105, 119 119 105, 119 82, 105, 119 82 105, 119 105, 119 23 82, 105, 119 26 82, 105, 119 82 105, 119 105, 119 59 57, 185 105, 119 181 106

Index of Biblical Passages 20–23 20–24 20 20:1 20:2–44 21 21:1–5 21:6–12 21:13–22 21:21 21:23–37 22 22:1–16 22:17–22 22:23–31 23 24–25

24

24:1–14 24:1

24:1a 24:1b–14 24:2 24:9 24:14 24:15–27 24:15 24:19 24:21 24:25–27 25–32

25–48 25

94, 106, 117, 120, 168, 191, 204 26 82, 95, 96, 106, 166 86, 88, 94, 95, 96, 101, 105–107, 120 106, 120 82, 96 107, 120 107, 120 107, 120, 147 148 107, 120 82 107, 120 107, 120 107, 120 82, 107, 120 12, 29, 94, 107, 110, 117, 120, 122, 123, 127–169, 190, 211 24, 58, 79, 82, 122, 123, 124, 135–151, 163, 165, 167, 168, 183, 185 124, 134, 135–141 86, 88, 107–108, 116, 123, 135, 157, 158, 159, 161, 163 108, 120 108, 120, 135–141, 159, 161 107, 135, 160 162 162 108, 120, 124, 141–151, 158, 159, 161, 165, 166 158 148 160, 162 151 6, 7, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 57, 59, 79, 114, 123, 128, 163, 167, 208 19 7, 24, 58, 79, 82, 108, 120, 123, 152–157, 159, 161, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 193, 194, 207

25:1 25:17 26–28 26–32 26 26:1 26:1a 26:1b–21 27 28 28:1–10 28:11–19 28:20–26 29:1–32:16 29 29:1–16

29:1

29:1a 29:1b–16 29:17–30:19 29:17 29:17a 29:17b–21 29:17b 30 30:1–19 30:1 30:20–26

30:20 30:20a 30:20b–26 31 31:1 31:1a 31:1b–18 31:1b 32

229 158 149 91, 109, 110, 117, 120, 122, 145, 207 108, 158, 168 7, 82 86, 88, 90, 91, 108– 110, 123, 157 109, 120, 122 109, 120 82, 109, 120 82, 201, 204 109, 120, 204 109, 120, 204 109, 120 29, 127, 189-208, 211 82 12, 90, 91, 110, 111, 117, 120, 122, 189, 191–194, 204, 205 86, 87, 88, 90, 91, 108, 109, 110–111, 205, 206 111, 120 111, 120 12, 90, 112, 117, 120, 122, 189, 194–198 86, 88, 91, 108, 111– 112, 206 112, 120, 195 112, 120, 194, 198, 206 195 82 112, 120, 193, 194 195 12, 95, 112, 117, 120, 122, 198–199, 204, 205 86, 88, 108, 111, 112 112, 120 112, 120 12, 82, 113, 117, 120, 122, 199–202, 204 86, 88, 112–113, 172 113, 120, 199 113, 120, 199 199 24, 79, 82, 182, 185, 187

230 32:1–16 32:1 32:1a 32:1b–16 32:2 32:15 32:17–32 32:17–33:20

32:17 32:17a 32:17b–32 32:17b–33:20 33–37 33–39 33–48 33

33:1–9 33:1–20

33:10–20 33:21–22 33:21–39:29 33:21

33:21a 33:22 33:23–33 34–37 34–48 34 34:1–10 35 35:1–36:15 36 36:1–15 36:16–37:14 37

Index of Biblical Passages 12, 114, 117, 120, 122, 202–203, 204, 205 86, 88, 108, 113–114, 183 114, 120 114, 120, 202 203 203 123, 172–177, 182, 186 12, 29, 115, 117, 120, 122, 123, 133, 171– 187, 190, 211 86, 88, 108, 114–115, 171, 182, 183 115, 120, 183 114, 115, 120, 183 183 26 4, 21, 22, 23 21, 24, 57, 79 7, 23, 24, 26, 58, 59, 79, 82, 123, 124, 182, 185, 186, 187 57 59, 115, 120, 123, 124, 177–182, 183, 185, 186, 187 57 94, 116, 120, 121, 124, 151, 185 116, 117, 120, 186, 187, 211 7, 86, 88, 89, 92, 109, 115–116, 168, 182, 183 88 83 116, 120 23 18, 20 2, 58, 59, 82, 116, 120, 123 59 59, 82, 193, 208 116, 120 82, 166 57 116, 120 2, 82, 95

43 44 44:18 45 46 47

83 116, 120, 147 148 23, 26, 116, 121, 208 82 82 2, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 94, 98, 100, 103, 111, 116, 117, 118, 121, 127, 186, 211 11, 83, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 98, 103, 116–117, 121 82 82 151 82 82 82

Hosea 9:4

142

Joel 2:21–27

61

Amos 1:2–3:8 1:3–2:5 3:9–6:14 7:1–9:15

51 155 51 51

Micah 1–3 1–5 4–5 6–7

27 48 27 27, 48

Zephaniah 1–2:3 1:1 1:1–9 1:1–11 1:2–18 1:2–3:20 1:10–18 1:12–18 2:1 2:1–3

27, 49, 65 67, 68 65 65 68 67, 68 65 65 68 68

37:1 37:15–28 37:18 38–39 38 39 40–48

40:1

231

Index of Biblical Passages 2:1–4 2:1–3:8 2:1–3:20 2:4–3:8 2:5–15 2:15 3:1–8 3:1–13 3:14–15 3:9–20 3:14–20 3:16–20

65 15, 156 68 27, 65 65 152 65 65 65 27, 65 65 65

1:1–6 1:1 1:7–6:15 1:7–8:23 1:7–14:21 1:7 7:1–14:21 7:1 9–11 9:1–14:21 9:1 12–14 12:1

73, 74 72 74 73 73 72, 73 74 72, 73 27 73 73 27 73

Haggai 1:1–11 1:1–1:15a 1:1a 1:12–15 1:15a 1:15b–2:1a 1:15b–2:9 2:1–9 2:10–19 2:10–23 2:10a 2:20–23 2:20 2:20b

71 70 70 71 70 70 70 71 70, 71 71 70 70, 71 70, 72 71

Malachi 1:1

73

Psalms 15 46 49 88:8

44 14 44 135

Proverbs 2

45

Daniel 2–7

44

Zechariah 1–8

27, 71, 72

1 Chronicles 23:3

102

Index of Authors Ackroyd, P. R. 111, 113 Allen, L. C. 25, 109, 115, 137, 138, 143, 153, 160, 172, 175, 177, 179, 180, 182, 192, 193, 195, 196, 197, 200, 201, 202 Alt, A. 13 Alter, R. 13 Andrews, M. E. 23 Auffret, P. 44 Bandstra, B. L. 19 Bar-Efrat, S. 52 Barré, L. M. 44 Barton, J. 3, 155 Baumgärtel, F. 82 Begrich, J. 102 Ben Zvi, E. 5, 6, 15, 36, 40, 42, 51, 56, 64, 66, 67, 69 Bergen, R. D. 54 Berlin, A. 45, 65 Berry, G. R. 98 Bertholet, A. 19 Beuken , W. A. M. 71, 72 Biggs, C. R. 22 Blenkinsopp, J. 3, 24, 27, 85, 102 Block, D. I. 17, 20, 21, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 101, 102, 103, 104, 106, 108, 109, 111, 114, 117, 123, 124, 136, 137, 140, 141, 152, 153, 154, 155, 157, 172, 173, 174, 176, 179, 180, 181, 184, 192, 194, 195, 196, 198, 199, 201, 202, 203 Blum, E. 37, 38, 56 Boadt, L. 1, 10, 26, 27, 99, 114, 127, 174, 192, 196, 198, 202 Bodine, W. R. 54 Bovon, F. 46 Brownlee, W. H. 139 Brueggemann, W. 19 Budde, K. 91

Buss, M. 36, 129 Buttenwieser, M. 98 Butterworth, M. 45, 73 Campbell, A. F. 16, 34, 38, 47, 51, 52, 63, 128 Carley, K. W. 23 Carr, D. M. 15, 40, 65, 121 Carroll, R. P. 2 Cassuto, U. 25 Childs, B. 2, 17, 22, 28, 65, 84, 85, 97 Christensen, D. L. 127, 156 Clements, R. E. 5, 9, 26, 41, 132 Cody, A. 22 Collins, J. J. 20, 21 Collins, T. 9, 42, 45 Conrad, E. W. 5, 13, 14, 40, 42, 73, 87, 101, 132 Cooke, G. A. 7, 26, 91, 96, 99, 102, 104, 105, 106, 109, 110, 112, 113, 114, 121, 140, 154, 192 Corral, M. A. 129 Crenshaw, J. L. 1 Culley, R. C. 46 Darr, K. P. 17, 26, 85, 190 Davis, E. F. 1, 11, 25–26, 133, 174 de Moor, J. C. 13 de Saussure, F. 46 Dorsey, D. A. 52, 63, 64 Douglas, M. 53 Driver, S. R. 17, 27 Duguid, I. M. 17 Duhm, B. 3, 5 Eichrodt, W. 25, 113, 114, 165 Eissfeldt, O. 91 Erlandsson, S. 127 Feldman, E. 151

Index of Authors Fishbane, M. 25 Floyd, M. H. 42, 70, 71, 73, 74, 147 Fohrer, G. 26, 36, 102, 139, 146 Freedman, D. N. 2, 18, 19 Friebel, K. G. 146, 147 Frolov, S. 131 Fuhs, H. F. 26 Galambush, J. 165 Garner, D. W. 45 Garscha, J. 4, 17, 99 Geller, S. 45 Gese, H. 116 Geyer, J. B. 10 Gosse, B. 167 Graffy, A. 140, 181 Gray, G. B. 17 Greenberg, M. 17, 19, 25, 59, 91, 95, 98, 104, 105, 106, 110, 112, 113, 115, 116, 119, 137, 141, 142, 145, 152, 153, 154, 175, 179, 186, 192, 195, 200 Gunkel, H. 13 Habel, N. 147 Hals, R. M. 25, 43, 57, 58, 59, 60, 78, 80, 81, 95, 116, 118, 119, 128, 137, 139, 143, 154, 163, 175, 176, 180, 181, 182, 192, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 201, 202, 203 Haney, R. G. 47, 48 Harrelson, W. 27 Harrison, R. K. 19 Hayes, J. H. 14, 127–128, 156 Hayward, C. T. R. 151 Herrmann, J. 96 Hitzig, F. 98 Hoffman, Y. 127 Hölscher, G. 17, 41, 98 Hoppe, L. J. 23 Houk, C. B. 80 House, P. R. 25, 66 Howie, C. G. 99 Irsigler, H. 49 Irwin, W. A. 4 Jacobs, M. R. 48 Jahnow, H. 176 Joyce, P. 2, 17, 22, 23, 101, 102, 103, 106, 132, 137, 185

233

Kaiser, O. 27, 36 Kelso, J. L. 136 Kessler, J. 70 Kim, H. C. P. 61 Kline, M. G. 73 Knierim, R. 2, 6, 7, 12, 13, 16, 34, 38, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 64 Kohn, R. L. 1, 17 Konkel, M. 116 Korpel, M. C. A. 61, 62 Kraetzschmar, R. 26, 96 Kutsch, E. 85 Kutsko, J. F. 23 Lamarche, P. 73 Lang, B. 17 Lee, W. W. 49, 50 Lemke, W. E. 184 Lenglet, A. 44 Levenson, J. 116 Levine, B. A. 141 Levi-Strauss, C. 46 Lind, M. C. 20 Longacre, R. E. 54 Lowth, W. A. 20 Lund, N. W. 45 Lundbom, J. R. 45 Lyons, M. A. 1 March, W. E. 60, 137 Marcus, R. 20 Mason, R. A. 72 Matthews, I. G. 21 May, H. G. 22 Mays, J. L. 25 McKeating, H. 17, 25 Meier, S. A. 80 Melugin, R. F. 6 Meyers, C. L. 69, 70, 71 Meyers, E. M. 69, 70, 71 Miller, J. E. 91–92, 102 Mowinckel, S. 3, 13, 14 Muilenburg, J. 8, 16, 24, 37, 63 Murray, D. F. 140, 181 Newsom, C. A. 37–38 Niditch, S. 14 Nielsen, K. 21 Noble, P. R. 50, 51 Noordtzij, A. 26

234

Index of Authors

Noth, M. 13 O’Connell, R. H. 44 O’Connor, M. 45 Odell, M. S. 25, 92, 95, 100, 102, 106, 107, 112, 113, 119, 137, 140, 175, 176, 177, 179, 180 Oesch, J. 61 Pardee, D. 45 Parunak, H. V. D. 52 Patte, D. 46 Petersen, D. L. 70, 71, 72, 73, 92, 93 Pfeiffer, R. J. 27 Pleins, J. D. 44 Pohlmann, K.-P. 4, 27, 77 Polzin, R. M. 46 Redditt, P. L. 24 Redpath, H. A. 17 Renaud, B. 60 Rendtorff, R. 27, 60, 82 Renz, T. 26 Revell, E. J. 33 Reventlow, H. G. 70, 71 Reymond, E. D. 141 Richter, W. 9, 13, 38, 49, 129 Roberts, J. J. M. 83 Rowley, H. H. 17, 99 Rudolph, W. 65 Ryou, D. H. 15, 156 Saur, M. 127 Schmidt, W. H. 27 Schniedewind, W. M. 40 Schweizer, H. 13, 54 Smith, C. R. 53 Soggin, J. A. 27 Spronk, K. 6 St. J. Thackeray, H. 20 Steck, O. H. 37 Sternberg, M. 13 Strong, J. T. 163, 164, 166, 172, 173, 192, 193 Stulman, L. 2, 131–132 Sweeney, M. A. 5, 6, 8, 12, 15, 17, 33, 36, 42, 43, 60, 64, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 73, 81, 92, 97, 103, 121, 130, 131, 146, 148, 156, 176, 181, 186, 187, 197, 211

Taylor, S. G. 91 Tkacik, A. J. 19 Torrey, C. C. 17, 98 Tov, E. 6, 61, 62 Toy, C. H. 19 Trible, P. 13, 16, 37, 160 Tsumura, D. T. 45 Tucker, G. M. 41, 52, 53, 67 Tuell, S. 18–19, 89, 91, 92, 94, 154 Utzschneider, H. 48 van den Born, A. 139, 176 van der Toorn, K. 40 Van Dijk, H. J. 109, 127 van Rooy, H. F. 193 Van Seters, J. 3 Vawter, B. 23 Verhoef, P. A. 70, 72 von Rad, G. 13, 41 Walker, H. H. 45 Watson, W. G. E. 45 Weis, R. D. 74 Wellhausen, J. 14 Westermann, C. 13, 41, 77 Wevers, J. W. 4, 21, 96, 154 Wicke, D. W. 44 Wilson, R. R. 11, 24, 84–85, 103, 151, 180 Wolff, H. W. 69, 70, 71 Yee, G. A. 3, 176 York, A. D. 92 Young, Jr., T. C. 72 Ziegler, J. 140, Zimmerli, W. 1, 27, 40, 59, 78, 80, 83, 86, 90, 92, 95, 99, 104, 106, 107, 109, 128, 134, 135, 136, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 148, 151, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 163, 164, 165, 172, 173, 174, 176, 179, 180, 181, 192, 194, 195, 201, 202

Index of Subjects Ammon 24, 108, 120, 123, 152–156, 159, 162, 164, 166, 167, 204, 207, 208 Babylon 92, 93, 107, 111, 112, 117, 120, 135, 156, 160, 167, 195–198, 206, 208 Boiling pot 24, 108, 120, 123, 135, 138, 139, 158–161, 164 Chronological formula 7, 11, 22, 24, 28, 29, 36, 56, 69–74, 79, 84–108, 110– 119, 122, 123, 124, 130, 133, 135, 157–161, 163, 167, 171, 172, 182– 185, 195, 198, 199, 210–212 Contextual reading 3, 12, 29, 127, 129– 134, 157, 159, 161, 167–169, 171, 187, 189, 191, 204, 205, 208– 211 Edom 24, 59, 108, 120, 123, 153– 156, 158, 159, 164, 166, 167, 173, 175, 204, 207, 208 Egypt 5, 24, 26, 90, 91, 95, 110, 111, 112, 114, 115, 117, 120, 122, 123, 156, 158, 166, 171, 172, 174, 175, 176, 182, 183, 186, 191, 192, 194– 208 Exile, Babylonian 22, 89–93, 97–99, 102, 103, 105, 106, 115, 116, 119, 150, 152, 160, 162, 190, 207 Form 13, 16, 35–39, 43, 44, 49, 51–53, 55, 60, 78, 88, 97, 105, 121, 156, 176, 194, 199 Form criticism 12–16, 36, 39, 49, 52, 68, 129, 209, 210 Formula, see also chronological formula and prophetic word formula – Messenger formula 43, 64, 82, 83, 137, 138, 144, 154, 155, 157, 193, 196– 198, 200, 202, 203

– Recognition formula 43, 80, 84, 143– 146, 148–150, 154–157, 165, 166, 193, 194, 196–200, 203, 206 Genre 8, 13, 16, 19, 22, 28, 33–44, 47, 49, 53, 55, 56, 60, 68, 81–83, 87, 93– 96, 101, 103, 113, 117, 135, 139–141, 143, 146–150, 152, 155–157, 159, 161, 162, 169, 171, 172, 174–177, 180, 181, 183, 191, 193, 194, 197–203 Haggai, book of 36, 56, 69–72, 74, 75, 79, 99, 210 Holiness Code 33, 180 Israel 13, 14, 20, 22, 24, 40, 58, 59, 66, 68, 78, 79, 91, 104–109, 116, 117, 119, 120, 122, 123, 131, 142, 144, 146, 148, 150, 152, 153, 156, 162, 164–167, 177–179, 181, 184–186, 191, 194–197 Jehoiachin 90, 92, 93, 102, 183 Jeremiah, book of 2, 14, 18, 25, 27, 28, 39, 40, 41, 45, 56, 57, 60, 66, 69, 82, 99, 131, 132, 147, 150, 155 Jerusalem 2, 7, 23–25, 57, 58, 89, 104– 110, 113, 115–117, 119–121, 123, 124, 135, 141, 150, 158–165, 167– 169, 183, 184, 187, 207, 208 Judah 2, 6, 7, 23, 24, 60, 65, 66, 68, 78, 92–94, 97, 106, 107, 112, 116, 120, 150, 152, 153, 156, 162–164, 167– 169, 207, 208 Lament 109, 114, 115, 117, 120, 123, 174, 176, 177, 201, 202, 203, 205 Literary Setting 9, 10, 16–18, 29, 36, 86, 95, 107, 111, 122, 129, 130, 131, 134,

236

Index of Subjects

135, 159, 168, 169, 184, 188, 190, 197, 204, 206, 208–211 Literary Structure – Conceptual structure 28, 35, 36, 44, 47, 48, 55–57, 60, 62, 65–67, 74, 78, 79, 121, 127, 209, 210 – Genre structure 35, 43, 44, 55, 56, 174, 181 – Surface structure 11, 12, 16, 28, 29, 35, 36, 44, 45, 46–48, 51–57, 61, 62, 64, 65, 67, 69, 74, 75, 79, 80, 82, 97, 100, 119, 121, 122, 124, 127–129, 133, 134, 140, 158, 169, 171, 182, 187, 188, 190, 208–211 – Text structure 35, 43, 44, 55, 181 LXX, see also Old Greek, 28, 66

18, 23, 25, 27–29, 33, 35, 36, 39–45, 48, 51, 53, 55–58, 60, 62–64, 66–70, 72, 74, 75, 77, 79, 80, 82, 85, 86, 90, 94, 98–101, 121, 123, 127, 129, 130, 132, 133, 155, 164, 188, 210, 212 Prophetic word formula 11, 12, 28, 64, 70, 75, 81, 94, 104, 108, 110–113, 115–119, 121, 122, 124, 130, 138, 143, 144–146, 154, 155, 158, 175, 179, 182, 192, 193, 195, 196, 198– 200, 202, 203, 211 Proof saying 43, 144–146, 148–150, 154–157, 159, 192–194, 196–199, 201–203

Micah, book of 5, 27, 40, 41, 48 Moab 24, 108, 120, 123, 153–156, 158, 159, 164, 166, 167, 204, 207

Setting, see Literary Setting Sign act 38, 82, 103, 104, 141, 146– 150, 159, 162 Son of man 80, 135, 138, 141, 142, 144, 145, 150–152, 154, 155, 158, 172, 175, 177, 178–183, 192, 193, 196, 198–200, 202 Structure, see Literary Structure

Old Greek 6, 101, 104, 113, 114 167, 168 Oracles concerning the Nations 5, 7, 10, 11, 19, 21, 24, 58, 59, 95, 108, 121– 124, 127, 128, 156, 159, 163, 164, 167–169, 182, 188, 190, 191, 200, 203, 204, 207, 208 Oracles of judgment 1, 6, 11, 51, 158, 184, 187, 195, 201, 206 Pharaoh 91, 112, 113, 114, 117, 120, 172, 174, 175, 191, 192, 194, 198– 200, 202–206 Philistia 24, 108, 120, 123, 154, 155, 158, 159, 164, 204, 207 Priestly elements in Ezekiel 1, 100, 150, 151, 186, 187 Prophetic book 2–6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16,

Rhetorical criticism 13, 14, 16, 52, 63

Temple 2, 19, 22, 23, 89, 98, 117, 121, 143, 148–151, 186, 187, 208, 211 Tyre 5, 91, 109, 111, 117, 120, 122, 128, 158, 195, 197, 204, 207, 208 Watchman motif 24, 58, 104, 114, 115, 117, 123, 171, 177–187 Zechariah, book of 36, 56, 69, 71, 72– 75, 79, 82, 99, 150, 210 Zephaniah, book of 27, 36, 49, 60, 65– 68, 74, 155, 210