Ezekiel's Message of Hope and Restoration: Redaction-Critical Study of Ezekiel 1–7 3110711265, 9783110711264

Table of contents :
Contents
Acknowledgements
Abbreviations
1. Introduction
2 Ezekiel’s Call Narrative (Ezek 1:1–3:15)
3 Ezekiel’s Call to be a Watchman (Ezek 3:16–21) and his Call to Muteness (Ezek 3:22–27)
4 Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts
5 The Oracle against the Mountains of Israel
6 The Oracle concerning the End of the Land of Israel
7 The Reassertion of the Legitimacy of the Zadokite Priesthood in the Early Persian Period
8 The Relation between the Secondary Material in Ezekiel 6–7 and the Law of the Temple
9 Conclusion
Appendix A: The Relative Chronology of Ezek 3:22–27 and 37:1–14
Bibliography
Index of Scripture References
Index of Authors

Citation preview

Hei Yin Yip Ezekiel’s Message of Hope and Restoration

Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

Edited by John Barton, Reinhard G. Kratz, Nathan MacDonald, Sara Milstein and Markus Witte

Volume 532

Hei Yin Yip

Ezekiel’s Message of Hope and Restoration Redaction-Critical Study of Ezekiel 1–7

ISBN 978-3-11-071126-4 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-071157-8 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-071167-7 ISSN 0934-2575 Library of Congress Control Number: 2020951840 Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Typesetting: Meta Systems Publishing & Printservices GmbH, Wustermark Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck www.degruyter.com

Contents Acknowledgements Abbreviations 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.3.1 1.3.2 1.3.3 1.4 1.4.1 1.4.2 1.5 2 2.1 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.2 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.3 2.3.1 2.4 3 3.1 3.1.1 3.1.2

ix

xi

1 Introduction Defining the Basic Texts: Ezekiel’s oracle concerning his inaugural 2 vision 5 The Aim of this Study 7 Literature Review 7 A Refined Stratified Redactional Model in Ezek 1–7 11 “Holistic” Model in Ezek 1–7 11 Redactional Model of Gradual Literary Growth in Ezek 1–7 19 Methodology 20 Methodological Issues in a Diachronic Approach 26 Methodological Issues in Inner-Biblical Interpretation 37 Outline 39 Ezekiel’s Call Narrative (Ezek 1:1–3:15) 39 The Diachronic Analysis of Ezek 1:1–3:15 44 Textual Criticism 47 Redaction Criticism 51 Exegesis of Ezekiel 1:1–28 The Redactional Vision Account of the Glory (1:4–28*) and the Motif 51 of Hope and Restoration 53 Redaction in 1:1–3: Ezekiel’s Priestly Role 56 Summary 56 The Original Call Narrative (2:3–3:11*) The Recognition of Prophet and the Opening of Ezekiel’s 60 Mouth 65 Conclusion Ezekiel’s Call to be a Watchman (Ezek 3:16–21) and his Call 67 to Muteness (Ezek 3:22–27) 67 The Diachronic Analysis of Ezek 3:16–27 70 Textual Criticism 71 Redaction Criticism

vi 3.2 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.3 3.3.1 3.4 4 4.1 4.1.1 4.1.2 4.2 4.2.1 4.2.2 4.3 4.3.1 4.3.2 4.4 5 5.1 5.1.1 5.1.2 5.2 5.2.1 5.2.2 5.2.3 5.3 6 6.1 6.1.1 6.1.2 6.2 6.2.1

Contents

Ezekiel’s Call to be a Watchman 75 Purposeful Textual Reuse between Ezek 3:16b–21 75 and Ezek 18, 33 76 Exegesis of Ezekiel 3:17–19 78 Exegesis of Ezekiel 3:20–21 86 Ezekiel’s Binding and His Call to be Muteness 86 Ezek 3:22–27 and Ezek 37:1–14 97 Conclusion Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts 99 99 The Diachronic Analysis of Ezek 4:1–5:17 104 Textual Criticism 108 Redaction Criticism 115 The Sign-Acts in Ezekiel 4 Ezekiel 4:4–8 and the Reinstatement of Ezekiel’s Priestly 115 Role Ezekiel 4:12–15 and the Mitigation of the Divine 126 Punishment 129 The Sign-Acts in Ezekiel 5 130 Ezek 5:3 and the Hope of Preservation 133 The Verbal Proclamation (5:5–17) 139 Conclusion The Oracle against the Mountains of Israel 141 142 The Diachronic Analysis of Ezek 6:1–14 144 Textual Criticism 147 Redaction Criticism 150 Ezekiel 6 and the Motif of Hope and Restoration Ezekiel 6:4b–7a and the Anticipation of Hope and 151 Restoration 159 Ezekiel 6:8–10 and the Oracle of Salvation 164 Ezekiel 6:13aβ–14 and the Divine Presence 166 Conclusion The Oracle concerning the End of the Land of Israel 169 The Diachronic Analysis of Ezek 7:1–27 173 Textual Criticism 176 Redaction Criticism Exegesis of the Redactional Material of Ezekiel 7 Ezek 7:5b–7a*, 12b–14, 21–24 and the Motif 178 of Judgement

168

178

Contents

6.2.2 6.2.3 6.2.4 6.3 7 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.4.1 7.4.2 7.4.3 7.4.4 7.4.5 7.4.6 7.5 7.6 8 8.1 8.2 8.2.1 8.2.2 8.3 8.3.1 8.3.2 8.4 8.5

vii

183 Ezek 7:5b–7a*, 12b–14, 21–24 and the Motif of Hope 185 Ezekiel 7:12–14, 16 and the Law about the Jubilee 189 Ezekiel 7:12–14 and the Blossoming Rod in 7:10–11 193 Conclusion The Reassertion of the Legitimacy of the Zadokite Priesthood in the Early Persian Period 195 Overview 195 Historical Context: The Disputes over the Temple Hierarchy in the Late-Exilic and Early Post-Exilic Period 196 Zech 3: A Key to Understanding the Reestablishment of the Zadokite Priesthood 200 The Redactional material of Ezekiel 3–5 and Zechariah 3 202 Ezek 3:16b–21 and Zech 3 205 Ezek 3:22–27 and Zech 3 206 Ezek 4:4–8 and Zech 3 208 Ezek 4:12–15 and Zech 3 210 Ezek 5:3–4 and Zech 3 212 Ezek 5:13 and Zech 3 213 The Redactional Material of Ezek 3–5 and the Concept of Priesthood in Ezek 40–48 214 Conclusion 217 The Relation between the Secondary Material in Ezekiel 6–7 219 and the Law of the Temple Redaction in Ezekiel 40–48 in Modern Scholarship 219 Textual Dependence between Ezekiel 6–7 and Ezekiel 43–46 223 Direction of Dependence between Ezekiel 6–7 and Ezekiel 43–46 224 Purposeful Textual Reuse between Ezekiel 6–7 and Ezekiel 43–46 226 The Secondary Expansions in Ezekiel 6–7 and the Law of the Temple 228 The Relation between Ezekiel 6 and 43:6–27 229 The Relation between Ezekiel 7 and 44:6–46:18 233 The Purpose of Interpolation of Secondary Expansions of Ezek 6–7 239 Conclusion 243

viii 9 9.1 9.2

Contents

Conclusion 245 245 Summary of Study Suggestions for Further Studies

250

Appendix A: The Relative Chronology of Ezek 3:22–27 and 37:1–14 Bibliography

259

Index of Scripture References Index of Authors

281

269

253

Acknowledgements This book is a revised version of my doctoral thesis, which was completed at the University of Aberdeen, Scotland, in 2019/20. Without the support of many people, I would never have accomplished this book. I am deeply grateful to my supervisor, Dr. Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer (now Professor in Old Testament Exegesis at Örebro School of Theology, Sweden), for her guidance during my studies in Aberdeen, and for her ongoing friendship. Her wisdom and critical comments have strengthened the argument in my thesis at every turn. Her diligence, kindness, enthusiasm, approachable manner and tremendous patience make her an excellent supervisor. Sincere thanks are also due to Dr. Anja Klein (Edinburgh) and Dr. Andrew Mein (Durham, now at St. Andrews), examiners of the thesis, for their care in reading and helpful comments on it. I would also like to thank Prof. Ka-Leung Wong at China Graduate School of Theology (Hong Kong), who first introduced me to the book of Ezekiel, and constantly encouraged me and prayed for me. My appreciation also goes to all of my previous teachers and professors that I have had along the way. Although I am unable to mention all of you here, I owe a great deal to those of you under whom I studied at the University of Aberdeen and China Graduate School of Theology, which laid the foundation of my research into the Bible. I am thankful for the support that I have received from my students and my colleagues at China Graduate School of Theology, where I currently teach. My heartfelt thanks to friends at C. & M. A. Mei Foo Church (especially Mimi and Ringo Lau) for continual financial and spiritual support. Also many thanks to the editors of BZAW for accepting this manuscript for publication and to the staff of the Walter de Gruyter for their professional collaboration. Any mistakes that remain in the book are mine. A debt of wholehearted gratitude is due to my family. My son, Isaac, has contributed significantly by allowing me to study joyfully all this time. My genuine appreciation, however, is for Man-Sim, my wife, without whom the entire endeavour would have been long since lost. Finally, my greatest gratitude is to the LORD, who has blessed and helped me through all of those people. To HIM this book is dedicated. Hong Kong, October 2020

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110711578-201

Hei Yin Yip

Abbreviations AB ABD AnBib AOAT AOTC ASOR ATD ATSAT Bib BBB BDB BEATAJ BETL BHRG BHS BHT BJSUC BZ BZAR BZAW CAD CahRB CBET CBR CBQ CBQMS CC ConBOT DCH ETL FAT FB FOTL FRLANT GKC HALOT

HBTh

Anchor Bible D. N. Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary (6. vol., New York: Doubleday, 1992) Analecta Biblica Alter Orient und Altes Testament Apollos Old Testament Commentary American Schools of Oriental Research Das Alte Testament Deutsch Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament Biblica Bonner biblische Beiträge Brown, F., S. R. Driver and C. A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1907 Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des antiken Judentums Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar Biblica Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Edited by K. Elliger and W. Rudolph. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1977 Beiträge zur historischen Theologie Biblical and Judaic Studies from the University of California Biblische Zeitschrift Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1956–2006 Cahiers de la Revue biblique Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology Currents in Biblical Research Catholic Biblical Quarterly Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series Continental Commentaries Coniectanea biblica, Old Testament The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. Edited by D. J. A. Clines. Sheffield, 1993– Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses Forschungen zum Alten Testament Forschung zur Bibel Forms of the Old Testament Literature Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Edited by E. Kautzsch. Translated by A. E. Cowley. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1910 Koehler, L., W. Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated and edited under the supervision of M. E. J. Richardson. 4. vols. Leiden: Brill, 1994–1999 Horizons in Biblical Theology

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110711578-202

xii HeyJ HSAT HSM IBCTP IBHS ICC ITC JAOS JBL JBLMS JNSL JPSTC JQR JSOT JSOTSup JSS KAT LAI LHBOTS LSAWS LSTS LXX MT NCBC NICOT NIVAC OBO OTL OTM PTMS RB SBS SBL SBLANEM SBLDS SBLSymS SHBC STAR TOTC TDOT

TWAT UBC

Abbreviations

Heythrop Journal Die Heilige Schrift des Alten Testaments. Edited by E. Kautzsch and A. Bertholet. 4th ed. Tübingen, 1922–1923 Harvard Semitic Monographs Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. B. K. Waltke and M. O’Connor. Winona Lake, IN, 1990 International Critical Commentary International Theological Commentary Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Biblical Literature Monograph Series Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages Jewish Publication Society Torah Commentary Jewish Quarterly Review Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement series Journal of Semitic Studies Kommentar zum Alten Testament Library of Ancient Israel Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic Library of Second Temple Studies Septuagint Masoretic Text New Century Bible Commentary New International Commentary on the Old Testament New International Version Application Commentary Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Old Testament Library Oxford Theological Monographs Princeton Theological Monograph Series Revue Biblique Stuttgarter Bibelstudien Society of Biblical Literature SBL Ancient Near Eastern Monographs SBL Dissertation Series SBL Symposium Series Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary Studies in Theology and Religion Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Translated by J. T. Willis, G. W. Bromiley, and D. E. Green. 8. vols. Grand Rapids, MI, 1974– Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Edited by G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1970– Understanding the Bible Commentary Series

Abbreviations

VT VTSup WBC ZAW

Vetus Testamentum Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Word Biblical Commentary Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

xiii

1 Introduction Many scholars share Paul M. Joyce’s view1 that the book of Ezekiel, in particular the first twenty-four chapters, contributes significantly to the cruel portrayal of YHWH in the Hebrew Bible (HB).2 They argue that the motif of inevitable judgement is explicitly found in Ezek 1–24, whereas the motif of hope and restoration exists only in Ezek 33–48. To my knowledge, not many scholars have paid specific attention to the motif of hope and restoration in the first twenty-four chapters of Ezekiel.3 Daniel I. Block has argued, correctly I think, that elements of divine grace and hope not only occur in “restoration texts that offer hope for the future,” but also underlie the entire book.4 Through my reading of Claus Westermann’s Prophetic Oracles of Salvation in the Old Testament, I was intrigued by a few optimistic messages of hope and restoration that are present in Ezek 1– 24;5 these messages are usually considered as redactional additions.6 Although

1 Paul M. Joyce, Ezekiel: A Commentary (LHBOTS 482; New York: T&T Clark, 2009), 17, says that “[t]he first twenty-four chapters of the book of Ezekiel contain one of the most sustained and vehement declarations of judgment to be found anywhere in the prophetic literature of the Hebrew Bible.” 2 Moshe Greenberg, “Anthropopathism in Ezekiel,” in Perspectives in Jewish Learning 1, ed. Monford Harris (Chicago: College of Jewish Studies Press, 1965): 1–10 (9); David Halperin, Seeking Ezekiel: Text and Psychology (University Park, Penn.: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1993), 170–71; Baruch J. Schwartz, “Ezekiel’s Dim View of Israel’s Restoration,” in The Book of Ezekiel Theological and Anthropological Perspectives, eds. Margaret S. Odell and John T. Strong (SBLSymS; Atlanta: SBL, 2000), 43–67; Schwartz, “The Ultimate Aim of Israel’s Restoration in Ezekiel,” in Birkat Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature, and Postbiblical Judaism Presented to Shalom M. Paul on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, ed. C. Cohen et al., 2. vols. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008), 1: 305–19. 3 In order to avoid confusion between the book and the prophet himself that appears in the same book of Ezekiel, I shall italicize the book title. 4 Daniel I. Block, “The God Ezekiel Wants Us to Meet: Theological Perspectives on the Book of Ezekiel,” in The God Ezekiel Creates, eds. Paul M. Joyce and Dalit Rom-Shiloni (LHBOTS 607; London: Bloomsbury, 2015), 167–192. 5 Claus Westermann has listed a full catalogue of the restoration oracles in his Prophetic Oracles of Salvation in the Old Testament, trans. Keith Crim (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991), 168, 177–84. The list includes several scattered oracles of the restoration in the first half of the book of Ezekiel, namely 11:14–21; 14:21–23; 16:52–63; 17:22–24; 18:1–32 and 20:34–44. In his view, Ezek 11:14–21 and 14:21–23 typically illustrate the concept of gracious salvation. Westermann has also shown that these scattered oracles of restoration are later additions to their corresponding contexts. See also Peter R. Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration: A Study of Hebrew Thought of the Sixth Century BC (London: SCM, 1968), 110. 6 Schwartz, “Ezekiel’s Dim View,” 43, 52. Joyce also considers four messages of restoration and hope in 11:14–21, 16:59–63, 17:22–24 and 20:40–44 as secondary additions. See Joyce, Ezekiel, 11–12, 110–11, 134–35, 138, 154. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110711578-001

2

1 Introduction

it is widely agreed that the earliest layer of the first half of Ezekiel indeed is devoid of the concept of restoration, is it possible that later redactional layers have supplemented the texts with material that conveys restoration and hope for the future? This question calls for an in-depth investigation into the relationship between the messages of the redactional material and the motif of hope and restoration in the early chapters of Ezekiel. This study shall argue that the elements of hope and restoration are not limited to Ezek 33–48, which is usually regarded as the “restoration texts that offer hope for the future.”7 Before moving on, it is necessary to define the texts under investigation in this book.

1.1 Defining the Basic Texts: Ezekiel’s oracle concerning his inaugural vision One of the most distinctive features of Ezekiel is that the book lends itself to more than one structure. If we cast a quick glance at the various commentaries to Ezekiel, their descriptions of the structure of Ezekiel differ broadly from each other. The majority of contemporary scholars divide the book into three sections: Ezek 1–24 (punishment of Israel and Jerusalem); 25–32 (punishment of foreign nations); 33–48 (restoration of Israel and Jerusalem).8 Other scholars divide the book in half: Ezek 1–33 (oracles of judgement); 34–48 (oracles of hope and possibility);9 yet others divide the book into four sections,10 or seven

7 Block, “The God Ezekiel Wants,” 167. 8 Walther Eichrodt, Ezekiel (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1970), 21; Ellen F. Davis, Swallowing the Scroll: Textuality and the Dynamics of Discourse in Ezekiel’s Prophecy (JSOTSup 78; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989), 11; Ronald M. Hals, Ezekiel (FOTL 19; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 3; Henry McKeating, Ezekiel (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 15; Leslie C. Allen, Ezekiel 1–19 (WBC 28; Waco, Texas: Word, 1994), xxiv–xxxvi; Karl-Friedrich Pohlmann, Das Buch des Prophten Hesekiel / Ezechiel Kapitel 1–19 (ATD 22/1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 18–19; Walther Zimmerli, The Fiery Throne: The Prophets and Old Testament Theology, ed. K. C. Hanson (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), 37–8. 9 Steven Tuell, Ezekiel (UBC; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2012), 4; Brueggemann differs somewhat in his bipartite structure. He divides the book into Ezek 1–24 and 25–48 on grounds of the theological content. See Walter Brueggemann, An Introduction to the Old Testament: The Canon and Christian Imagination (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003), 192. 10 In light of the date of textual composition and the content, Wevers suggests a fourfold division of the book: Ezek 1–24, 25–32, 33–39, 40–48. See John W. Wevers, Ezekiel (NCB; London: Nelson, 1969), 1; Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmanns, 1997), 23 divides the book into Ezek 1–3, 4–24, 25–32, 33–48 on the basic of “time and subject matter.”

1.1 Defining the Basic Texts: Ezekiel’s oracle concerning his inaugural vision

3

sections,11 or even 13 sections.12 In any case, the proposed structural models listed above are based on various criteria, including content, date of textual composition, and genre distinction; therefore a diverse mix of structural models emerges. Among the various structural models, I was intrigued by the model that thematically structures Ezekiel as a book with the theme ‫“( כבוד־יהוה‬the Glory of YHWH”) because this model can account for the cohesive literary nature of Ezekiel. The recurrence of the theme ‫ כבוד־יהוה‬in Ezekiel’s vision accounts (Ezek 1–3, 8–11, 37, and 40–48)13 contributes significantly to the impression of unity of Ezekiel. The Glory of YHWH and the Jerusalem Temple are the central themes that are used to structure Ezekiel:14 Following the appearance of YHWH’s Glory in Babylonia in Ezek 1–3 and the accusation against Israel in Ezek 6–7, the Glory of YHWH leaves the Jerusalem Temple (Ezek 8–11). Eventually, the Glory of YHWH returns to the restored Temple (Ezek 40–48) after the promises of restoration of Israel are given in Ezek 36–37.15 From this structural model, Ezek 1–7, which is the central focus of this book, is considered as a literary unit demarcated in content from its subsequent literary unit, Ezek 8–11.16 Recently Tyler Mayfield has given a detailed study of the surface structure of Ezekiel; in his view, Ezek 1–7 is certainly a literary unit. He has argued convincingly that the structure of Ezekiel should be determined by the text’s surface structure of the entire book, namely the chronological formulas and the prophetic word formulas.17 I follow Mayfield’s argument for the use of the chronological formulas and the prophetic word formulas in structuring Ezekiel. This approach is not based on the conceptual, thematic, or content-related factors that everyone is able to discern on their own from the text, but is based explicit-

11 Joyce, Ezekiel, 42–43. 12 Tyler D. Mayfield, Literary Structure and Setting in Ezekiel (FAT II/43; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 119–21; Marvin A. Sweeney, Reading Ezekiel: A Literary and Theological Commentary (Macon, Georgia: Smyth & Helwys, 2013), 8–9. 13 Ezek 37 speaks of the vision in the valley of dry bones; it is counted among the visions, in which the Glory of YHWH (‫ )כבוד־יהוה‬appears, but the term is absent in this vision. 14 John F. Kutsko, Between Heaven and Earth: Divine Presence and Absence in the Book of Ezekiel (BJSUC 7; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 1. 15 The theme of restoration in Ezek 36–37 is expressed by the promises of a new heart and a new spirit, the valley vision of the dry bones, and the reunification of Judah and Israel. 16 Sweeney has shown that Ezekiel’s oracle concerning his inaugural vision encompasses Ezek 1–7 as “the date formulae in Ezek 1:1, 2–3 and 8:1 mark the boundaries of the initial literary unit.” See Marvin A. Sweeney, “Ezekiel: Zadokite Priest and Visionary Prophet of the Exile,” in Form and Intertextuality in Prophetic and Apocalyptic Literature (FAT 45; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 128–29. 17 Mayfield, Literary Structure, 99–100.

4

1 Introduction

ly on literary features on the text surface.18 By identifying the chronological formulas in Ezekiel, thirteen distinct literary units for Ezekiel can be observed. The first chronological formula occurs in Ezek 1:1 and delineates the literary unit of Ezek 1–7. I share Mayfield’s view that the chronological formulas serve as the major structural elements within Ezekiel, and that Ezek 1–7 is the literary unit.19 However, I do not subscribe to the scepticism concerning a diachronic reading within the literary unit invoked by Mayfield.20 Mayfield emphasises that one should connect the unique structure of the text to the meaning of the text, and read Ezekiel as a whole entity, since the structure of Ezekiel sets certain parts of texts in relation to each other.21 He insists that the “surface structure also does not allow the redactional history of the book – a thoroughly diachronic concern – to dictate the book’s literary presentation.”22 I find this claim difficult to accept. Michael A. Lyons has critiqued Mayfield that “[w]hile he insists that the diachronic study of the chronological formulas is not significant for a study of their function, he concludes the chapter with an excursus in which he presents his own model of their compositional development.”23 In fact, within the literary unit Ezek 1–7, there are two chronological formulas. However, Mayfield considers only 1:1, but not 1:2, as the structural device of the text in his list of chronological formulas. In his view, Ezek 1:2 is probably a redactional explanatory remark, relating the date of the exile of King Jehoiachin to that of Ezekiel’s own exile in Ezek 1:1.24 Here I keep following Lyons’s criticism that Mayfield’s decision of ruling out Ezek 1:2 in his lists of chronological formulas “presents a problem for the consistency of his purely synchronic model.”25 In other words, a redactional insertion in 1:2 does influence the literary interpretation in Ezek 1– 7; the diachronic study of the chronological formulas is significant for the study of Ezekiel’s literary presentation.

18 Mayfield, Literary Structure, 100. 19 On the one hand, Vawter and Hoppe divide Ezekiel into six sections. On the other hand, they divide the first twenty-four chapters into three units: 1–7; 8–14; 15–24. In their view, Ezek 1–7 is a distinct unit, containing Ezekiel’s inaugural vision, his prophetic call, and some immediately connected ideas. I follow the suggestion of Vawter and Hoppe that “in its present form the book of Ezekiel confronts us with a redaction.” See Bruce Vawter and Leslie J. Hoppe, Ezekiel A New Heart (ITC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 1, 4–5. 20 Mayfield, Literary Structure, 124. 21 Mayfield, Literary Structure, 8, 10. 22 Mayfield, Literary Structure, 124. 23 Michael A. Lyons, review of Literary Structure and Setting in Ezekiel, by Tyler D. Mayfield, JSS 57 (2012): 419–22. 24 Mayfield, Literary Structure, 92–93. 25 Lyons, review of Literary Structure, 422.

1.2 The Aim of this Study

5

Mayfield’s argument concerning a synchronic reading of Ezekiel is not conclusive. His argument builds upon Sweeney’s idea that “the structure or arrangement of the book reveals the final redactor’s overall perspectives and conceptualisation 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 emphasise.”26 In my view, no one should rule out the possibility that the final redactors may have also inserted secondary expansions into the text when they were composing the final redaction of the book. In this respect, the sequence of redactional material within the literary unit and the relation among different redactional literary units in the final form of Ezekiel should also reflect the aspects of the message that the redactors wish to emphasise.27 In my opinion, the study of the redactional material within Ezek 1–7, the literary unit created by chronological formulas, and the study of the interrelationship of the redactional material in Ezek 1–7 with that in different literary units, are all significant for the study of the literary interpretation in Ezekiel. How, then, do the messages of the redactional material in a particular literary unit aid in interpreting the interrelatedness within that unit, and in interpreting the interrelatedness among different literary units? Ezek 1–7 serves as an exemplar for this study, and thus a thorough study of its redaction history seems a worthwhile starting point.

1.2 The Aim of this Study Although the earliest layer in the first half of Ezekiel is characterised by remarkably vehement declarations of judgement, scholars (see footnotes 5, 6) have argued that some messages of restoration and of divine grace in the early chapters of Ezekiel are probably secondary additions. One of the aims of this study is to show that the elements of a mitigation of the divine punishment, hope, and restoration are not limited to Ezek 33–48, but occur also in later redactional material in Ezek 1–7. As such, the redactional material in Ezek 1–7 has supplemented the texts with material which conveys restoration and hope for the future. This book decidedly favours a diachronic approach; it employs historicalcritical methodology, in particular textual and redaction criticism, and innerbiblical interpretation.

26 Marvin A. Sweeney, “Formation and Form in Prophetic Literature,” in Old Testament Interpretation: Past, Present, and Future, eds. James L. Mays, David L. Petersen, Kent H. Richards (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995), 116. 27 Sweeney, “Formation and Form,” 116.

6

1 Introduction

There are studies that have looked into the redaction history of the vision accounts and their intertextual relationship in Ezekiel. As presumed by Anthony D. York (see section 1.3.3.2), there is an interrelation between Ezek 1 and the “restoration prophecy” in Ezek 43. Moreover, Janina M. Hiebel has shown that some of the redactional layers in Ezek 1–3 are influenced by the temple visions in Ezek 8–11 and 40–48. The studies of York and Hiebel offer analyses of Ezekiel’s gradual literary growth and of the chronological relationship between Ezek 1–3 and 40–48. As shown in section 1.3 below, Hiebel only focuses on the redaction history of the vision account in Ezek 1–3. In her view, Ezek 1–3 is a literary unit demarcated by form-based criteria from its neighbouring chapters 4– 7.28 However, according to Mayfield (see section 1.1), whose suggestion I follow, Ezek 1–7 and 40–48 are considered discrete literary units.29 Thus, my present study is concerned with Ezek 1–7, and I have therefore selected only the publications on Ezek 1–7 in view of their redaction-critical analysis in the following literature review section. In the type of redaction process posited by Zimmerli (see below), surprisingly little thorough examination has been made to undertake any cross-referencing of the secondary additions to see whether there is any coordinated theme or bridging structure among the redactional material in Ezekiel. I soon noticed the need for such examinations, given Hiebel’s claim that there is a connection between Ezek 1–3 and 40–48. In order to examine the interrelatedness of the redactional layers of different literary units, what is needed now is a thorough reassessment of their redaction history. In this book, I endeavour to show the coordinated theme or bridging structure among the redactional material; the interpolation of the motif of hope and restoration may allow the redactional layers of Ezek 1–7 and those of other chapters in Ezekiel to be drawn more tightly together. Throughout this book, by means of identifying elements of hope and restoration, I shall demonstrate the deliberate interrelatedness of the redactional material within the literary unit Ezek 1–7, and the interrelationship of the redactional material of Ezek 1–7 with that of the different literary units in Ezekiel, particularly with the redactional material of the Law of the Temple in Ezek 43–46. In addition, I shall demonstrate the intertextual cross-referencing between the redactional material in Ezek 1–7 and other biblical texts. I shall furthermore seek to establish the interrelatedness of the redactional material of Ezek 1–7 and Zech 3 in order to understand the historical

28 In light of the form-critical study by Achim Behrens, Hiebel considers 1:1–3:15 (+ 3:22–27); 8:1–11:25; 37:1–14; 40:1–43:12; 44:1–2, 4–5; 47:1–12 as vision accounts. See Janina M. Hiebel, Ezekiel’s Vision Accounts as Interrelated Narratives: A Redaction-Critical and Theological Study (BZAW 475; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH, 2015), 38–40. 29 Mayfield, Literary Structure, 117–21.

1.3 Literature Review

7

context that gave rise to the redactional layers of Ezek 1–7. Before outlining the method, I shall begin by providing a brief overview of historical-critical exegesis, with focus on redaction criticism, of Ezek 1–7.

1.3 Literature Review The cohesive literary nature and the marked homogeneity of Ezekiel make an identification of redaction particularly difficult. The historical-critical exegesis of Ezekiel began relatively late. In 1924 Gustav Hölscher first proposed a more critical perspective of the unity and integrity of Ezekiel.30 His view triggered various studies that sought to discern the material attributed to the prophet Ezekiel from the secondary additions. There is little consensus with regard to the composition of Ezekiel. In recent years, arguments for the unity of the book under the authorship of the prophet Ezekiel, as noted by Joyce, have divided into two rather divergent directions.31 Three main approaches, namely a refined stratified redactional model, a “holistic” model, and a redactional model of gradual literal growth, can be classified by examining the extent to which the text has been attributed to the prophet Ezekiel. Even though I shall ultimately argue for the third model, this literature review will lay out the prevalent contemporary Ezekiel scholarship with regard to redaction criticism. Only scholarship concerning chapters 1–7 in terms of their redaction history will be discussed.

1.3.1 A Refined Stratified Redactional Model in Ezek 1–7 One approach at the one end of the spectrum is represented by a model of reconstructing multiple redactional layers of Ezekiel. This model is also characterised by a relatively late date of composition of Ezekiel. The redactional model of Karl-Friedrich Pohlmann affords a good example of this approach. Pohlmann divides the development of Ezekiel into three main stages. An older prophetic book (älteres Prophetenbuch), which was written in the land of Judah during the exilic period (before 520 B.C.E.), was edited by a golah-oriented redaction (golaorientierte Redaktion) at the end of the sixth century or later, and was subsequently expanded by several successive stages of diaspora-oriented updates

30 Gustav Hölscher, Hesekiel, der Dichter und das Buch: Eine literarkritische Untersuchung (BZAW 39; Giessen: Töpelmann, 1924). 31 Joyce, Ezekiel, 14.

8

1 Introduction

(diasporaorientierte Fortschreibungen) in the fourth century B.C.E. Finally, through very late editing, apocalypticism was incorporated in Ezekiel: some very late passages, for example the account of the throne-chariot (1:4–28),32 which are not only associated with apocalyptic material but also describe the prophet’s visionary insights into the sphere of divine planning and action, were inserted in Ezekiel’s vision accounts (Ezek 1–3; 8–11; 37; 40–48). According to Pohlmann, the golah-oriented redaction established the basic structure of the present form of Ezekiel. Pohlmann maintains that the golahoriented redaction highlights the primacy of the first Golah, which was taken captive to Babylon in 597 B.C.E.33 In a series of related texts (e.g. 1:1–3*; 3:10–16*; 8–11*; 14:21–23; 17:19–24; 24:24–27; 33:21–29) in Ezekiel,34 the redactors claimed that only the first Golah and their descendants in Babylon could participate in the future salvation, while those who remained in the land of Judah and those who were exiled after the fall of Jerusalem in 587 B.C.E. shared no role in YHWH’s plan for Israel’s future. Pohlmann notes that the characterisation of the Golah as a “house of rebellious” does not occur in Ezek 14:21–23 and 33:21–29.35 In his view, the account of the vision of scroll (2:8–10; 3:1*, 2–3) is the golah-oriented redaction, while its adjacent sections 2:3–7 and 3:4–9 specify that “the sons of Israel” or “the house of Israel” are described as a “house of rebellious.” The account of the vision of scroll (2:8–10; 3:1*, 2–3) forms a coordinated connection with the account of Ezekiel’s call for the first Golah (3:10–16*).36 Moreover, the golahoriented redaction also includes the account of the watchman (3:16–21) in which Ezekiel is portrayed as a watchman for the first Golah.37 The golah-oriented redaction presupposes an older prophetic book which takes an opposing position reflecting the interests of those who remained in

32 Pohlmann, Hesekiel 1–19, 56–62; Pohlmann, Diskussion, 83–84, who claims that Ezek 1:1–28 creates an atmosphere of mystery, through the use of expressions such as ‫“( דמות‬likeness”),  (“like”), and ‫“( מראה‬appearance”). In his view, the idea of the opening up of the heavens and the granted insight into the divine world is only documented in very late, apocalyptic texts. Ezek 1:1–28 represents a more developed stage of Israelite theophany notions or vision accounts. 33 Pohlmann, Hesekiel 1–19, 28. 34 Karl-F. Pohlmann, Ezechielstudien: Zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Buches und zur Frage nach den ältesten Texten (BZAW 202; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1992), 120–21, who suggests that the texts attributed to the golah-oriented redaction are: 1:1–3*; 3:10–16*; 8–11*; 14:21–23; 15:6–8; 17:19– 24; 22:17–19a; 23:25*; 24:25–27*; 33:21–29; 35:1–36:15*; 37:1–10*, 11–14, 25–28*. 35 The allegory of the cedar in Ezek 17:22–24 which implies a reinstallation of the kingship from the family of Jehoiachin, who ruled the land of Israel before 597 B.C.E., is another characterisation of the golah-oriented redaction. Cf. Pohlmann, Ezechielstudien, 131; Pohlmann, Hesekiel 1–19, 254–56. 36 Pohlmann, Ezechielstudien, 91–93. 37 Pohlmann, Ezechielstudien, 89–91; Pohlmann, Hesekiel 1–19, 27–33.

1.3 Literature Review

9

Judah. Pohlmann assumes that after a first collection of a few poetic laments and other textual material concerning the “announcement-fulfilment” scheme,38 the golah-oriented redactors assigned a significant position to the first Golah. In his view, parts of the text of the older prophetic book (which includes Ezek 4–7*; 12:21–28* and Ezek 24*), to which the golah-oriented redactors reacted, already reflected a well thought-out literary design.39 Pohlmann concedes that prior to the addition of the gola-oriented vision account of Ezek 8–11*, Ezek 4–7* was directly followed by Ezek 12:21–28*. Ezek 7 recounts the final clarification of the extent of imminent judgement, while Ezek 12:21–28* refers back to Ezek 740 and depicts popular scepticism about the immediacy of Jerusalem’s fall. With the date of the beginning of Jerusalem’s siege specified in Ezek 24*, previous scepticism in 12:21–28* is shown to be unjustified. Ezek 24* here emphasises the fulfilment of preceding disasters mentioned in 4–7*, and strengthens the prophecy of salvation in 36:1–15* and 37:11–14*.41 This earliest, theologically-arranged prophetic book had its origin in the land of Judah; Pohlmann postulates that it contained the original proclamation of the prophet Ezekiel. However, Pohlmann admits that it is impossible to reconstruct Ezekiel’s ipsissima verba.42 The primacy of the first Golah is negated in the diaspora-oriented updates. Instead these updates take into consideration the Diaspora, which was the community of the exiled Jews or their later generations who had not gone back to Palestine after having been exiled. Pohlmann considers the motifs of “the dispersion of Israel among the nations” and “the gathering of the scattered people” as the special emphasis of this redaction.43 He also regards Ezek 20 as the most important text for the diaspora-oriented redactors. Ezek 20 is concerned with the theological problems of the diaspora situation of the people of Israel, which is by no means limited to the period between 587 and 538 B.C.E. Moreover, it deals with the problem of their identity.44 Ezek 20:5–24 excludes the privileged position of the first Golah, while 20:40–44 recounts the promise that

38 Pohlmann, Ezechiel: Der Stand der theologischen Diskussion (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2008), 93; Pohlmann, Hesekiel 1–19, 21–34. 39 The older prophetic book reconstructed by Pohlmann consists of Ezek 4–7*; 11:1–13*; 12:21 ff.*; 14:1–20*; 17:1–18*; 18*; 19/31*; 15:1–6*; 21:1–4*, 5, 23–32; 22:23–31; 23*; 24*; 25*; 26*; 35:1–3aα*, 10–12*, 15*; 36:1, 2, 5, 7–9, 11 and 37:11*, 12a, 14. Cf. Pohlmann, Diskussion, 95. 40 Some sort of textual links, namely the expression ‫“( חזון‬vision,” cf. 7:13, 26; 12:22–24, 27) and the motif of the "closeness" of the judgment (cf. ‫“[ קרוב היום‬the day is near”] in 7:7, 8 and ‫“[ קרבו הימים‬the days draw near”] in 12:23), exists between Ezek 7* and 12:21–28*. 41 Pohlmann, Diskussion, 92–93. 42 Pohlmann, Diskussion, 40. 43 Pohlmann, Ezechielstudien, 77, 131. 44 Pohlmann, Ezechielstudien, 131.

10

1 Introduction

YHWH would bring the Diaspora back to his holy mountain for the sake of his name.45 In other words, Ezek 20 shows that the redactors of diaspora-oriented updates emphasised YHWH’s care for the Israelite diaspora, and developed the theme of exile and return as part of the plan of YHWH for his people Israel. For the redactional material in Ezek 1–7, Pohlmann concedes that the linkage of the watchman account and the motif of muteness (3:16–21, 22–27; cf. 33:1–20, 21–22) was made by the diaspora-oriented redactors, in order to reject the privileged position of the first Golah:46 For Pohlmann, the golah-oriented redaction in 3:16– 21 portrays Ezekiel as a watchman for the first Golah (cf. above). The act of muteness in 3:26 indicates Ezekiel’s inability to speak up for the first Golah; it signifies that Ezekiel ceased to be the watchman of the first Golah. In contrast, the diaspora-oriented redactors modified the description of Ezekiel as a watchman for the Diaspora by adding the motif of muteness (3:22–27) after the golah-oriented watchman account (3:16–21). The reference to Ezekiel’s inability to speak points forward to 33:21–22 where Ezekiel begins to speak after Jerusalem had fallen. From the point of view of the diaspora-oriented redactors, the result and effects of Jerusalem’s fall are not only addressed to the first Gola, but also to the Diaspora. Since Ezekiel’s muteness would be resumed after the fall of Jerusalem, Ezekiel would eventually become a watchman for the Diaspora. In short, Pohlmann contends that the account of Ezekiel’s call (1:1–3*; 2:8– 10; 3:1*, 2–3, 10–16*), and Ezekiel’s commission as watchman (3:16–21) are attributed to the golah-oriented redaction, while Ezekiel’s commission as suffering servant (3:22–27) belongs to the diaspora-oriented updates.47 In his model, the original material of sign-acts (4:1–2, 4, 9a, 10–11; 5:1–2abαβ) belongs to the older prophetic book;48 however, not only 4:13 is attributed to the diasporaoriented updates, but also 5:5–17* is classified as subsequent expansions interpreting the original sign-acts.49 Moreover, on the one hand, the proclamation against “the mountains of Israel” (6:1–3, 6aβ, 7) and 7:6–7 is regarded as part of the older prophetic book. On the other hand, 6:8–10 belongs to the diasporaoriented updates and 7:8–9*, 12–14*, 19, 24a are probably marked as later additions.50 In any case, in Pohlmann’s view, the majority of the text of Ezekiel is a product of the Persian period or later; the prophet Ezekiel seems to have written very little of Ezekiel.

45 46 47 48 49 50

Pohlmann, Pohlmann, Pohlmann, Pohlmann, Pohlmann, Pohlmann,

Diskussion, 86–87. Ezechielstudien, 32–33. Hesekiel 1–19, 27, 29. Hesekiel 1–19, 82. Hesekiel 1–19, 81–102. Hesekiel 1–19, 102–122.

1.3 Literature Review

11

1.3.2 “Holistic” Model in Ezek 1–7 At the other end of the spectrum, another approach focuses on the literary unity of the extant book and attributes the composition of Ezekiel almost entirely to the prophet. The “holistic” model of Moshe Greenberg affords a good example of this approach. Greenberg is sceptical to the use of redaction criticism; however, he does not rule out editorial activity on the book. He concedes that the use of the third person in Ezek 1:2–3, that is inconsistent with the first-person singular perspective of the book, is “from an editorial hand.”51 Moreover, Greenberg admits that “the editorial explanation (vv. 2–3) takes ‘the thirtieth year’ as another era’s equivalent of the fifth year of Jehoiachin’s exile,”52 though he supposes Ezekiel “to have been his own editor.”53 Greenberg further admits that there are other redactional additions in Ezek 3–7.54 It should be noted, however, that when Greenberg speaks of the editorial work, this work is often attributed to the prophet himself. However, attributing the composition of Ezekiel to the prophet Ezekiel does not in itself rule out any evidence of redactional activity in Ezek 1–7.

1.3.3 Redactional Model of Gradual Literary Growth in Ezek 1–7 In the middle section of the spectrum, there is a type of model which attributes Ezekiel’s oracles to the prophet himself and attributes the subsequent expansions of his writing to a “school” or “disciples” of the prophet. This type of model dates the composition of Ezekiel not beyond the end of the sixth century

51 Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20 A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 22; New York: Doubleday, 1983), 39. 52 Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 39. 53 Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 39. 54 e.g. Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 71, concedes a redaction activity in 3:15, where the text is blended and contains doublets: ‫“( הישבים אל־נהר־כבר ואשר המה יושבים שם‬who lived by the river of Chebar and I sat where they were dwelling”). Greenberg also shows that in 3:20– 21 the account of the backsliding righteous man “seems to be interpolated with an element from chapters 18 and 33.” See Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 87–93. According to Greenberg, the two exile symbols (4:6, 12–15) have been inserted into the present text relatively late. See Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 118–19, 126. As noted by Greenberg, the messenger formula followed by instructions for gestures (6:11) is an irregular usage which “may be an editorial makeshift solution to the problem of identifying precisely which words of God are to be conveyed to the people.” See Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 135. In addition, Greenberg is sceptical about the originality of 7:19–20 which is expressed “in language evocative of Isaiah and Zephaniah.” See Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 162.

12

1 Introduction

B.C.E. This type of model is represented by Walther Zimmerli, who develops the Fortschreibungsmodell accounting for the marked homogeneity of Ezekiel. With regard to the redaction history of Ezekiel, Zimmerli suggests a process of gradual expansion. After a period of direct deposit of oral delivery, general narrative introductions, such as the prophetic word formula or the reference to a date, were introduced by Ezekiel himself.55 Afterwards, according to Zimmerli, a long process of addition and redaction was conducted by the “Ezekiel school” until Ezekiel arrived at its extant form.56 Zimmerli proposes that in the account of 1:1–3:15* the description of the manifestation of God (1:4–28) shows an editorial activity, which tried to depict “the features of the appearance of the glory of YHWH” as precisely as possible.57 Within 1:4–28, Zimmerli applies the arbitrary change in gender of the third plural suffix for the feminine ‫“( חיות‬creatures”) or for the masculine ‫אופנים‬ (“wheels”) as a basic criterion for redaction. Accordingly, the disordered listing of the features in 1:6a, 7–11a,58 which also interrupts the related statements concerning the four wings (vv. 6b, 11b), is regarded as containing expansions in the account of the living creatures (1:5–12).59 The text concerning the wheels (1:15– 21) is also regarded as a secondary expansion modifying the description of the winged creatures.60 Zimmerli thus identifies 1:1, 3b, 4–5, 6b, 11b, 12, 13aαb, 22a, 26–28* as original in the account of Ezekiel’s inaugural vision.61 Regarding the call narrative (2:1–3:15*), Zimmerli proposes that the primary material is 2:1–3; 2:4b–3:12, 14–15.62 Following Ezekiel’s inaugural vision and his call, Zimmerli postulates two redactional units, namely 3:16b–21 and 3:16a, 3:22–5:17. Ezek 3:16b–21 includes the prophetic word formula (v. 16b) and the watchman oracle (vv. 17–21). Ac-

55 Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel: Chapters 1– 24, trans. Ronald E. Clements, vol. 1 (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 68. 56 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 70. 57 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 70. 58 In 1:7–11a, the expressions related to the feminine ‫“( חיות‬creatures”), namely ‫ורגליהם‬ (“their legs”), ‫“( כנפיהם‬their wings”), ‫“( רבעיהם‬their four sides”), and ‫“( פניהם‬their faces”), are in masculine plural suffix. 59 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 102, 126. 60 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 70, 105. The ascending order of the description of the winged creatures is interrupted by the description of the lowest features, the wheels (1:15–21). Ezek 1:15–21 indicates the merging of two different images: the winged creatures and the image of a chariot. It is probably a secondary addition. See Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 104, 128–29. 61 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 100–106, has shown that Ezek 1:26–28 is an original text with the exception of the addition in v. 27a. 62 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 106–7.

1.3 Literature Review

13

cording to Zimmerli, originally the material in 3:16b–21 was not part of the neighbouring context as it breaks up the presumed original connection between v. 16a and v. 22.63 In addition, Ezek 3:16b–21 is built from the watchman material in Ezek 33:7–9 and then elaborated on by taking up the material from Ezek 18. Thus, 3:16b–17 is a secondary expansion and presupposes Ezek 18 and 33.64 The beginning of the section 3:16a, 3:22–5:17 contains the description of YHWH’s Glory (3:22–24), which is reminiscent of 1:1–3:15.65 In addition, the account of 3:25–27 points to the exile; it seems to look back on events about the time of Jerusalem’s fall.66 Zimmerli notes that the three sign-acts concerning the siege and fall of Jerusalem (4:1–2; 4:9–11; 5:1–2) may have constituted the earliest core of the extant text in Ezek 4–5.67 He follows Hölscher’s view and regards 4:1–2,68 9a, 10–11, and 5:1–2 as original.69 In his view, “the original text of the three-sign composition avoided any element of interpretation,” and Ezek 5:5–17 is considered as an interpretation of all the sign-acts of Ezek 4:1– 5:2.70 As noted by Zimmerli, the original text of 5:5–17 is found in 5:4b–6a, 8–9, 14–15.71 On the topic of redaction in Ezek 6–7, firstly Zimmerli recognises 6:2–5, 7b, 11–13aα as the original sayings stemming from the time before the fall of Jerusalem. On the one hand, vv. 8–10 relate “the event to the times in which the sword will have accomplished its work,”72 indicating that these verses are redactional.73 On the other hand, vv. 13aβ–14 are secondary expansions recalling and extending the motif of idolatrous worship on the mountains in 6:4–7; the message of vv. 13aβ–14 concludes the chapter as a unit that is directed against the mountains of Israel.74 Secondly, on text-critical grounds, Zimmerli recognises 7:1– 6aα*, 10 ff* as part of the original material.75 For the redaction history of Ezek 7, the account of judgement on YHWH’s Day has undergone a process of gradual

63 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 144. 64 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 143. 65 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 157–9. 66 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 159–60, 177. 67 Zimmerli, The Fiery Throne, 82. 68 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 161, has shown that the expression gloss. 69 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 155. 70 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 174. 71 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 154, 174. 72 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 184. 73 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 184. 74 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 191. 75 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 194.

‫את־ירושלם‬

is an interpretative

14

1 Introduction

expansion. These subsequent insertions include 7:5b, 6aβ–9, 10aβbα, 12b, 13, 14aβb, 15b–16, 19–24, 26b.76 Above all, Zimmerli’s model, which assumes a process of subsequent expansion by Ezekiel himself and by the “Ezekiel School,” is still influential to those scholars, including this author, whose study is mainly on redaction history of Ezekiel.

1.3.3.1 Relation with Other Biblical Texts Following in Zimmerli’s footsteps, Leslie C. Allen proposes that Ezekiel committed his own oracles to writing, and even redacted his own writings during the exile. In his view, Ezekiel’s own work has been extended by his successors, “in terms of both arranging oracles and supplementing them to speak to later concerns of the exiles.”77 Allen recognises the literary units of Ezekiel as being made up of three layers: a basic oracle, a first redactional layer which remains similar to the basic oracle, and a second redactional layer at variance with the first two pieces. The basic oracle and the first redactional layer are, according to Allen, attributed to Ezekiel, while the second redactional layer is ascribed to Ezekiel’s successors who are responsible for preserving his work and adapting it to address the concerns of succeeding generation.78 Although Allen regards 1:2–3a as secondary, he considers 1:1–3:15 as an original literary unit on grounds of its form-critical and stylistic coherence.79 He suggests that Ezek 1:1–3:15 functions as a literary introduction to a collection of the judgement oracles of Ezekiel, “possibly culminating in chap. 7.”80 This observation prompts us to read Ezek 1–7 as a unity. In addition, there is a three-part pattern in Ezek 1–7 of (1) a visionary account (1:1–3:15), followed by (2) an account of sign-acts (3:22–5:17), and (3) oracles of judgement (6:1–7:27). This pattern is repeated in the case of the first temple vision (8:1–11:25/12:1–20/12:21–28). Henceforth, Allen recognises another “pattern of compilation,” which covers almost the whole book of Ezekiel, in the sequence of (1) the visionary account followed by (2) the account of sign-acts and (3) their interpretation (1:1–3:15/3:22–5:17; 8:1–11:25/12:1–20; 37:1–14/ 15–28).81 Here Allen gives a brief remark on the relationship between Ezek 1–7 and other texts in Ezekiel. However, most scholarly publications neither em-

76 77 78 79 80 81

Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 209–214. Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, xxvi. Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, xxv. Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 14–19. Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 19. Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, xxvi.

1.3 Literature Review

15

phasise the interrelation of the redactional material within the literary unit of Ezek 1–7, nor focus on the relationship between the redactional material of Ezek 1–7 and those of other chapters in Ezekiel. Thus this book aims to fill those gaps in scholarship. Apart from the relationship between Ezek 1–7 and other texts in Ezekiel, Allen has also shown that the account of Ezek 4–6 indicates an intertextual reference to Lev 26, which concludes the Holiness Code.82 With regard to the relation between Ezek 4–6 and the Holiness Code, Ronald E. Clements, who assumes the redaction process in terms of Zimmerli’s model, presumes that the scribal circles or redactors who preserved Ezekiel’s traditions and developed the literary features of Ezekiel “must be sought in close proximity to those who have produced the Holiness Code.”83 Accordingly, in his view, the nature of the redaction activity in Ezekiel would show the concern to relate and interpret the received Ezekiel’s prophetic messages in light of interests which the redactors wish to emphasise.84 In this case, in the account of Ezekiel’s symbolic action, the redactors of Ezekiel might have emphasised that Israel has suffered or will suffer the covenant curses mentioned in Lev 26. Clements has shown further that the redaction of Ezekiel’s prophecies, on the one hand, may reflect “major interests which faced the Jewish community in exile;” on the other hand, the redaction activity which shows an interest in the motifs of Israelites’ return to the land and of restoration should very likely be understood in light of the political and social context of the post-exilic period.85 These discussions do bring to mind that we may reconstruct the social and political context that gave rise to the redactional material of Ezek 1–7 by establishing intertextual references between the redactional material in Ezek 1–7 and other biblical texts in which Israel’s historical situation is mentioned. After all, it is the aim of the present study to read Ezek 1–7 as one literary unit, and to address the questions of how (1) the secondary expansions of Ezek 1–7 are closely related to one another and (2) they are also related to the redactional layers in other part of Ezekiel, as well as to other biblical texts.

82 Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 92–96. 83 Ronald E. Clements, “The Ezekiel Tradition: Prophecy in a Time of Crisis,” in Israel’s Prophetic Tradition: Essays in Honour of Peter R. Ackroyd, eds. Richard Coggins, Anthony Phillips and Michael Knibb (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 131. See also Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 46–52, 68–71. 84 Ronald E. Clements, “The Chronology of Redaction in Ezekiel 1–24,” in Ezekiel and His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and their Interrelation, ed. Johan Lust (BETL 74; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1986), 292. 85 Clements, “Chronology of Redaction,” 285–6.

16

1 Introduction

1.3.3.2 Interrelated Redactional History A few scholars, namely York and Hiebel,86 have looked into the redaction history of the vision accounts in Ezekiel and their interrelationship. York argues that Ezek 1 is the consequence of a redaction process,87 and that there is an interrelation between Ezek 1 and the “restoration prophecy” in Ezek 43. By comparing the word ‫“( מראות‬visions”) to which the prophet refers in Ezek 43:3–5 to the ‫ מראות‬in previous visionary accounts (8:3; 40:2), York recognises that each ‫ מראה‬of these previous visionary accounts refers to a vision with an introductory date, and an accompanying prophecy. However, the account of 43:3–9, which describes the return of God’s glory into the temple, and the restoration and reestablishment of the people in their land, contains only an independent prophecy but not an accompanying date. By contrast, there is an introductory date of the vision without any accompanying prophecy in 1:1. Therefore, York proposes that the visionary account in Ezek 1 was originally part of the “restoration prophecy” in Ezek 43, and assumes that the message of restoration in Ezek 43 was once at the beginning of the book.88 According to York, the prophecy of restoration originally stood at the beginning of Ezekiel, and was allocated to its extant place near the end of Ezekiel in a later redactional process. He suggests that since the prophecy of restoration would have been gladly received with great anticipation by the exiles, it would have probably outweighed the oracles of judgement and occupied the beginning position in a collection of the prophet’s oracles, at least for a short period of time. Afterwards, a later redactional process rearranged the book in chronological order, and transposed the prophecy of restoration to its extant place near the end of Ezekiel. However, the associated introductory date and the vision of the restoration prophecy remained in place at the beginning of Ezekiel. As a result, the vision of the restoration prophecy assimilated into the inaugural vision, which the prophet received by the river Chebar in the fifth year of the captivity (1:2), and the two similar visions were fused into the present text 1:4–28.89 After

86 Although the article of Kirsten Nielsen does not take into account the interrelated redaction history, it is an example regarding the mutual relation of Ezek 1 and 40–48. See Kirsten Nielsen, “Ezekiel’s Visionary Call as Prologue: From Complexity and Changeability to Order and Stability?” JSOT 33 (2008): 99–114. Nielsen argues that Ezek 1 forms a prologue to Ezekiel, highlighting “complexity and changeability,” while Ezek 40–48 focuses on “order and stability.” In her view, the literary structure of Ezekiel shows that the book begins with a disorientation and concludes with a reorientation so that readers of Ezekiel are able to recognise God as the one who can “change the situation of the exiles and ensure future stability.” 87 Anthony D. York, “Ezekiel 1: Inaugural and Restoration Visions?” VT 27 (1977): 82–98. 88 York, “Ezekiel 1,” 92–93. 89 York, “Ezekiel 1,” 94, 97–8.

1.3 Literature Review

17

all, York assumes that the dating of Ezek 1:1 originally belonged to the “restoration prophecy” in Ezek 43. Admittedly, there is little consensus regarding the explanation that York proposed,90 even though his reconstruction of the redaction history of Ezek 1 and 43 may restore coherence to the text. The interrelation between Ezek 1 and the “restoration prophecy” in Ezek 43 has not been explored in greater detail. In view of this, a more detailed study is called for. Almost four decades later, the interrelation of the vision accounts was addressed by Hiebel. She is mostly influenced by Zimmerli in determining the original account of Ezek 1:1–3:15. However, she holds an opposing view on the connection between the vision of the Glory in Ezek 1 and the commission in Ezekiel’s call narrative in Ezek 2–3. Zimmerli regards the connection of the vision of the Glory (1:4–2:2*) with the call narrative (2:3–3:11) as original. By contrast, according to Hiebel, the section 1:4–2:2 was written as an expansion to the call narrative (2:3–3:11); “the differences in language, style, length, and content between the vision of the Glory in 1:4–28 and the vision of the scroll in 2:9–10” have led Hiebel to postulate that there are two main layers, which are the call narrative and the expansion on the vision of the Glory, in Ezek 1:1–3:15.91 In her view, the vision of the Glory is considered to be “structurally incomplete” and of “a more recent date” than the call narrative.92 However, she follows Zimmerli’s suggestion that the description of the vision of the Glory is further expanded through the section on the wheels (1:15–21), which is regarded as a later insertion.93 Hiebel postulates that the original call narrative includes 2:3–3:11, 14bα, 15,94 and that the expansion on the vision of the Glory consists of 1:1, 3b, 4–28; 2:1–2; 3:12, 14a,bβ.95 After the diachronic analysis of Ezek 1:1–3:15, Hiebel further analyzes the original and redactional material of other vision accounts and their relative chronological order. Hiebel considers the call narrative (2:3–3:11, 14bα, 15), the first temple vision (8:1–11:25), and the second temple vision (40:1–43:10) as part of the oldest collection of writings.96 She assumes that the original layer of the

90 Brownlee argues that there seems to be no compelling reason for rearranging the expression “thirtieth year” from its original context “the restoration prophecy” to its the extant location. See William H. Brownlee, Ezekiel 1–19 (WBC 28; Waco: Word, 1986), 4. Block, Ezekie 1– 24, 82, concedes that “no proposal that dates ‘the thirtieth year’ from the exile of Jehoiachin is completely satisfying.” 91 Hiebel, Ezekiel’s Vision Accounts, 65. 92 Hiebel, Ezekiel’s Vision Accounts, 71. 93 Hiebel, Ezekiel’s Vision Accounts, 69. 94 Hiebel, Ezekiel’s Vision Accounts, 71. 95 Hiebel, Ezekiel’s Vision Accounts, 65–71. 96 Hiebel, Ezekiel’s Vision Accounts, 214–6.

18

1 Introduction

call narrative (2:3–3:11, 14bα, 15) and the original layer of the first temple vision (8:1–11:25) were written by 588 B.C.E. and in the period of 593–588 B.C.E. respectively;97 both of them are presupposed by the earliest layer of the second temple vision (40:1–43:10), which is dated in the exilic period.98 These three original layers, according to Hiebel, can therefore be attributed to the prophet Ezekiel.99 In terms of the chronological order of their date of composition, Hiebel argues that the vision account of the Glory (1:1–2:2; 3:12–14) is probably later than the first and second temple visions, and that it was likely written by the “Ezekiel School;”100 it links with the existing vision accounts. Hiebel proposes that at the time when the vision account of the Glory was composed, a collection of Ezekiel’s writing already existed, including the call narrative, and the original versions of the first and second temple vision (8–11; 40:1–43:10).101 Hiebel has shown that a number of phrases in the vision account of the Glory are inspired by the two temple visions, such as ‫“( עלי יד־יהוה‬hand of YHWH upon me”), ‫“( רות … נשא‬spirit lifted”), ‫“( מראות אלהים‬visions of God”), and ‫כבוד־יהוה‬ (“Glory of YHWH”).102 She further argues that the redactors of 1:1–2:2; 3:12–14 made connections to the two temple visions accounts in order to add the vision of the Glory into the wider context and to reorganise the cycle of vision accounts from Ezekiel’s call as a prophet of judgement to his final prophecy of restoration.103 Moreover, in her view, the redactors placed the phrase ‫ כבוד־יהוה‬in Ezek 1 so as to make the inaugural vision by the river of Chebar equivalent to the presence of God in the temple.104 Therefore, this later insertion of the vision of the Glory into the present text puts an emphasis on depicting YHWH as the true Lord of the cosmos,105 who is not only in the Jerusalem temple but also in Babylonia as much as anywhere else. In any case, the vision of the Glory (1:1– 2:2; 3:12–14) which is the redactional layer is not only influenced by the two temple visions, but also creates a link between Ezek 1–3 and the temple visions. For the redaction history of the vision accounts in Ezekiel, Hiebel argues that various small fragments were introduced into these accounts at a later stage. These additions include Ezek 3:22–27 and 44:4–6, which were written

97 Hiebel, Ezekiel’s Vision Accounts, 217–9. 98 Hiebel, Ezekiel’s Vision Accounts, 226–7. 99 Hiebel, Ezekiel’s Vision Accounts, 218–9, 230, 319. 100 Hiebel, Ezekiel’s Vision Accounts, 234. 101 Hiebel, Ezekiel’s Vision Accounts, 235. 102 Hiebel, Ezekiel’s Vision Accounts, 235. 103 Hiebel, Ezekiel’s Vision Accounts, 236. 104 Hiebel, Ezekiel’s Vision Accounts, 236. 105 Hiebel, Ezekiel’s Vision Accounts, 237.

1.4 Methodology

19

probably in the post exilic period, and sufficed to enhance the book’s coherence.106 Hiebel has shown that Ezek 3:22–27 repeats phrases, namely ‫כבוד־יהוה‬ and ‫ואפל אל־פני‬, from 1:1–3:15, and that both phrases “recur in either or both of the original temple visions; for instance ‫( כבוד־יהוה‬3:23c; 10:4ac, 18a; 11:23a; 43:4a, 5c) and ‫( ואפל אל־פני‬I fell on my face: 3:23e; 9:8c).”107 In her view, the redactors used both expressions first in Ezek 8–11, from which the redactors then adopted them into the vision of the Glory; they finally copied them from the vision of the Glory and merged them into 3:22–27, in order to create a transition to the account of sign-acts in Ezek 4–5. Similarly, according to Hiebel, the redactors of Ezek 44:4–6* not only adopted material from Ezek 8–11* and 40:4; 43:1–10, but probably also from 3:22–27, so that he created a transition from the visual revelation of YHWH to his revelation in the form of laws (44:7–46:20).108 In short, Hiebel on the one hand has shown that extensive redactions in Ezek 1–3 create cross-references to the first and second temple vision accounts, and increase the coherence of Ezekiel simultaneously. On the other hand, she also presents the theological analysis of each textual layer. She notices that the later redactional material does not add new content; it rather emphasises the themes already present in the original material of Ezekiel.109 Both York and Hiebel have thus made contributions to the redaction history of different vision accounts in Ezekiel. None of their studies, however, have discussed the interrelationship of the redactional material of Ezek 1–7 and the redactional material of other literary units in greater detail. The present study, therefore, seeks to research how the redactional material of Ezek 1–7 interacts with the redactional material in the literary unit Ezek 40–48.

1.4 Methodology This book discusses the redactional material in Ezek 1–7. As I have mentioned in section 1.1, I follow Mayfield’s argument that the chronological formulas and the prophetic word formulas serve as the major structural devices for Ezekiel. By using these two structural devices to demarcate literary units, the first literary unit Ezek 1–7 contains four subunits: a narrative concerning the vision of the Glory (1:1–3:15), an oracle concerning the watchman and Ezekiel’s sign-acts (3:16–5:17), an oracle concerning Ezekiel’s preaching to the mountains of Israel

106 107 108 109

Hiebel, Ezekiel’s Hiebel, Ezekiel’s Hiebel, Ezekiel’s Hiebel, Ezekiel’s

Vision Vision Vision Vision

Accounts, Accounts, Accounts, Accounts,

251–3. 252. 252–3, 319–20. 259–317.

20

1 Introduction

(6:1–14), and an oracle concerning the end of the land of Israel (7:1–27).110 In this book, I shall look into the above listed texts separately. My first ambition in this study is to explore the relationship of the secondary expansions in Ezek 1–7 with the motif of hope and restoration, as well as with the motif of a mitigation of the severity of the divine punishment. Moreover, I shall also explore the coordinated theme or bridging structure among redactional material. In many respects, my study will benefit from the historical-critical methodology and inner-biblical interpretation. As such, I shall discuss the roles of redaction criticism and inner-biblical interpretation in the study of the material in Ezek 1–7.

1.4.1 Methodological Issues in a Diachronic Approach One of the leading questions of this study is: how do the secondary expansions in Ezek 1–7, which testify to messages of hope and restoration, relate to the original oracles of judgement in Ezek 1–7? The proposed answer is that the secondary expansions reinterpret the earliest layer of Ezek 1–7. Throughout my discussion, I presuppose an interconnected relation between inner-biblical interpretation and redaction. Redactors rewrite and rework earlier texts for new ideological purposes and new historical situations; redaction takes place so as to revise the message of the earlier text. This insight is by no means new. Many scholars have discussed the intrinsic link between inner-biblical interpretation and gradual textual growth. Reinhard G. Kratz offers an important discussion of the relationship between inner-biblical interpretation and gradual textual growth. He investigates the close link between inner-biblical interpretation and textual transmission. In his view, redaction includes codification or reformulation of oral tradition (the so-called first written record 111) and the update of a given literary context in written tradition. In other words, throughout the course of the development of the text on the written level, the text is gradually interpreted through textual emendations and enriched by references to other scriptural references.112 Konrad Schmid likewise

110 Ezek 1–7 contains a prophetic word formula (‫ )ויהי דבר־יהוה אלי לאמר‬in 3:16, 6:1, and 7:1, thereby Ezek 1–7 is divided into four subunits. See Mayfield, Literary Structure, 104. 111 The first written record is the context of the text developed from its first recognisable oral form in oral transmission. When formerly orally transmitted material is first written down, it may already involve redactional processes. 112 Reinhard G. Kratz, “Redaktionsgeschichte/Redaktionskritik: Altes Testament,” in TRE 28 (Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1997), 367–78

1.4 Methodology

21

shows that inner-biblical interpretation plays a special role in the reconstruction of gradual textual growth: redactors became the interpreters of their predecessors; they extended the original text, reinterpreted it, and made it applicable to the time and situation of their contemporaries.113 According to both Kratz and Schmid, this kind of redactional interpretations can be observed in many biblical texts, for example, in the literary dependence upon and its reinterpretation of Jer 25:11–12; 29:10 in Dan 9:2. Here Dan 9:2 offers the only case in the HB in which inner-biblical interpretation is made explicit: Daniel states that he examined the earlier prophecy of Jeremiah, according to which the exile was to last seventy years, in order to understand what “seventy years” meant and to make Jeremiah’s seventy-year prophecy applicable to a new and later context.114 As we have seen, redaction criticism and inner-biblical interpretation are probably “mutually informing and complementary.”115 Nathan MacDonald has suggested, correctly I think, that “redaction critical analysis is fine-tuned to detect inconsistencies that point to textual reworking. But inconsistencies may result from textual allusion or redaction.”116 It is only as Ezek 1–7 is subject to careful redaction critical analysis alongside its complementary inner-biblical interpretation that we can proceed with confidence to the issue concerning the relationship between the redactional material of Ezek 1–7 and the motif of hope and restoration. A first step is to analyse the four subunits of Ezek 1–7 separately and to identify their redactional material by means of a diachronic approach, namely redaction criticism and textual criticism (For the methodological issues in innerbiblical interpretation, see § 1.4.2). Since both redaction criticism and textual criticism have been widely applied to biblical texts, I do not attempt to review their scholarship in detail. I shall here only comments on methodological issues as they touch upon the definition of redaction criticism and the question of how to carry out the redaction critical analysis.

113 Konrad Schmid, “Innerbiblische Schriftauslegung: Aspekte der Forschungsgeschichte,” in Schriftauslegung in der Schrift: Festschrift für Odil Hannes Steck zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, eds. R. G. Kratz, T. Krüger, and K. Schmid (BZAW 300; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000), 1–22. 114 Kratz, “Redaktionsgeschichte/Redaktionskritik,” 376; Kratz, “Innerbiblische Exegese und Redaktionsgeschichte im Lichte empirischer Evidenz,” in Das Judentum im Zeitalter des Zweiten Tempels (FAT 42; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 126–56 (132); Schmid, “Innerbiblische Schriftauslegung,” 22. 115 Nathan MacDonald, Priestly Rule: Polemic and Biblical Interpretation in Ezekiel 44 (BZAW 476; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2015), 16. See also Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer, Zechariah’s Vision Report and its Earliest Interpreters: A Redaction-Critical Study of Zechariah 1–8 (LHBOTS 626; London: Bloomsbury, 2016), 39–40. 116 MacDonald, Priestly Rule, 11.

22

1 Introduction

1.4.1.1 Definition of Redaction Criticism and Redaction Redaction criticism / the redaction historical analysis is the methodological step which traces the history of the text from its first written form to the final form in the current literary context.117 It aims at uncovering the prerequisites for the course of the text’s development,118 and determining the historical factors and the theological intentions behind this course of the development.119 Redaction criticism works through the older text material, the enrichment of the older material with new accentuations, and changes in formulations and context.120 As such, it works closely with the results of literary criticism,121 which examines the literary integrity of the text and distinguishes different literary layers.122 I share Steck’s view that literary criticism may serve as an analytical approach, while redaction criticism is a synthetic approach insofar as it deals with the reconstruction of a relative chronology of different literary layers.123 Redaction is understood here as an editorial activity of a text that takes place in order to revise and reshape the message of an earlier text. Redaction may fall into one of two different categories: a gloss and Fortschreibung.124 A gloss is a brief clarification of a vague expression or a small explanatory addition that is limited to the immediate context; Fortschreibung is the interpretive

117 Odil Hannes Steck, Old Testament Exegesis: A Guide to the Methodology, trans. James D. Nogalski (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998), 80. Redaction criticism that presupposes form criticism broadens the methodological scope of redaction critical approach to the stage of first writing. 118 Johannes P. Floss, “Form, Source, and Redaction Criticism,” in The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies, eds. J. W. Rogerson and Judith M. Lieu (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 591–614 (609). 119 Steck, Old Testament Exegesis, 19; Floss, “Form, Source, and Redaction Criticism,” 610. 120 Steck, Old Testament Exegesis, 80. 121 Steck has suggested, correctly I think, that the results of redaction historical analysis should be clarified by other methodological approaches, such as the literary criticism, the transmission historical approach, the form criticism, etc., because of the interdependence of the methodological steps. Steck perceives redaction criticism as one of the continuous methodological steps. Cf. Steck, Old Testament Exegesis, 85–86; Kratz, “Redaktionsgeschichte/Redaktionskritik,” 368. 122 Steck, Old Testament Exegesis, 52–57; Floss, “Form, Source, and Redaction Criticism,” 604–606. 123 Steck, Old Testament Exegesis, 19, 53, 75–79. Contra Wolfgang Richter, Exegese als Literaturwissenschaft: Entwurf einer alttestamentlichen Literaturtheorie und Methodologie (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971), 165–66. Richter differs from Steck in methodological procedure. He makes literary criticism precede form criticism rather than redaction criticism. According to Richter, redaction historical analysis is an analytical step which presupposes literary criticism, form criticism, and genre criticism. 124 Steck, Old Testament Exegesis, 77; MacDonald, Priestly Rule, 15.

1.4 Methodology

23

development of a text by inserting new material into an earlier text. By supplementing various new material, a kernel element can be revised by a process of successive enrichment.125 1.4.1.2 The Redaction Historical Analysis of this Study Determining the textual basis provides the indispensable preliminary work for subsequent redactional historical analysis. In this study, I shall deal with those text-critical problems that are relevant to inner-biblical interpretation or to redaction-critical concerns. As mentioned above, redaction criticism is dependent on the results of literary criticism. Literary criticism is associated with intentional additions to a text within the realm of written transmission. Throughout the course of its written transmission, the text is gradually enriched by textual allusion or redaction. After the endpoint of the process of productive written formation, all changes in the text constitute text-critical issues, such as unintentional oversight during transcription. However, in some cases, text criticism can also refer to the process prior to the end of productive written formation.126 In fact, the demarcation between the endpoint of productive text formation and the beginning of the text transmission is blurred; the process of productive written formation might have been conflated with the process of text transmission.127 Thus, deviation between the LXX and the MT in Ezekiel may be due to two separate productive text formation lines rather than due to a derivation that has occurred within the process of text transmission: the LXX’s Vorlage might have stopped growing earlier and been transmitted in a “final written form” that is earlier than the text which would have continued to become the MT. Above all, in this study, textual criticism should be treated within the framework of literary criticism or redaction history.128 Textual criticism has been significant for some

125 Zimmerli coined the term “Fortschreibung” in his monumental two-volume Ezekiel commentary. He distinguishes “Fortschreibung” from the process of collection and uses the term “Fortschreibung” to characterise the interpretive development of prophetic oracles. Cf. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 69. 126 Steck, Old Testament Exegesis, 39–40. 127 Christophe L. Nihan, “Ezekiel and the Holiness Legislation: A Plea for Nonlinear Models,” in The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America, eds. Jan C. Gertz, Bernard M. Levinson, Dalit Rom-Shiloni, and Konrad Schmid (FAT 111; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 1015–1039 (1024–1026), who has shown that the scribal expansions aligning Ezekiel and Leviticus is “apparent in the textual form preserved by Ezekiel MT ... but it can also occasionally be found in the OG of Ezekiel.” 128 Regarding the positive consequence of textual criticism for literary criticism, Floss quotes Vanoni’s argument that “[an] examination that integrates the textual and linguistic features as much as possible has been valuable for literary criticism.” Cf. Floss, “Form, Source, and Re-

24

1 Introduction

in the investigation of the redaction history, as for example in the work of PierreMaurice Bogaert and Johan Lust in relation to Ezek 7.129 As we known, redaction criticism employs the results achieved by literary critical analysis in order to identify different literary layers and to examine the diachronic relationship (relative chronology) between these layers. However, in this study, I am not claiming to arrange distinct redactional layers by their chronological order. On the contrary, I am working with the final redaction, and identifying only two textual layers: one original layer and one redactional layer. I shall thereby examine the case in which Ezek 1–7 receives further additions and changes through literary critical analysis.130 Moreover, in each case I shall apply two types of question by which the redaction-historical investigation will be guided:131 1. Evaluation of the literary critical results: (a) What is the graphical position of the redactional addition / change: in the beginning, in the middle, or in the end of a periscope? (b) Does the change / addition serve as a framing formulation (i.e. the change / addition is placed at the beginning or at the end of a text unit, thereby forming a new introduction or conclusion)? (c) What is the function of the change / addition toward the older text? Does it exhibit a structural / amplifying / correcting / connective / interpretive or clarifying function?132

daction Criticism,” 607, quoting Gottfried Vanoni, Literarkritik und Grammatik: Untersuchung der Wiederholungen und Spannungen in 1 Kön 11–12 (ATSAT 21; St. Ottilien: Verlag Eos, 1984), 169. 129 Pierre-Maurice Bogaert, “Les deux rédactions conservées (LXX et TM) d’Ezéchiel 7,” in Ezekiel and His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and their Interrelation, ed. Johan Lust (BETL 74; Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 1986), 21–47; Johan Lust, Katrin Hauspie, and Antoon Ternier, “Notes to the Septuagint Ezekiel 7,” ETL 77 (2001): 384–394. 130 When investigating the literary integrity of texts, I shall employ the following criteria: (1) Doublets; (2) Double or multiple transmissions; (3) Secondary brackets; (4) Tensions in vocabulary; (5) Differences in the manner of speech and style; (6) Differences of historical background; (7) Peculiarities of certain literary layers; (8) Tensions and unevenness of content; (9) Change of genre in the middle of text unit; (10) Inconsistency or mutually excluding information; (11) Interruption of a thought; (12) Literary Resumption. Cf. Richter, Exegese als Literaturwissenschaft, 51–62; Steck, Old Testament Exegesis, 54–57; Floss, “Form, Source, and Redaction Criticism,” 606–607; Hiebel, Ezekiel’s Vision Account, 44–45. 131 Steck identifies five text’s redactional stages in Old Testament Exegesis, 81–84: (1) the initial recording of a first written version (an oral transmission), (2) the incorporation of written texts alongside the first written version, (3) redactor’s combination of two or more independent texts (or related literary complexes), which already existed in written form, into a larger entity, (4) the expansion and revision of texts by the redactors’ own formulation, and (5) the reconstruction of entire redactional layers and situating them historically and theologically. 132 Steck, Old Testament Exegesis, 83, 85. See also Richter, Exegese als Literaturwissenschaft, 70–72.

1.4 Methodology

2.

25

Determination of the historical situation and theological purpose: (a) Does the change / addition revise only the specific text and its immediate context, or is the change / addition to the text significant for an expanded reformulated literary work as a whole? (b) What might have been the reasons for this redactional change / addition? (c) What new accent, and in what manner, does the change / addition accomplish?133 (d) What is the theological purpose for interpolating the change / addition? (e) What is the social-historical environment of text formulations, redactors, and addressees?134

For identifying the redactional layers in Ezek 1–7, in addition to Bogaert’s and Lust’s work concerning the quantitative differences between the MT and LXX of Ezek 7, I shall consider the arguments of Hiebel.135 In her published doctoral these, she has shown a comprehensive scheme for the gradual growth of Ezek 1:1–3:15. In my view, Hiebel’s argument is convincing; I agree with her that Ezek 1:1–3:15 consists of an original call narrative (2:3–3:11*, 14bα, 15*) and two redactional layers. In my text-critical analysis, beginning in Ezek 1 through Ezek 7,136 I shall focus on the major variations between the LXX and the MT. However, in my exegetical analyses in the present study, I shall consider the MT as the reference text, except where otherwise indicated. For my redactioncritical analysis in Ezek 1–7, I shall employ the above-mentioned criteria for identifying redactional material. I shall not only apply redaction-critical analysis to small text units and their narrow horizon of the immediate contexts, but I shall also take into account the relation between the change / addition which works with formulations that are found in broader literary horizons. As mentioned above, because of the intrinsic link between inner-biblical interpretation and gradual textual growth, redactional material may depend on another text within Ezekiel or even another biblical text. To this topic we now turn.

133 Steck, Old Testament Exegesis, 85. 134 Steck, Old Testament Exegesis, 143–48. 135 Hiebel depends on the research of Wolfgang Richter. Her criteria for identifying redactional layers include “logical contradictions, substantial shifts in style and language (grammar and/or vocabulary), mutually excluding concepts expressed by the same term, interruption of a thought or action by another (where this does not have a narrative function), excessive structural imbalance, change of genre in the middle of a text unit, sudden shifts in addressees and/ or main concern.” Cf. Hiebel, Ezekiel’s Vision Account, 44; Richter, Exegese als Literaturwissenschaft, 51–62. 136 Emanuel Tov has shown the methods and criteria of textual criticism in his excellent book, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012). What I propose to present here is to identify the most significant variants.

26

1 Introduction

1.4.2 Methodological Issues in Inner-Biblical Interpretation Many scholars137 have discussed the role of inner-biblical interpretation in the gradual textual growth within the HB since the publication of the book, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, of Michael Fishbane.138 Therefore, it suffices to give a brief overview of recent scholarship of inner-biblical interpretation. Inner-biblical interpretation is diachronic in its approach; it acknowledges that later texts in the HB make explicit or implicit references to earlier texts.139 Innerbiblical interpretation requires multiple and identifiable lexical connections between two texts, without which the borrowed elements in the later texts will not be recognised as such.140 Moreover, inner-biblical interpretation displays a “literary exegetical interdependence;”141 the exegesis may turn out to be an elaboration or clarification of the earlier text 142 (further discussion in § 1.4.2.2). Given my focus on interrelatedness of the redactional material within the literary unit Ezek 1–7 and the interrelationship of the redactional expansions of Ezek 1–7 with those of different literary units in Ezekiel, a significant challenge is to determine the direction of textual dependence between Ezek 1–7 and other biblical texts. For this reason, there is need to differentiate between different types of textual relationships and to deal with the question of how to detect the direction of textual dependence. The following overview considers some of the methodological issues and terms which are used in my study. 1.4.2.1 Criteria for Determining the Direction of Textual Dependence How might I assert that inner-biblical interpretation has occurred? How can I determine the direction of textual dependence? Many scholars have investigat-

137 Konrad Schmid has shown the connection between inner-biblical interpretation and the gradual textual growth in his article, “Innerbiblische Schriftauslegung: Aspekte der Forschungsgeschichte,” in Schriftauslegung in der Schrift: Festschrift für Odil Hannes Steck zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, eds. Reinhard G. Kratz, Thomas Krüger, Konrad Schmid (BZAW 300; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000), 1–22. MacDonald examines the intertextual relationship between Ezek 44 and Isiah 56, as well as other biblical texts, namely Numbers 18, Leviticus 10 and 21, in his Priestly Rule. Tiemeyer has shown the interconnected roles of inner-biblical interpretation and gradual textual growth in her book regarding the redaction-critical study of Zech 1–8. See Tiemeyer, Zechariah’s Vision Report. 138 Michael A. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985). 139 Benjamin D. Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40–66 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998), 8, 20–22. 140 Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture, 10–11. 141 Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 282, 288. 142 Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture, 23–25.

1.4 Methodology

27

ed the ways in which texts within Ezekiel reuse earlier biblical texts; various criteria regarding the recognition of the ways in which texts interact with other texts have been developed in recent years. Here I shall focus on two recent books which have enriched my understanding of inner-biblical interpretation in Ezekiel. One is Michael A. Lyons’ book From Law to Prophecy: Ezekiel’s Use of the Holiness Code from 2009, which discusses the numerous parallel locutions in Ezekiel and Lev 17–26.143 Another is William A. Tooman’s book, Gog of Magog: Reuse of Scripture and Compositional Technique in Ezekiel 38–39 from 2011, which investigates the full measure of the Gog Oracles’ reuse of antecedent scriptural text.144 Tooman distinguishes between four types of inner-biblical scriptural reuse: “quotation,” “allusion,” “echo,” and “influence.” His differentiations are very useful, and I shall therefore adopt them in this book: 1. “Quotation” requires “an identical or nearly identical verbal repetition,” and “an observable division between the quotation and the context, preferably an identification of the source text.” As noted by Tooman, quotation is uncommon in the HB.145 2. “Allusion” is “between written texts, and it is intentional.” “Allusion” requires readers’ knowledge of the evoked texts, which have been reached either “physically or through memory” by the intended readers. Since the recognition of the evoked text is significant for the success of an allusion, authors have to provide signals, which enable the intended readers to identify the connection, “by incorporating elements of the evoked text into their composition.” After these signals have been identified, “other connections (conceptual, thematic, structural, or affective) may become observable.” In any case, according to Tooman, the “readers’ recognition of the allusion will influence their understanding of both the evoked and the borrowing texts.”146 3. “Echo” is deliberate but, in contrast to “allusion,” it does not change the meaning of the borrowing or evoked texts. Even when “echo” is identified, its recognition is not necessary for the readers to understand the semantic purpose of the borrowing author; however, it functions as “an affective or ornamental role.”147

143 Michael A. Lyons, From Law to Prophecy: Ezekiel’s Use of the Holiness Code (LHBOTS 507; London: T&T Clark, 2009). 144 William A. Tooman, Gog of Magog: Reuse of Scripture and Compositional Technique in Ezek 38–39 (FAT II/52; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011). 145 Tooman, Gog of Magog, 5. 146 Tooman, Gog of Magog, 6–8. 147 Tooman, Gog of Magog, 8.

28

1 Introduction

4. “Influence” means “forces (whether generic, structural, poetic, figural, or whatever)” which are “not necessarily intentional or discreet.” In other words, authors can be influenced by any prior texts that they know.148 Tooman further speaks of five criteria for identifying scriptural reuse: “uniqueness, distinctiveness, multiplicity, thematic correspondence, and/or inversion.” Obviously, the significance of the scriptural reuse depends on the demonstrable frequency of one or more of the mentioned criteria.149 These criteria are helpful, and I shall adopt them in this book. After recognising the linkage between two texts, one has to resolve the question of direction in the absence of explicit chronological indicators and references to datable events. It is worth considering the criteria for determining the direction of dependence. In this respect, both Tooman and Lyons have set up similar criteria, which I shall draw upon when I attempt to determine the issue of direction of dependence in this book. There are five criteria that may reveal which text is dependent on the other:150 1. “Volume of Use”: The borrowing author may reuse “a locution or image” which occurs many times in the evoked text. According to Tooman, “it is more likely that the text with the single occurrence is the borrowing text.”151 2. “Modification”: The borrowing author may modify the evoked text to bring it into line with his own language, ideas, or arguments. 3. “Integration”/“Incongruity”: The borrowing author may partially use or partially integrate the evoked material with the borrowing text, in which “dangling pronouns may appear, poetic images may appear without identifiable referent.”152 In addition, syntax of the evoked material may be disrupted. The borrowing author may, according to Lyons, alter the evoked material by “expanding, changing verb forms, and substituting vocabulary” in order to fit his own context.153 However, in some cases, the lack of coherence in the context of the borrowing text indicates that the borrowing text is using the evoked material, and not vice versa.

148 Tooman, Gog of Magog, 9–10. 149 Tooman, Gog of Magog, 27–31. 150 Tooman, Gog of Magog, 32–4; Lyons, From Law to Prophecy, 59–67. 151 Tooman, Gog of Magog, 32–3, has reminded us that in certain cases “an author may reuse a distinctive element from an antecedent text many times within the target text, in an effort to draw readers’ attention to the source.” 152 Tooman, Gog of Magog, 33. 153 Lyons, From Law to Prophecy, 63.

1.4 Methodology

29

4. “Conceptual Dependence”: The borrowing text may be conceptually dependent on the evoked text. In such cases, the intelligibility of argument of the borrowing author depends on the readers’ recognition of the information from the evoked text.154 5. “Interpretive Expansion”: The borrowing author may introduce expansions into the evoked material, interpreting the parallel material. In other words, according to Lyons, “the shorter of two genetically related or parallel texts is the original.”155 By using the criteria listed above, the direction of dependence can often be determined in the absence of any chronological markers between two texts. In my discussion of the interrelatedness of the redactional layers of Ezek 1–7, I shall follow Tooman’s differentiation between “quotation,” “allusion,” “echo,” and “influence.” In addition, I shall employ the five criteria, which Tooman and Lyons have suggested, to establish the direction of dependence between two texts.

1.4.2.2 The Purpose of Textual Reuse The previous section reviewed Lyons’ and Tooman’s work on the matter of types of reuse in the HB and the determination of the direction of textual reuse between two texts. In cases where two texts are related as the evoked text and the borrowing text, why does the borrowing author allude? And how do we know whether the verbal and thematic parallels between two texts are due to coincidence or to intentional reuse of earlier text? I am now turning to determining the reasons and purpose for textual reuse. In his book Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, Fishbane suggests several purposes of textual reuse156 and demonstrates how the received material of the tradition (traditum) was revised and reauthorized by the process of transmission (traditio). He deals with the “aggadic exegesis” of the prophet’s symbol-

154 Lyons, From Law to Prophecy, 65. 155 Lyons, From Law to Prophecy, 66. 156 Benjamin D. Sommer describes several reasons that lead an author to borrow from an earlier work in his book, A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40–66 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998), 18–20. He has shown that “by borrowing an earlier work which has already been acknowledged as great, an allusion “represents an attempt to bolster the authority of the work,” and serves “a culturally conservative function” by maintaining the relevance of any earlier work. Moreover, allusion not only asserts the close relation between the two parallel texts, but may also paradoxically allow the borrowing text to “achieve a distinct identity in opposition to the old work.” In such a case, when one juxtaposes the two texts, one may notice their differences.

30

1 Introduction

ic or metaphoric use of legal matter,157 and compares the prophetic exegesis in HB with various mantological practices in Mesopotamian divination.158 According to Fishbane, “the purveyors and creators of aggadic exegesis appear to live with ‘texts-in-the-mind’ – that is, with texts (or traditions) which provide the imaginative matrix for evaluating the present, for conceiving of the future, for organi[s]ing reality (the inchoate, the negative, the possible), and even for providing the shared symbols and language of communication.”159 In addition, Fishbane concedes that the accounts of dreams and vision, as well as prophetic oracles, were obscure and required new elaborations and clarifications.160 The unexpected deferral of fulfilment in the prophetic oracles needed reinterpretation of the traditum; the reinterpretation projects a conceivable future.161 In other words, inner-biblical interpretation is often provoked by “a practical crisis of some sort – the incomprehensibility of a word or a rule, or the failure of the covenantal tradition to engage its audience;”162 such crisis necessitates those involved to resolve their present exigent problem.163 Thus, apart from clarifications or elaborations, inner-biblical interpretation serves to reduce the resultant cognitive dissonance when expectations of previous oracles are not met.164 This study regards inner-biblical interpretation as covering a spectrum of possibilities along the continuum, extending from a borrowing text affirming an evoked text to a borrowing text arguing against its evoked text. Here I propose five purposes of textual reuse: bolstering the authority of the texts, exegesis, supplement, revision, and polemic.165 1. Bolstering the authority of the texts: The borrowing author may borrow material from the earlier text which has already been acknowledged as great. On the one hand, the author acknowledges that the borrowing text is worth

157 Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 279–440 (292–317). 158 Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 441–524. 159 Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 435. 160 Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 447–57. 161 Michael Fishbane, “Inner-Biblical Exegesis,” in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, vol. 1, From the Beginnings to the Middle Ages (until 1300), part 1, Antiquity, ed. Magne Sæbø, with Chris Brekelmans and Menahem Haran (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 33–48 (46–47). 162 Michael Fishbane, “Inner Biblical Exegesis: Types and Strategies of Interpretation in Ancient Israel,” in Midrash and Literature, eds. Geoffrey H. Hartman and Sanford Budick (New Heaven: Yale University Press, 1986), 19–37 (34). 163 Dalit Rom-Shiloni, “Facing Destruction and Exile: Inner-Biblical Exegesis in Jeremiah and Ezekiel,” ZAW 117 (2005): 189–205 (190); cf. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 408–409, 415–18. 164 Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 509–11. 165 Suk Yee Lee, An Intertextual Analysis of Zechariah 9–10: The Earlier Restoration Expectations of Second Zechariah (LHBOTS 599; London: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2015), 27–30.

1.4 Methodology

31

reading, just as its evoked text was;166 the authority of the borrowing text is bolstered (cf. “Allusion of Ezek 4:4–8 to Lev 10, 16” exemplified in § 4.2.1.1). On the other hand, the acknowledgment of allusion, in turn, bolsters the authority of the evoked text by maintaining the relevance of the earlier work in a new context. As such, an allusion represents an attempt to bolster the authority of the evoked text and the borrowing text.167 2. Exegesis (explication or clarification of the earlier text): The borrowing author may reintepret the original text, and make it applicable to the time and situation of his/her contemporaries (cf. Dan 9:2);168 the author becomes the interpreter of his/her predecessors. This kind of textual reuse, generated by the potential ambiguities in the original text, clarifies and/or elaborates what the author sees as obscure or implicit 169 (cf. “Allusion of Ezek 6:4–6 to 2 Kgs 23” exemplified in § 1.4.2.3, § 5.2.1.1). In cases of exegesis, the exegetical text does not take the place of the earlier text.170 3. Supplement: The borrowing author may summon the earlier text to nuance his/her view by analogy171 (cf. “Allusion of Ezek 3:22–27 to 37:1–14” exemplified in § 4.2.1.1). The borrowing text relies on the evoked text for its own meaning. “The new text neither explicates nor revises the old one, but simply depends on the source for its impact. The typological correspondence established through connection serves as a rhetorical device, requiring the readers to bring together both works in order to grasp all the nuances of meaning of the new one.”172 4. Revision: The borrowing text may restate and revise some aspects of the evoked text; it may alter some elements of the earlier text, add new material to the earlier text, or may even reverse some ideas in its predecessors. In this case, the borrowing text does not explain the meaning of a specific earlier text, but merely presents an innovative variation of the earlier text’s

166 Lee, Intertextual Analysis of Zechariah 9–10, 28. 167 Lyons, From Law to Prophecy, 111, who claims that “Ezekiel is attempting to convince and persuade his readers by appealing to the authority of the Holiness Code and by using its arguments in constructing his own arguments.” Cf. Sommer, Prophet Reads Scripture, 18–20; Lee, Intertextual Analysis of Zechariah 9–10, 28. 168 Schmid, “Innerbiblische Schriftauslegung,“ 1–22; Lee, Intertextual Analysis of Zechariah 9–10, 28. 169 Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 447–57. 170 Sommer, Prophet Reads Scripture, 23–25. 171 Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 301–304, who has shown the analogical relationship between Lev 22:14–16 and Jer 2:3. Jer 2:3 reuses the cultic terms of Lev 22:14–16 in an idiosyncratic, exegetical manner. 172 Lee, Intertextual Analysis of Zechariah 9–10, 28.

32

5.

1 Introduction

ideas in order to serve its own purpose.173 As such, revision is different from exegesis. In the case of revision, the borrowing text generally replaces the earlier one; however, that replacement is not identical to rejection,174 e.g., the scope of the Covenant Code’s law in Exod 21:2–6 is widened in Deut 15:12–18.175 Polemic: The borrowing text may argue against its evoked text (cf. “Allusion of Ezek 5:11–13 to 24:13b–14” exemplified in § 4.3.2.1). “Polemical texts attempt to take the place of the texts against which they argue. This is the case even when the older text survives or is preserved by a citation in the polemical text;”176 e.g., Lev 25:39–46 rejects the slave laws concerning one Israelite being enslaved to another; it represents a sustained revision and reinterpretation of the prior manumission laws found in the Covenant Code (Exod 21:2–6) and Deut 15:12–18.177 The borrowing text may also repudiate a popular saying (cf. Ezek 18:1–4).178

Closely related to the question of identifying the purpose of texual reuse is the matter of determining connections between two texts. The presence of shared lexical features is widely regarded as the most important telltale sign of textual reuse.179 In addition to lexical parallels, shared content and formal resemblan-

173 Sommer, Prophet Reads Scripture, 25–28; Lee, Intertextual Analysis of Zechariah 9–10, 28–29. 174 Sommer, Prophet Reads Scripture, 26–27. 175 Sommer, Prophet Reads Scripture, 26, who notes that the Covenant Code’s law concerning the liberation of Hebrew slaves in Exod 21:2–6 is revised in Deut 15:12–18. Apart from male slaves, Deut 15:12–18 also covers female slaves. Moreover, Deut 15:12–18 recounts that the slave receives payment when they are set free. Furthermore, the location where a slave may announce his wish not to go free differs between Deut 15:12–18 and Exod 21:2–6. A similar view has been made by Bernard M. Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997). Levinson shows that Deuteronomy intends not merely to supplement but to replace the Covenant Code’s laws in such a way as to lend authority to its new understanding of divine will. 176 Sommer, Prophet Reads Scripture, 28–29. 177 Bernard M. Levinson, “The Birth of the Lemma: The Restrictive Reinterpretation of the Covenant Code’s Manumission Law by the Holiness Code (Leviticus 25:44–46),” JBL 124 (2005): 617–39. 178 The proverb cited in Ezek 18:1–2 graphically portrays transgenerational punishment. Ezekiel rejects the logic of the proverb (18:3–4) and transforms it into a metaphor for the freedom of an individual to transform and renew his life (18:21–29). Cf. Bernard M. Levinson, Legal Revision and Religious Renewal in Ancient Israel (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 60–71; Sommer, Prophet Reads Scripture, 28; Lee, Intertextual Analysis of Zechariah 9–10, 29. 179 Mark J. Boda, Praying the Tradition: The Origin and Use of Tradition in Nehemiah 9 (BZAW 277; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999), 3; R. Nurmela, “The Growth of the Book of Isaiah,”

1.4 Methodology

33

ces are supplementary devices for indentifying textual dependence.180 The relation between the evoked and the borrowing texts includes not only the few shared locutions but also their wider contexts.181 Several scholars have argued that when ancient readers encountered familiar words or locutions, they might have imported them into the context that they were currently reading. Richard L. Schultz claims that “a quotation is not intended to be self-contained or selfexplanatory; rather knowledge of the quoted context is assumed by the speaker or author.”182 Moreover, Leonard has argued convincingly that the later author might have selected a few key words to represent a larger context. In other words, an identifiable shared locution should not be understood only as a reference to the single verse of this locution but to include also its wider literary context. The later author presumed some “elements to be inferred from the hearer’s knowledge of the earlier tradition.”183 Thus, an understanding of the original context of the evoked text is crucial to our proper understanding of the borrowing text. In this study, a later redaction addition can thus be assumed to comprise a message of hope and restoration, if the text that is being alluded to consistutes a message of hope and restoration. The earliest core of a given text in Ezekiel preaches a message of judgement. Later redactors may then transform this judgement oracle by alluding to an earlier text, the message of which is that of hope and restoration. As a result, the focus of the resulting text is shifted from offering a message of judgement into a message of hope and restoration.

1.4.2.3 Criteria for Identifying Intentional Reuse in Inner-Biblical Interpretation A further issue to determine is whether the presence of verbal and thematic parallels between two texts can be attributed to purposeful reuse of earlier text. With respect to the question of intentionality, Sommer’s and Lyons’ criteria are very useful, and I shall adopt them in this book when I try to determine whether

in Bringing out the Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusion in Zechariah 9–14 eds. Mark J. Boda and M. H. Floyd (JSOTSup 370; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003), 245–59 (247); Jeffery M. Leonard, “Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions: Psalm 78 as a Test Case,” JBL 127 (2008): 241– 265 (246–51); Geoffrey D. Miller, “Intertextuality in Old Testament Research,” CBR 9 (2010): 283– 309 (295). 180 Boda, Praying the Tradition, 3; Lee, Intertextual Analysis of Zechariah 9–10, 26–27. 181 Lee, Intertextual Analysis of Zechariah 9–10, 30. 182 Richard L. Schultz, Search for Quotation: Verbal Parallels in the Prophets (JSOTSup 180; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 224. 183 Leonard, “Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions,” 262.

34

1 Introduction

Ezekiel is purposefully using locutions from other biblical texts. Based on the insights of Sommer and Lyons, I shall employ five criteria in the ensuing study:184 1. “Frequency and Distribution of Locutions”: Even though the frequency and distribution of the shared locutions in the evoked and borrowing texts is higher than those locutions in other texts, there is little to tell us that the presence of verbal parallels in the evoked and borrowing texts is due to literary dependence. Yet distinctive expressions or shared locutions that are rare make their occurrence more likely to be intentional.185 Moreover, “the presence of multiple common words, the combination of which is rare, does suggest dependence.”186 However, in my view, if the shared language consists of common terms which are not combined together, it does not automatically negate the possibility of textual reuse. I follow Schultz’s suggestion that “the frequency and distribution of locutions” and “the awareness of context” (see below) are two complementary criteria.187 The shared locutions in similar context strengthen the likelihood of textual reuse.188 2. “Awareness of Context”: As mentioned above, when shared common terms appear in Ezekiel and an earlier text, the passage of Ezekiel cannot be considered an allusion to the earlier text unless there is evidence that knowledge of the evoked context can be assumed on behalf of the borrowing author (or redactors).189 According to Lyons, (1) “[w]hen a number of individual locutions in the target text are found in close proximity to each other in the source text, it is a good indication of contextual awareness.”190 (2) Another indication of contextual awareness is “marked by the inversion of the order of locutions from the source text, sometimes referred to as ‘Seidel’s Law’.”191 I shall give an example of the redactors’ contextual awareness in Ezek 6:5–6, which uses 2 Kgs 23:4–27. 2 Kgs 23:4–27 contains a number of common locutions, namely ‫“( גלולים‬idols,” v. 24), ‫“( עצמות‬bones,” 184 Sommer, Prophet Reads Scripture, 67–72; Lyons, From Law to Prophecy, 67–75. 185 Lyons, From Law to Prophecy, 68–69. 186 Lyons, From Law to Prophecy, 69. 187 Schultz, Search for Quotation, 222. Sommer concedes that a large number of shared locutions cannot lend support “to classify a parallel as a borrowing, although it may suggest the possibility. If many of the shared terms are uncommon ones, the possibility of allusion grows, but coincidence may still be responsible … If a parallel between two texts exhibits a pattern that recurs in allusions in the later text, the possibility of allusion is high.” In his view, in some allusions, borrowed words appear in the same order they had in the evoked text. See Sommer, Prophet Reads Scripture, 159–60. 188 Leonard, “Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions,” 255. 189 Schultz, Search for Quotation, 224. 190 Lyons, From Law to Prophecy, 70. 191 Lyons, From Law to Prophecy, 71. See also Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 285.

1.4 Methodology

35

vv. 14, 16, 18, 20), ‫“( מזבחות‬altars,” vv. 9, 12, 15–17, 20), ‫“( למען‬for the sake of,” v. 24), ‫“( שבר‬to break,” v. 14), ‫“( שבת‬to cease,” vv. 5, 11), and ‫מעשים‬ (“works,” v. 19). These locutions are used within close proximity of one another in Ezek 6:5–6; the collocations of all these locutions in 6:5–6 are a good indication that the redactors of Ezek 6:5–6 were aware of the context of Josiah’s cult reform in 2 Kgs 23:4–27. 3. “Availability of Options”: Lyons has shown that “if a locution shared by two texts could have been selected from a number of semantically equivalent locutions, it is more likely to be the result of a purposeful and conscious choice.”192 According to Lyons, the combination of three common words, namely ‫“( שבר‬break”), ‫“( מטה‬staff”), ‫“( לחם‬bread”), is rare and is found only in Lev 26:26; Ezek 4:16; 5:16; 14:13; and Ps 105:16.193 This combined phrase ‫ שבר מטה־לחם‬expresses the destruction of food supply.194 In Ezekiel, the notion of food shortage is usually expressed by “a variety of constructions using the noun ‫“( רעב‬famine,” e.g. Ezek 5:12, 16, 17; 6:11, 12; 7:15; 34:29; 36:29, 30).”195 In this case, the redactors of Ezek 4:16–17196 used a rare expression ‫ שבר מטה־לחם‬instead of its semantically equivalent expression (‫“ רעב‬famine”); the redactors intended to reuse the expression ‫ שבר מטה־לחם‬from Lev 26:26.197 4. “Interaction with the Source Text”: An intentional textual reuse may only be claimed with certainty where “textual transformations, reapplications, and reinterpretations” are evident.198 As such, “the second text … uses a segment of the first … in a lexically recognized and topically rethematized way.”199 As Lyons concedes, “[o]ne of the clearest indications that use of the source text is not unconscious is the presence of creative interaction. This interaction can take numerous forms; an author can interpret an earlier text, use it as a basis for an argument, disagree with it, or reuse its words to create a new argument.”200 An example of such “creative interaction” is in Ezek 6:4–6,

192 Lyons, From Law to Prophecy, 72. 193 Lyons, From Law to Prophecy, 69, 72. 194 Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 187. 195 Lyons, From Law to Prophecy, 72. 196 Cf. § 4.1.2.3. 197 Lyons, From Law to Prophecy, 72. Ezek 4:16 and 5:16 recount YHWH’s declaration of punishment; both texts appropriate language and theme from the covenant curses of Lev 26. In contrast, Ps 105:16 speaks of the food shortage with reference to the famine in Egypt depicted in the Joseph story. 198 Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 282, 288. 199 Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 285. 200 Lyons, From Law to Prophecy, 73.

36

5.

1 Introduction

which conflates Lev 26:30–33 and 2 Kgs 23:16. Lev 26:30–33 depicts the covenant curses related to the idolatrous worship. The curses include the destruction of the high places and incense altars, the defilement of idols, and the dispersion among the nations. 2 Kgs 23:16 specifies the defilement of an illegitimate altar by burning human bones upon the altar. By merging two passages, Ezekiel elaborates the extent of defilement mentioned in Lev 26. Ezekiel depicts a thorough defilement of the illegitimate cultic places including not only idols, but also illegitimate altars, and as such are defiled by the most derogatory objects, namely dead bodies, and their bones.201 Ezekiel draws on both Lev 26:30–33 and 2 Kgs 23:16 to highlight the motif of defilement. (see detailed discussion in § 5.2.1.1) Stylistic Pattern – (a) Word Order: An identical word order displaced by shared locutions can help a reader to identify an intentional literary dependence between two texts.202 While one or two distinctive words may constitute an allusion, the likelihood of a purposeful reuse increases with the accumulation of shared locutions in a given order.203 An example of such stylistic pattern recurrently displaced by borrowing locutions can be seen in the use of Lev 10:1–20 and 16:1–22 in Ezek 4:4–8 (see detailed discussion in § 4.2.1.1). (b) Structural and Thematic Link: The distinctiveness and ubiquity of the plot and thematic parallels, combined with the presence of shared language, are important in determining intentional textual reuse between two passages, as well as the direction of that influence.204 As mentioned by Earl Miner, however, a purposeful allusion may contain a verbal connection or even just a shared concept.205 The redactors of a borrowing text might have drawn from the rare concept in the evoked text, but not its

201 John Hartley, Leviticus (WBC 4; Dallas: Word, 1992), 467. 202 Sommer, Prophet Reads Scripture, 70–71, who uses an example of Deutero-Isaiah allusion (Isa 40:9–10 alludes to Jer 31:16) to demonstrate that an identical word order between two texts almost certainly results from borrowing. In his view, “two authors may use the same words because both are relying on stock vocabulary or discussing a particular topic, but a cluster or topic does not require a particular order for those words.” Thus, the identical word order of shared locutions suggests that “the later author’s decision to mimic the order of the marked items may constitute an attempt to signal the borrowing in a particular clear fashion.” 203 Leonard, “Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions,” 253–55. 204 Nihan, “Ezekiel and the Holiness Legislation,” 1029–1034; Jason Gile, “Ezekiel 16 and the Song of Moses: A Prophetic Transformation?” JBL 130 (2001): 87–108 (95–99). 205 Earl Miner, “Allusion,” The New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics, eds. Alex Preminger and T. V. F. Brogan (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), 38–39. Lee argues convincingly that for non-lexical parallels, the likelihood of literary dependence is greater if “the series of parallels occur in the same order or formulation in both texts.” Cf. Lee, Intertextual Analysis of Zechariah 9–10, 26–27.

1.5 Outline

37

exact wording. Leonard has shown that the use of different terminology “in no way undermines the possibility of a connection,” because “[u]nique or idiosyncratic language may be a reflection of the creativity or writing style of a given author.”206 An example of such structural and thematic link can be seen in the relation between Zech 3 and the redactional material of Ezek 3–5, as well as in the cross-references between the redactional material of Ezek 6–7 and that of Ezek 43–46 (see detailed discussion in § 7.4 and § 8.2 & 8.3). In short, I have proposed the criteria that will be used in the ensuing study for determining the direction of textual dependence and identifying the intentional reuse. On grounds of redaction criticism and inner-biblical interpretation, I hope to facilitate an appropriate understanding of the relationship between the secondary expansions in Ezek 1–7 and the motif of hope and restoration. This understanding, I hope, will assist in examining the historical context that gave rise to the redactional material of Ezek 1–7, and in determining the coordinated theme or bridging structure among redactional material in Ezekiel.

1.5 Outline There are nine chapters to this book. The chapters following this one will fall into two parts. The first part consists of five chapters (Chapters 2–6). These chapters are concerned with the establishment of the relative chronology of different texts in Ezek 1–7, and the analysis of the corresponding secondary expansions in Ezek 1–7; the second part (Chapters 7–8) is concerned with the reasons of inserting the motif of hope and restoration into the secondary expansions in Ezek 1–7. In Chapter 2, I shall first examine the account of Ezekiel’s commission (1:1– 3:15). On the one hand, I shall argue that the original call narrative (2:3–3:11*) reveals the establishment of Ezekiel’s authority as a prophet. On the other hand, I shall demonstrate that the redactional glosses in Ezek 1:2–3a reveal a restoration aspect of Ezekiel’s priestly role. In Chapters 3–4, I shall turn my attention to the account of the watchman (3:16–21) and the sign-acts (3:22–5:17). I shall then examine the commission concerning the Mountains of Israel (6:1–14) in Chapter 5, and the commission concerning the approaching judgement against Israel on the Day of YHWH (7:1–27) in Chapter 6. As I have mentioned before, the

206 Leonard, “Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions,” 249.

38

1 Introduction

book favours a diachronic approach, involving redaction criticism and textual criticism. According to these diachronic analyses, Chapters 2–6 bring about the identification of the redactional material in Ezek 1–7. Every chapter also discusses the relationship between each redactional material and the motif of hope and restoration. In Chapters 3–6, I shall also demonstrate that the redactional material is related textually to other biblical texts, such as Leviticus and 2 Kings, that have been overlooked. In Chapter 7, I shall consolidate the redaction-critical results of Chapters 3– 4 and deal with the question of how the insertion of the restoration aspect of Ezekiel’s priestly role in Ezek 3–5 is related to Zech 3, a text that depicts a reassertion of the legitimacy of the Zadokite priesthood in the early Persian period, and the concept of priesthood in Ezek 40–48. Drawing upon the redactioncritical results of Chapters 5–6, I shall then turn in Chapter 8 to explore the question of how the insertion of the motif of hope and restoration is related to the Law of the Temple and Ezekiel’s paradigm of the restoration of land. Finally, in Chapter 9, I shall give a brief summary of this book and suggest that the redactors of Ezek 3–7 were representatives of the Zadokite priesthood who worked in the post-exilic period. Moreover, I shall give suggestions for future studies.

2 Ezekiel’s Call Narrative (Ezek 1:1–3:15) Ezekiel’s call narrative (Ezek 1:1–3:15) is the first subunit of the literary unit Ezek 1–7. The occurrence of the prophetic word formula (‫)ויהי דבר־יהוה אלי לאמר‬ in 3:16 indicates the beginning of the subsequent subunits, demarcating Ezekiel’s call narrative from the account of the watchman. Ezekiel’s call narrative involves an overwhelming vision of the Glory (1:4–28) followed by Ezekiel’s commissioning to be a prophet (2:3–3:11). The vision of the Glory adds weight to the account of Ezekiel’s commissioning; it reveals YHWH’s sovereignty, which in turn increases the authority of the prophet by specifying that Ezekiel’s message had its authentic origin in YHWH.1 The prophetic message is of “laments, mourning, and woe” (2:10). This message sets the tone for Ezekiel’s ministry that is the proclamation of judgement in the years before the fall of Jerusalem. The account of Ezekiel’s commissioning has generally been regarded as an important source of information about his inauguration into the prophetic office. However, recent scholarship suggests that Ezek 2:3–3:15 represents a liminal time in Ezekiel’s understanding of his priestly identity.2 Such dispute invites further speculation: is it possible that the original call narrative speaks of legitimising Ezekiel as YHWH’s prophet, while the redactional material in Ezek 1:1–3:15 shows relation to the instatement of Ezekiel as priest? It is the objective of this chapter not only to show the distribution of material concerning Ezekiel’s priestly identity in Ezek 1:1–3:15, but to demonstrate that while the earliest layer is characterised by declarations of judgement, the elements of hope and restoration are in later redactional material of Ezek 1:1–3:15. In this chapter, I shall argue that the original call narrative (2:3–3:11*) reveals the establishment of Ezekiel’s authority as a prophet, whereas the redactional material in Ezek 1:1–3:15 is concerned with the instatement of Ezekiel as priest and the motif of hope and restoration. Thus, before interpreting the extant form of the call narrative, I shall first examine the relative chronology of different texts in Ezek 1:1–3:15 in order to identify the different redactional layers and some quantitatively smaller glosses.

2.1 The Diachronic Analysis of Ezek 1:1–3:15 There are two main sections in Ezek 1:1–3:15, namely the original call narrative (2:3–3:11) and the expansion on the vision of the Glory (1:4–28). In Ezek 1:1–3:15 the textual variants are numerous, and in some cases they testify to the long term 1 Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 45; Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 109; Hiebel, Ezekiel’s Vision Accounts, 89. 2 Margaret S. Odell, “You are What You Eat: Ezekiel and the Scroll,” JBL 117 (1998): 229–48; Sweeney, “Ezekiel: Zadokite Priest,” 125–43; Tuell, Ezekiel, 21. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110711578-002

40

2 Ezekiel’s Call Narrative (Ezek 1:1–3:15)

literary growth of the text. The following table lists all the passages in Ezek 1:1– 3:15 that I consider to be redactional. These passages are arranged in sequential order. This list includes the MT or the LXX pluses that are germane to this study; as such it is not a comprehensive list of all the divergences between the MT Ezek and the LXX Ezek.3 I shall list other relevant textual variants of different text units in the beginning of each chapters of this book. In each list, any MT pluses are marked by [ ] brackets, while any LXX pluses are indicated by underlining the corresponding Greek words. In the list, the Greek text is given whenever there are any significant textual variants between the MT Ezek and the LXX Ezek. An English translation is given alongside every Hebrew text and Greek text.4

Text with English Translation 1:1–3 v. 1

‫ויהי בשלשים שנה ברביעי בחמשה לחדש ואני בתוך־הגולה על־נהר־כבר נפתחו‬ ‫השמים ואראה מראות אלהים‬ And it came about in the thirtieth year, on the fifth day of the fourth month, and I was among the captivity by the river Chebar, the heavens were opened and I saw visions of God. (MT) Καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ τριακοστῷ ἔτει ἐν τῷ τετάρτῳ μηνὶ πέμπτῃ τοῦ μηνὸς καὶ ἐγὼ ἤμην ἐν μέσῳ τῆς αἰχμαλωσίας ἐπὶ τοῦ ποταμοῦ τοῦ Χοβαρ, καὶ ἠνοίχθησαν οἱ οὐρανοί, καὶ εἶδον ὁράσεις θεοῦ· And it came about in the thirtieth year, in the fourth month, on the fifth day of the month, and I was among the captivity by the river Chobar, and the heavens were opened and I saw visions of God. (LXX)

v. 2

‫בחמשה לחדש היא השנה החמישית לגלות המלך יויכין‬ On the fifth day of the month, which was the fifth year of the captivity of the king Jehoiachin.

v. 3

‫היה היה דבר־יהוה אל־יחזקאל בן־בוזי הכהן בארץ כשדים על־נהר־כבר ותהי‬ ‫עליו ]שם[ יד־יהוה‬ The word of YHWH came to Ezekiel, the son of Buzi, the priest, in the land of the Chaldeans by the river Chebar; and the hand of YHWH was upon him [there]. (MT) καὶ ἐγένετο λόγος κυρίου πρὸς Ιεζεκιηλ υἱὸν Βουζι τὸν ἱερέα ἐν γῇ Χαλδαίων ἐπὶ τοῦ ποταμοῦ τοῦ Χοβαρ· καὶ ἐγένετο ἐπ᾿ ἐμὲ χεὶρ κυρίου, And the word of YHWH came to Ezekiel, the son of Buzi, the priest, in the land of the Chaldeans by the river Chebar; and the hand of YHWH was upon me.5 (LXX)

3 When there are no differences, only the MT will be cited. 4 All translations from Hebrew and Greek are mine, unless specified, although they owe much to the NRSV and the NETS; all citations follow the numerical system of MT. 5 The LXX renders the first person singular ἐπ᾿ ἐμὲ, “upon me,” while the MT reads ‫עליו‬, “upon him.”

2.1 The Diachronic Analysis of Ezek 1:1–3:15

41

Text with English Translation 1:4–28 v. 4

‫וארא והנה רוח סערה באה מן־הצפון ענן גדול ואש מתלקחת ונגה לו סביב‬ ‫ומתוכה כעין החשמל מתוך האש‬ And I saw, behold, a stormy wind came from the north, a great cloud and fire flashing and brightness around it, and in the midst of it, something like glowing metal in the midst of the fire. (MT) καὶ εἶδον καὶ ἰδοὺ πνεῦμα ἐξαῖρον ἤρχετο ἀπὸ βορρᾶ, καὶ νεφέλη μεγάλη ἐν αὐτῷ, καὶ φέγγος κύκλῳ αὐτοῦ καὶ πῦρ ἐξαστράπτον, καὶ ἐν τῷ μέσῳ αὐτοῦ ὡς ὅρασις ἠλέκτρου ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ πυρὸς καὶ φέγγος ἐν αὐτῷ. And I saw, behold, a stormy wind came from the north, and a great cloud with it and brightness around it, and flashing fire, and in the midst of it, as it were the appearance of amber in the midst of the fire, and brightness in it. (LXX)

v. 5

‫ומתוכ]ה[ דמות ארבע חיות וזה מראיהן דמות אדם להנה‬ And in the midst [of it], there were the likeness of four living beings. And this was their appearance: the likeness of a man was in them.

v. 6

[‫וארבעה פנים לאחת וארבע כנפים לאחת ]להם‬ And each had four faces, and each [of them] had four wings.

v. 7

‫ורגליהם ]רגל[ ישרה וכף רגליהם ]ככף רגל עגל[ ונצצים כעין נחשת קלל‬ And their legs were a straight [leg], and the sole of their legs were [like the sole of a calf’s leg], and they sparkled like polished bronze. (MT) καὶ τὰ σκέλη αὐτῶν ὀρθά, καὶ πτερωτοὶ οἱ πόδες αὐτῶν, καὶ σπινθῆρες ὡς ἐξαστράπτων χαλκός, καὶ ἐλαφραὶ αἱ πτέρυγες αὐτῶν. And their legs were straight, and their feet were winged, and they sparkled like polished bronze, and their wings were nimble. (LXX)

v. 8

‫וידו אדם מתחת כנפיהם על ארבעת רבעיהם ופניהם ]וכנפיהם[ לארבעתם‬ And human hands were under their wings on their four sides. And their faces and [their wings] of the four of them.

v. 9

‫]חברת אשה אל־אחותה כנפיהם[ לא־יסבו בלכתן איש אל־עבר פניו ילכו‬ [Their wings touched one another]; each of them did not turn as they moved; they went straight forward.

v. 10

‫ודמות פניהם פני אדם ופני אריה אל־הימין לארבעתם ופני־שור מהשמאול‬ ‫לארבעתן ופני־נשר לארבעתן‬ And as for the likeness of their faces, each had the face of a man, and the face of a lion on the right, and the four had the face of ox on the left, and the four had the face of an eagle.

v. 11

‫]ופניהם[ וכנפיהם פרדות מלמעלה לאיש שתים חברות איש ושתים מכסות את‬ ‫גויתיהנה‬ [And their faces] and their wings were spread out above, each had two touching another and two covering their bodies. (MT)

42

2 Ezekiel’s Call Narrative (Ezek 1:1–3:15)

Text with English Translation καὶ αἱ πτέρυγες αὐτῶν ἐκτεταμέναι ἄνωθεν τοῖς τέσσαρσιν, ἑκατέρῳ δύο συνεζευγμέναι πρὸς ἀλλήλας, καὶ δύο ἐπεκάλυπτον ἐπάνω τοῦ σώματος αὐτῶν. The four had their wings spread out above, each had two touching another and two covering their bodies. (LXX) v. 12

[‫ואיש אל־עבר פניו ילכו אל אשר יהיה־שמה הרוח ללכת ילכו לא יסבו ]בלכתן‬ And each went straight ahead; wherever the spirit would go, they went, and did not turn [as they went].

v. 13

‫ודמות החיות מראיהם כגחלי־אש בערות כמראה הלפדים היא מתהלכת בין‬ ‫החיות ונגה לאש ומן־האש יוצא ברק‬ And the likeness6 of the living beings: their appearance was like burning coals of fire, like the appearance of the torches moving among the living beings. And the fire was bright, and lightning went forth out of the fire.

v. 14

v. 15

[‫]והחיות רצוא ושוב כמראה הבזק‬ [And the living beings ran and turned like the appearance of the lightning.]7

[‫וארא ]החיות[ והנה אופן אחד בארץ אצל החיות לארבעת ]פניו‬ And I saw [the living beings], and behold, one wheel was on the earth besides the living beings, with [his] four [faces].

v. 16

[‫מראה האופנים ]ומעשיהם[ כעין תרשיש ודמות אחד לארבעתן ]ומראיהם‬ ‫ומעשיהם כאשר יהיה האופן בתוך האופן‬ The appearance of the wheels [and their construction] was like sparkling beryl; and the four had one likeness, [and their appearance] and their construction were as if there was a wheel within a wheel.

v. 17

‫על־ארבעת רבעיהן ]בלכתם[ ילכו לא יסבו בלכתן‬ They went in any of their four directions [when they went], without turning as they went.

v. 18

‫וגביהן וגבה להם ויראה להם וגבתם מלאת עינים סביב לארבעתן‬ And their rims had height and awesome, and their rims were full of eyes round about to the four of them.

v. 19

‫ובלכת החיות ילכו האופנים אצלם ובהנשא החיות מעל הארץ ינשאו האופנים‬ And when the living beings went, the wheels went beside them, and when the living beings were lifted from the earth, the wheels were lifted.

v. 20

‫על אשר יהיה־שם הרוח ללכת ילכו ]שמה הרוח ללכת[ והאופנים ינשאו לעמתם‬ ‫כי רוח החיה באופנים‬ Where the spirit was to go, they went, [there the spirit was to go], and the wheels were lifted beside them; because the spirit of the living beings was in the wheels. (MT)

6 The LXX reads καὶ ἐν μέσῳ (“and in the midst of”). 7 In MT ‫ בזק‬is a hapax legomenon.

2.1 The Diachronic Analysis of Ezek 1:1–3:15

43

Text with English Translation οὗ ἂν ἦν ἡ νεφέλη, ἐκεῖ τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ πορεύεσθαι· ἐπορεύοντο τὰ ζῷα καὶ οἱ τροχοὶ καὶ ἐξῄροντο σὺν αὐτοῖς, διότι πνεῦμα ζωῆς ἦν ἐν τοῖς τροχοῖς. Wherever the cloud was, there was the spirit to go, so the living beings went; and the wheels were lifted up beside them, because the spirit of life was in the wheels. (LXX) v. 21

‫בלכתם ילכו ובעמדם יעמדו ובהנשאם מעל הארץ ינשאו ]האופנים[ לעמתם כי‬ ‫רוח החיה באופנים‬ When they went, they went; and when they stood, they stood; and when they were lifted from the earth, they [the wheels] were lifted beside them; because the spirit of the living beings8 was in the wheels.

v. 22

‫ודמות על־ראשי החיה רקיע כעין הקרח ]הנורא[ נטוי על־ראשיהם מלמעלה‬ And over the heads of the living beings, there was the likeness of an expanse, like the sparkling of the [awesome] crystal, spread out over their heads.9

v. 23

[‫ותחת הרקיע כנפיהם ישרות אשה אל־אחותה לאיש שתים מכסות ]להנה‬ ‫]ולאיש שתים מכסות להנה[ את גויתיהם‬ And under the expanse, their wings were straight, one toward the other; each one had two (wings) covering [for them], [and each one had two (wings) covering for them] their bodies. (MT) καὶ ὑποκάτω τοῦ στερεώματος αἱ πτέρυγες αὐτῶν ἐκτεταμέναι, πτερυσσόμεναι ἑτέρα τῇ ἑτέρᾳ, ἑκάστῳ δύο συνεζευγμέναι ἐπικαλύπτουσαι τὰ σώματα αὐτῶν. And under the expanse, their wings were spread out, flapping, one against the other; each one had two (wings) covering their bodies. (LXX)

v. 24

‫ואשמע את־קול כנפיהם כקול מים רבים ]כקול־שדי[ בלכתם ]קול המלה כקול‬ ‫מחנה[ בעמדם תרפינה כנפיהן‬ And when they went, I heard the sound of their wings like the sound of many waters, [like the sound of the Almighty], [a sound of tumult like the sound of an army camp]; when they stood still, they dropped their wings.

v. 25

[‫ויהי־קול מעל לרקיע אשר על־ראשם ]בעמדם תרפינה כנפיהן‬ And there was a sound from above the expanse that was over their heads; [when they stood still, they dropped their wings]. (MT) καὶ ἰδοὺ φωνὴ ὑπεράνωθεν τοῦ στερεώματος τοῦ ὄντος ὑπὲρ κεφαλῆς αὐτῶν. And behold, there was a sound from above the expanse that was over their heads. (LXX)

v. 26

‫]וממעל לרקיע אשר על־ראשם[ כמראה אבן־ספיר דמות כסא ועל דמות הכסא‬ ‫דמות כמראה אדם עליו מלמעלה‬ [And from above the expanse that was over their heads], there was something like the appearance of a sapphire stone, a likeness of a throne, and above the likeness of the throne was, on top of it, a likeness as the appearance of a man.

8 The LXX renders the expression ‫ רוח החיה‬as πνεῦμα ζωῆς (“the spirit of life”). 9 The LXX renders τῶν πτερύγων αὐτῶν, “the wings,” while the MT reads ‫ראשיהם‬, “their heads.”

44

2 Ezekiel’s Call Narrative (Ezek 1:1–3:15)

Text with English Translation v. 27

‫וארא כעין חשמל ]כמראה־אש בית־לה סביב[ ממראה מתניו ולמעלה וממראה‬ ‫מתניו ולמטה ראיתי כמראה־אש ונגה לו סביב‬ And upward from the appearance of his loins, I saw as it were sparkling amber, [like the appearance of fire all around within it]; and downward from the appearance of his loins, I saw as it were the appearance of fire and there was brightness around him.

v. 28

‫כמראה הקשת אשר יהיה בענן ביום הגשם כן מראה הנגה סביב הוא מראה‬ ‫דמות כבוד־יהוה ואראה ואפל על־פני ואשמע קול מדבר‬ Like the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud on the day of rain, thus was the appearance of the brightness all around. Such was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of YHWH. And I saw and I fell on my face, and I heard a voice speaking.

2.1.1 Textual Criticism Scholars concede that the MT and the LXX of Ezekiel appear to reflect two different redactional stages of the book.10 Among them, John Lust argues that many of the MT pluses are probably due to the hand of redactors.11 This implies that many textual variants in Ezekiel is a matter of literary criticism rather than textual criticism.12 The textual variants in Ezek 1 are numerous, while fewer textual difficulties are found in 2:1–3:15. A few noteworthy differences in Ezek 1, in particular the pluses that pertain to the domain of literary criticism, are considered in the following paragraphs. There is a difference between the MT and the LXX in verse 3 regarding the way that it refers to the prophet Ezekiel. The MT Ezek 1:3 speaks about the prophet Ezekiel persistently in the third person singular and reads ‫“( עליו‬upon him”) in v. 3b. In contrast, LXX Ezek 1:3a uses the third person singular masculine to speak about Ezekiel; whereas LXX Ezek 1:3b has the prophet as its subject and renders the first person singular ἐπ᾿ ἐμὲ (“upon me”) which serves to

10 Johan Lust, “The Use of Textual Witnesses for the Establishment of the Text: The Shorter and Longer Texts of Ezekiel an Example Ez. 7,” in Ezekiel and His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and their Interrelation, ed. J. Lust (BETL 74; Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 1986), 7–20; Emanuel Tov, “Recensional Differences between the MT and LXX of Ezekiel,” ETL 62 (1986): 89–101. 11 John Lust, Katrin Hauspie, and Antoon Ternier, “Notes to the Septuagint Ezekiel 1–2,” ETL 75 (1999): 5–31 (30). 12 Lust et al., “Ezekiel 1–2,” 30.

2.1 The Diachronic Analysis of Ezek 1:1–3:15

45

align the vision report in Ezek 1 with the first person “I” narrative style in the vision account of the Glory (vv. 4–28): at the beginning of other vision accounts in 8:1, 37:1, and 40:1, “the hand of Yahweh revelatory formula” uses the first person singular ‫“( עלי‬upon me”). The consistent use of the first person “I” narrative style in Ezek 1 and the parallel features among different vision accounts suggest that the use of first person singular ἐπ᾿ ἐμὲ in LXX v. 3b is probably original.13 Another textual issue in Ezek 1:3 is the plus ‫“( שם‬there”) in the MT Ezek 1:3b. Alongside Lust et al., I acknowledges that the adverb ‫ שם‬might have been inserted as a linking device: the addition of the adverb ‫ שם‬in the introductory part of the vision account of the Glory creates an inclusio with the final expression ‫“( יהוה שמה‬YHWH is there,” 48:35) of the second temple vision in Ezekiel.14 The MT Ezek 1:7 contains two pluses ‫“( רגל‬leg,” v. 7a) and ‫ככף רגל עגל‬ (“like the sole of a calf’s leg,” v. 7bα). After the addition of the word ‫רגל‬, the reference to the legs in MT v. 7a is not clear: the MT reads “their legs were a straight leg.” The sentence is grammatically difficult and unintelligible. It seems to suggest that each living being (‫ )חיה‬had one leg only, as such would not allow real movement.15 The redactors wished to highlight the immobility of the individual living beings when on their own, and to presuppose their movement driven by the divine spirit (vv. 12) and their synchronised movement with the wheels (vv. 15–21). According to Allen, the four-winged (v. 6) living beings can be paralleled in many ancient Near Eastern representations of sky-bearers.16 After the addition of the phrase ‫ ככף רגל עגל‬in v. 7bα, the living beings depicted in Ezekiel seem to be “bull-men,” which are a kind of sky-bearers depicted in the neo-Assyrian and neo-Babylonian art.17 Here it seems possible that under the probable Mesopotamian influence, the redactors intentionally inserted the phrase ‫ ככף רגל עגל‬in order to demonstrate that YHWH was sovereign over all nations and their gods (see discussion in § 2.2.1). The LXX has no equivalent for the MT ‫ככף רגל עגל‬. The LXX renders καὶ πτερωτοὶ οἱ πόδες αὐτῶν (“and their legs were winged”). The translator seems to have read ‫ כנף‬for the MT ‫כף‬ (“sole”) or ‫“( ככף‬like sole”).18 Moreover, perhaps by haplography, the LXX does

13 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 101; Brownlee, Ezekiel 1–19, 2 n. 3b; Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 4; Hiebel, Ezekiel’s Vision Accounts, 54–55. 14 Lust et al., “Ezekiel 1–2,” 11. 15 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 126; Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 30; Lust et al., “Ezekiel 1–2,” 13. 16 Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 30. 17 Cf. figure 2 in Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 28. 18 Lust et al., “Ezekiel 1–2,” 13.

46

2 Ezekiel’s Call Narrative (Ezek 1:1–3:15)

not attest the word ‫“( עגל‬calf”) because of its resemblance to the adjacent word ‫“( רגל‬leg”).19 Here the LXX represents the lectio brevior.20 The first part of 1:13 in the LXX differs from that in the MT. LXX Ezek 1:13 begins with the phrase καὶ ἐν μέσῳ τῶν ζῴων (“and in the midst of the living beings”), while the MT begins with the expression ‫“( ודמות החיות‬and the likeness of the living beings”) as if the description of the living beings continued. However, the word ‫ ודמות‬seems out of place here because the main content of v. 13 is devoted to a description of fiery coals. The “coals of fire” in 10:2 are located in the midst of the living beings. In this respect, the LXX reading seems to be more plausible because the LXX of 1:13 is similar to 10:2. The MT appears to be a corruption of the beginning of v. 13, due to a miscopying of ‫“( ומתוך‬in the midst of”) as ‫( ודמות‬and the likeness”).21 The entire v. 14 is not attested by the LXX. The addition of a whole verse may have originated after the aforementioned corruption of MT v. 13, which describes the living beings. MT Ezek 1:14 was added as a clarification,22 describing that the brilliance of the fiery apparition depicted in v. 13 was caused by the dashing movement of the living beings. In 1:16 the MT contains pluses ‫“( ומעשיהם‬and their construction,” v. 16aα), and ‫“( ומראיהם‬and their appearance,” v. 16bα). Both MT pluses are harmonising glosses: the phrase “their appearance and their construction” is repeated in a redundant way to describe first the appearance of the wheels (MT v. 16aα), and then their construction (MT v. 16bα). The LXX gives a more succinct and logical description of what Ezekiel saw: Ezekiel first saw the appearance of the wheels which was like sparkling beryl; he then described the construction of the wheels, namely as if there was a wheel within a wheel. In the second half of LXX 1:17 the subject of the clause οὐκ ἐπέστρεφον ἐν τῷ πορεύεσθαι αὐτὰ (“they did not turn when they went”), which is in the third person neuter plural form (αὐτὰ), constitutes the living beings. The subject of

19 Contra David J. Halperin, “Merkabah Midrash in the Septuagint,” JBL 101 (1982): 351–363, who suggests that the deletion of the word ‫ עגל‬is to remove any linkage between “calf,” which is the archetype of the idolatry, and the divine presence. 20 LXX 1:8 has no equivalent for the MT ‫“( וכנפיהם‬and their wings”). It is probable that LXX reads such expression ‫ וכנפיהם‬in v. 8 as a plus καὶ ... αἱ πτέρυγες αὐτῶν (“and their wings”) in preceding 1:7. Thus, LXX 1:7 has a plus καὶ ἐλαφραὶ αἱ πτέρυγες αὐτῶν (“and their wings were light”) at the end of the verse in the MT. According to Lust, the expression ἐλαφραὶ (“nimble”) corresponds to Hebrew ‫ קלות‬and may be inspired by ‫“( קלל‬polished”). Here the LXX’s Vorlage is different from the MT. 21 Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 46; Brownlee, Ezekiel 1–19, 8; Lust et al., “Ezekiel 1–2,” 16; Hiebel, Ezekiel’s Vision Accounts, 55. 22 Lust et al., “Ezekiel 1–2,” 17.

2.1 The Diachronic Analysis of Ezek 1:1–3:15

47

MT 1:17b (‫ )לא יסבו בלכתן‬is masculine, however, and constitutes the wheels. In addition to a plus ‫“( בלכתם‬when they went,” v. 17a), MT 1:17 uses a series of conjugated verbs and infinitives with the wheels as their subject. Given the consistent use of the wheels as the subject in the entire v. 17, the MT is preferable. LXX 1:20a renders οὗ ἂν ἦν ἡ νεφέλη, ἐκεῖ τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ πορεύεσθαι· ἐπορεύοντο τὰ ζῷα (“Wherever the cloud was, there was the spirit to go, so the living beings went”), whereas MT 1:20a reads ‫על אשר יהיה־שם הרוח ללכת‬ ‫“( ילכו שמה הרוח ללכת‬Where the spirit was to go, they went, there the spirit was to go”). The LXX contains two pluses, namely ἡ νεφέλη (“the cloud”) and τὰ ζῷα (“the living beings”). In MT Ezek 1, the cloud (‫ )הענן‬which Ezekiel saw in 1:4 is not mentioned again: Ezek 1 has so far elaborated on the appearance and the movement of the living beings, as well as the appearance of the wheels and their way of movement. In contrast, it has until now never returned to the topic of the cloud. There is an incoherence in presenting the image of the cloud as a reference to the movement of the spirit and the wheels in v. 20. The LXX renders the second plus τὰ ζῷα (‫“ החיות‬the living beings”), together with “the wheel” (as in the MT) as the subject of the verb ἐπορεύοντο (‫“ ילכו‬they went”). Given that the synchronised movement between the living beings and the wheels is already depicted in v. 19, the LXX plus τὰ ζῷα is a gloss which assimilates to two previous passages, namely the account of 1:4 in which the wind/ spirit (‫ )הרוח‬comes with the cloud, and the account of 1:12 in which the living beings move wherever the wind/spirit (‫ )הרוח‬goes.23 MT Ezek 1:21 attests to the word ‫“( האופנים‬the wheels,”) which is absent in the LXX. The MT plus ‫ האופנים‬is a clarifying gloss which makes explicit the subject of the verb ‫“( ינשאו‬were lifted”). However, the LXX reading is intelligible and preferable: on the one hand, the LXX uses a series of infinitival clause, namely ἐν τῷ πορεύεσθαι αὐτὰ (“when those went”), ἐν τῷ ἑστάναι αὐτὰ (“when those stood”), and ἐν τῷ ἐξαίρειν αὐτὰ (“when those were lifted”), with “the living beings” as the subject (αὐτὰ). On the other hand, the LXX uses the conjugated verbs in the third person masculine plural form, which refers to “the wheels,” to make the subject explicit.24

2.1.2 Redaction Criticism The structure of Ezek 1:1–3:15 is determined by the combination of two main themes of very different origin, namely Ezekiel’s call narrative (2:3–3:11*), and 23 Timothy P. Mackie, Expanding Ezekiel: The Hermeneutics of Scribal Addition in the Ancient Text Witnesses of the Book of Ezekiel (FRLANT 257; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015), 150. 24 Lust et al., “Ezekiel 1–2,” 30.

48

2 Ezekiel’s Call Narrative (Ezek 1:1–3:15)

a vision account of the Glory (1:4–28). On the one hand, Ezekiel’s call narrative establishes an introduction to the book of Ezekiel, whereupon Ezekiel acts as a spokesman for YHWH in the following parts of the book. On the other hand, the vision account of the Glory is “a demonstration of sheer divine majesty, transcendence, and holiness” and a display of YHWH’s omnipresence.25 The purpose of the connection of both accounts is to emphasise the authority of Ezekiel’s messages found in the subsequent judgement oracles of the book.26 2.1.2.1 Ezek 1:4–28 as Expansion The literary unit Ezek 1:1–3:15 as a whole is unlikely to have been written by one single author because of the abrupt shift in style between Ezek 1:4–28 and 2:3– 3:11.27 Ezek 1:4–28 consists of descriptive verbless clauses, without any direct speech. In contrast, Ezek 2:3–3:11 consists mainly of direct speech with an intervening part about Ezekiel’s eating of the scroll. Ezek 1:4–28 is a “torso,” and as such is incomplete without the call narrative:28 the references to Ezekiel’s experience of the vision of the Glory alone has no literary effect. On the contrary, with reference to Ezekiel’s experience of YHWH’s vision, the call narrative emphasises the legitimacy of Ezekiel as YHWH’s spokesman; theophany vision in 1:4–28 now serves as a legitimating device. Yet an inextricable link of Ezek 1:4–28 and 2:3–3:11 does not exclude that Ezek 1:4–28 is a redactional layer serving as a new literary introduction to the ensuing call narrative.29 The subject matter of Ezek 1:4–28 is the experience of YHWH’s presence; illustrations of this idea occur in the descriptions of the storm theophany, the living beings, and the wheels. As such is a mere sight without any explanation; the theophany vision in Ezek 1:4–28 is incomplete in structure and meaningless in content without the call narrative in 2:3–3:11. In contrast, Ezek 2:3–3:11 can exist independently and is an intelligible account resembling Jeremiah’s call narrative in Jer 1:4–19.30 For these reasons, Ezek 1:4–28 is probably an expansion of an already existing call narrative.

25 Hiebel, Ezekiel’s Vision Accounts, 90. 26 Pohlmann, Hesekiel 1–19, 51; Hiebel, Ezekiel’s Vision Accounts, 89. 27 Pohlmann, Hesekiel 1–19, 50; Hiebel, Ezekiel’s Vision Accounts, 64–65. 28 Hiebel, Ezekiel’s Vision Accounts, 65. 29 Hiebel, Ezekiel’s Vision Accounts, 65. 30 Hiebel has shown in Ezekiel’s Vision Accounts, 71–72, that the call narrative in Ezek 2:3– 3:11 contains “a chiastic structure of divine word [2:3–8] – vision [2:9–3:3] – divine word [3:4– 11].” Similarly, in Jer 1:4–19 there are a chiastic structure of divine word [1:5–10] – vision [1:11– 14] – divine word [1:15–19]. For further discussion about the connections between Ezekiel’s and Jeremiah’s call narrative, see Brownlee, Ezekiel, 1–19, 22–24; Achim Behrens, Prophetische

2.1 The Diachronic Analysis of Ezek 1:1–3:15

49

Within Ezek 1:4–28, there are other traces of redactional activities. The first indication of redaction is the incoherent use of gender in 1:5–26, whereas elsewhere in Ezekiel the use of masculine and feminine forms is more consistent. In the case of the ‫“( חיות‬living beings”), the use of masculine suffixes and verbal forms is irregular (vv. 7–11, 19–21) because the expression ‫ חיות‬is grammatically feminine.31 A related issue is the use of feminine suffixes for the masculine ‫“( אופנים‬wheels”) in vv. 16–18. Here Zimmerli has shown that the description of the wheels (1:15–21) was written in accordance with the corresponding description of the living beings (1:5–12) and thereby mistakenly uses the feminine suffixes, which relate to the living beings, for the masculine wheels.32 Zimmerli has provided further evidence of redactional activities in the account of the wheels: a sudden switch from an aerial perspective to the ground can be noticed in v. 15. The wheels are to be seen “on the earth” in v. 15, while what has been depicted before leads the reader to expect a descent of wheels from the sky.33 This inconsistency in depicting the wheels indicates a fusion of two different images, namely the image of a deity carried by the winged living beings and the image of the wheeled throne-chariot.34 With respect to the description of theophanic appearance, the wheeled throne-chariot in vv. 15–21 reveals a totally different concept from that of the throne-bearing living beings. In 1:4 the throne’s Glory that reaches Ezekiel is the effect and consequence of the stormy wind, and by no means implies the mobility of the wheeled throne-chariot. The whole section concerning the wheels (1:15–21) is probably later than the redactional material concerning the living beings and the vision of the Glory. The purpose of adding the account of the wheels is probably to highlight the mobility of YHWH (see below).

Visionsschilderungen im Alten Testament: Sprachliche Eigenarten, Funktion und Geschichte einer Gattung (AOAT 292; Münster: Ugarit, 2002), 201–2. Many scholars argue that Ezek 2:3–3:11 is the original call narrative, which has its internal unity and compactness. Cf. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 106–8; Wevers, Ezekiel, 50–51; Eichrodt, Ezekiel, 67–68; Hiebel, Ezekiel’s Vision Accounts, 66–67, 71–77. Contra Pohlmann, Hesekiel 1–19, 50–56, who argues that Ezek 2:3–7 and 3:4–9 are written in parallel and contain statements in contrary to the golah-oriented concern. Thus, Ezek 2:3–7 and 3:4–9 are considered as later insertions into the golah-oriented call narrative. Pohlmaan’s argument does not take into account of the structural and thematic resemblance between Jer 1:4–19 and Ezek 2:3–3:11. 31 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 102–5, who applies the correct or irregular use of gender of suffixes as one of the criteria for the redaction critical analysis in Ezek 1. 32 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 104. 33 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 105; Hiebel, Ezekiel’s Vision Accounts, 69. 34 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 105; Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 56–57.

50

2 Ezekiel’s Call Narrative (Ezek 1:1–3:15)

2.1.2.2 Redaction in 1:1–3 At the beginning of a prophetic book or an apocalyptic piece of literature, a book heading which places the prophet in his historical content is indispensable.35 In Ezek 1:1 the reader learns about neither the status and the family of origin nor the name of the first-person narrator of the book. In contrast, Ezek 1:2– 3a fulfils in this respect the requirements for a book heading; it contains the prophetic word formula, the prophet’s name, and his family of origin. The book heading in v. 3a is written in the third person singular, yet v. 3a interrupts the first person “I” narrative style in v. 1 and the rest of Ezek 1. It is therefore very likely that it was inserted as an introduction to Ezekiel as a whole. Moreover, Ezek 1:2–3a most likely represents a redactional insertion to clarify an obscure date in 1:1 (see below). The chronological formula in 1:1 follows that of the rest of the book in providing first the year and then the month,36 and the day. In contrast, the date in v. 2 begins with the day (‫“ בחמשה לחדש‬on the fifth day of the month”) to be followed by the year (‫היא השנה החמישית לגלות המלך יויכין‬ “it was the fifth year of the captivity of the king Jehoiachin”). V. 2a reiterates the catch phrase ‫ בחמשה לחדש‬of v. 1aα, and thereby correlates the date in 1:1. This catch phrase is followed by the word ‫“( היא‬it was,” v. 2b) which forms a parenthetical comment with another phrase “the fifth year of the captivity of the king Jehoiachin.” The redactors tried to equate the date in v. 1 with that of v. 2. Ezek 1:2–3a is thus probably an explanatory/clarifying gloss to 1:1.37 Ezek 1:1, 3b contains the expressions ‫“( נפתחו השמים‬the heavens were opened,” v. 1b) and ‫“( ותהי עליו שם יד־יהוה‬the hand of YHWH was upon him,”38 v. 3b). The expression ‫ נפתחו השמים‬continues the flow of thought about the appearance of the likeness of YHWH’s Glory from the heavens in 1:4–28. Moreover, the expression ‫( ותהי עליו שם יד־יהוה‬v. 3b) is “the hand of Yahweh revelatory formula,” which also occurs at the beginning of other vision accounts in 8:1, 37:1, and 40:1. The expression ‫( ותהי עליו שם יד־יהוה‬v. 3b) is clearly one of the components of the vision account of the Glory, as the parallels show in different vision accounts. Thus, Ezek 1:1, 3b probably belongs to the same redaction as the vision account of the Glory and may serve as the introduction of 1:4–28. After inserting the account of the vision of the Glory (1:1, 3b, 4–28) before and the concluding verses (3:12–15*) after the original call narrative, the redac-

35 Pohlmann, Hesekiel 1–19, 48; Tuell, Ezekiel, 8. 36 In 26:1 and 32:17, the chronological formulas consist of year and day only. 37 It is widely agreed that 1:2–3a is a redactional gloss. Cf. G. A. Cooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1936), 3, 5; Eichrodt, Ezekiel, 51; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 100–1; Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 19; Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 82, 85; Margaret S. Odell, Ezekiel (SHBC; Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2005), 15; Hiebel, Ezekiel’s Vision Accounts, 58–59. 38 The LXX reading ἐπ᾿ ἐμὲ (“upon me”) is more plausible.

2.2 Exegesis of Ezekiel 1:1–28

51

tors created an inclusio around the new composition between 1:1, 3b and 3:12– 15*.39 In other words, the original call narrative was extended to form two interconnected vision accounts (1:4–2:8; 2:9–3:11) enclosed by a frame. The beginning verses of the expanded call narrative (1:1–3) and the concluding verses (3:12–15*) are linked by the recurrent reference to a time (1:1a, 2; 3:15b) and by the recurring expressions ‫( בתוך־הגולה‬1:1b; 3:15),40 ‫( נהר־כבר‬1:1aβ, 3a; 3:15a), and ‫( יד־יהוה עלי‬1:3b; 3:14bβ).41 In view of this, I follow Hiebel’s conclusion that the lexical connections between the introduction and conclusion of Ezek 1:1– 3:15 are meant to increase coherence of the expanded call narrative. In my view, Hiebel is on the right track, yet we need to pay more attention to the way that the text imparts the information, particularly through the concept of hope and restoration, and the motif of the instatement of Ezekiel as priest, in 1:1–3 and 1:4–28.42

2.2 Exegesis of Ezekiel 1:1–28 2.2.1 The Redactional Vision Account of the Glory (1:4–28*) and the Motif of Hope and Restoration Ezekiel begins with the vision of YHWH’s Glory, that is perhaps the best-known texts in the book. The sudden appearance of YHWH’s Glory sets the stage for what is to follow –Ezekiel’s call to be a prophet. The vision of the Glory, forming a redactional addition to the original core of Ezek 1:1–3:15, demonstrates YHWH’s supremacy; what the vision account of the Glory indicates indirectly is that Ezekiel, who had seen YHWH’s Glory in all its splendour, was an authentic spokesman of YHWH’s words. In other words, the vision account of Ezek 1:4–28 asserts

39 Hiebel, Ezekiel’s Vision Accounts, 77. As mentioned in footnote 27, Hiebel suggests that there is a chiastic framework of “divine word – vision – divine word” in the original call narrative. The structure of Ezekiel’s call narrative was extended by attaching another vision account (1:1, 3b–28*) before it. Thus, each extant vision accounts in Ezek 1:1–3:15 has a visionary part and a speech part (vision – divine word – vision – divine word). 40 The word ‫ הגולה‬is in 3:15aα, while ‫ בתוכם‬in 3:15b. 41 Hiebel, Ezekiel’s Vision Accounts, 79. 42 Terry J. Betts, Ezekiel the Priest: A Custodian of Tôrâ (Studies in Biblical Literature 74; New York: Peter Lang, 2005), 66–8, has shown that the vision of the Glory “displays the Ark of the Covenant in the Holy of Holies,” and the text reveals YHWH’s recognition of Ezekiel’s priestly status. According to Hiebel, the vision of the Glory is a secondary expansion to the original call narrative. Taken together, these results bring to mind the possibility of the relation between the redactional material of Ezek 1:1–3:15 and the motif of the instatement of Ezekiel as priest.

52

2 Ezekiel’s Call Narrative (Ezek 1:1–3:15)

indirectly that Ezekiel’s proclamation of the inevitable judgement against Jerusalem is truly reliable. In this respect, the tone of Ezekiel’s inaugural vision account and his message might basically focus on judgement and indictment. However, within the redactional theophany account of Ezek 1:4–28*, the sudden appearance of YHWH’s Glory in the land of the Chaldeans was a foreboding of hope, which cannot be overlooked. The theophany account of 1:4– 28* includes the description of the living beings (vv. 5–14) and that of the wheels (vv. 15–21), as well as the description of the platform and the throne (vv. 22–27). In the vision account of the Glory, the first to be noticed as the storm theophany comes is the group of four living beings. The living beings are said to be of human form, and each has four faces and four wings. Their legs are bovine and sparkled like polished bronze. They appear to be holding up a throne over their heads. It is widely agreed that the depictions of the living beings under the throne in Ezekiel are similar to images depicted in ancient Near Eastern art and architecture.43 Among scholars, Keel has done much to broaden our knowledge of the correlation between Ezekiel’s vision and ancient Near Eastern art.44 On the one hand, Ezekiel’s living creatures, as mentioned above, seem to have been conceptualized as a kind of Babylonian sky-bearers with respect to their calf’s hooves.45 On the other hand, Brian Peterson, building upon earlier work done by Isaac Matthews, suggests that the four living beings were common symbols of Babylonian guardian deities depicted on statues of palaces and temples:46 “The bull colossus, with ox-face, was the symbol of Marduk; that with lion-face was Nergal, the god of the underworld and of plague; that of the eagle was Ninib, god of the chase of war; while the human face represented Nabu, the announcer or revealer.”47 Above all, there are no exact one-to-one parallels between the description of Ezekiel’s living beings and Babylonian iconography. But what message did the redactors try to portray by using these Babylonian symbols? The redactors’ use of these Babylonian symbols may have sought to show YHWH’s supremacy over all deities.48 In the vision account of the Glory, the 43 Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 97–98; Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 27–31; Joyce, Ezekiel, 71; Tuell, Ezekiel, 10; Brian N. Peterson, Ezekiel in Context: Ezekiel’s Message Understood in Its Historical Setting of Covenant Curses and Ancient Near Eastern Mythological Motifs (PTMS 182; Eugene: Pickwick, 2012), 116–24; Sweeney, Reading Ezekiel, 27. 44 Othmar Keel, Jahwe-Visionen und Siegelkunst:Eine neue Deutung der Majestätsschilderungen in Jes 6, Ez 1 und 10 und Sach 4 (SBS 84/85; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1977), 125–273. 45 Keel, Jahwe-Visionen, 215; Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 30. 46 Peterson, Ezekiel in Context, 119. 47 Isaac G. Matthews, Ezekiel (Chicago: The American Baptist Publication Society, 1939), 5. 48 Here it is better not to attribute a polytheistic perspective to the redactors who regarded the description of the living being as a symbolic expression of Babylonian thought.

2.2 Exegesis of Ezekiel 1:1–28

53

living beings serve submissively as YHWH’s throne-carriers. The redactors might have merged elements from different iconographies of the Babylonian deities into the portrait of the living beings in order to belittle the Babylonian deities as throne-carriers of YHWH.49 The redactors adapted the iconography to a literary setting in order to send a clear message about the sovereignty of their God to the exilic community. In the ancient Near Eastern culture, the defeat of an army or a king of a land often implied that the deity of that land was not with his/her people.50 After the Israelites were defeated and expelled from the land, the exilic community might have raised a profound question: Was YHWH so powerless that he had been defeated by the Babylonian gods?51 The redactional material concerning the description of the subservient living beings to YHWH offers hope for the exilic community: in the midst of the turmoil of the exile, YHWH was still sovereign over all nations and their deities. The message concerning the wheels (1:15–21) is a redactional enrichment of the vision of the Glory. The turmoil of the exile posed another question: Where was YHWH?52 The redactors might have answered the question and offered hope by inserting the wheel redaction into the description of the living beings. A new aspect was inserted into the vision, that is the mobility of the complex of living beings and wheels, namely the mobility of YHWH’s throne-chariot. The insertion of the description of the throne-chariot’s unlimited mobility conveys message that YHWH’s presence is mobile.53 This insertion keeps offering hope for the exilic community: even though the exilic community was in a foreign land and suffered from the Temple’s loss, YHWH’s presence had no boundaries; YHWH was still a sanctuary in exile.54

2.2.2 Redaction in 1:1–3: Ezekiel’s Priestly Role As mentioned above, the vision of the Glory (1:1–28*) was written as an extension to the original call narrative. One of the clearest examples of the addition of glosses can be seen in the first three verses of Ezekiel.55 Ezek 1:2–3a represents a redac-

49 50 51 52 53 54 55

Peterson, Ezekiel in Context, 120; cf. Matthews, Ezekiel, 5–6. Peterson, Ezekiel in Context, 100–101. Joyce, Ezekiel, 17. Kutsko, Between Heaven and Earth, 28. Peterson, Ezekiel in Context, 112–13. Kutsko, Between Heaven and Earth, 91–92, 100; Peterson, Ezekiel in Context, 113. See § 2.1.2.2.

54

2 Ezekiel’s Call Narrative (Ezek 1:1–3:15)

tional insertion to clarify an obscure date in 1:1 with respect to the chronological formula within Ezekiel by providing a year reckoned from King Jehoiachin’s exile. Yet a question remains: what is the meaning of the “thirtieth year”?56 The meaning of the “thirtieth year” has been much debated. The first possibility is that the “thirtieth year” refers to the year of Josiah’s reform,57 however nowhere do the author or redactors of Ezekiel mention that reform. Thus, it would be odd that an external event was used for dating in Ezekiel. The second possibility is that the reference to the “thirtieth year” denotes the thirtieth year of the Babylonian exile.58 However, this interpretation creates a mismatch of dates between v. 1 and v. 2. It would be odd that the final redactors allowed such an obvious mistake at the beginning of the book after the insertion of the gloss. Based on the second explanation, Bernhard Lang suggests the third possibility,59 which Hiebel follows.60 Lang suggests that the “thirtieth year” is the date of the vision account of the Glory in Ezek 1:1–2:2*; 3:12–14*. In other words, Lang postulates that the vision account of the Glory was written in, or later than 569 B.C.E. (i.e. only five years later than the date given in Ezek 40:1). In his view, the redactors brought together this vision account of the Glory and the original call narrative, and preserved the date in the present text. However, this interpretation ignores the chronological order of the vision accounts in Ezekiel. Moreover, if Ezek 1:1–2:2*; 3:12–14* was Ezekiel’s vision written later than Ezek 10, why did the redactors keep using the expression ‫( חיה‬Ezek 1:5, 13–15, 19–22), which had been introduced and equated with the cherubim in 10:15, 20? Block has shown that Lang’s interpretation “fails to take into account the relationship of the present text with ch. 10.”61 Since the above-mentioned explanations concerning the meaning of “the thirtieth year” are unsatisfactory, the most likely interpretation would be a reference to Ezekiel’s age at the time of his first vision – an interpretation that dates back to Origen.62 In fact, 1:2 is a gloss to 1:1, so the redactors of 1:2 obviously

56 For a brief summary of the proposals and a bibliography, see Joyce, Ezekiel, 65–6. 57 Johannes Herrmann, Ezechiel, übersetzt und erklärt (KAT 11; Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1924), 10; Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 39–40. 58 Carl G. Howie, The Date and Composition of Ezekiel (JBLMS 4; Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature, 1950), 40–1, 91–2; Joyce, Ezekiel, 66. 59 Bernhard Lang, “Die erste und die letzte Vision des Propheten: Eine Überlegung zu Ezechiel 1–3,” Bib 64 (1983): 225–30. 60 Hiebel, Ezekiel’s Vision Accounts, 232–4. 61 Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 82. 62 Origen, Homiliae in Ezechielem 1.4, cited by Cooke, Ezekiel, 7. Scholars who adopt this proposal include: Joseph Blenkinsopp, Ezekiel (IBCTP; Louisville: John Knox Press, 1990), 16; James E. Miller, “The Thirtieth Year of Ezekiel 1:1,” RB 99 (1992): 499–503; Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 82; Odell, Ezekiel, 16; Tuell, Ezekiel, 9.

2.2 Exegesis of Ezekiel 1:1–28

55

intended to invite the readers to equal the two dates, with v. 2 assuming the same month as v. 1. This interpretation has the advantage of matching “the thirtieth year” with the fifth year of King Jehoiachin’s exile. In addition, a reference to the age at which Levites begin to serve in the tabernacle (Num 4:3, 23, 30) adds weight to this interpretation. James Miller and other scholars have shown that “priests also begin their ministry at age thirty, in harmony with the Levitical ordinance.”63 For these reasons, I also take “the thirtieth year” as Ezekiel’s age of full initiation to priesthood. The two dates (“the thirtieth year,” 1:1, and “the fifth year of King Jehoiachin’s exile,” 1:2), therefore refer to the same period; Ezekiel were thirty years old (v. 1) in the fifth year of the exile (v. 2). Scholars usually agree that the redactors of Ezek 1:2–3a not only attempted to match the two dates in Ezek 1:1, 2, but also tried to provide an editorial heading for Ezekiel. The glosses in Ezek 1:2–3a provide a third-person introduction to Ezekiel that matches the editorial headings found in other prophetic books, namely Hag 1:1 and Zech 1:1.64 In fact, the gloss in v. 3a also provides a reference to the prophet by name, his father’s name, and his status. Here the redactors offered the information that Ezekiel is the priest and the son of Buzi.65 In this vein, Ezek 1:2–3a represents an editorial comment to clarify not only the obscure “thirtieth year” in 1:1, but also the priestly descent of Ezekiel. Scholars usually recognise that only the gloss in 1:2 is for clarifying the enigmatic date in 1:1. However, they fail to recognise that 1:3a should also be considered as an explanatory gloss to 1:1. If vv. 2–3a are redactional glosses, it is odd that the redactors allowed only one of the glosses to clarify the obscure “thirtieth year” in 1:1, and allowed another gloss to function differently as the editorial title of the book. In addition, if v. 3a functioned independently as the editorial heading of Ezekiel, why was the gloss not inserted at the beginning of the book, just like the editorial headings of Haggai and of Zechariah? The use of the gloss v. 3a is multidimensional. It not only provides the heading of Ezekiel but also further clarifies the meaning of “the thirtieth year” by providing the information that Ezekiel was of a priestly family. Thus, it is inserted immediately after the gloss v. 2. Henceforth, it is immediately evident that the “thirtieth year” in 1:1 is best understood as Ezekiel’s age of full initiation to priesthood. Or to put it in another way, the redactional material of Ezek 1:1–3 testifies to Ezekiel’s priestly role.

63 Miller, “The Thirtieth Year,” 500–1; Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 82; Odell, “You Are What You Eat,” 238; Betts, Ezekiel the Priest, 50–1; Tuell, Ezekiel, 9; Sweeney, Reading Ezekiel, 26. 64 Hiebel, Ezekiel’s Vision Accounts, 59. 65 Terry J. Betts, Ezekiel the Priest, 48–9, has shown that “Ezekiel was an acknowledged priest at the time the editor made his remarks,” which is “a retrospective remark” to assert that Ezekiel had become a priest.

56

2 Ezekiel’s Call Narrative (Ezek 1:1–3:15)

2.2.3 Summary To sum up, the evidence suggests that the redactional material of Ezek 1:1–3:15 contains some smaller glosses, which indicate the motifs of restoration and of the instatement of Ezekiel as priest. Moreover, the redactional vision account of the Glory (1:4–28) lends itself to ideas about hope and restoration. The insertion of the glosses in 1:2–3a clarifies the obscure date, “thirtieth year,” in Ezek 1:1; the gloss v. 3a hereby provides the additional information about Ezekiel’s priestly role. After the addition of explanatory glosses 1:2–3a, the ambiguous “thirtieth year” in Ezek 1:1 is best understood as a reference to Ezekiel’s age of full initiation to priesthood. The edactional material of Ezek 1:2–3a recounts the instatement of Ezekiel’s priesthood, which is an act of restoration as Ezekiel has already lost his active role of priest when he became an exile and no longer served in the temple. The redactional account of the Glory vision conveys the messages of the sovereignty of YHWH and the presence of YHWH in exile. This redactional material enhances the impression of the motif of hope and restoration in the context of Ezek 1:1–3:15. In the midst of the destruction of the homeland and the loss of the Temple, the description of the living beings becomes a message of victory over any powers, while the description of the throne-chariot asserts YHWH’s continued presence and his presence as a sanctuary in exile.

2.3 The Original Call Narrative (2:3–3:11*) Having explored the redactional material of the expanded call narrative, I turn now to examine the original call narrative. The original call narrative recounts Ezekiel’s inauguration into the prophetic office.66 It introduces the ministry of Ezekiel before the fall of Jerusalem: his proclamation of judgement.67 The original call narrative reveals a chiastic structure: two divine commissioning speeches (Ezek 2:3–7; 3:4–11) form an inclusio in the section; a brief vision account of the scroll-eating (Ezek 2:8–3:3) lies at the centre.68 The account of Ezekiel’s eat-

66 Hals, Ezekiel, 19; Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 112. 67 Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 40–1; Hiebel, Ezekiel’s Vision Accounts, 89. 68 Hals, Ezekiel, 19; Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 113; Hiebel, Ezekiel’s Vision Accounts, 71–2. Schwartz has shown a more complex concentric structure of Ezek 2:1–3:15, while the account of eating the scroll (2:8–3:3) still lies at the centre. See Baruch J. Schwartz, “The Concentric Structure of Ezekiel 2:1–3:15,” in Proceedings of the tenth World Congress of Jewish Studies Division A: The Bible and Its World, ed. David Assaf (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1990): 107–114 (109).

2.3 The Original Call Narrative (2:3–3:11*)

57

ing the scroll is widely understood as a prophetic image, as it shares similar inaugural imagery with Jeremiah 1:9 and 15:16.69 Moreover, the eating of the scroll indicates that YHWH has supplied Ezekiel with his words of judgement that can no longer be changed.70 Even though such interpretations, linking the account of the scroll-eating with Ezekiel’s legitimisation as YHWH’s authentic messenger and with the verbatim message what YHWH says to Ezekiel, are popular among many scholars,71 they have been challenged by Margaret S. Odell.72 She proposes that the account of Ezek 1:1–5:17 is parallel to the priestly ordination ceremony in Lev 8–9.73 In her view, the scroll does not contain the words of judgement that Ezekiel is to utter but the judgement itself. Thus, the eating of the scroll indicates that Ezekiel eats the judgement just like the priest, who bears the guilt of the people, eats the sin offering.74 In this respect, the act of eating scroll symbolises a part of Ezekiel’s priestly ordination in which Ezekiel retains the priestly role of identifying with the exiles. However, Ezekiel eats a scroll but not a sacrifice; according to Odell, Ezekiel can no longer remove iniquity of his people and be as a priest.75 Thus, the account of Ezek 1:1–5:17 is devoted to the transition of Ezekiel’s identity from priest to prophet. In short, Odell’s interpretation precludes an understanding of the scroll as Ezekiel’s verbatim message. Odell argues that the account of the scroll-eating should not be understood as Ezekiel’s acceptance of the divine message but as a test of Ezekiel’s obedience to serve YHWH. According to Odell, the parallelism in Ezek 2:8 shows that the expression ‫“( שמע‬hear”) is synonymous with the expression ‫אל־תהי־מרי‬ (“do not be rebellious”). Thus, “the parallelism emphasises Ezekiel’s obedience,

69 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 106; Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 40; Sweeney, “Ezekiel: Zadokite Priest,” 132. Note particularly the connections between Ezek 2:9–3:9 and Jer 1 in Behrens, Prophetische Visionsschilderungen, 202–3. Cf. footnote 30. 70 Brownlee, Ezekiel 1–19, 30; Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 124, 126–7, 130; James Robson, Word and Spirit in Ezekiel (LHBOTS 447; New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 59; Joyce, Ezekiel, 79; Kathleen M. Rochester, Prophetic Ministry in Jeremiah and Ezekiel (CBET 65; Leuven: Peeters, 2012), 43. 71 Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer, ‘Ezekiel – A Compromised Prophet in Reduced Circumstances,’ in Constructs of Prophecy in the Former and Latter Prophets and in Other Texts, eds. Lester L. Grabbe and Martti Nissinen (SBLANEM 4; Atlanta: SBL, 2011), 175–95 (188–9). See also footnotes 62 and 63 above. 72 Odell, “You are What You Eat,” 229–48. 73 Odell, “You are What You Eat,” 236. Odell summarises a number of analogies between Ezek 1–5 and the narratives concerning the rite of priestly ordination in Lev 8–9. According to Odell, “Ezekiel relinquishes certain elements of his identity as a priest to take on the role of prophet,” and so his identity is transformed after a period of liminality. 74 Odell, “You are What You Eat,” 243–4. 75 Odell, Ezekiel, 45.

58

2 Ezekiel’s Call Narrative (Ezek 1:1–3:15)

not the synonymity of eating and hearing,” and “Ezekiel’s eating the scroll is the consequence of this obedience.”76 Moreover, Odell argues that the noun ‫ דבר‬is absent from 2:8–3:3, and thus the scroll does not describe the divine message that Ezekiel will proclaim.77 By contrast, the account that Ezekiel receives the divine message is described in the subsequent section because the noun ‫ דבר‬is prominent in 3:4–11.78 In her view, the content of the scroll is “implied by the Qal passive form of the verb ‫כתב‬: the scroll contains something that is decreed, fixed by having been written,” and is “unchangeable;” the scroll contains an inevitable judgement.79 For these reasons, Odell proposes that eating the scroll represents Ezekiel’s obedience to identify with his people and to take into his belly the fate of his people, because “what Ezekiel eats are not words that he must speak but the judgement itself and its consequences.”80 I follow James Robson, who challenges Odell’s interpretation concerning the scroll is problematic.81 First, alongside Gregory Y. Glazov, I agree that on the one hand the account of the scroll-eating represents Ezekiel’s acceptance of the divine message and the confirmation of Ezekiel’s prophetic status; on the other hand, the interpretation of the scroll emphasises the “obedience” aspect of the act of eating scroll.82 Although Odell is correct in pointing out the “obedience” aspect of the act of eating the scroll, it is not possible to preclude that the scroll describes the divine message.83 In fact, the account of the scroll-eating explains how Ezekiel’s prophetic ministry begins with his acceptance of the divine message and his readiness to obey to serve YHWH. Secondly, although it is true that the noun ‫ דבר‬is absent from 2:8–3:3, it is possible that “what is figuratively expressed in the scroll-event is then literally expressed in 3:4–11.”84 As mentioned earlier in this section, the original call

76 Odell, “You are What You Eat,” 242. 77 Odell, “You are What You Eat,” 242. 78 Odell, “You are What You Eat,” 242–3. 79 Odell, “You are What You Eat,” 243–4. 80 Odell, “You are What You Eat,” 244. 81 Note the detailed arguments against Odell’s interpretation in Robson, Word and Spirit, 61–2. 82 Gregory Y. Glazov, The Bridling of the Tongue and the Opening of the Mouth in Biblical Prophecy (JSOTSup 311; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 228–34; Rochester, Prophetic Ministry, 41–3. 83 Robson, Word and Spirit, 61. 84 Robson, Word and Spirit, 62. Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 128, has also shown that Ezek 3:4–11 has “numerous echoes from 2:3–7.” In his view, it is necessary to have such repetitions to reflect “Ezekiel’s continued hesitation to accept Yahweh’s prophetic charge.” Hiebel, Ezekiel’s Vision Account, 75–6, has shown that “the great number of stylistic features in both 2:3–8 and 3:4– 11 give the impression of carefully constructed literature.” For these reasons, the imagery of the scroll-eating is probably literally expressed in 2:3–8 and 3:4–11.

2.3 The Original Call Narrative (2:3–3:11*)

59

narrative appears as a unity in style and content; it reveals a chiastic structure with two divine messages (2:3–7; 3:4–11) enclosing the account of the scrolleating as the centre. The two divine messages comprise of accusations (2:3–5; 3:10–11) and encouragement of YHWH (2:6–7; 3:4–9).85 Since the dominant theme, Ezekiel’s legitimisation as YHWH’s prophet, lies at the centre (2:8–3:3) linking with the two adjacent divine messages, it makes most sense that the account of the scroll-eating also contains the accusations that Ezekiel is to utter (2:10) and the words of encouragement (3:3).86 As noted by Baruch J. Schwartz, within the framework of the divine message, the account of the scroll-eating “both orders the prophet what to say and at the same time relieves him of the responsibility of figuring out how to say it, since he has been infused with God’s own words.”87 Thirdly, Odell’s interpretation is inconclusive in its suggestion that the content of the scroll is only implied by the Qal passive form of the verb ‫ ;כתב‬the scroll contains the inevitable judgement. Although Odell is correct to point out that “the writing on the scroll depicts something that is fixed and unchangeable” on account of the meaning of the verb ‫כתב‬,88 she overlooks the fact that the scroll is also covered with writing front and back (2:10a), emphasising that there are many words on the scroll and so every available inch of space has been covered. There is no room for adding more words to the content of the scroll. Here the most natural interpretation is that the reference is to the scroll of a complete message; Ezekiel may not modify the message of the scroll with his own comments.89 In this respect, it is difficult to see how the scroll is “the judgement itself and its consequences,”90 as Odell explains. Finally, Odell’s interpretation seems to involve a conflict. She describes that in Ezek 1–5 “Ezekiel appears to undergo a counterinitiation, a series of acts whereby he relinquishes his priestly status.”91 In other words, the events described in Ezek 1–5 represent a period of liminality in which Ezekiel’s priestly

85 Schwartz, “Concentric Structure,” 109; Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 113; Robson, Word and Spirit, 61. 86 Robson, Word and Spirit, 61–2. Brownlee, Ezekiel 1–19, 32, has shown that “the metaphor of the sweetness of the scroll in the prophet’s mouth (3:3b) stands for the satisfaction that comes from the proclamation of God’s word.” Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 126, has shown that the sweet taste is “a divine means of softening Ezekiel’s resistance to his calling.” 87 Schwartz, “Concentric Structure,” 112. 88 Odell, “You are What You Eat,” 244. 89 Brownlee, Ezekiel 1–19, 30; Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 124; Robson, Word and Spirit, 59; Joyce, Ezekiel, 78. 90 Robson, Word and Spirit, 62, observes that Odell’s analysis “speaks more of the consequences of the judgement than the judgement itself.” I am in agreement with Robson. 91 Odell, “You are What You Eat,” 237.

60

2 Ezekiel’s Call Narrative (Ezek 1:1–3:15)

identity undergoes a transition. In her view, Ezekiel assumes a new role as prophet in Ezek 6–7. However, regarding Odell’s understanding, it would be problematic to claim that Ezekiel has already given up his priestly identity after Ezek 5 because his portrayal in the remaining part of Ezekiel still reflects his priestly identity.92 To sum up, the account of the scroll-eating highlights not only the act of obedience, but also the act of legitimating YHWH’s prophet. The scroll is a metaphor for the message that Ezekiel is to utter. The act of eating the scroll represents the act of equipping Ezekiel with the message that YHWH’s prophet needs to proclaim. However, the act of eating the scroll should not be understood as the priestly rite of ordination. On grounds of the structure, what is figuratively expressed in the account of scroll-eating is literally expressed in the subsequent account of 3:4–11. The description of Ezekiel’s eating the scroll and his subsequently speaking YHWH’s words gives ample evidence that the act of legitimating Ezekiel as YHWH’s authentic messenger is the main issue within the account of the scroll-eating.

2.3.1 The Recognition of Prophet and the Opening of Ezekiel’s Mouth The focus of the original call narrative is on the prophet and his response to the call to proclaim YHWH’s word. In the beginning of the original call narrative, Ezekiel’s primary audience is described as ‫גוים המורדים אשר מרדו־בי‬ ‫“( המה ואבותם פשעו בי עד־עצם היום הזה‬the rebellious people who have rebelled against me, they and their fathers have transgressed against me to this very day,” 2:3). Here the reference to “rebellious” involves the entire history of Israel’s rebellion, beginning with the ancestors and continuing with the children. Elsewhere in Ezekiel, the extended historical surveys of national sin are found in Ezek 16, 20 and 23.93 The basic sin of Israel in the allegory of Ezek 16 and 23, and in Ezek 20 is idolatry. Similarly, the expression ‫“( גוים המורדים‬the rebellious people”) in the original call narrative is probably used with a reference to those who practise idolatry. These rebellious people are further characterised as ‫“( הבנים קשי פנים וחזקי־לב‬stubborn and obstinate children”) in 2:4. To this rebellious people, Ezekiel is commanded to proclaim YHWH’s words and

92 Sweeney, “Ezekiel: Zadokite Priest,” 129, 136, suggests that Ezekiel’s use of sacrificial imagery indicates the prevalent influence of Ezekiel’s priestly identity in his view of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. 93 Joyce, Ezekiel, 77.

2.3 The Original Call Narrative (2:3–3:11*)

61

to ignore their responses: ‫והמה אם־ישמעו ואם־יחדלו כי בית מרי המה וידעו כי‬ ‫“( נביא היה בתוכם‬as for them, whether they hear or refuse to hear – for they are a rebellious house – they will know that a prophet has been among them,” 2:5). Thus, the focus of Ezekiel’s commissioning is not on ‫ גוים המורדים‬and their response to YHWH’s words. On the contrary, the focus is on the recognition of the prophet (v. 5b). As Jacqueline E. Lapsley notes, “Whether the people heed the prophet’s words is simply not as crucial as whether they know that it is Yahweh’s prophet who has been speaking to them.”94 Lapsley has shown further that recognising YHWH’s prophet who has been speaking to the rebellious house of Israel is “tantamount to recognising Yahweh” by them.95 The original call narrative probably aims at making known to the rebellious Israelites the presence of the prophet among them, and the recognition of the prophet in turn instills the knowledge of YHWH in them.96 In fact, the context of the recognition of YHWH is the characteristic expression of the radical theocentricity of Ezekiel.97 The motif of recognising the prophet as a reference to the recognition of YHWH can also be observed in the account of the scroll-eating. As I have already mentioned, the primary audience of the original call narrative is those who practise idolatry. The account of the scroll-eating is not only concerned with Ezekiel’s prophetic activity but also encompasses the anti-idol passage. In the beginning of the scroll-eating account, the prophet is commanded to ‫פצה‬ ‫“( פיך ואכל את אשר אני נתן אליך‬open your mouth and eat what I give you,” 2:8). Before the end of the scroll-eating account, Ezekiel obeys to open the mouth (‫ואפתח את־פי‬, 3:2). As I shall demonstrate shortly, the expressions ‫פצה‬ ‫“( פיך‬open your mouth”) and ‫“( ואפתח את־פי‬I opened my mouth) are keys to understand the point of Ezekiel’s prophetic activity in the anti-idol context. To interpret the meanings of ‫ פצה פיך‬and ‫ואפתח את־פי‬, it is helpful to have reference to a similar phrase ‫ פתחון פה‬in Ezekiel. The phrase ‫“ פתחון פה‬opening of the mouth” occurs twice in Ezekiel (16:63; 29:21). It appears to be a cognate to the Akkadian pīt pî, which designates the

94 Jacqueline E. Lapsley, Can These Bones Lives? The Problem of the Moral Self in the Book of Ezekiel (BZAW 301; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000), 113. 95 Lapsley, Can These Bones Lives, 113. 96 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 134, has also shown that the “recognition that a prophet has been present contains a fuller reference to a recognition of God, who works in history through his prophets.” According to Zimmerli, the function of the Ezek 2:5b is similar to that of the divine recognition formula ‫“( וידעו כי־אני יהוה‬they will know that I am YHWH”) in Ezekiel. Sweeney, Reading Ezekiel, 32, shares the same argument. 97 Joyce, Ezekiel, 27–31.

62

2 Ezekiel’s Call Narrative (Ezek 1:1–3:15)

ritual of the consecration of sacred images in ancient Mesopotamia.98 The ritual of pīt pî is known as “Mouth-Opening.”99 The purpose of conducting pīt pî, together with the ritual of mīs pî (“Mouth-Washing”), was the identification of a god with his idol; these rituals opened the mouth, eyes, and ears of the idol.100 Before the mīs pî and the pīt pî the image was lifeless. After both rituals “the image was transformed into a living idol by imbuing the image with the spirit of the god;” “the image acquired all the senses and faculties of a living being; it became the personification of the god.”101 According to Thorkild Jacobsen, when a statue was ready from hands of the craftsmen, it was sanctified by means of an invigorating “mouth-washing” ceremony in Neo-Babylonian Empire102 and in Egypt.103 Moreover, James E. Kennedy has shown that after the pīt pî ceremony the sacred image was believed to become a source of divine oracles.104 I follow Kennedy’s argument that the phrase ‫ פתחון פה‬in Ezek 16:63 and 29:21 is best understood as “a technical phrase alluding to the same thing

98 James M. Kennedy, “Hebrew pitḥôn peh in the Book of Ezekiel,” VT 41 (1991): 233–35 (233); Stephen L. Herring, Divine Substitution: Humanity as the Manifestation of Deity in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East (FRLANT 247; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013), 26–29. 99 Herring, Divine Substitution, 26. See also José Faur, “The Biblical Idea of Idolatry,” JQR 69 (1978): 1–15 (9). Note the detailed description of the “mouth-washing” ritual in Thorkild Jacobsen, “The Graven Image,” in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), 23–8. The ritual begins in the workshop where the workmen and the goldsmith swear oaths to nullify all human work. The invigorating “mouth washing” ceremony is then performed at the river bank, where offerings are made to Ea and his son Asalluhe. The rite of mouth-washing is subsequently repeated at different stages of the ritual by the priest. The power in it is “enhanced by incantations and blessing of the water.” The water from the river represents the life-giving waters of the “father,” the river-god Ea; the tough of tamarisk wood with water from the holy-water basin represents the womb of the “mother,” which is to conceive and to give birth to the cult statue. The tough of tamarisk with the life-giving waters of Ea is surrounded by the craftsmen-gods that are powers to form and shape the embryo. Then the ritual greets the newborn god the next morning. The rite of mouthwashing is performed again, followed by another incantation; the incantation priest whispers in the right ear of the statue, entreating the newborn god to come down from heaven. Afterwards the living statue is installed in its temple, where the priest performs a final mouthwashing of the statue before the new statue is ready for its divine duties and offices. 100 Faur, “Biblical Idea of Idolatry,” 7; Victor A. Hurowitz, “The Mesopotamian God Image, from Womb to Tomb,” JAOS 123 (2003): 147–57. 101 Faur, “Biblical Idea of Idolatry,” 9–10; Herring, Divine Substitution, 28–29; Joachim Schaper, “Divine Images, Iconophobia and Monotheism in Isaiah 40–66,” in Continuity and Discontinuity Chronological and Thematic Development in Isaiah 40–66, eds. Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer and Hans M. Barstad (FRLANT 255; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014), 145–58. 102 Jacobsen, “Graven Image,” 23–5. 103 Faur, “Biblical Idea of Idolatry,” 7, 9–10. 104 Kennedy, “Hebrew pitḥôn peh,” 233.

2.3 The Original Call Narrative (2:3–3:11*)

63

as the Akkadian pīt pî.”105 Even though the relative chronological relationship between Ezek 2:8–3:3 and the aforementioned texts has not been examined, it is reasonable to say that the expressions ‫“( פצה פיך‬open your mouth,” 2:8),106 ‫“( ואפתח את־פי‬I opened my mouth,” 3:2), and the similar expression ‫פתחון פה‬ in Ezek 16:63 and 29:21 are conceptually and semantically influenced by the Akkadian pīt pî, a reference to the practice of idolatry. A thread of anti-idol polemics runs through the original call narrative. In the beginning of the original call narrative, YHWH assigns a commission to Ezekiel. This commission concerns speaking with the rebellious people who practise idolatry, whether they listen or not. On the heels of mentioning the importance of recognising the prophet, Ezekiel is commanded to ‫פצה פיך ואכל‬ ‫( את אשר אני נתן אליך‬2:8). The message of v. 8 is obviously a continuation to the preceding commissioning speech (vv. 3–7) in which Ezekiel is asked to listen to whatever YHWH speaks to him and is warned not to be rebellious like that rebellious house (‫בית מרי‬, vv. 5, 6, 8). In the same vein, the connection between the recognition of Ezekiel as YHWH’s prophet and the recognition of YHWH is not fortuitous in the account of the scroll-eating. In Ezek 2:8 YHWH first makes his demand to test Ezekiel’s obedience; he asks Ezekiel to open the mouth to act upon his instructions without hesitation;107 YHWH here chooses to use a slightly different expression ‫ פצה פיך‬in order to distinguish it from the expression of the dutiful response of the prophet (‫ואפתח את־פי‬, 3:2). As elsewhere in Ezekiel, the expression ‫ ואפתח את־פי‬is probably alluding to the Mesopotamian

105 Kennedy “Hebrew pitḥôn peh,” 233–5, has shown that ‫ פתחון פה‬is believed to be a form of idolatrous rites in the context of Ezek 16. In Ezek 16:63, ‫“( ולא יהיה־לך עוד פתחון פה‬Jerusalem will never open its mouth again”) implies that Jerusalem realises its shamefulness and will never perform any kind of idolatrous rites again. Kennedy concedes that among the oracles against the nations, the one about Egypt is the only oracle including a condemnation of being idolatrous (Ezek 30:13). In Ezek 29:21 YHWH promises Ezekiel with ‫“( אתן פתחון־פה‬I will give you the opening of the mouth”) when Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon carries off Egypt’s wealth as a divine gift. Then Ezekiel’s mouth will be allowed to open for the exiles and to announce YHWH’s utterance. Ezekiel describes Israel as having already committed practices of idolatry in Egypt before they are commanded to get rid of worshipping the idols of Egypt (Ezek 20:6–10). The opening of Ezekiel’s mouth brings about that Egypt, where Israel committed idolatry, will know the sovereignty of YHWH. In his view, YHWH commands Ezekiel to open his mouth so as to address the divine oracles. As such, Ezekiel is like a kind of earless and speechless living idol until YHWH starts to speak with him. In other words, Kennedy has shown that YHWH designates the Israelites to listen to his utterance through the prophet rather than that of Egypt’s idols. 106 Although the phrase ‫“( פצה פיך‬open your mouth,” 2:8) is not exactly the same as ‫פתחון‬ ‫ פה‬literally, it may also conceptually be related to the Akkadian pīt pî. 107 Block, Ezekiel 1, 123.

64

2 Ezekiel’s Call Narrative (Ezek 1:1–3:15)

pīt pî ceremony. Ezekiel is portrayed in the account of the scroll-eating as a living idol subjected to the authority of YHWH. I therefore suggest that Ezek 2:8–3:3 was written in development of the Mesopotamian pīt pî rituals and applies the expression ‫ ואפתח את־פי‬to Ezekiel for the purpose of demonstrating YHWH’s works in and through the prophet (but not through sculptured wood or stone). After opening his mouth and eating the scroll, Ezekiel receives a second commissioning speech: ‫“( ודברת בדברי אליהם‬speak in my words to them,” 3:4). Here is a minor alternation from ‫ ודברת את־דברי‬in 2:7 to ‫ודברת בדברי‬. Scholars have suggested, correctly I think, that ‫ בדברי‬means “recite” the words of YHWH.108 Ezekiel became the source of divine oracles. Similarly, the cult statue became a source of divine oracles after the pīt pî ritual had been performed on it. Therefore Ezek 3:4 should be interpreted to mean that YHWH requests Ezekiel to speak with a verbatim repetition of his divine message, just as the living cult statue of YHWH.109 To sum up, the focus of the first part of the original call narrative is on the recognition of the prophet, which connects with the anti-idol polemics. Ezek 2:3– 7 reveals that the goal of Ezekiel’s commissioning is not to bring those who practise idolatry to a change in behaviour. On the contrary, the goal of Ezekiel’s commissioning is to make known to the rebellious people that YHWH’s prophet is among them. In the subsequent account of the scroll-eating, Ezekiel is urged absolute obedience in conveying YHWH’s word. Immediately upon the act of opening the mouth, he is portrayed as a living idol of YHWH; he is speechless unless YHWH moves to speak through him. In light of the understanding of the phrase ‫ פתחון פה‬in Ezek 16:63 and 29:21, the expressions ‫“( פצה פיך‬open your mouth,” 2:8) and ‫“( ואפתח את־פי‬I opened my mouth,” 3:2) imply that YHWH uses Ezekiel himself as a living oracle to wipe out the idols so as to make known to the rebellious house his presence and his sovereignty. Ezekiel becomes the personification of YHWH. In the final section of the call narrative, Ezekiel is called to more stringent obedience in keeping his voice silent and allowing YHWH’s words to speak through him.110 The focus here is again not on the

108 Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 68; Davis, Swallowing the Scroll, 52; Block, Ezekiel 1, 128. 109 Herring shares a similar idea that in Ezekiel humans are depicted as those who “function in ways similar to the cultic images of Mesopotamia.” He argues that Ezekiel contains the priestly notion that humanity could serve as YHWH’s image. In his view, before YHWH had washed his people from the impurities of idolatry, Israel equalled to idol. However, in Ezek 36–37, the divine ‫ רוח‬transforms Israel into YHWH’s cultic images. For a detailed discussion, see Herring, Divine Substitution, 164–208. 110 Davis, Swallowing the Scroll, 52, has recognised that Jeremiah, who was Ezekiel’s immediate predecessor, is allowed to apply any rhetorical means to castigate the people and to call them to repent.

2.4 Conclusion

65

rebellious people and their response, but on the prophet, whose voice functions in place of the divine: ‫“( כה אמר אדני יהוה‬Thus says the Lord YHWH,” 3:11).111 In short, the focus of the original call narrative is on the recognition of Ezekiel as YHWH’s prophet, who in turn make known to his primary audience the recognition of YHWH.

2.4 Conclusion It was suggested that the earliest layer of Ezekiel contains the message of divine judgement. Indeed the motif of judgement lies behind the original call narrative. The original call narrative speaks of legitimising Ezekiel as YHWH’s prophet, who eats the scroll that contains the message of divine judgement. The account of the scroll-eating is an integral part of the original call narrative. The act of eating the scroll sets the tone for Ezekiel’s prophetic activity. Upon eating the scroll, Ezekiel is portrayed as the living idol of YHWH; he functions primarily as the messenger of YHWH by speaking the verbatim repetition of the message of divine judgement. The account of scroll-eating and the anti-idol polemics of Ezek 2:3–3:11 outlined above enhance our understanding of Ezekiel’s prophetic role in the original call narrative. Although the original call narrative is devoid of the concept of hope and restoration, the redactional material in Ezek 1:1–3:15 contains the motif of hope and restoration and the motif of the instatement of Ezekiel as priest. The redactional material of Ezek 1:1–3:15 contains the ambiguous expression “thirtieth year” in Ezek 1:1, as well as smaller glosses in Ezek 1:2–3a. On the one hand, the “thirtieth year” in 1:1 identifies Ezekiel’s age of full initiation to priesthood. On the other hand, the glosses in 1:2–3a not only further clarify the expression “thirtieth year,” but also provide information about Ezekiel’s priestly role. Ezek 1:1–3 serves as an introduction of the redactional vision account of the Glory, which further enhances the impression of the motif of hope and restoration in the context of Ezek 1:1– 3:15. The messages embedded in the redactional account of the living beings (1:5– 12) and the wheel redaction (1:15–21) remind the readers of Ezekiel of the motif of hope and restoration expressed by YHWH’s supremacy and his presence in exile. Indeed, the redactional material in Ezek 1:1–3:15, which contains the restoration aspect of Ezekiel’s priestly role and the motif of hope and restoration, is an important piece of evidence to suggest that the motif of hope and restoration occurs elsewhere in the redactional layers of Ezek 1–7. I shall examine the redac-

111 Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 32–3.

66

2 Ezekiel’s Call Narrative (Ezek 1:1–3:15)

tional material from Ezek 3:16 to Ezek 7:27 in the remaining chapters to see whether the redactional layers in Ezek 1–7 have supplemented the texts with material that conveys hope for the future and with material that concerns Ezekiel’s priestly role.

3 Ezekiel’s Call to be a Watchman (Ezek 3:16–21) and his Call to Muteness (Ezek 3:22–27) In Chapter Two we considered the relation of the redactional material in Ezek 1:1– 3:15 with the motif of hope and restoration and with the motif of the instatement of Ezekiel as priest. Regarding this point, it is in my opinion far more likely that the motif of hope and restoration may also appear elsewhere in the redactional material of Ezek 1–7. In this chapter I shall therefore explore this relationship further by looking into Ezek 3:16–27. Ezek 3:16–5:17 constitutes the second subunit within the literary unit of Ezek 1–7, which is demarcated by the chronological formula. The occurrence of the prophetic word formula in 3:16 and 6:1 indicates the beginning and the end of the second subunit, which contains an account of Ezekiel’s call to be a watchman (3:16b–21), an account of Ezekiel’s binding and muteness (3:16a, 22–27), and his sign-acts which convey the message of judgement that Ezekiel has to proclaim (4:1–5:17). Ezek 3:16–27 describes Ezekiel’s commission as consisting of two parts, indicating that a relation exists between Ezekiel’s call to be a watchman and the call to muteness;1 whereas the material in Ezek 4:1–5:17 fits well in its context that presents a series of sign-acts depicting the siege and fall of Jerusalem. In this respect, I shall examine the redactional material in Ezek 4:1–5:17 in the next chapter. It is the objective of this chapter to show that the motif of repentance and a mitigation of the divine punishment, and the motif of hope and restoration are located in the redactional material of Ezek 3:16–27. A first step in this investigation is to conduct the diachronic analysis of the text.

3.1 The Diachronic Analysis of Ezek 3:16–27

Text with English Translation 3:16b–21

‫]ויהי[ דבר־יהוה אלי לאמר‬

v. 16b The word of YHWH came to me, saying,

1 Charles R. Biggs, The Book of Ezekiel (Epworth Commentaries; London: Epworth Press, 1996), 10, notes that the bridging function of 3:22–27 is demonstrated by a Janus function. See also Rochester, Prophetic Ministry, 49. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110711578-003

68

3 Ezekiel’s Call to be a Watchman and his Call to Muteness

Text with English Translation v. 17

‫בן־אדם צפה נתתיך לבית ישראל ושמעת מפי דבר והזהרת אותם ממני‬ Son of man, I have made you a watchman to the house of Israel; whenever you hear a word from my mouth, and you warn them from me.

v. 18

[‫באמרי לרשע מות תמות ולא הזהרתו ולא דברת להזהיר רשע מדרכו ]הרשעה‬ ‫לחיתו הוא רשע בעונו ימות ודמו מידך אבקש‬ When I say to the wicked, “You will surely die,” and you do not warn him or you do not speak out to warn [the wicked] from his wicked way so that he may live, that wicked man will die in his iniquity; but his blood I shall seek from your hand. (MT) ἐν τῷ λέγειν με τῷ ἀνόμῳ Θανάτῳ θανατωθήσῃ, καὶ οὐ διεστείλω αὐτῷ οὐδὲ ἐλάλησας τοῦ διαστείλασθαι τῷ ἀνόμῳ ἀποστρέψαι2 ἀπὸ τῶν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ τοῦ ζῆσαι αὐτόν, ὁ ἄνομος ἐκεῖνος τῇ ἀδικίᾳ αὐτοῦ ἀποθανεῖται, καὶ τὸ αἷμα αὐτοῦ ἐκ χειρός σου ἐκζητήσω. If I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and you did not warn him, and you did not speak up to warn the wicked to turn from his ways, so that he may live, that wicked person will die for his iniquity; but his blood I shall seek from you hand. (LXX)

v. 19

‫ואתה כי־הזהרת רשע ולא־שב מרשעו ומדרכו הרשעה הוא בעונו ימות ואתה‬ ‫את־נפשך הצלת‬ But if you have warned the wicked and he does not turn from his wickedness or from his wicked way, he will die in his iniquity; and you will have delivered your soul.

v. 20

‫ובשוב צדיק מצדקו ועשה עול ונתתי מכשול לפניו הוא ימות כי לא הזהרתו‬ ‫בחטאתו ימות ולא תזכרן צדקתו אשר עשה ודמו מידך אבקש‬ And when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits injustice, and I place a stumbling block before him, he will die; because you have not warned him, he will die in his sin, and his righteousness, which he has done, will not be remembered. But his blood I shall seek from your hand.

v. 21

‫ואתה כי הזהרתו צדיק לבלתי חטא ]צדיק[ והוא לא־חטא חיו יחיה כי נזהר‬ ‫ואתה את־נפשך הצלת‬ However, if you warn the righteous man that [the righteous] should not sin and he does not sin, he will surely live because he has been warned; and you will have delivered your soul. (MT) σὺ δὲ ἐὰν διαστείλῃ τῷ δικαίῳ τοῦ μὴ ἁμαρτεῖν, καὶ αὐτὸς μὴ ἁμάρτῃ, ὁ δίκαιος ζωῇ ζήσεται, ὅτι διεστείλω αὐτῷ, καὶ σὺ τὴν σεαυτοῦ ψυχὴν ῥύσῃ. If however, you warn the righteous not to sin, and he does not sin, the righteous will surely live, because you warned him, and you will deliver your life. (LXX)

2 The word ἀποστρέψαι (“to turn”) has no equivalent in the MT.

3.1 The Diachronic Analysis of Ezek 3:16–27

69

Text with English Translation 3:22–27 v. 22

‫ותהי עלי ]שם[ יד־יהוה ויאמר אלי קום צא אל־הבקעה ושם אדבר אותך‬ And the hand of YHWH was upon me [there], and he said to me, “Arise, go out to the valley, and there I shall speak to you.” (MT) Καὶ ἐγένετο ἐπ᾿ ἐμὲ χεὶρ κυρίου, καὶ εἶπεν πρός με Ἀνάστηθι καὶ ἔξελθε εἰς τὸ πεδίον, καὶ ἐκεῖ λαληθήσεται πρὸς σέ.3 Then a hand of the Lord came upon me, and he said to me, “Rise up and go out into the plain; and there it will be spoken to you.” (LXX)

v. 23

‫ואקום ואצא אל־הבקעה והנה־שם כבוד־יהוה עמד ככבוד אשר ראיתי‬ ‫על־נהר־כבר ואפל על־פני‬ And I arose and I went out to the valley; and behold, the glory of YHWH was standing there, like the glory which I had seen by the river Chebar; and I fell on my face. (MT) καὶ ἀνέστην καὶ ἐξῆλθον εἰς τὸ πεδίον, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐκεῖ δόξα κυρίου εἱστήκει καθὼς ἡ ὅρασις καὶ καθὼς ἡ δόξα, ἣν εἶδον ἐπὶ τοῦ ποταμοῦ τοῦ Χοβαρ, καὶ πίπτω ἐπὶ πρόσωπόν μου. So I rose up and went into the plain; and behold, the glory of the Lord stood there, like the vision and like the glory that I had seen by the river the Chobar, and I fell on my face. (LXX)

v. 24

‫ותבא־בי רוח ותעמדני על־רגלי וידבר אתי ויאמר אלי בא הסגר בתוך ביתך‬ And the Spirit came upon me and it set me on my feet; and he spoke with me and said to me, “Come, shut yourself in the midst of your house.

v. 25

‫ואתה בן־אדם הנה נתנו עליך עבותים ואסרוך בהם ולא תצא בתוכם‬ And you, son of man, behold, they will put ropes on you and they will bind you with them, so that you cannot go out in the midst of them.

v. 26

‫ולשונך אדביק ]אל־חכך[ ונאלמת ולא־תהיה להם לאיש מוכיח כי בית מרי המה‬ And your tongue I shall make cling [to your palate], so that you will be mute and you cannot be a man who reproves them; because they are a house of rebellion. (MT) καὶ τὴν γλῶσσάν σου συνδήσω, καὶ ἀποκωφωθήσῃ καὶ οὐκ ἔσῃ αὐτοῖς εἰς ἄνδρα ἐλέγχοντα, διότι οἶκος παραπικραίνων ἐστίν. And I shall bind fast your tongue, so that you will be made dumb and to them you will not be a man who reproves; for it is an embittering house. (LXX)

3 The verb λαληθήσεται (“it will be spoken”) is a third person singular passive form in the LXX, while the corresponding verb in the MT (‫ )אדבר‬is a first person singular active form.

70

3 Ezekiel’s Call to be a Watchman and his Call to Muteness

Text with English Translation v. 27

‫ובדברי אותך אפתח את־פיך ואמרת אליהם כה אמר אדני ]יהוה[ השמע ישמע‬ ‫והחדל יחדל כי בית מרי המה‬ But when I speak with you, I shall open your mouth, and you will say to them, “Thus says the Lord [YHWH], he who hears, let him hear; and he who refuses, let him refuse; because they are a house of rebellion.” (MT) καὶ ἐν τῷ λαλεῖν με πρὸς σὲ ἀνοίξω τὸ στόμα σου, καὶ ἐρεῖς πρὸς αὐτούς Τάδε λέγει κύριος Ὁ ἀκούων ἀκουέτω, καὶ ὁ ἀπειθῶν ἀπειθείτω, διότι οἶκος παραπικραίνων ἐστίν. But when I speak with you, I shall open your mouth, and you will say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord: let the one who hears hear, and let the one who disobeys disobey; for it is an embittering house.’ (LXX)

3.1.1 Textual Criticism In Ezek 3:16–27 there are a number of textual variants between the MT and the LXX. The first case is Ezek 3:16. MT Ezek 3:16b has a plus, ‫“( ויהי‬and it was”). The expression ‫ ויהי‬usually serves as the beginning of a new sentence. This new beginning is further emphasised by the occurrence of a ‫פ‬, petuḥah, in the middle of MT Ezek 3:16. The MT regards the expression ‫ ויהי‬and ‫ פ‬as division markings between vv. 16a and 16b. William H. Brownlee concedes that 3:16a belongs to the preceding paragraph (vv. 12–15) and is not the introduction of 3:16b–21.4 In contrast, Zimmerli argues that v. 16a originally connects with vv. 22–27,5 assuming that Ezek 3:16b–21 is an insert (see below). Secondary, in 3:21aα the MT reads ‫“( הזהרתו צדיק‬you warn him, the righteous”) while the LXX has διαστείλῃ τῷ δικαίῳ (“you warn the righteous”). Greenberg suggests that the MT exhibits a conflated text, in which the suffix of ‫ הזהרתו‬was glossed by ‫צדיק‬. In his view, the gloss ‫ צדיק‬was taken from the expression διαστείλῃ τῷ δικαίῳ (‫ צדיק‬‫ )הזהר‬in the LXX.6 Thirdly, in the same verse, the second mention of the adjective ‫ צדיק‬in MT 3:21a (‫ואתה כי הזהרתו צדיק לבלתי חטא צדיק והוא לא־חטא‬, “if you warn him, the righteous, not to sin, the righteous, and he does not sin”) seems clumsy. LXX διαστείλῃ τῷ δικαίῳ τοῦ μὴ ἁμαρτεῖν, καὶ αὐτὸς μὴ ἁμάρτῃ (“you warn the righteous not to sin, and he does not sin,” 3:21a) does not render the second

4 Brownlee, Ezekiel 1–19, 47. 5 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 143–4. 6 Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 86; Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 49.

3.1 The Diachronic Analysis of Ezek 3:16–27

71

mention of ‫ צדיק‬in MT 3:21aβ (‫)לבלתי חטא צדיק והוא לא־חטא‬. In my view, the expression ‫ צדיק‬in v. 21aβ appears to be a gloss.7 Greenberg considers the clause ‫ צדיק והוא לא־חטא‬as an explanatory gloss on ‫לבלתי חטא‬, which seems originally to have meant “so that he does not sin.”8 Finally, in 3:22 the MT has a plus, ‫“( שם‬there”). The antecedent of the expression ‫ שם‬is ‫“( תל אביב‬Tel abib”) mentioned in 3:15, which is the concluding verse of the expanded call narrative. According to Johan Lust, the expression ‫שם‬ “refers to 3:15 as if vv. 16–21 were not yet inserted.”9 In this respect, the account of Ezekiel’s muteness in 3:22–27 serves as the conclusion of the prophetic call of Ezekiel.

3.1.2 Redaction Criticism 3.1.2.1 Ezekiel 3:16b–21 as Expansion In this section, I shall show that the account of the watchman which occurs in Ezek 3:16b–21 is a secondary expansion. It is commonly argued that 3:16b–21 is secondary in its present position and that it represents a redactional blending of material from the accounts of the watchman in Ezek 33:1–9 and Ezek 18.10 As shown in Table 1, it is noticeable that Ezek 3:16b–21 is literally close to some verses in Ezek 18 and 33. Ezek 18 and 33 are self-contained units, from both of which the redactors of Ezek 3:16b–21 draw only minor parts. Ezek 33:1–9 contains an explanatory introduction, which states “a parable of the function and responsibility of a watchman” appointed in wartime (vv. 2–6),11 before “the application of the parable to the circumstance of Ezekiel’s appointment by Yahweh as watchman over Israel” (vv. 7–9).12 In contrast, Ezek 3:16b–21 lacks any such explanatory introduction. Moreover, Ezek 3:16b–21 contains four hypothetical cases (the wicked man is not warned, or is warned, vv. 18–19; the righteous man is not warned, or is warned, vv. 20–21), whereas Ezek 33:1–9 contains two cases only (the wick-

7 Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 49. 8 Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 86. 9 Johan Lust, Katrin Hauspie, and Antoon Ternier, “Notes to the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text Ezekiel 3,” ETL 75 (1999): 315–331 (328); Allen, 50 n. 22.a. 10 Wevers, Ezekiel, 56; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 144; Hals, Ezekiel, 23–4; Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 57–8; Karin Schöpflin, Theologie als Biographie im Ezechielbuch (FAT 36; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen, 2002), 197–8; Joyce, Ezekiel, 80–1. 11 Brownlee, Ezekiel 1–19, 47. 12 Brownlee, Ezekiel 1–19, 47–8.

‫‪3 Ezekiel’s Call to be a Watchman and his Call to Muteness‬‬

‫‪72‬‬

‫‪Tab. 1: A Comparison between 3:16b–21 and Material from Chapters 18 and 33.‬‬ ‫‪Ezek 18 and 33‬‬

‫ויהי דבר־יהוה אלי‬

‫לאמר )‪(33:1‬‬

‫‪Ezek 3:16b–21‬‬

‫ויהי דבר־יהוה אלי‬

‫ואתה בן־אדם צפה נתתיך לבית ישראל‬ ‫ושמעת מפי דבר והזהרת אתם ממני‬

‫)‪(33:7‬‬

‫לאמר )‪(3:16b‬‬

‫בן־אדם צפה נתתיך לבית ישראל ושמעת מפי‬ ‫דבר והזהרת אותם ממני )‪(3:17‬‬

‫באמרי לרשע מות תמות ולא הזהרתו ולא‬ ‫באמרי לרשע רשע מות תמות ולא דברת‬ ‫להזהיר רשע מדרכו הוא רשע בעונו ימות ודמו דברת להזהיר רשע מדרכו הרשעה לחיתו הוא‬ ‫רשע בעונו ימות ודמו מידך אבקש )‪(3:18‬‬ ‫מידך אבקש )‪(33:8‬‬ ‫ואתה כי־הזהרת רשע מדרכו לשוב ממנה‬ ‫ולא־שב מדרכו הוא בעונו ימות ואתה נפשך‬ ‫הצלת )‪(33:9‬‬ ‫ובשוב צדיק מצדקתו ועשה עול )‪(18:24aα‬‬ ‫בשוב־צדיק מצדקתו ועשה עול ומת עליהם‬

‫ואתה כי־הזהרת רשע ולא־שב מרשעו ומדרכו‬ ‫הרשעה הוא בעונו ימות ואתה את־נפשך הצלת‬ ‫)‪(3:19‬‬

‫ובשוב צדיק מצדקו ועשה עול‬

‫‪13‬‬

‫)‪(3:20aα‬‬

‫)‪(18:26a‬‬

‫שובו והשיבו מכל־פשעיכם ולא־יהיה לכם‬ ‫למכשול עון )‪(18:30b‬‬

‫ונתתי מכשול לפניו הוא‬

‫במעלו אשר־מעל ובחטאתו אשר־חטא בם‬ ‫ימות )‪(18:24bβ‬‬

‫כי לא הזהרתו בחטאתו‬

‫כל־צדקתו אשר־עשה לא‬

‫תזכרנה )‪(18:24bα‬‬

‫ימות )‪(3:20aβ‬‬ ‫ימות )‪(3:20bα‬‬

‫ולא תזכרן צדקתו אשר עשה ודמו מידך אבקש‬ ‫)‪(3:20bβ‬‬

‫בחקות החיים הלך לבלתי עשות עול חיו יחיה‬ ‫לא ימות ‪(33:15aβb)14‬‬ ‫כל־חטאתו אשר חטא לא תזכרנה לו משפט‬ ‫וצדקה עשה חיו יחיה ‪(33:16)15‬‬

‫ואתה כי הזהרתו צדיק לבלתי חטא צדיק והוא‬ ‫לא־חטא חיו יחיה כי נזהר ואתה את־נפשך‬ ‫הצלת )‪(3:21‬‬

‫‪ed man is not warned, or is warned, vv. 8–9). In this respect, Ezek 3:20–21 adds‬‬ ‫‪two more cases regarding the righteous man, by taking almost literally from‬‬ ‫‪Ezek 18:24–30 and 33:15–16.16 In this way, Ezek 3:20–21 is employed to elaborate‬‬ ‫‪on 3:17–19 (3:18 // 3:20; 3:19 // 3:21), which originally stemmed from the watch-‬‬

‫‪ in the OT are found in Ezekiel. Of these 8 are found‬עול ‪13 Ten of twenty-one occurrences of‬‬ ‫‪in chapters 18 and 33. The remaining two are found in chapters 3 and 28 respectively.‬‬ ‫‪ (“except”) in Ezekiel. Of these two are found‬לבלתי ‪14 There are 13 occurrences of the word‬‬ ‫‪ (3:21; 33:15).‬יחיה ‪ and‬חיו ‪,‬לבלתי ‪in the cluster of terms‬‬ ‫‪ (“commit sin”) in Ezekiel. Of these two are found‬חטא ‪15 There are 14 occurrences of the word‬‬ ‫‪ (3:21 and 33:16).‬יחיה ‪ and‬חיו ‪,‬חטא ‪,‬לא ‪in the cluster of terms‬‬ ‫‪16 Schöpflin, Theologie als Biographie, 193.‬‬

3.1 The Diachronic Analysis of Ezek 3:16–27

73

man material in 33:7–9 concerning the wicked man.17 The completion of conceivable cases in 3:20–21 is clearly a later addition.18 The account of the watchman in Ezek 3 is probably a redactional expansion of 1:1–3:15. Ezek 3:16b–21 has been placed in its present position to highlight the nature of Ezekiel’s commission – his responsibility for conveying YHWH’s word. Many scholars argue that the redactors may have noticed the relevance of Ezek 33:1, 7–9 to Ezekiel’s commission (2:3–3:11). Thus, the material regarding the appointment of the prophet as a watchman in 33:1, 7–9 was added to the end of the call narrative, without disrupting the sequence of the expanded call narrative in 1:1–3:15.19 As explicated by Joyce, the interpolation of the account of the watchman indicates that the redactors understood the watchman role to relate to Ezekiel’s ministry prior to the fall;20 the aim of inserting 3:16b–21 is to emphasise the accountability of Israel for the now inescapable judgement.21 Joyce’s arguments about the aim of inserting 3:16b–21 are well made. His thesis, however, needs further development (see section 3.2.3.2). Zimmerli has suggested, correctly I think, that Ezek 3:16b–21 stems from the hand which produced the final form of Ezekiel.22 As mentioned above, the account of the watchman in 33:1, 7–9 is replicated in 3:16b–21. As such the two watchman passages function as “bookends” around the judgement oracles of Ezekiel.23 Indeed, Ezek 3:16b–21, 33:7–9 (along with its context 33:1–6, 10–20), and Ezek 18 form a motif complex, which was deliberately inserted into the extant composition of Ezekiel and supplemented that earlier text with the theme of the repentance.24 In addition to the “bookends” created by the two watchman passages, the motif complex of repentance lays another frame around the judgement oracles: Ezek 18 stands – in each case separated by fourteen chapters – in the middle between the two watchman accounts.25 I follow Schöpflin’s suggestion that after Ezekiel first draws the image of a prophet whose proclamation of judgement fulfils the inevitable fall of Jerusalem, the motif complex of repentance was added in the book in order to complement the prophetic image in Ezekiel with the image of a preacher who proclaims repentance.26 17 Hals, Ezekiel, 24. 18 Schöpflin, Theologie als Biographie, 193. 19 Wevers, Ezekiel, 56; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 144; Hals, Ezekiel, 24. 20 Paul M. Joyce, Divine Initiative and Human Response in Ezekiel (JSOTSup 51; Sheffield: JSOT, 1989), 144 n. 87. 21 Joyce, Ezekiel, 81. 22 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 144. 23 Joyce, Divine Initiative, 144 n. 87. 24 Schöpflin, Theologie als Biographie, 195–6. 25 Schöpflin, Theologie als Biographie, 196. 26 Schöpflin, Theologie als Biographie, 196–7.

74

3 Ezekiel’s Call to be a Watchman and his Call to Muteness

3.1.2.2 Ezekiel 3:22–27 as Expansion The account of Ezek 3:22–27 is also of redactional origin. The message of Ezek 3:22 seems to continue the story of 3:12–15. In v. 22 Ezekiel says, “The hand of the Lord came upon me there (‫)שם‬.” Where is “‫ ?”שם‬The antecedent of the expression ‫ שם‬is provided in 3:15, in which Ezekiel dwelt by the river Chebar at Tel Abib. In this way Ezek 3:22–27 is connected with the composition in 1:1–3:15.27 Its secondary character can be seen by recognising the verbal repetitions between 3:22–27 and the preceding account of Ezek 1:1–3:15. Ezek 3:22–27 is introduced, just like 1:1–3:15, by the description of the hand of YHWH coming upon the prophet (3:22a, cf. 1:3b; 3:14bβ). In addition, 3:22–24a appears like a brief summary of 1:1–2:2 with an accumulation of quotes from 1:1–2:2: ‫“( יד־יהוה‬the hand of YHWH,” 1:3b; 3:22a); ‫“( כבוד־יהוה‬Glory of YHWH,” 1:28aδ; 3:23a); ‫“( על־נהר־כבר‬by the river Chebar,” 1:1aβ, 3a; 3:23a); ‫“( ואפל על־פני‬I fell on my face,” 1:28bα; 3:23b); ‫“( ותבא־בי רוח ותעמדני על־רגלי‬a spirit came into me and it set me on my feet,” 2:2a; 3:24a); and YHWH’s commands with the cluster of terms “‫ דבר‬and ‫( ”אמר‬2:1; 3:24).28 The link between 3:22–27 and 1:1–3:15 is further strengthened by the recurrence of the expression ‫ כי בית מרי המה‬in 3:26b, 27bβ and in 2:3–3:11, the usage of the messenger formula in 3:27bβ as in 2:4bβ and 3:11aβ, and the repeated cluster of terms “‫ שמע‬and ‫( ”חדל‬2:5, 7; 3:11; 3:27).29 The account of Ezek 3:22–27 was written after the expanded call narrative by employing the material of Ezek 1:1–3:15; for without the background description of the vision of the Glory (1:1–2:2), the brief description of YHWH’s Glory in Ezek 3:22–24a would not be intelligible.30 Ezek 3:22–27 is inserted to connect the vision accounts in Ezek 1–3, Ezek 8–11 and 40–48 through the employment of the recurrent expressions ‫יד־יהוה‬, ‫כבוד־יהוה‬, and ‫ואפל על־פני‬.31 In this way, the cohesion of Ezekiel is further enhanced by the insertion of Ezek 3:22–27. Thus, Hiebel has proposed, correctly I think, that Ezek 3:22–27 is “estimated at a rather late point in the redactional development”32 – probably in the early post-exilic period. 27 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 157–8, 160–1; Lust et al., “Ezekiel 3,” 320. 28 Rochester, Prophetic Ministry, 48; Hiebel, Ezekiel’s Vision Accounts, 91. 29 Hiebel, Ezekiel’s Vision Accounts, 91. 30 Hiebel, Ezekiel’s Vision Accounts, 92; see also Wevers, Ezekiel, 56–7; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 157–8. 31 In Ezekiel, the wording ‫ ואפל על־פני‬occurs in 1:28bα, 3:23b, and 11:3bα. Hiebel, Ezekiel’s Vision Accounts, 252, has shown that the expressions ‫ כבוד־יהוה‬and ‫ ואפל על־פני‬first appeared in Ezek 8–11, then were probably used in 1:1–3:15 and eventually adopted into the account of Ezekiel’s muteness (3:22–27). 32 Hiebel, Ezekiel’s Vision Accounts, 92; Joyce, Ezekiel, 82, has shown that “the book’s crossreferences to visionary appearances” are probably editorial which “help bind it together by highlighting the golden thread of theophany.”

3.2 Ezekiel’s Call to be a Watchman

75

In short, 3:16b–21 and 3:22–27 show the traces of redactional activities in Ezek 3. This understanding allows us to start determining whether the motifs of the mitigation of the divine punishment, and of hope and restoration might be in the later redactional expansions of Ezek 3.

3.2 Ezekiel’s Call to be a Watchman Perhaps the most explicit statement of the motif of repentance and life in Ezek 1– 7 is that which appears in the redactional layer 3:16b–21.33 In some sense the motif of repentance and life may relate to the message of the mitigation of the divine punishment and the motif of hope and restoration.34 This section is devoted to a detailed discussion of the relation between Ezek 3:16b–21 and the motifs of repentance and of hope.

3.2.1 Purposeful Textual Reuse between Ezek 3:16b–21 and Ezek 18, 33 A close study of the intentional literary dependence between Ezek 3:16b–21 and Ezek 18:24–30; 33:7–9, 15–16 sheds light upon the exegesis of 3:16–21. Ezek 18 focuses on the notions of accountability and repentance, while Ezek 33 focuses on Ezekiel’s role as a watchman. In the earlier Ezek 33:7–9, that outlines the task of watchman, there is no reference to the righteous staying faithful and alive. In contrast, the later Ezek 3:16b–21 reveals a paradigm shift in how the theme of repentance and that of future hope in Ezek 18 and 33 are conveyed, a shift that puts a new emphasis on the hypothetical case of the righteous man who is about to sin; he is the only one whose life may be saved if he takes the opportunity to repent. As mentioned in section 3.1.2.1, Ezek 3:16b–21 represents a redactional blending of material from Ezek 18 and 33. The two hypothetical cases of the wicked man (3:17–19) are dependent on 33:7–9. The high frequency and distribution of

33 Duguid has shown that a priestly concern to draw the lines between “life” and “death” is evident in the account of the watchman in Ezek 3:16b–21. See Iain M. Duguid, “Putting Priests in their Place: Ezekiel’s Contribution to the History of the Old Testament Priesthood,” in Ezekiel’s Hierarchical World Wrestling with a Tiered Reality, eds. Stephen L. Cook and Corrine L. Patton (SBLSymS 31; Atlanta: SBL, 2004), 51–52. 34 Joyce, Divine Initiative, 144 n. 85, has shown that the expression “Why will you die, house of Israel?” (18:31) anticipates the future that YHWH wishes for Israelites, though the expression “acknowledge[s] the fact that Israel is dying, suffering the fully deserved punishment of defeat and exile.”

76

3 Ezekiel’s Call to be a Watchman and his Call to Muteness

the shared locutions in 3:17–19 and 33:7–9 (cf. Table 1) indicates intentional literary dependence between the two texts (cf. § 1.4.2.3 criterion 1). The first hypothetical case regarding the righteous (3:20) takes literally from 18:24–30. The redactors of 3:16b–21 demonstrate awareness of the earlier Ezek 18:24–30, by combining multiple separate locutions, in particular the rare expression ‫מכשול‬ (“stumbling block,” v. 30b) from the source text (cf. § 1.4.2.3 criterion 2). The second hypothetical case regarding the righteous (3:21) intentionally draws upon 33:15–16. The shared cluster of terms ‫לבלתי‬, ‫ חיו‬and ‫( יחיה‬3:21; 33:15), which is a distinctive expression in Ezekiel, makes its occurrence in 3:21 probably to be intentional (cf. § 1.4.2.3 criterion 1). Moreover, the redactors of 3:16b– 21 use the expression ‫“( חטא‬to sin”) instead of its semantically equivalent expressions ‫“( ולא־שב מרשעו‬he does not return from his wickedness,” v. 19aβ), and ‫“( עשה עול‬to commit injustice,” v. 20aα). This deliberate choice of the expression ‫ חטא‬in 3:21 implies that the redactors intended to reuse the expression ‫ חטא‬from 33:16 (cf. § 1.4.2.3 criterion 3). Above all, Ezek 3:16b–21 is purposefully using locutions from Ezek 18 and 33.

3.2.2 Exegesis of Ezekiel 3:17–19 We begin by offering a brief outline of Ezek 3:16b–21. Following the prophetic word formula, Ezekiel’s role is now defined as that of a watchman (vv. 16b–17). The responsibility of Ezekiel as the watchman is presented by means of four hypothetical cases. Verses 18–19 describe the hypothetical outcome of the wicked man and the consequences of Ezekiel’s watchman role with respect to the wicked man. Here the case of the repentance of the wicked man is excluded. The fate of the wicked man depicted in vv. 18 and 19 is the same; in both cases the wicked man does not turn from his wickedness and eventually dies. We come now to vv. 20–21, which describe the hypothetical cases of the righteous man and the consequences of Ezekiel’s role with respect to the righteous man. In v. 20, Ezekiel fails to warn the righteous man who has turned to commit iniquity, he will be held accountable for the death of the backsliding righteous man, while in v. 21, Ezekiel succeeds in announcing the danger to the backsliding righteous man, he saves both his life and that of the righteous man. Ezek 3:16b–21 reveals that the wicked men in both hypothetical cases remain in their wickedness and die regardless of whether they heed the watchman’s warning or not. There is never a case of the wicked man having repented and avoiding death in vv. 16b–21. The wicked man, here depicted as incorrigible, reveals YHWH’s absolute justice for the refractory people. Verses 17–20 emphasise

3.2 Ezekiel’s Call to be a Watchman

77

the message of judgement of Jerusalem, confirming the Israelites’ iniquity for the unavoidable calamity of the present time.35 3.2.2.1 Ezek 3:18 and the expression ‫לחיתו‬ Even though Ezek 3:17–19 contains the message of the inevitable judgement, the elements of hope and restoration underlie the hypothetical cases of the wicked man. The two cases of the wicked man (3:17–19) are dependent on 33:7–9. However, the two extra additions in 3:18 (‫“ ולא הזהרתו‬and you do not warn him” and ‫[“ הרשעה לחיתו‬from his] wicked [way] that he may live”), have no counterpart in the parallel text in 33:8. On the one hand, the former addition emphasises the accountability of Ezekiel.36 On the other hand, the latter addition emphasises the underlying truth of a mitigation of YHWH’s punishment. The preposition ‫ל‬ with the infinitive construct of verb ‫ חיה‬occurs twice in Ezekiel (3:18; 13:22). Here the expression ‫ לחיתו‬indicates the consequence of dissuading the wicked man from his evil way. The infinitive construct can be used with ‫ ל‬to indicate that something is sufficient to cause the infinitive construct to happen.37 Thus, the word ‫ לחיתו‬in 3:18 indicates that Ezekiel’s warning is sufficient enough for the wicked person to repent and keep his life. Although the cases here are concerned with the incorrigible wicked man, the word ‫ לחיתו‬discloses an element of hope that the nature of Ezekiel’s divine warning was enough for preserving the life of the wicked person if he would heed the warning and avoid committing the sins. In other words, the use of the word ‫ לחיתו‬in terms of preserving the life of the wicked person in the context of the inevitable judgement reflects the mitigation of the divine punishment for the wicked man, though in the end the wicked dies in his iniquity. 35 The watchman account in Ezek 3:16b–21 consists of two different scenarios: (1) the incorrigible wicked person dies in any event; (2) the righteous person repents under the influence of the prophet and lives. Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer, “The Watchman Metaphor in Isaiah lvi–lxvi,” VT 55(3): 378–400 (382–83), argues convincingly that the focal point of the two scenarios is different. In the case of the incorrigible wicked person, the focus is the prophet; 3:16b–19 is meant as “an encouragement to the prophet, and to his seemingly grim and thankless task.” In contrast, the focus of the case of the backsliding righteous person is the repentance of the backsliding person and his fate. According to Tiemeyer, YHWH wants to give the backsliding righteous person a chance to live; in the watchman account, YHWH’s true desire is that the people should repent and live. 36 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 145. 37 For example, in 2 Kgs 20:1a: ‫בימים ההם חלה חזקיהו למות‬, “In those days, Hezekiah was sick enough to die.” This example shows that the infinitive construct ‫“( מות‬to die”) can be used with ‫ ל‬to indicate that the sickness of Hezekiah (‫ )חלה חזקיהו‬was sufficient to cause him to die. See Ronald J. Williams, William’s Hebrew Syntax (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007), § 199.

78

3 Ezekiel’s Call to be a Watchman and his Call to Muteness

3.2.3 Exegesis of Ezekiel 3:20–21 Beside the cases of the wicked, the cases of the righteous man, who turns from his righteousness, are depicted in vv. 20–21. These two verses have no equivalence in the account of watchman in 33:7–9, but the motif of the righteous man who indulges in evil (v. 20aα), the occurrence of the word ‫“ מכשול‬a stumbling block” (v. 20aβ), and the fate of the righteousness to whom the prophet refuses to pass the warning (v. 20bα), are dependent on 18:24, 26 and 30.38 3.2.3.1 Ezek 3:20 and the expression ‫מכשול‬ Ezek 3:20 was written as a development of 18:24–30, which is presupposed by 3:16b–21 (cf. section 3.1.2.1). The redactors may have evoked 18:24–30, which contains the motif of the call to repentance (18:30), by associating the noun ‫מכשול‬ (18:30) with the case of the righteous man who commits iniquity (3:20). Before we go any further into the discussion of the expression ‫מכשול‬, a discussion of the parallel plot between 3:20 and chapter 18 is in order. Ezek 3:20 contains the plot that the righteous man turns (‫ )בשוב‬from righteousness and commits iniquity (‫)עשה עול‬. We begin by offering a brief sketch of the relevant contents in Ezek 18. The noun ‫ עול‬literally means “injustice,” which occurs three times in Ezek 18. All three occurrences are associated with the context of the righteous man (18:8, 24, 26). Ezek 18:8 depicts that the righteous man withholds (‫שוב‬, hiphil imperfect) his hand ‫“( מעול‬from injustice”) and executes true justice within the community,39 while the righteous man in vv. 24 and 26 is depicted as turning (‫שוב‬, Qal infinitive construct) from his righteousness and committing iniquity. These examples imply that the righteous man described in Ezek 18 has the ability to withhold his hand from injustice or to turn away from injustice. The relation between the ability of the righteous man to make a decision and the expression ‫ מכשול‬has not been taken sufficiently seriously by scholars.40 In

38 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 145; Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 59. 39 Ezek 18:8 is involved in the account of the traits of the first generation. As Greenberg suggested, the purpose of the list (vv. 5–9) is concerned with gaining life or the Israelite life setting well-being within the community. See Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 335, 346–47; Odell, Ezekiel, 224. 40 The term ‫ מכשול‬also appears in Jer 6:21; it is also used in the context of watchman (cf. Jer 6:17). In Jer 6:21, the term ‫ מכשול‬represents “stumbling blocks” which are laid by YHWH for the people to stumble against. Some scholars, among them Block, claim that the term ‫ מכשול‬in Ezek 3:20 might have originated from Jer 6:21. However, the relative chronological order of Ezek 3:20 and Jer 6:21 is unclear. In addition, Zimmerli has shown in Ezekiel 1, 146, that the term ‫ מכשול‬in Jer 6:21 lacks specific emphasis, while term ‫ מכשול‬in Ezek 3:20 is emphatically given to the righteous man. Furthermore, the term ‫ מכשול‬in Ezek 3:20 is “not

3.2 Ezekiel’s Call to be a Watchman

79

the judgement oracle of 18:30–32, YHWH urges the entire house of Israel to repent (‫שובו והשיבו מכל־פשעיכם‬, v. 30bα) that is the only way in which ‫“( ולא־יהיה לכם למכשול עון‬iniquity may not become a stumbling block to you,” v. 30bβ). Here the divine mercy is demonstrated in a final appeal for repentance.41 The preposition ‫ ל‬of the expression ‫ למכשול‬here is a ‫ ל‬of product, which often comes after the verb ‫“( היה‬become”);42 the preposition ‫ ל‬plus a noun may indicate the goal of a process which includes a person altered in status.43 Thus, the indirect object of the preposition ‫ל‬, here the term ‫מכשול‬ (“stumbling block”), may be a state or condition that is the result of refusing to repent and to remain in iniquity.44 Or to put it in another way, there is a process from the moment of evoking an idea from committing iniquity to the consequence of refusing to repent. The stumbling block (‫ )מכשול‬is “the occasion through which guilt passes from being potential into being actual …,”45 it is a short period that provides a chance for a sinner to make a decision. Such an interpretation coheres with the scenario in Ezek 18 in which the righteous man has the ability to turn away from injustice. In addition, as explicated by Block, YHWH’s command to make a new heart and a new spirit (18:31aβ), which follows the occurrence of the word ‫למכשול‬, emphasises the accountability of the present disaster of the Israelites and points their way to the hope in the future.46 We come now to the relevant contents of Ezek 3:20. In the hypothetical case concerning the backsliding righteous man (v. 20), YHWH brings about his death by putting a ‫ מכשול‬in front of the righteous man. The action to put a ‫מכשול‬ (“stumbling block”) is not mentioned in both cases concerning the wicked man (vv. 18–19). Why does this term ‫ מכשול‬appear in the extant text concerning the

related to an external failure under divine judgement. This is first expressed in the ‫“[ ימות‬he will die”] of the apodosis. Rather, as its [the term ‫ ]מכשול‬position in the protasis shows, this is a part of the erstwhile righteous man’s becoming sinful.” Tiemeyer, “The Watchman Metaphor,” 387–89, has shown that in Ezek 7:19 and 14:1–11, “‫ מכשול‬is the cause rather than the occasion of sin.” It is obvious in Ezek 7:19 that “silver and gold, as material for idols, can become a ‫ מכשול‬to sin.” 41 Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 588. 42 Williams, Hebrew Syntax, § 278. 43 Cf. GKC § 119t; BHRG § 39.11.I.1.c; IBHS § 11.2.10d. For example, in Gen 29:28b: ‫ויתן־לו‬ ‫את־רחל בתו לו לאשה‬, “Then he gave him Rachel his daughter to be his wife.” This example shows that the object (‫ )אשה‬of the preposition ‫ ל‬is the goal of a process during which a state or status has been given (‫)נתן‬. Similarly, the preposition ‫ ל‬of the expression ‫ לגוי‬in Gen 12:2aα is another example of the ‫ ל‬of product: ‫ואעשך לגוי גדול‬, “I will make you into a great nation.” 44 The object of the preposition ‫ ל‬may be a state or condition that is the result of another action. Cf. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, § 278. 45 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 146. 46 Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 588.

80

3 Ezekiel’s Call to be a Watchman and his Call to Muteness

repentance of the backsliding righteous man? And why does YHWH not put a

‫ מכשול‬also before the wicked man? There are several reasons why the expression ‫ מכשול‬only occurs in the context of the righteous man, but not in the context of the wicked man. First, the two hypothetical cases of the wicked man (3:17–19) are dependent on another account of watchman in Ezek 33, in which the word ‫ מכשול‬does not occur. In contrast, Ezek 3:20 is dependent on 18:24–30, in which the expression ‫ מכשול‬is closely related to the scenario according to which the righteous man has the ability to withhold his hand from injustice. Secondly, Ezek 3:18 begins with a man who is already wicked. In v. 18 the divine warning ‫“( מות תמות‬You [the wicked man] will surely die”) is announced by the prophet: it is certainly a formal declaration of the legal death sentence which YHWH has already given;47 there is no chance to repent for the wicked man, who is portrayed as incorrigible. In contrast, Ezek 3:20 emphasises the point that when the righteous man is still righteous, just before he commits iniquity, the warning from the watchman reaches him.48 In this respect, the redactors drew upon the expression ‫ מכשול‬of 18:30 and developed it in two directions. The first is found in the divine assurance that the righteous man has the ability to keep away from or to turn away from the iniquity; YHWH puts the ‫ מכשול‬in front of the path of the backsliding righteous man to force him to make a decision. The ‫ מכשול‬is a kind of mitigation of the severity of the punishment, serving as a short period provided by YHWH for the backsliding righteous man which is “an interval [that] lies between the righteous man’s turning back (mentally) from his righteousness and his actively doing evil;”49 therefore, this short period provides a chance for the backsliding righteous man to refuse committing iniquity and instead to turn away from the offences after heeding the watchman’s warning. The second point of development is that 3:20 now contains the motif of hope in the context of the announcement of the inevitable punishment. As mentioned above, the hypothetical cases of the wicked man represent a group of people who are incorrigible and are fixed in their rebellious behaviour. Having examined the cases of the wicked, which blend in the prophet’s pessimism about the present, ‫ מכשול‬of 3:20 was written as a development of the context of 18:30. The redactors of Ezek 3:16b–21 developed the expression ‫ מכשול‬of 18:30 intimating that the call to repentance of the backsliding righteousness is a prerequisite for his self-transformation and for a future hope where restoration of life will be granted by YHWH (cf. 11:19 and 36:26–27). In

47 Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 146. 48 Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 86. 49 Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 86.

3.2 Ezekiel’s Call to be a Watchman

81

fact, Ezek 3:16b–21 asserts that repentance cannot rule out the inevitable destruction of Jerusalem, but it is an essential step in revitalising the Israelites.50 Except in the context of proclaiming divine judgement, the elements of hope and repentance are not excluded in Ezek 3:16b–21; the redactors developed the expression ‫ מכשול‬of 18:30 in the account of the backsliding righteous man in order to introduce the elements of hope in terms of the mitigation of the punishment into the context of the inevitable judgement. There are two hypothetical cases regarding the righteous man in Ezek 3:16b– 21. Why does the motif of the stumbling block (‫ )מכשול‬only appear in the case of the righteous man whom the watchman has not warned (3:20), but not in the case of the righteous man who has taken the watchman’s warning and returned (3:21)? The main reason, in my view, is that the redactors of Ezek 3:16b–21 merged different elements from Ezek 18 and 33 into the portrait of the watchman. Ezek 3:20 takes literally from 18:24–30, which contains the element of hope expressed by the term ‫מכשול‬, while Ezek 3:21 draws upon 33:15–16, which contains another element of hope. To this topic we now turn. 3.2.3.2 Ezek 3:21 and the expression ‫חיו יחיה‬ Again, the elements of repentance and hope are found in v. 21. Indeed, the response and outcome of the backsliding righteous man in v. 21 are unexpected.51 According to the consistent pattern of the three hypothetical cases from vv. 18– 20, as Block suggested, the case of the backsliding righteous man in v. 21 would have shown that he refused to turn from his sin and eventually died for his sin; however, Ezekiel would save himself. In Joyce’s view, three cases out of four (vv. 18–20) emphasise the negative outcome; the prophetic task in vv. 16–21 is to declare the sentence of death.52 Regarding Joyce’s point, it is in my opinion far more likely that the disruption of the pattern in the present text emphasises the mitigation of the divine punishment, which is expressed by YHWH’s call for repentance. Allen has suggested, correctly I think, that the description of the righteous man remains faithful and that the phrases ‫“( לחיתו‬that he may live,” v. 18aβ)53 and ‫“( חיו יחיה‬he will surely live,” v. 21bα) bring the underlying truth

50 Odell, Ezekiel, 220. 51 Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 148. 52 Joyce, Ezekiel, 81. 53 The use of the word ‫ לחיתו‬in terms of preserving life of the wicked person in Ezekiel is probably in the context of hope and restoration (see § 3.2.1). The expression ‫“( לחיתו‬that he may live,” v. 18aβ) lacks a parallel in 33:7–9. It is probably a later addition that highlights YHWH’s gracious redemptive will. Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 58–9, has shown that even in the case of the wicked man who refuses to hear the warning, YHWH’s intent was “to preserve his life” (‫)לחיתו‬.

82

3 Ezekiel’s Call to be a Watchman and his Call to Muteness

of YHWH’s redemptive will to the surface.54 The disruption of the pattern highlights a hypothetical report of the mitigation of the divine punishment, namely that Ezekiel succeeds in announcing the danger to the backsliding righteous man; as a result, he saves both his life and that of the righteous man. Such a reading coheres with the interpretation of the expression ‫( מכשול‬v. 20) that represents a short interval and a last chance for the backsliding righteous man to decide whether to repent or not before YHWH finally declares the death sentence. In order to bring the motif of hope and restoration, which are expressed by the phrase ‫“( חיו יחיה‬he will surely live,” 18:28; 3:21bα) and the word ‫מכשול‬ (18:30b; cf. 3:20aβ), to the account of the watchman, Ezek 3:20–21 adds two hypothetical cases regarding the righteous man by taking almost literally from Ezek 18:24–30. Apart from Ezek 18:27–30, Ezek 3:21 may also draw on and develop further thoughts present in 33:14–16. However, it is commonly argued that Ezek 33:10–20 is also based on material drawn from Ezek 18.55 In this case the material common to Ezek 3:21 and 33:14–16 might have drawn from Ezek 18 simultaneously. Since both Ezek 3:21 and 33:14–16 lack any chronological markers to indicate the chronological order between them, we first need to determine the direction of influence between 3:21 and 33:14–16 before we go further into the discussion about the relationship between Ezek 3:21 and the motifs of repentance and hope. It can be demonstrated that although Ezek 3:21 has used locutions from 33:14–16, it has modified it to fit the context of the repentance of the righteous man. Ezek 33:14–16 describes the hypothetical case that the wicked turns from his sin and practises justice and righteousness, whereas Ezek 3:21 contains the hypothetical case concerning the repentance of the righteous man. Ezek 3:21 stands in tension with its literary environment. Ezek 3:19 speaks of the wicked man who “does not turn from his wickedness” (‫)ולא־שב מרשעו‬. Ezek 3:20 speaks of the righteous man who turns away from his righteousness and “commits injustice” (‫)עשה עול‬. However, Ezek 3:21 shows the repentance of the righteous man: ‫“( לבלתי חטא צדיק והוא לא־חטא‬the righteous should not sin and he does not sin,” v. 21aβ). The expressions ‫ולא־שב מרשעו‬, ‫עשה עול‬, and ‫ חטא‬are conceptually similar and semantically related.56 However, the occur54 Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 59. 55 A. Schenker, “Saure Trauben ohne stumpfe Zähne. Bedeutung und Tragweite von Ez 18 und 33, 10–20 oder ein Kapitel alttestamentlicher Moraltheologie,” in Mélanges Dominique Barthélemy, eds. P. Casetti, O. Keel and A. Schenker (OBO 38; Fribourg, Suisse: Editions Universitaires; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981), 449–70; Joyce, Ezekiel, 191; Tuell, Ezekiel, 229. 56 Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 25–48 (NICOT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 246, where he states that the words ‫ רשע‬and ‫ חטא‬are “two semantically related ex-

3.2 Ezekiel’s Call to be a Watchman

83

rences of the root ‫ רשע‬and the root ‫ עול‬are in 3:18–20, whereas two of three occurrences of the root ‫ חטא‬are found in v. 21. Although ‫“( והוא לא־חטא‬and he does not sin,” v. 21aβ) seems to function as a structural counterpart to ‫ולא־שב‬ ‫“( מרשעו‬and he does not turn from his wickedness”) in v. 19, the redactors of Ezek 3:21 did not adopt the exact same language in vv. 18–20; they nevertheless used the locution ‫ והוא לא־חטא‬which is probably taken from 33:16 (‫כל־חטאתו‬ ‫“ אשר חטא לא תזכרנה לו‬none of his sin that he has committed will be remembered against him”). The lack of coherence in the context of Ezek 3:16b–21 indicates that Ezek 3:21 is using Ezek 33:14–16, and not vice versa. The redactors of Ezek 3:21 further used the locution ‫“( חיו יחיה‬he will surely live”) from 33:15, in which the expression ‫ חיו יחיה‬presupposes the fate of the wicked man who has turned from his wickedness, to fit a new context in order to highlight that the backsliding righteous man, who heeds the watchman’s warning, achieves the salvation of his own life. The appearance of the locution ‫ חיו יחיה‬in v. 21 is clearly secondary. It is preferable to see Ezek 3:21 as the later text which alludes to Ezek 33:14–16. As we can see from the evidence cited above, Ezek 3:21 alludes to Ezek 33:14– 16, which is part of a disputation reflecting the Israelites’ acceptance of the responsibility for their sin57 and their despair: ‫כי־פשעינו וחטאתינו עלינו ובם אנחנו‬ ‫“( נמקים ואיך נחיה‬Surely our transgressions and our sins are upon us, and we are rotting away in them; how then can we survive?,” 33:10). We begin by offering a brief sketch of Ezek 33:10–16. The section commences with a quotation of the Israelites’ complaints: the Israelites have not seen how the punishment of death can be avoided, though they have listened to the warnings of the watchman and repented;58 they believe that their fates seem to be slow deaths (‫ובם אנחנו‬ ‫נמקים ואיך נחיה‬, v. 10b). In 33:11–16 Ezekiel refutes their complaints and establishes a general principle: YHWH takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but delights in their repentance and their sentence of life. Thus, vv. 12–16 further indicate that the death sentence is not inevitable; there is still room for repentance before YHWH.59 In fact, 33:12–16 offers a message of hope and the mitigation of the severity of punishment that YHWH’s declaration of life or death can be changed, according to peoples’ willingness to live in obedience to YHWH.60 pressions.” Indeed, the terms ‫ חטא‬and ‫ עול‬in Ezekiel have overlapping semantic domains, as evidenced by those passages where they occur together as synonyms (Ezek 3:20–21; 18:24; 33:13–16). 57 Odell, Ezekiel, 415. 58 Odell, Ezekiel, 415. 59 Sweeney, Reading Ezekiel, 164. 60 Block, Ezekie 25–48, 250; Odell, Ezekiel, 416.

84

3 Ezekiel’s Call to be a Watchman and his Call to Muteness

As Allen stated, the discussion in 33:12–16 focuses not on YHWH’s offer of life, but his offer for a choice of life or death, and the pursuit of the statutes of life (‫)בחקות החיים הלך‬.61 The choice of life or death is offered by presenting two hypothetical cases. The hypothetical case in v. 13 begins with the backsliding righteous man, who cannot live by his past righteousness in a time of sinning. The second hypothetical case in vv. 14–16 is that if the wicked man pursues the statutes of life without (‫ )לבלתי‬committing iniquity, he will surely live (‫;)חיו יחיה‬ the death penalty will not be executed (‫)לא ימות‬. In such a case, none of his previous sins (‫ )כל־חטאתו אשר חטא לא‬will be held against him, and he will surely live (‫)חיו יחיה‬. In the second hypothetical case (33:14–16), a parallel structure can be observed: v. 15aβb

‫חיו יחיה לא ימות‬

‫לבלתי עשות עול‬

‫בחקות החיים הלך‬

v. 16b

‫חיו יחיה‬

‫עשה‬

‫משפט וצדקה‬

In 33:15 the wicked man is asked to pursue the statutes of life without committing (‫ )עשות‬iniquity, while in v. 16 the repentant wicked man is described as one who has practised (‫ )עשה‬justice and righteousness (‫)צדקה‬. The outcome in vv. 15 and 16 is the same: the repentant wicked man will surely live (‫)חיו יחיה‬. Here we can observe that the expressions ‫“( בחקות החיים הלך‬walks in the statutes of life”) and ‫“( משפט וצדקה עשה‬practises justice and righteousness”) are parallel. They are also conceptually similar in reference to the fate of the repentant wicked man: ‫חיו יחיה‬. In other words, ‫ בחקות החיים הלך‬functions as an equivalent of ‫משפט וצדקה עשה‬. The similarities between Ezek 3:21 and 33:15–16 are remarkable. There are 13 occurrences of the word ‫“( לבלתי‬except”) in Ezekiel. Of these, two are found in the cluster of terms ‫לבלתי‬, ‫ חיו‬and ‫ יחיה‬in 3:21 and 33:15. Moreover, another cluster of terms ‫לא‬, ‫חטא‬, ‫ חיו‬and ‫ יחיה‬is found in 3:21 and 33:16. On grounds of the verbal links between 3:21 and 33:15–16, we find that the redactors responsible for 3:21 alluded to 33:15 in order to link “the pursuit of the statutes of life without committing iniquity” with the expression of the righteousness (‫)צדקה‬. In 3:21 the prophet is asked to warn the righteous man that ‫לבלתי חטא צדיק‬ (“the righteous should not sin”). The warning ‫ לבלתי חטא צדיק‬is developed by 33:15–16, representing a blending of material from the statement ‫בחקות החיים‬ ‫( הלך לבלתי עשות עול‬33:15aβ) and from the statement ‫משפט וצדקה עשה‬ (33:16b). In this way, the prophet’s warning ‫ לבלתי חטא צדיק‬in 3:21 embraces 61 Leslie C. Allen, Ezekiel 20–48 (WBC 29; Dallas: Word, 1990), 146.

3.2 Ezekiel’s Call to be a Watchman

85

extra reasons why the backsliding righteous man will surely live. In fact, in 3:21 the only reason for the perservation of the life of the backsliding righteous man is his heeding of the watchman’s warning. The hypothetical case in 3:21 shows that the backsliding righteous man takes the prophet’s warning: ‫לבלתי חטא‬ ‫“( צדיק‬the righteous should not sin”), and corrects himself: he does not sin (‫)והוא לא־חטא‬. On grounds of the allusion to 33:15–16, the expressions ‫לבלתי‬ ‫ חטא צדיק‬and ‫ והוא לא־חטא‬in 3:21 imply that the backsliding righteous man walks in the statutes of life without (‫ )לבלתי‬committing injustice (‫ )עול‬or sin (‫)חטא‬, and practises justice and righteous again. As a result, he earns the divine declaration, “he is righteous and will surely live.”62 In short, many scholars, among them Robson and Joyce, argue that the purpose of inserting 3:16b–21 next to the end of the call narrative is to emphasise the accountability of Israel for the now inescapable judgement and Ezekiel’s responsibility for conveying YHWH’s word.63 Regarding the views of Robson and Joyce, it is in my opinion far more likely that the interpolation of 3:16b–21 in the present text emphasises YHWH’s call for repentance in addition to the announcement of the inevitable judgement. As I have mentioned above, the most startling feature of the redactional material of Ezek 3:16b–21 is that YHWH is concerned with the repentance of the righteous man; his intent is to preserve his life even in the case of the wicked man who refuses to hear the warning64 (see also section 3.2.2.1). As mentioned in section 2.3.1, the primary audience of the original call narrative is described as “the rebellious people,” who are characterised as hard-faced and stubborn-hearted (Ezek 2:4). To this rebellious people, Ezekiel is commanded to proclaim YHWH’s words regardless of whether they hear or not. In the original call narrative, YHWH ignores the responses of the rebellious people. In contrast, in the redactional layer of Ezek 3:16b–21 YHWH is concerned with the repentance of the righteous man and the preservation of his life.65 In this way, Ezek 3:16b–21 contains the motif of hope and restoration. On the one hand, the fate of the incorrigible wicked man and the unrepentant righteous man in 3:18–20 alludes not only to the vindication of YHWH’s absolute justice regarding the present disaster of Israel but also to the appeal for the Israelites’ acknowledgment of their responsibility. On the other hand, the fate of the backsliding righteous man in 3:21 alludes to the vindication of the appeal for repentance and the mitigation of the severity of the punishment to the repentant people in chapters 18 and 33. 62 Gordon H. Matties, Ezekiel 18 and the Rhetoric of Moral Discourse (SBLDS 126; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), 65–70; Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 250. 63 Robson, Word and Spirit, 180–1; Joyce, Ezekiel, 81. 64 Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 58–59. 65 Odell, Ezekiel, 49.

86

3 Ezekiel’s Call to be a Watchman and his Call to Muteness

3.3 Ezekiel’s Binding and His Call to be Muteness The account of Ezekiel’s binding and muteness in 3:22–27 resembles the vision account in 1:1–3:15,, both of which are introduced by the expression ‫ותהי עלי‬ ‫שם יד־יהוה‬. Through recurrent expressions like ‫ כבוד־יהוה‬and ‫ותבא־בי רוח‬ ‫ ותעמדני על־רגלי‬the account of Ezekiel’s binding and muteness links with the visionary accounts in Ezekiel.66 The present arrangement suggests that the account of Ezekiel’s binding and muteness is related to the inaugural vision of YHWH’s Glory and the prophetic call of Ezekiel. However, there is an incongruity; Ezek 3:22–27 differs from 1:1–3:15 in its content: in contrast to his call to speak to the rebellious people (2:3), Ezekiel is forbidden to speak to his people (3:26). In this respect, Ezek 3:22–27 is considered as redactional material connecting with Ezek 24:25–27 and 33:21–22, both of which mention and fulfil a divine promise of the removal of Ezekiel’s muteness.67 However, the important aspect for the redaction history in Ezekiel is that the account of Ezekiel’s binding and muteness in 3:22–27 draws material from Ezek 37:1–14. On the basis of the discussion concerning allusions between Ezek 3:22–27 and 37:1–14, this section aims at identifying the motif of hope and restoration in the redactional material of Ezek 3:22–27.

3.3.1 Ezek 3:22–27 and Ezek 37:1–14 The geographical place where Ezekiel is reported as seeing the visions testifies to a compositional and redactional strategy. The valley vision of the dead bones (37:1–14) is certainly among the most famous texts in Ezekiel. Ezek 37:1–14 speaks of the restoration of the dry bones in ‫“( הבקעה‬the valley”). The first part of the account of Ezekiel’s binding and muteness (3:22–24a) speaks of the appearance of YHWH’s Glory in ‫הבקעה‬. The account of 3:22–27 is linked to that of 37:1–14 not only by the place ‫ בקעה‬referencing the location of the visions,68 but also by their shared vocabularies and thematic connections. For a comparison between 3:22–27 and 37:1–14, see Table 2 below.

66 See § 3.1.2.2. 67 Cooke, Ezekiel, 46–7; Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 57. 68 The word ‫ בקעה‬is used only in 3:22, 23; 8:4 and 37:1, 2 in Ezekiel. Although the exact location of the valley is not clear, Odell and Sweeney suggest that ‫ בקעה‬in Ezek 3:22–23 seems to be the same valley mentioned in Ezek 37:1–14. See Odell, Ezekiel, 451, 454; Sweeney, Reading Ezekiel, 37.

87

3.3 Ezekiel’s Binding and His Call to be Muteness

Tab. 2: A Comparison between 3:22–27 and 37:1–14 (For detailed discussion cf. 3.3.1.4). Ezek 3:22–27

Ezek 37:1–14

The hand of YHWH on the prophet (3:22a) ‫שם יד־יהוה‬

‫ותהי עלי‬

Vision in the valley ‫ ואקום‬... ‫ויאמר אלי קום צא אל־הבקעה‬ (3:22b–32aα) ‫ואצא אל־הבקעה‬

The hand of YHWH on the prophet (37:1aα) ‫יד־יהוה‬

‫היתה עלי‬

Vision in the valley … ‫ויניחני בתוך הבקעה‬

‫ויוצאני ברוח יהוה‬ ‫והנה רבות מאד על־פני הבקעה‬ (37:1aβ–2bα)

Spirit came to the prophet (3:24aα) ‫ותבא־בי רוח‬ Spirit caused the prophet to stand on his feet (3:24aα) ‫ותעמדני על־רגלי‬ YHWH commanded the prophet (3:24b) niphal imperative + ‫אלי‬ Ezekiel’s muteness (3:26aαβ) ‫ונאלמת‬

‫ויאמר‬

Spirit came to the prophet (37:1aβ)69 ‫ויוצאני ברוח יהוה‬ Spirit caused the bones to stand on their feet 70

‫ותבוא בהם הרוח ויחיו ויעמדו על־רגליהם‬

(37:10bα) YHWH commanded the prophet (37:4a) niphal imperative + ‫ויאמר אלי‬ Ezekiel’s prophecy

‫ולשונך אדביק אל־חכך‬

‫ונבאתי כאשר צויתי ויהי־קול כהנבאי‬ ‫והנה־רעש ותקרבו עצמות עצם אל־עצמו‬ (37:7)

Incomplete fulfilment of the commission (3:26aγ) ‫ולא־תהיה להם לאיש מוכיח‬

Incomplete fulfilment of the promise (37:8b) ‫אין בהם‬

Fulfilment of the commission (Prophesy to Israel before the messenger formula)

Fulfilment of the promise (Prophesy to the bones after the messenger formula) ‫לכן הנבא ואמרת אליהם … אני פתח‬

‫ובדברי אותך אפתח את־פיך ואמרת אליהם‬ (3:27aα)

‫ורוח‬

‫את־קברותיכם והעליתי אתכם מקברותיכם‬ ‫עמי והבאתי אתכם אל־אדמת ישראל‬ (37:12)

The messenger formula (3:27aβ) ‫יהוה‬

The messenger formula

‫כה אמר אדני‬

(37:5aα, 12aβ) ‫יהוה‬

‫כה־אמר אדני‬

3.3.1.1 Relative Chronology of Ezek 3:22–27 and 37:1–14 Before we go into the discussion of the allusions between 3:22–27 and 37:1–14, I shall establish the relative chronological order between Ezek 3:22–27 and

69 A similar phrase ‫ ותבוא בהם הרוח‬appears in 37:10, but the ‫ רוח‬in vv. 9–10 may be translated as “breath.” 70 The prophetic experience itself contains seeds of hope for the people of God (cf. 2:1–2; 3:24). See Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 187.

88

3 Ezekiel’s Call to be a Watchman and his Call to Muteness

37:1–14 in order to delineate the direction of dependence. There is a general consensus in scholarship that Ezek 3:22–27 is of redactional origin,71 and thus likely composed later than 37:1–14;72 Ezek 3:22–27 was probably written in the post-exilic period,73 while Ezek 37:1–14 was probably written before 573 B.C.E.74 In my opinion, the portrayal in Ezek 37:1–14 recalls the imagery of the remains exposed on the open field after the end of war. The bones in the valley vision symbolise the hopeless situation of Israel in exile, while the revivification of the bones signifies the exilic community’s anticipation of an imminent divine intervention. Ezek 37:1–14 reflects a historical situation of the exiles in the early exilic period. In contrast, Ezek 3:22–27 appears to have been written in the postexilic period, as can be seen in the transformation of Ezekiel’s role as a watchman and in the emphasis of his priestly role. On the one hand, before the addition of 3:22–27, Ezekiel is depicted as YHWH’s spokesman and watchman for the exiles only (3:11, 15, 17–21). The description of Ezekiel’s muteness indicates that he ceased to intercede on behalf of the exilic community. On the other hand, in 3:22–27 Ezekiel’s role as a watchman is widened: from the point of view of the redactors, the commencement of speaking after Jerusalem’s fall implies the restoration of Ezekiel’s ability to intercede with YHWH on behalf of the whole Israel. In other words, the material in 3:22– 27 does not assign a special position before YHWH to the exilic community. Rather, they are treated on par with the rest of Israel. The redactional quality of the account of Ezek 3:22–27 is also emphasised by its focus on the restoration aspect of Ezekiel’s priestly role, in particular his ability to intercede for the whole Israel; it reflects the historical situation of the priesthood in the Persian period (see further discussion in Chapter 7). For these two reasons, I hold the view that Ezek 3:22–27 was written later than 37:1–14.75 71 See § 3.1.2.2. Cf. Cooke, Ezekiel, 44,46; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 157–61; Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 57; Joyce, Ezekiel, 82. 72 Hiebel, Ezekiel’s Vision Accounts, 215, has shown a chart summarising the interrelated redaction history among the vision accounts in Ezekiel, including the relation between the original vision of dry bones and the redactional account in 3:22–27. I follow Hiebel’s suggestion that the original vision of dry bones was written by the six-century prophet Ezekiel, whereas the account of 3:22–27, which contributes to the book’s coherence, was written later than 37:1– 14. In her view, the visionary elements in 3:22–27 were borrowed from the vision of the bones. See Hiebel, Ezekiel’s Vision Accounts, 249–53. 73 Cf. § 3.1.2.2. 74 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 258; Frank-Lothar Hossfeld, Untersuchungen zu Komposition und Theologie des Ezechielbuches (Würzburg: Echter, 1977), 397–8; Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 184; Stefan Ohnesorge, Jahwe gestaltet sein Volk neu: Zur Sicht der Zukunft Israels nach Ez 11,14–21; 20,1– 44; 36,16–38; 37,1–15.15–28 (FB 64; Würzburg: Echter, 1991), 305. 75 The chronological development regarding biblical Hebrew in Ezek 3:22–27 and 37:1–14 is accessible in Appendix A.

3.3 Ezekiel’s Binding and His Call to be Muteness

89

In recent years, German scholarship usually argues that Ezekiel has been composed over a longer period of time, and proposes varying later dates towards the Hellenistic era. I therefore hesitate in ascribing specific dates to Ezek 3:22–27 and 37:1–14. Alongside the English-speaking scholarly discussion, I cautiously maintain that Ezekiel was completed by the end of the sixth century B.C.E. However, I shall keep considering the German scholarly discussion in order to establish the relative chronology between Ezek 3:22–27 and 37:1–14. The main aim of the following paragraphs is to determine the relative chronological order between Ezek 3:22–27 and 37:1–14 in accordance with German scholarship. In the first volume of his commentary, Karl-Friedrich Pohlmann has, on the one hand, shown that the whole section of 3:22–27 is a literary unit which is attributed to what he calls the “diaspora-oriented redaction.”76 On the other hand, he proposes that 37:1–14 represents a product of the “golah-oriented redaction,” despite the fact that he assumes that the imagery of resurrected bodies coming out of the graves (vv. 11–14), which was present in the exilic “original prophetic book,” is presupposed by the visionary account of the dry bones in vv. 1–10.77 In his view, Ezek 3:22–27 was written later than Ezek 37:1–14. Another German scholar is Thilo A. Rudnig, who largely accepts the results of Pohlmann’s analysis; he attributes Ezek 3:22–27 to the “diaspora-oriented redaction,”78 while he assigns Ezek 37:1–14* to the “golah-oriented redaction.”79 The chronological order proposed by Pohlmann and Rudnig fits what I shall argue soon: the redactors of the account of the opening of Ezekiel’s mouth (3:27) evoked Ezek 37:12–14 by repeating its catchword: ‫“( פתח‬open”). In addition, the redactors demonstrated the reinstatement of Ezekiel’s priestly role in Ezek 3:25– 27 by alluding to the account of the revivification of dry bones in 37:1–6. Another German scholar who has mapped out the redaction history of Ezek 37:1–14 is Anja Klein. In her monograph on the study of the redaction history of Ezek 34–39, she argues that the original vision of the dry bones, which consists of 37:1–6*, belongs to the oldest texts in Ezek 34–39.80 Ezek 37:11–14 “forms a Fortschreibung” as imagery of resurrected bodies coming out of the graves

76 Pohlmann, Hesekiel 1–19, 76. 77 K.-F. Pohlmann (mit einem Beitrag von T. A. Rudnig), Der Prophet Hesekiel (Ezechiel): Kapitel 20–48 (ATD, 22/2; Gӧttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001), 495. 78 Thilo A. Rudnig, Heilig und Profan: Redaktionskritische Studien zu Ez 40–48 (BZAW 287; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000), 238–9, 353–4. 79 Rudnig, Heilig und Profan, 65–6, 73–7, 237. 80 Anja Klein, Schriftauslegung im Ezechielbuch Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Ez 34–39 (BZAW 391; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008), 270–300, 350. In addition, Klein, Schriftauslegung, 394, proposes that Ezek 36:1–11* and 37:1–6* belong to the original version of Ezekiel.

90

3 Ezekiel’s Call to be a Watchman and his Call to Muteness

does not match the imagery of dry bones.81 In her view, Ezek 37:1–6 is a prophecy addressed to the first Gola because ‫“( הבקעה‬the valley”) where the vision of dry bone took place is the place “where Ezekiel had seen YHWH’s glory in the exiles according to Ezek 3:22–24.”82 Klein’s study does not cover the early chapters of Ezekiel; she has not decided the relative chronology of Ezek 3:22–27 and 37:1–14.83 In response, the redaction history of Ezek 37:1–14 is very complicated; scholars, among them Klein, propose a longer literary development of the valley vision account because of the specific use of the perfect consecutivum in 37:7– 10.84 I hold the view that despite its overall unity, Ezek 37:1–14 underwent a redactional process; however I am not convinced that the use of the perfect consecutivum in vv. 7–10 is a sufficient criterion for the identification of redactional activity in the case of 37:1–14. Hermann Spieckermann has shown in his study of 2 Kgs 23 that the change from wayyiqtol to weqatal forms is not a grammatical trait for determining whether a text was written at a later date.85 Moreover, Michael Konkel has argued, correctly I think, that “the first form of

81 Anja Klein, “Prophecy Continued: Reflections on Innerbiblical Exegesis in the Book of Ezekiel,” VT 60 (2010): 571–582 (573). 82 Klein, “Prophecy Continued,” 573, contends that although the prophecy in Ezek 37 is addressed to the first Gola, “this is not to imply that the text itself was written in exilic period.” According to Klein, “the bones in Ezek 37:1–6* signify the situation of Israel in exile and diaspora, which is perceived as being hopeless and desperately in need of divine intervention.” See Klein, Schriftauslegung, 399–403; Klein, “Resurrection as Reward for the Righteous: The Vision of the Dry Bones in Pseudo-Ezekiel as External Continuation of the Biblical Vision,” in “I Lift My Eyes and Saw” Reading Dream and Vision Reports in the Hebrew Bible, ed. Elizabeth R. Hayes and L.-S. Tiemeyer (LHBOTS 584; London: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2014), 199. 83 Klein’s argument is based on the differences between the MT and the LXX and the Qumran material, namely the Pseudo-Ezekiel manuscripts. Klein argues that in the basic layer of the vision of dry bones (37:1–6*), the revivification of the bones symbolises the restoration of the destitute people following the exile. The first Fortschreibung in 37:11–14* interprets the revivification of the bones in terms of a repatriation of Israel to its homeland. Ezek 37:2, 7–10* represents a later redactional layer, that is the second Fortschreibung, because the use of the perfect consecutivum in vv. 2, 7–10* points to a late linguistic setting. In the second Fortschreibung in 37:2, 7–10*, the revivification is reinterpreted in terms of the resurrection of the dead. In light of the various links and shared imagery between Ezek 37 and the Pseudo-Ezekiel, Klein shows that the vision in Pseudo-Ezekiel continues the idea of bodily resurrection from the second Fortschreibung in 37:2, 7–10*, and speaks of the bodily resurrection as the reward for the righteous. Due to the fact that 37:2, 7–10* is already incorporated in Pap. 967, Klein dates the second Fortschreibung in 37:2, 7–10* in the late third or early second century B.C.E. Cf. Klein, “Resurrection as Reward for the Righteous,” 196–220. 84 Klein, “Resurrection as Reward for the Righteous,” 198. 85 Hermann Spieckermann, Juda unter Assur in der Sargonidenzeit (FRLANT 129; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982), 120–30. Cf. Michael Konkel, “The Vision of the Dry Bones

3.3 Ezekiel’s Binding and His Call to be Muteness

91

weqatal appears already in [37:2abα], where it cannot be eliminated from the basic layer;”86 those subsequent forms of weqatal in vv. 7–10 are by no means a later addition. Moreover, there is evidence for the use of the perfect consecutivum in the account of a Temple tour in Ezek 40–42; those forms of weqatal in Ezek 40–42, according to Konkel, should never be considered as secondary to the forms of wayyiqtol within the same text.87 For these reasons, about the existence of any redactional work in Ezek 37:1–14 must remain a conjecture. Above all, the arguments of the German scholars shed light on the chronological order between Ezek 3:22–27 and 37:1–14. Though the question of the date of Ezek 37:1–14 is widely disputed, there is strong evidence to suggest that Ezek 3:22–27 was written later than Ezek 37:1–14. In my opinion, attempts to firmly date the composition of Ezek 3:22–27 and 37:1–14 remains problematic. As such, I maintain that the establishment of literary dependence should not be based only on the above-mentioned discussion about dating. Rather, the direction of dependence and the purposeful textual reuse between two texts should be determined by also using the criteria listed in section 1.4.2.1 and 1.4.2.3. To this topic we now turn. 3.3.1.2 Purposeful Textual Reuse between Ezek 3:22–27 and 37:1–14 Before discussing the relationship between Ezek 3:22–27 and 37:1–14, the direction of dependence between the two texts is in order. As mentioned in section 3.1.2.2, Ezek 3:22–27 is reminiscent of Ezekiel’s inaugural vision and his prophetic call. In the call narrative YHWH’s commands always begin with the phrase ‫ בן־אדם‬or ‫ואתה בן־אדם‬, but the beginning of YHWH’s address in 3:22–27 is surprisingly without this usual vocative. In Ezek 3:22–23, when ‫ יד־יהוה‬falls upon Ezekiel, he is commanded to rise up and go out into the valley, where he sees YHWH’s Glory and falls on his face. When Ezekiel is erect, YHWH commands him to go home and shut himself up in his house (v. 24b). What comes next is the vocative ‫ ואתה בן־אדם‬followed by the expression ‫ הנה‬in 3:25. Why does the phrase ‫ ואתה בן־אדם‬come only in v. 25? In my view, it is because Ezek 3:22–27 is influenced by Ezekiel’s call narrative, on the one hand and by the valley vision of the dead bones (Ezek 37:1–14), on the other. Although the beginning of YHWH’s command in Ezek 3:22 is without the usual vocative ‫“( בן־אדם‬son of man”), the vocative ‫בן־אדם‬, which is followed by

(Ezek 37.1–14): Resurrection, Restoration or What?” in Ezekiel: Current Debates and Future Directions, eds. William A. Tooman and Penelope Barter (FAT 112; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), 111. 86 Konkel, “The Vision of the Dry Bones,” 110–11. 87 Michael Konkel, Architektonik des Heiligen: Studien zur zweiten Tempelvision Ezechiels (Ez 40–48) (BBB 129; Berlin: Philo, 2001), 39–41.

92

3 Ezekiel’s Call to be a Watchman and his Call to Muteness

the expression ‫הנה‬, is inserted in the subsequent verses. In Ezek 3:25–27 the YHWH’s speech is addressed to the “son of man.” YHWH then demands Ezekiel’s attention: ‫“( הנה‬behold!”) and announces that he will be bound with ropes so that he is unable to leave his house. Subsequently, YHWH announces that his tongue will stick to his palate so that he is mute. As a result, the Israelites are hopeless as Ezekiel loses his ability to intercede on behalf of them before YHWH.88 This material is taken from the account of the Israelites’ hopelessness in Ezek 37:11 (‫בן־אדם העצמות האלה כל־בית ישראל המה הנה אמרים יבשו‬ ‫ ;)עצמותינו ואבדה תקותנו נגזרנו לנו‬thus, the combination of the two introductory phrases, namely ‫ בן־אדם‬and ‫ הנה‬appears in the middle part of 3:22–27, instead of appearing in the beginning of YHWH’s command. The rest of the address in Ezek 3:22–27 draws on Ezek 37:12–14, in which YHWH argues against the hopelessness of Israel and promises to open (‫ )פתח‬the graves and to put his spirit within the house of Israel. The redactors of 3:22–27 therefore used the message of hope in 37:12–14 to argue that Ezekiel’s ability to intercede with God will be restored when YHWH opens (‫ )פתח‬his mouth again. The direction of dependence is clear because it is possible to demonstrate the intent of interweaving motifs of judgement and restoration in Ezek 3:22–27. Moreover, Ezek 3:22–27 represents a blending of material from Ezek 1:1–3:15 and 37:1–14. This blending of material from two different sources implies that Ezek 3:22–27 is using 37:1–14, and not vice versa. In other words, Ezek 3:22–27 alludes to 37:1–14. The redactors of Ezek 3:22–27 were aware of 37:1–14. As shown in Table 2, there are shared vocabularies and thematic connections between both texts. Such a high frequency of commonly attested expressions can be regarded as evidence of intentional reuse, if the redactors demonstrate an awareness of the context in which these shared vocabularies appear. An example of such contextual awareness can be seen in Ezek 3:27, which uses Ezek 37:12:

‫לכן הנבא ואמרת אליהם כה־אמר אדני יהוה הנה אני פתח את־קברותיכם והעליתי אתכם‬ ‫מקברותיכם עמי והבאתי אתכם אל־אדמת ישראל‬ Therefore prophesy and you will say to them, “Thus says the Lord YHWH, ‘Behold, I shall open your graves and cause you to come up from your graves, my people; and I shall bring you to the land of Israel. (Ezek 37:12)

‫ובדברי אותך אפתח את־פיך ואמרת אליהם כה אמר אדני יהוה השמע ישמע והחדל יחדל כי‬ ‫בית מרי המה‬ But when I speak with you, I shall open your mouth, and you will say to them, “Thus says the Lord YHWH, he who hears, let him hear; and he who refuses, let him refuse; because they are a house of rebellion. (Ezek 3:27)

88 In fact, in the preceding v. 24 Ezekiel has already been prevented from engaging in prophecy by shutting himself up in his house.

3.3 Ezekiel’s Binding and His Call to be Muteness

93

The verb ‫“( פתח‬open”) and the expression ‫“( אמרת אליהם‬you will say to them”) are quite common terms and their repeated occurrence does not necessarily indicate any textual reuse between Ezek 3:27 and 37:12. Moreover, the messenger formula (‫ )כה אמר אדני יהוה‬occurs over 120 times in Ezekiel; its occurrence in isolation in both texts is likely coincidental. However, when all three expressions are used together in a single verse in Ezekiel, their occurrence demonstrates its redactors’ awareness of an earlier text in accordance with the criterion 2 mentioned in section 1.4.2.3: Elsewhere in the HB, the collocation of the expression ‫ אמרת אליהם‬and the messenger formula is only used with the verb ‫( פתח‬in Qal form) in Ezek 3:27 and 37:12.89 As shown above, the inversion of the order of the verb ‫ פתח‬and the collocation of the expression ‫אמרת אליהם‬ and the messenger formula can also be seen in Ezek 3:27 and 37:12 (cf. § 1.4.2.3 criterion 2). In other words, the borrowing redactors of Ezek 3:22–27 can demonstrate a contextual awareness of Ezek 37:1–14 by “combining multiple separate locutions from the source text that are within close proximity to one another,” and by reversing the order of locutions from the source text;90 the redactors’ contextual awareness and the high frequency of shared language indicate intentional literary dependence between Ezek 3:22–27 and 37:1–14. The redactors of Ezek 3:22–27 appropriated the motif of restoration in Ezek 37:1–14 for their own purposes, using it to embed a hope of restoration expressed by the reinstatement of Ezekiel’s priestly role in the context of the irrevocable judgement (see discussion in § 3.3.1.4).

3.3.1.3 Gold cords of High Priest The act of binding Ezekiel with ropes (Ezek 3:25) reveals a paradoxical situation that the redactors placed in the final form of Ezekiel. The binding of Ezekiel by putting (‫ )נתן‬the ropes on him is often interpreted to symbolise the captivity of the exiles,91 anticipating the final judgement against the Israelites. Odell has

89 There are 136 occurrences of the verb ‫“( פתח‬open”) in the HB. Of these five are found in the collocation of the messenger formula and the verb ‫( פתח‬Ezek 3:27; 21:33; 25:8–9; 37:12; 46:1). Among these five occurrences, only the verb ‫ פתח‬in Ezek 3:27; 25:8–9; 37:12 expresses an active meaning, indicating that YHWH opens something. However, Ezek 25:8–9 does not contain the expression ‫אמרת אליהם‬, which is attested in both Ezek 3:27 and 37:12. 90 Lyons, From Law to Prophecy, 71. 91 Odell, Ezekiel, 57; Rochester, Prophetic Ministry, 53. Contra Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 61, in which he mentions that the binding of Ezekiel symbolises the Israelites’ opposition to Ezekiel for his judgement oracles. However, at this stage in the call narrative, Ezekiel has not yet proclaimed any message of judgement. Allen’s point of view is unlikely the interpretation of the meaning of Ezekiel’s being bound.

94

3 Ezekiel’s Call to be a Watchman and his Call to Muteness

shown that by the act of binding Ezekiel and confining him to his house, the Israelites allow Ezekiel to symbolise their situation in exile and thereby express “their willingness to accept him as an emblem of their fate.”92 The ropes (‫ )עבותים‬with which Ezekiel is bound (‫ )נתן‬imply Ezekiel’s role as a representative.93 Twelve of nineteen occurrences of ‫ עבת‬in the HB are found either in Judges or in Exodus. On the one hand, the use of the term ‫ עבת‬is associated with imprisonment in the Samson narratives (Judg 15:13, 14; 16:11, 12). On the other hand, ‫ עבותים‬refer to the gold cords that are binding the ephod and the breastplate of judgement on the high priest in the Priestly literature (Exod 28:14, 22, 24, 25; 39:15, 17, 18).94 As explicated by Odell, the interpretation of the binding of Ezekiel by means of ‫ עבותים‬indicates Ezekiel’s reincorporation into the Israelite community as a priest. I agree with Odell’s explanation that “since the breastplate of judgement contains stones of remembrance on which are inscribed the names of the twelve tribes, then it is conceivable that these cords symbolically bind the people to the priest and keep them in his memory as he performs his duties.”95 Ezekiel in fact has lost his active role of priest and even his identity when he became an exile and no longer served in the temple. But the binding of Ezekiel here symbolises the reinstatement of Ezekiel’s priestly role in certain dimensions: the ropes (‫ )עבותים‬that bind Ezekiel restore him to a position of separation for the sake of service to his community.96 Here the binding of Ezekiel not only symbolises the captivity of the exiles, but it also signifies the restoration aspect of Ezekiel’s priestly role.97

3.3.1.4 Reinstatement of Priestly Role and the Revivification of Dry Bone In this section, I shall show that Ezek 3:22–27 and 37:1–14 are linked through the recurrence of the motif of restoration and through the shared vocabularies. The motif of restoration is expressed by the revivification of the dry bones in 37:6, in which YHWH promises to revive these bones by putting sinews on them,

92 Odell, “You are What You Eat,” 245–46. 93 Odell, Ezekiel, 57. 94 Odell, “You are What You Eat,” 246. 95 Odell, “You are What You Eat,” 246. 96 Odell, “You are What You Eat,” 247. 97 The binding of Ezekiel by means of “ropes” seems to have two contradictory interpretations. But it is just like that there are some oracles of hope and restoration among the oracles of judgement in Ezek 1–24. In addition, the incorporation of the motifs of restoration and of judgement into a redactional layers of Ezek 1–7 may be the writing style of the redactors as the interpolation of Ezek 3:16b–21 has already shown that the motifs of hope and of repentance are interwoven with the vindication of YHWH’s absolute justice (see § 3.2).

3.3 Ezekiel’s Binding and His Call to be Muteness

95

by making flesh come upon them, by covering them with skin, and eventually by putting breath into the bones. Likewise, the restoration aspect of Ezekiel’s priestly role in Ezek 3:22–27 is expressed by the act of his binding: the ropes are put on the prophet to bind him to his people so that he demonstrates that he shares their fate as a priest.98 On the basis of the above-mentioned lexical linkage and thematic resemblance, it is not surprising that interest has begun to focus on the relationship between Ezek 3:22–27 and 37:1–14, that will be shown in the following paragraphs. Ezek 3:22–27 as a whole emphasises the restoration aspect of Ezekiel’s priestly role. As mentioned above, the interpretation of the symbolic act of Ezekiel’s binding by means of the “ropes” (‫עבותים‬, v. 25) first indicates Ezekiel’s reinstatement of his priestly role in certain dimensions: Ezekiel shares the fate of the Israelites as a priest. After the symbolic act of Ezekiel’s binding, the immediate imagery employed in v. 26 is that YHWH will cause Ezekiel’s muteness by making his tongue cling to his palate, making it “impossible for Ezekiel to avert the judgement that his binding symbolises.”99 Here Ezekiel’s muteness seems to signify the incomplete fulfilment of the promise concerning the restoration of his priestly role. However, in light of the allusion here to Ezek 37:1–14, it is probably that there are still some aspects of restoration concerning Ezekiel’s priestly role in 3:22–27.100 In case of the valley vision of the dry bones, after the promise of YHWH’s revivification of the dry bones (37:4–6), the account of Ezek 37:7–8 not only asserts the restoration of bones following Ezekiel’s compliance with YHWH’s command to prophesy, but also indicates the incomplete fulfilment of the promise concerning the renewal of life – there is ‫“( רוח אין‬no breath”) in the bones, though sinews have been put on the bones (37:8). In v. 11, the bones in the valley are also said to represent the entire house of Israel (‫ )כל־בית ישראל‬whose lament includes the expressions of hopelessness:101 ‫יבשו עצמותינו ואבדה תקותנו‬ ‫“( נגזרנו לנו‬Our bones are dried up and our hope has perished. We are completely cut off”). Then a further elaboration of the visionary account of Ezek 37:7–8 is given in vv. 11–14 with a shift in the visual metaphor: the dry bones in the valley have disappeared and been replaced by the imagery of resurrected bodies coming out of the graves.102 To counter the despondency of Ezekiel’s

98 Priest is said to bear the iniquity of Israel, thus atoning for them in Exod 28:38 and Lev 10:17. 99 Odell, “You are What You Eat,” 246. 100 Contra Odell, “You are What You Eat,” 247, in which Odell regards that Ezekiel gives up certain dimensions of his priestly role in the account of Ezekiel’s muteness. 101 Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 380. 102 Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 379.

96

3 Ezekiel’s Call to be a Watchman and his Call to Muteness

contemporaries, YHWH commands the prophet to prophesy a message of hope and restoration: YHWH will open (‫ )פתח‬the graves of dead bones, raise them from the graves, and bring them to the land of Israel (v. 12), where they will rest after YHWH has put his spirit in them. Finally, two recognition formulae are presented in vv. 13–14 to affirm that the restoration of the dead bones will reveal YHWH to his people. In short, Ezek 37:1–14 portrays an account of three stages of restoration: first in the stage of resuscitation the dry bones, then in the stage of the incomplete fulfilment of the promise of restoration, and eventually in the final restoration of the dead. Similarly, Ezek 3:25–27 is influenced by the scenario of 37:1–14. Although Ezekiel restores his priestly role to some extent, the promise concerning the reinstatement of his priestly role appears to fail immediately because he is unable to speak; he is mute. As such, the act of Ezekiel’s muteness denies a significant aspect of his priestly role;103 he is not allowed to intercede with YHWH on behalf of the Israelites. Ezekiel’s role as intercessor is disabled, thus there seems to be no hope for the Israelites who deserve their hopeless fates ‫כי בית מרי המה‬ (“because they are a house of rebellion,” 3:26). In this case, the final judgement of the Israelites is inevitable. However, the lexical connections and sequence of imagery from Ezek 37:1–14 are so many and so precise that it is possible that there are some elements of hope and restoration among the despondency of the Israelites in 3:22–27. Ezek 3:27 alludes to the motif of restoration in 37:12–14 in which the prophet receives a specific divine instruction to speak (‫ ;)אמר‬the speech begins with the “messenger formula” (‫ )כה־אמר אדני יהוה‬highlighting that YHWH will ‫פתח‬ (“open”) the graves and lift the resurrected bodies out of the graves (37:12). Likewise, in 3:27, Ezekiel is also given the divine instruction to speak (‫)אמר‬ followed by the “messenger formula.” Moreover, YHWH promises to ‫פתח‬ (“open”) the mouth of the prophet. Here Ezekiel’s priestly role as intercessor is promised to be restored. In light of the clear allusion here to the earlier motif of restoration of the dead bones to life and of restoration of the land in 37:12– 14, it is very likely that the promise of opening (‫ )פתח‬of Ezekiel’s mouth, which is also introduced by the “messenger formula,” embraces the motif of restoration in 3:22–27. To sum up, there are conceptual as well as structural parallels between

103 Both Moses and Aaron repeatedly interceded on behalf of the Israelites during the period of wilderness wandering (e.g. Exod 14:15a; 32:11–14, 30–34; Num 12:13; 14:13–19; 16:44–48; Deut 9:18–21). Moreover, in 1 Sam 7:8–10; 12:16–18, Samuel the priest intercedes with YHWH on behalf of the Israelites. Furthermore, the role of priest as intercessor is attested in Ps 99:6. See Janet E. Tollington, Tradition and Innovation in Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 (JSOTSup 150; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 161 n. 1; Sweeney, Reading Ezekiel, 37.

3.4 Conclusion

97

Ezek 3:22–27 and 37:1–14. Just like the threefold restoration depicted in Ezek 37:1– 14, Ezek 3:22–27 portrays an account of the threefold reinstatement of Ezekiel’s priestly role: (1) the binding of Ezekiel with ‫ עבותים‬symbolises the reinstatement of Ezekiel’s priestly role; (2) the act of Ezekiel’s muteness denies Ezekiel’s priestly role as intercessor; (3) Ezekiel’s priestly role as intercessor will be restored after YHWH opens Ezekiel’s mouth.

3.4 Conclusion This chapter has examined the redactional material in Ezek 3 in order to provide the basis for the investigation of the relation between these secondary expansions, namely Ezek 3:16b–21 and 3:22–27, and the motifs of hope and of the mitigation of the divine punishment. We started with a discussion of the account of the watchman in 3:16b–21. The interpolation in 3:16b–21 indicates the motif of hope and restoration. By alluding to Ezek 18 and 33, the outcome of the backsliding righteous man in 3:21 reveals YHWH’s mitigation of the severity of the punishment in the context of the inevitable punishment. Zimmerli has drawn a similar conclusion, namely that the purpose of adding 3:16b–21 at the beginning of the prophet’s ministry is to show that YHWH’s burning love lies behind his demand: when YHWH sent his prophet, there was a hint of urgency in his voice as the prophet was commanded to bear the accountability for the lives of sinners, indeed for every life of the audience. YHWH’s burning love is shown in his desire of “the salvation of the ungodly, even when one has turned away from his righteousness and committed iniquity.”104 In the account of Ezekiel’s binding and muteness, Ezekiel is restored to his priestly role through the act of putting on the “ropes” in 3:25. The motif of restoration is also relevant in v. 27: I have demonstrated that the promise of opening Ezekiel’s mouth alludes to Ezek 37:1–14, in which YHWH promises to open the graves to lift the resurrected bodies out of the graves and to bring them back to the land. The account of Ezekiel’s binding and muteness concludes with a familiar statement (cf. 2:5; 3:11): ‫“( השמע ישמע והחדל יחדל‬he who hears, let him hear; and he who refuses, let him refuse,” 3:27). It is possible that those who hear and those who refuse represent two groups of people characterised by their willingness and unwillingness respectively to repent after listening to Ezekiel’s warning.105 As has been pointed out by Joyce, Ezek 3:27 “still appears to be the

104 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 146. 105 Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 160–61.

98

3 Ezekiel’s Call to be a Watchman and his Call to Muteness

theoretical possibility of positive response from the people.”106 Accordingly, the meaning of the concluding statement in 3:27 echoes the theme mentioned in the previous section concerning the account of the watchman (3:16b–21). In my view, the aim of inserting the account of the watchman next to the account of Ezekiel’s binding and muteness is to highlight YHWH’s call for repentance, even though the inevitable judgement must be executed against the Israelites.

106 Joyce, Ezekiel, 83.

4 Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts In the previous chapter I presented a basic understanding of the relation between the redactional material in Ezek 3:16–27 and the motif of hope and mitigation of the divine punishment, in particular the relation of Ezek 3:22–27 with the motif of restoration expressed by the reinstatement of Ezekiel’s priestly role. The objective of this chapter is to examine how the redactional material in Ezek 4–5 is related to and expresses the motif of hope and restoration, with focus on the restoration aspect of Ezekiel’s priestly role. Ezekiel’s prophetic sign-acts (Ezek 4–5) play an important part in Ezekiel. Ezekiel is not the only prophet who performs sign-acts, but he makes even more uses of the sign act than his contemporary, Jeremiah. But whatever the numbers, these sign-acts were connected in some way with contemporary realities. Ezek 4 and 5 report a series of sign-acts describing the inevitable siege of Jerusalem. These sign-acts are “distinct and yet interrelated, with some cross-referencing”1 (e.g., 4:6a, 9b, 16–17; 5:11–12, 16–17); the account of the sign-acts in Ezek 4–5 exists in a form that seems to be the result of a redactional process rather than de novo authorship.

4.1 The Diachronic Analysis of Ezek 4:1–5:17 Ezek 4–5 is a literary unit composed of a series of four sign-acts (4:1–3, 4–8, 9– 17; 5:1–4) and an interpretation of the sign-acts (5:5–17). The redaction history of Ezek 4–5 is quite disputed: a number of scholars regard the account of bearing the iniquity of Israel (4:4–8) as a secondary expansion,2 while some regard the oracle of judgement (5:5–17*) as a prophetic oracle that testifies to gradual textual growth.3 The relative redaction chronology of texts in Ezek 4–5 influences our understanding of the relation between the motif of restoration and the secondary expansions in Ezek 4–5. As such, it is the objective of this section first to identify the redactional material in Ezek 4–5.

1 Joyce, Ezekiel, 84. 2 Wevers, Ezekiel, 59; Pohlmann, Hesekiel 1–19, 84, 89; Schöpflin, Theologie als Biographie, 204–5. 3 Wevers, Ezekiel, 64; Hals, Ezekiel, 33; Pohlmann, Hesekiel 1–19, 97–8; Sweeney, Reading Ezekiel, 40. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110711578-004

100

4 Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts

Text with English Translation 4:4–8 v. 4

‫ואתה שכב על־צדך השמאלי ושמת את־עון בית־ישראל עליו מספר הימים אשר‬ ‫תשכב עליו תשא את־עונם‬ And you lie down on your left side, and place the iniquity4 of the house of Israel on it; the number of days that you lie on it, you will bear their iniquity. (MT) καὶ σὺ κοιμηθήσῃ ἐπὶ τὸ πλευρόν σου τὸ ἀριστερὸν καὶ θήσεις τὰς ἀδικίας τοῦ οἴκου Ισραηλ ἐπ᾿ αὐτοῦ κατὰ ἀριθμὸν τῶν ἡμερῶν πεντήκοντα καὶ ἑκατόν, ἃς κοιμηθήσῃ ἐπ᾿ αὐτοῦ, καὶ λήμψῃ τὰς ἀδικίας αὐτῶν. And you will lie upon your left side, and place the iniquities of the house of Israel upon it according to the number of the hundred and fifty days that you lie upon it, and you will bear their iniquities. (LXX)

v. 5

‫ואני נתתי לך את־שני עונם למספר ימים שלש־מאות ותשעים יום ונשאת עון‬ ‫בית־ישראל‬ And I have put onto you a number of days corresponding to the years of their iniquity, three hundred and ninety days;5 and you will bear the iniquity of the house of Israel. (MT) καὶ ἐγὼ δέδωκά σοι τὰς δύο ἀδικίας αὐτῶν εἰς ἀριθμὸν ἡμερῶν ἐνενήκοντα καὶ ἑκατὸν ἡμέρας. καὶ λήμψῃ τὰς ἀδικίας τοῦ οἴκου Ισραηλ And I have given to you their two iniquities for a number of days, hundred and ninety days. And you will bear the iniquities of the house of Israel. (LXX)

v. 6

‫וכלית את־אלה ושכבת על־צדך הימוני ]שנית[ ונשאת את־עון בית־יהודה‬ ‫ארבעים יום יום לשנה יום לשנה נתתיו לך‬ When you have completed these, you will lie down on your right side [a second time] and you will bear the iniquity of the house of Judah; forty days I have put it to you a day for a year. (MT) καὶ συντελέσεις ταῦτα πάντα· καὶ κοιμηθήσῃ ἐπὶ τὸ πλευρόν σου τὸ δεξιὸν καὶ λήμψῃ τὰς ἀδικίας τοῦ οἴκου Ιουδα τεσσαράκοντα ἡμέρας. ἡμέραν εἰς ἐνιαυτὸν τέθεικά σοι. And you will complete this, and you will lie down on your right side, and bear the iniquities of the house of Judah for forty days. I have assigned you a day for each year. (LXX)

v. 7

‫ואל־מצור ירושלם תכין פניך וזרעך חשופה ונבאת עליה‬ And you will set your face toward the siege of Jerusalem, and your arm will be bared; and you will prophesy against it.

v. 8

‫והנה נתתי עליך עבותים ולא־תהפך מצדך אל־צדך עד־כלותך ימי מצורך‬ Now behold, I shall put ropes on you, so that you cannot turn from one side to the other until you have completed the days of your siege.

4 In vv. 4–8, the LXX attests to the noun ἀδικίας (“iniquities”) in plural. In contrast, the MT attests to a singular noun (‫“ עון‬iniquity”). 5 The LXX renders ‫ שני‬as δύο (“two”); thus the LXX reads the sum-total of iniquity as 190. See § 4.1.1.

101

4.1 The Diachronic Analysis of Ezek 4:1–5:17

Text with English Translation 4:12–15 v. 12

‫ועגת שערים תאכלנה והיא בגללי צאת האדם תעגנה לעיניהם‬ And you will eat it as a barley cake; you will bake it with dung of human excrement in their sight.

v. 13

[‫ויאמר יהוה ככה יאכלו בני־ישראל ]את־לחמם[ טמא בגוים ]אשר אדיחם שם‬ And YHWH said, “Thus the sons of Israel will eat [their] unclean [bread] among the nations [where I shall banish them]. (MT) καὶ ἐρεῖς Τάδε λέγει κύριος ὁ θεὸς τοῦ Ισραηλ Οὕτως φάγονται οἱ υἱοὶ Ισραηλ ἀκάθαρτα ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν. And you will say, thus says the Lord the God of Israel, ‘Thus the people of Israel will eat unclean among the nations.’ (LXX)

v. 14

‫ואמר אהה אדני יהוה הנה נפשי לא מטמאה ונבלה וטרפה לא־אכלתי מנעורי‬ ‫ועד־עתה ולא־בא בפי בשר פגול‬ But I said, “Ah, Lord YHWH, behold, my soul has not been defiled; for from my youth until now I have never eaten carcass and what was torn, nor has any flesh of offensive thing come into my mouth.” (MT) καὶ εἶπα Μηδαμῶς, κύριε θεὲ τοῦ Ισραηλ· ἰδοὺ ἡ ψυχή μου οὐ μεμίανται ἐν ἀκαθαρσίᾳ, καὶ θνησιμαῖον καὶ θηριάλωτον οὐ βέβρωκα ἀπὸ γενέσεώς μου ἕως τοῦ νῦν, οὐδὲ εἰσελήλυθεν εἰς τὸ στόμα μου πᾶν κρέας ἕωλον. Then I said, ‘Never Lord God of Israel! Behold, I have never defiled myself with uncleanness; from my birth until now I have never eaten a carcass or what was torn by beasts, nor has any day-old meat come into my mouth. (LXX)

v. 15

‫ויאמר אלי ראה נתתי לך את־צפועי הבקר תחת גללי האדם ועשית את־לחמך‬ ‫עליהם‬ And he said to me,” See I shall give you cow’s dung instead of human dung; and you will make your bread over them.

4:16–17 v. 16

‫ויאמר אלי בן־אדם הנני שבר מטה־לחם בירושלם ואכלו־לחם במשקל ובדאגה‬ ‫ומים במשורה ובשממון ישתו‬ And he said to me, “Son of man, behold, I shall break the staff of bread in Jerusalem; and they will eat bread by weight and with anxiety; and they will drink water by measure and in horror.

v. 17

‫למען יחסרו לחם ומים ונשמו איש ואחיו ונמקו בעונם‬ So that they will lack bread and water and they will be appalled 6 with one another and they will be rotted away in their iniquity.”

6 The LXX renders ἀφανισθήσεται (“he will be destroyed”) for the MT appalled”).

‫“( ונשמו‬they

will be

102

4 Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts

Text with English Translation

‫שלשית באור תבעיר בתוך העיר כמלאת ימי המצור ולקחת את־השלשית תכה‬ ‫בחרב סביבותיה והשלשית תזרה לרוח וחרב אריק אחריהם‬

5:2

One third 7 you will burn in the fire in the midst of the city when the days of the siege are completed; then you will take one third you will strike with the sword all around it; and one third you will scatter to the wind; I shall unsheathe a sword after them. (MT) τὸ τέταρτον ἐν πυρὶ ἀνακαύσεις ἐν μέσῃ τῇ πόλει κατὰ τὴν πλήρωσιν τῶν ἡμερῶν τοῦ συγκλεισμοῦ· καὶ λήμψῃ τὸ τέταρτον καὶ κατακαύσεις αὐτὸ ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῆς· καὶ τὸ τέταρτον κατακόψεις ἐν ῥομφαίᾳ κύκλῳ αὐτῆς· καὶ τὸ τέταρτον διασκορπίσεις τῷ πνεύματι, καὶ μάχαιραν ἐκκενώσω ὀπίσω αὐτῶν. A fourth part you will burn in the fire in the midst of the city when the days of the siege are completed; and you will take a fourth part and burn it up in the midst of it, and a fourth part you will strike with the sword round about it; and a fourth part you will scatter to the wind, and I shall unsheathe the sword after them. (LXX) 5:3–4 v. 3

‫ולקחת משם מעט במספר וצרת אותם בכנפיך‬ And you will take a few in number from there, and you will bind them in your edges.

v. 4

‫ומהם עוד תקח והשלכת אותם אל־תוך האש ושרפת אתם באש ממנו תצא־אש‬ ‫אל־כל־בית ישראל‬ And again you will take some of them, and throw them into the midst of the fire, and burn them in the fire; from it a fire will go out to all the house of Israel.8 (MT) καὶ ἐκ τούτων λήμψῃ ἔτι καὶ ῥίψεις αὐτοὺς εἰς μέσον τοῦ πυρὸς καὶ κατακαύσεις αὐτοὺς ἐν πυρί· ἐξ αὐτῆς ἐξελεύσεται πῦρ καὶ ἐρεῖς παντὶ οἴκῳ Ισραηλ. And of these again you will take some and throw them into the fire, and burn them in fire; from it a fire will come forth. And you will say to all the house of Israel. (LXX)

7 The LXX renders τὸ τέταρτον (“a fourth part”) for the MT ‫“( שלשית‬a third part”). In 5:2, the dividing of hairs into three (the MT) or four portions needs special attention that I include 5:2 in the table; however, I consider Ezek 5:1–2 as an original sign-act depicting Jerusalem’s siege. 8 The LXX takes the last sentence καὶ ἐρεῖς παντὶ οἴκῳ Ισραηλ (“and you will say to all the house of Israel”) together with v. 5. In contrast, the MT connects the last sentence ‫אל־כל־בית‬ ‫“( ישראל‬to all the house of Israel”) with the expression ‫“( ממנו תצא־אש‬from it a fire will go out”).

4.1 The Diachronic Analysis of Ezek 4:1–5:17

103

Text with English Translation 5:11–12 v. 11

‫לכן חי־אני נאם ]אדני[ יהוה אם־לא יען את־מקדשי טמאת ]בכל־שקוציך‬ ‫ו[בכל־תועבתיך וגם־אני אגרע ולא־תחוס עיני וגם־אני לא אחמול‬ Therefore, as I live, declares the [Lord] YHWH, “surely, because you have defiled my sanctuary [with all your detestable things] and with all your abominations, therefore I shall also withdraw, and my eye will have no pity and I shall not spare. (MT) διὰ τοῦτο Ζῶ ἐγώ, λέγει κύριος, εἰ μὴ ἀνθ᾿ ὧν τὰ ἅγιά μου ἐμίανας ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς βδελύγμασίν σου, κἀγὼ ἀπώσομαί σε, οὐ φείσεταί μου ὁ ὀφθαλμός, κἀγὼ οὐκ ἐλεήσω. Therefore, as I live, says the Lord, surely because you have defiled my sanctuary with all your abominations, therefore I shall reject you; my eye will not spare, and I shall have no pity. (LXX)

v. 12

‫שלשתיך בדבר ימותו וברעב יכלו בתוכך והשלשית בחרב יפלו סביבותיך‬ ‫והשלישית לכל־רוח אזרה וחרב אריק אחריהם‬ One third of you will die by pestilence or be consumed by the famine in the midst of you, and one third will fall by the sword around you, and one third I shall scatter to every wind, and I shall unsheathe a sword after them. (MT) τὸ τέταρτόν9 σου ἐν θανάτῳ ἀναλωθήσεται· καὶ τὸ τέταρτόν σου ἐν λιμῷ συντελεσθήσεται ἐν μέσῳ σου· καὶ τὸ τέταρτόν σου εἰς πάντα ἄνεμον σκορπιῶ αὐτούς· καὶ τὸ τέταρτόν σου ἐν ῥομφαίᾳ πεσοῦνται κύκλῳ σου, καὶ μάχαιραν ἐκκενώσω ὀπίσω αὐτῶν. A fourth part of you will be cut off by pestilence and a fourth part of you will be finished off by famine in the midst of you; and a fourth part of you I shall scatter to all the winds, and a fourth part of you will fall by the sword round about you; and I shall unsheathe the sword after them. (LXX)

5:13

‫וכלה אפי ]והנחותי[ חמתי בם ]והנחמתי[ וידעו כי־אני יהוה דברתי בקנאתי‬ ‫בכלותי חמתי בם‬ And my anger will be completed and [I shall calm] my wrath on them, and [I shall relent], then they will know that I am YHWH,10 I have spoken in my zeal when I have completed my wrath on them. (MT) καὶ συντελεσθήσεται ὁ θυμός μου καὶ ἡ ὀργή μου ἐπ᾿ αὐτούς, καὶ ἐπιγνώσῃ διότι ἐγὼ κύριος λελάληκα ἐν ζήλῳ μου ἐν τῷ συντελέσαι με τὴν ὀργήν μου ἐπ᾿ αὐτούς. And my anger and my wrath will be completed upon them; and you will know that I, the Lord, have spoken in my zeal, when I spend my wrath upon them. (LXX)

9 The LXX renders τὸ τέταρτόν (“a fourth part”) for the MT ‫“( שלשית‬a third”). 10 In LXX Ezek 5:13 καὶ ἐπιγνώσῃ (“and you will know”) renders ‫“( וידעו‬and they will know,” MT Ezek 5:13).

104

4 Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts

Text with English Translation 5:16–17 v. 16

‫בשלחי את־חצי הרעב ]הרעים[ בהם אשר היו למשחית ]אשר־אשלח אותם‬ ‫לשחתכם ורעב אסף עליכם[ ושברתי לכם מטה־לחם‬ When I send against them [the evil] arrows of famine which were for the destruction of those whom I shall send to destroy you, then I shall add the famine upon you and break your stalk of bread. (MT) ἐν τῷ ἐξαποστεῖλαί με τὰς βολίδας μου τοῦ λιμοῦ ἐπ᾿ αὐτοὺς καὶ ἔσονται εἰς ἔκλειψιν, καὶ συντρίψω στήριγμα ἄρτου σου. When I send against them my arrows of famine, then they shall be consumed and I shall break your support of bread. (LXX)

v. 17

‫ושלחתי עליכם רעב וחיה רעה ושכלך ודבר ודם יעבר־בך וחרב אביא עליך אני‬ ‫יהוה דברתי‬ And I shall send famine and wild beasts against you, and they will bereave you of children;11 pestilence and blood will also pass through you and I shall bring the sword on you, I, YHWH, have spoken.

4.1.1 Textual Criticism In Ezek 4–5, the major textual variants between the MT and the LXX are found in the “use of numerals,”12 and in some cases these textual variants reflect a process of gradual expansion of the text. The first major difference in the use of numerals between the MT and the LXX occurs in 4:4–8. In v. 4 Ezekiel is told to lie down and to bear the iniquity of the house of Israel. In the description of placing the iniquity on the left side, the LXX attests “hundred and fifty days” (ἡμερῶν πεντήκοντα καὶ ἑκατόν), while MT Ezek 4:4 has no counterpart for the “hundred and fifty days.” In v. 5 the MT reads ‫“( את־שני עונם‬years of their iniquity”), while the LXX has δύο ἀδικίας αὐτῶν (“their two iniquities”). Here the LXX might have “understood ‫ שני‬as though it were derived from ‫ם‬ (“two”) rather than ‫ים‬ (“year”).”13 By referring to the expression δύο ἀδικίας αὐτῶν, LXX Ezek 4:5 highlights the difference between the iniquity of Israel and that of Judah: the prophet has to lie down 150 days for the iniquity of Israel (v. 4) and an additional 40 days for the iniquity of Judah (v. 6). Thus, the expression ἐνενήκοντα καὶ ἑκατὸν ἡμέρας

11 In LXX the expression καὶ τιμωρήσομαί σε (“and I will punish you”) does not directly correspond to the expression ‫“( ושכלך‬they will bereave you of children”) in the MT. 12 J. Lust, K. Hauspie, and A. Ternier, “Ezekiel 4 and 5 in Hebrew and in Greek Numbers and Ciphers,” ETL 77 (2001): 132–52 (132). 13 Lust et al., “Ezekiel 4 and 5,” 145.

4.1 The Diachronic Analysis of Ezek 4:1–5:17

105

(“hundred ninety days,” vv. 5, 9) is the total number of days for which the prophet has to lie down. The MT reads ‫“( שלש־מאות ותשעים יום‬three hundred ninety days”) representing the years of the iniquity of Israel in vv. 5, 9, and ‫“( ארבעים יום‬forty days”) for Judah (v. 6). In v. 6 the MT adds ‫“( שנית‬a second time”), which is often considered as a secondary gloss.14 Which text preserved the more original use of numerals? On grounds of the use of numerals in 4:4–8, the figures (150, 190, and 40 days or years) given in the LXX are very neat. We already noted that in 4:5 the LXX renders ‫ שני‬as δύο; the LXX of 4:5 and 4:9 states that the total of ‫ את־שני עונם‬is 190.15 Elsewhere in the HB, the noun or nominal suffix following upon the expression ‫את־שני‬ (“two”) is in plural.16 In Ezek 4:5 the expression ‫ את־שני‬is followed by ‫עונם‬ (“their iniquity”). Inasmuch as ‫ עונם‬is a singular substantive, it is impossible that ‫ שני‬was derived from ‫ם‬ (“two”).17 The construction of ‫ את־שני‬with a singular substantive appears nowhere else in the HB except in Lev 25:27 and Ezek 4:5 – both of them render ‫ את־שני‬as “the years.” The MT’s interpretation of ‫ שני‬in Ezek 4:5 is undoubtable.18 In this respect, it is questionable that the sum-total of 190 in LXX 4:5 represents the iniquities of Israel and Judah. In addition, it is an unusual way to put the sum-total of 190 (v. 5) between the two elementary figures which represent the iniquity of Israel (150 in v. 4) and that of Judah (40 in v. 6);19 it is not reasonable that the LXX recounts the sum-total of the iniquities of Israel and Judah when Judah has not yet been mentioned. There is worth and truth in the words of Greenberg: “[The LXX] has undoubtedly a neat system, but its very neatness, and in particular its forced interpretation of šene ʿawonam on which much is based, raise the suspicion of artifice.”20 In

14 Cooke, Ezekiel, 53; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 148; Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 50; Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 175 n. 50. 15 Kelvin G. Friebel, Jeremiah’s and Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts (JSOTSup 283; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 212 n. 306, has shown that the use of numerals in the LXX 4:4–9 has to be considered secondary because of the misunderstanding of the juxtaposition of the terms “Israel” and “Judah.” As such, the original number “390” was changed “to conform to the interpretation that 4:4–5 referred to the length of exile of the Northern Kingdom, which, calculated from the 730s or 720s BCE, was only 150 years (secondarily inserted in v. 4) to Jerusalem’s fall plus another 40 years for the concurrent period of exile with Judah’s.” 16 Gen 1:16, 22:3, 42:37, 48:1; Lev 16:7, 25:27; Deut 9:10–11, 22:24; Josh 2:4; Judg 8:12, 16:29; 2 Sam 21:8; 1 Kgs 7:15, 9:10; 2 Kgs 1:14, 4:1; Ezek 35:10. 17 Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 98, 105. 18 Contra Lust et al., “Ezekiel 4 and 5,” 133, 145. The statement of Lust et al., “in Ez 4,5 the substantive ‫ עונם‬following upon the numeral should have been in the plural” is a premature explanation. 19 Brownlee, Ezekiel 1–19, 64. 20 Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 98, 106.

106

4 Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts

view of these arguments, I maintain that the text of Ezek 4:4–8 preserved in the MT is probably older than that of the LXX; this, however, does not necessarily mean that MT Ezek 4:4–8 is not a secondary addition (see section 4.1.2.1). In 4:13 the MT contains pluses, ‫“( את־לחמם‬their bread”) and ‫אשר אדיחם‬ ‫“( שם‬where I shall banish them”). Timothy P. Mackie remarks that the expression ‫“ את־לחמם‬supplies a direct object for the verb ‘they will eat’ and is designed to connect the preceding sign act concerning Ezekiel’s barley cake (4:12) with the following explication in 4:14–15 that the bread eaten will be ritually impure.”21 The second plus ‫ אשר אדיחם שם‬clarifies the obscure expression ‫“( בגוים‬among the nations”). According to Mackie, eating the unclean bread “among the nations” is an implicit clue of exile; the scribal addition of ‫אשר‬ ‫ אדיחם שם‬to the expression ‫ בגוים‬forms an idiom,22 which is usually used in the descriptions of exile in Deuteronomy and Jeremiah,23 and makes the context of exile explicit in 4:13. Another textual variant in the use of numerals is found in 5:1–4, where the LXX speaks of four (τὸ τέταρτον, “a fourth,” v. 2) equal parts of shaven hair rather than three (‫שלשית‬, “a third,” v. 2) parts of shaven hair in the MT. The LXX refers to each part of hair as τὸ τέταρτον, even though there are only three of them mentioned in 5:2.24 Thus, the LXX records a clause καὶ λήμψῃ τὸ τέταρτον καὶ κατακαύσεις αὐτὸ ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῆς· (“and you will take a fourth part and burn it up in the midst of it”) immediately after v. 2a, whereas the MT lacks a counterpart for the clause. According to Lust et al., the clause is missing in the MT because of “an omission through parablepsis, the scribe’s eye jumping from a “fourth part” to a “fourth part.” If so, a later scribe must have changed “a fourth part” into a “third part.”25 In 5:11a, the MT contains pluses ‫ אדני‬and ‫“( בכל־שקוציך‬with all your detestable things,” v. 11aβ). Here the MT plus ‫ בכל־שקוציך‬is an elaborative expansion;26 it was inserted next to its synonym ‫“( ובל־תועבתיך‬with all your abominations,” v. 11aβ) to create a word pair that intensifies the image of the sanctuary defilement in 5:11.

21 Timothy P. Mackie, Expanding Ezekiel: The Hermeneutics of Scribal Addition in the Ancient Text Witnesses of the Book of Ezekiel (FRLANT 257; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015), 194. 22 Mackie, Expanding Ezekiel, 194 n. 198, has shown that the components of the idiom are ‫ בכל‬+ ‫מקומות‬/‫ארצות‬/‫ אשר גוים‬+ ‫ נדח‬+ ‫שמה‬/‫שם‬. 23 Mackie, Expanding Ezekiel, 194–5. 24 The LXX reads τὸ τέταρτον in both vv. 2 and 12, whereas the MT reads ‫ שלשית‬in vv. 2 and 12. 25 Lust et al., “Ezekiel 4 and 5,” 148. 26 Mackie, Expanding Ezekiel, 98–9.

4.1 The Diachronic Analysis of Ezek 4:1–5:17

107

MT Ezek 5:13 attests to two verbs, namely ‫“( והנחותי‬and I shall calm”) and ‫“( והנחמתי‬and I shall be comforted” or “I shall relent”),27 which are not represented in the LXX. The MT plus ‫ והנחותי‬is an elaborative expansion of a synonymous word;28 as such, the first two verbs in MT 5:13 are compiled to emphasise the accomplishment of YHWH’s justice. However, the addition of the second plus ‫“( והנחמתי‬and I shall be comforted” or “I shall relent”) creates tension with the foregoing content, which speaks of how YHWH will not be appeased until his anger (‫ )אף‬and fury (‫ )חמה‬have been spent on Israel. The MT plus ‫ והנחמתי‬may be a dittograph of the preceding ‫והנחותי‬.29 Finally, MT Ezek 5:16 contains pluses, ‫“( הרעים‬evil”) and ‫אשר־אשלח אותם‬ ‫“( לשחתכם ורעב אסף עליכם‬whom I shall send to destroy you, then I shall add the famine upon you”).30 The temporal scope of Ezek 5:5–17 is oriented toward a future judgement; however, the expression ‫“( אשר היו למשחית‬which were for destruction,” v. 16aα), which describes the purpose of the “arrows of famine,” refers retrospectively to past actions.31 This semantic confusion of the verbal time reference is clarified by the first part of the second MT plus “‫אשר־אשלח אותם‬ ‫ ”לשחתכם‬which supplements the preceding expression “they were for destruction” with a future verb (‫אשלח‬, “I shall send”).32 The expression ‫אשר־אשלח‬ ‫ אותם לשחתכם‬is probably an elucidative expansion. In 5:16aα there is an incongruity of the third plural pronoun (‫“ בהם‬against them”), whereas the surrounding verses in vv. 14–15, 17 employ second person pronouns. This incongruity is clarified by two second plural suffixes (‫“ לשחתכם‬to destroy you,” and ‫עליכם‬ “upon you”) in the second MT plus.33 Thus, the clause ‫אשר־אשלח אותם‬ ‫ לשחתכם ורעב אסף עליכם‬is most likely a later addition. According to Mackie, the above-mentioned plusses are examples of textual revision by means of

27 H. van Dyke Parunak, “A Semantic Survey of nḥm,” Biblica 56 (1975): 512–32, has shown that Niphal and Hithpael stems of ‫ נחם‬develop the sense “be comforted.” But the verb ‫ נחם‬is also extended to describe an expression for relief involved in retracting a declared action. Similar interpretation is also suggested by Jean-Pierre Sonnet in his article, “God’s Repentance and ‘False Starts’ in Biblical History (Genesis 6–9; Exodus 32–34; 1 Samuel 15 and 2 Samuel 7),” in Congress Volume Ljubljana 2007, ed. André Lemaire (VTSup 133; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 469–494. 28 Mackie, Expanding Ezekiel, 95–106. 29 Cooke, Ezekiel, 61; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 152. Zimmerli notes that the cluster of terms ‫ ב‬+ ‫ חמה‬+ ‫ נוח‬occurs in 5:13, 16:42, 21:22, 24:13. Moreover, the occurrence of ‫ חמתי‬and ‫ אפי‬in parallel clauses is in 5:13, 7:8, 13:13. 30 Lust, “Ezekiel 4 and 5,” 151–2. 31 Mackie, Expanding Ezekiel, 81. 32 Mackie, Expanding Ezekiel, 81–2. 33 Mackie, Expanding Ezekiel, 81–2.

108

4 Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts

expansion;34 the MT plusses in 5:16 are considered as scribal additions, and MT 5:16 reflects a process of gradual expansion of the text.

4.1.2 Redaction Criticism In addition to the textual variants mentioned above, Ezek 4–5 conveys the impression that redaction has taken place. There is perception of different layers existing in Ezek 4–5: three sign-acts (4:1–2; 4:9–11; 5:1–2) depict the siege of Jerusalem, while the sign-act of 4:4–8, as well as the protest of Ezekiel (4:12– 15), depicts the exile and its conditions;35 moreover, 5:5–17 contains verbal addresses which accompanied the sign-acts of 4:1–5:4. This impression needs to be reinforced and examined carefully by redaction-critical analysis. In the following sections, the reasons for designating Ezek 4:4–8, 12–15, 16–17; 5:3–4, 11– 13, 16–17 as redactional material will be discussed. 4.1.2.1 Redaction in Ezekiel 4:4–8 It is widely agreed that 4:1–2, 9a, 10–11, and 5:1–2 form the original material of the account of the sign-acts,36 which merely address the siege of Jerusalem; this original material was subsequently expanded by the insertion of additional sign-acts without regard to logical sequence.37 The most apparent redaction in the account of the sign-acts is 4:4–8. The above-mentioned original account of the sign-acts that symbolised the siege of Jerusalem starts with an imperative ‫“( קח־לך‬take for yourself”).38 These three accounts of the sign-acts illustrate the logical sequence of “siege – famine due to siege – consequences of a successful siege,”39 without any interpretation. In this respect, Ezek 4:4–8, which is situated between the account of Ezekiel’s engagement in the sign-act that will convey the beginning of the siege of Jerusalem (4:1–2) and the account of the

34 Mackie, Expanding Ezekiel, 207. 35 Wevers, Ezekiel, 59. 36 Hölscher, Hesekiel der Dichter, 61–62; Wevers, Ezekiel, 59; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 155, 161; Pohlmann, Hesekiel 1–19, 82. 37 Michael A. Lyons, An Introduction to the Study of Ezekiel (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015), 61. 38 Although the imperative ‫ קח־לך‬is also found in 4:3, another symbolic action that is related to the siege of Jerusalem, Ezek 4:3 is not considered as an independent unit in the original layer. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 155, has shown that Ezek 4:3 is clearly dependent on 4:1–2. In addition, each of the three sign-acts in 4:1–2, 9–11, and 5:1–2 “describes the sign-action without any interpretation, while 4:3 presents an obvious application.” 39 Lyons, An Introduction to the Study of Ezekiel, 61.

4.1 The Diachronic Analysis of Ezek 4:1–5:17

109

rations for the siege (4:9–11), disturbs the logical sequence depicted in the original prophecy; Ezek 4:4–8 probably represents a secondary addition. Ezek 4:4–8 reflects a process of additions to the text. Verses 5–8 are probably a later scribal interpretation of the sign-act in v. 4, in which Ezekiel is to lie on his left side for a non-specific number of days (‫)מספר הימים אשר תשכב‬ bearing the “iniquity of the house of Israel.”40 Zimmerli has observed that v. 5 reinterprets the non-specific ‫“( מספר הימים‬number of the days) quite literally: ‫“( ואני נתתי לך את־שני עונם למספר ימים שלש־מאות ותשעים יום‬I have put a number of days to you, corresponding to the years of their iniquity, 390 days”). In his view, the precise method of calculation shown in v. 5 is distinctly priestly, which “reveals a clear interest in a detailed reckoning of the guilt and a correspondence between the scale of guilt and the length of the substitutionary sin-bearing.”41 Ezek 4:4 may be regarded as the oldest verse of the secondary expansion in 4:4–8,42 while vv. 5–6, 7–8 are later speculative elaborations of v. 4. In the earliest expansion, the words ‫“( בית־ישראל‬the house of Israel,” v. 4) denotes the whole of YHWH’s people. Elsewhere in Ezekiel the names “Israel” and “Judah” are used interchangeably. Moreover, elsewhere in Ezekiel when the northern kingdom is mentioned in contrast to the southern kingdom, the terms Israel and Judah are not used as names of the two kingdoms.43 Generally, the term “Israel” in Ezekiel includes Judah. In the extant context, v. 6 probably clarifies v. 5, given its different definition of Israel. According to the standard eastward orientation of the ancients, “the left becomes a designation of the north and the right the south;”44 Ezekiel lying on his left side probably represented the northern kingdom.45 In this way, the redactors of vv. 4–6 might have assumed the term “the house of Israel” in v. 4 not as the whole of YHWH’s people,

40 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 165; Hals, Ezekiel, 33. 41 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 165; Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 68; Schöpflin, Theologie als Biographie, 206. 42 Pohlmann, Hesekiel 1–19, 89. 43 The meaning of “Israel” (vv. 4–5) and of “Judah” (v. 6) should be understood in a relationship of synonymous parallelism. In Ezekiel, “Israel” typically refers to the entire house of Israel. As vv. 4–8 indicating the siege of Jerusalem, “Judah” should be regarded as the remnant of all of Israel. Ezekiel uses “Israel” and “Judah” interchangeably (e.g. 8:6, 17). Moreover, in Ezek 23 “Oholah” refers to the northern kingdom, while “Oholibah” refers to the southern kingdom. Furthermore, when Ezekiel is referring to the northern kingdom, he uses the term “Samaria” instead (23:4); in 37:16 the northern kingdom is designated “Joseph/Ephraim.” See Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 176, 176 n. 59; Friebel, Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts, 213–22; Lust, “Ezekiel 4 and 5”, 134; Joyce, Ezekiel, 85–6; Odell, Ezekiel, 61; Tuell, Ezekiel, 25–6. 44 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 166. 45 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 166; Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 175; Lust, “Ezekiel 4 and 5,” 134.

110

4 Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts

but as the designation of the northern kingdom.46 Thus, the redactors probably added a gloss ‫“( שנית‬a second time,” v. 6), and made a remark about the southern kingdom of Judah by recounting Ezekiel lying on his right side in v. 6; the redactors distinguished between the houses of Israel and of Judah in vv. 4–6, although the original text did not.47 In order to resume the original synonymous meanings of the two terms “Israel” and “Judah” in vv. 4–8, the final redactors of Ezek 4:4–8 inserted vv. 7–8 after vv. 4–6. Ezek 4:7–8 is a later expansion that increases the coherence of Ezekiel by tying vv. 4–8 to the account of Ezekiel’s binding (3:25)48 and to the preceding sign-acts (4:1–3*).49 On the one hand, v. 7 takes the expression ‫“( ואל־מצור ירושלם תכין פניך‬set your face toward the siege of Jerusalem”) from 4:3. On the other hand, the expression ‫“( נתתי עליך עבותים‬I shall put ropes on you,” v. 8a) is influenced by 3:25, with the same verb (‫ )נתן‬and noun (‫)עבותים‬. The command in Ezek 4:3bα (‫)והכינתה את־פניך אליה והיתה במצור‬ emphasises YHWH’s abandonment of Jerusalem, while the siege is a sign to the house of Israel (“‫אות היא לבית ישראל‬,” v. 3bβ). Here the reference to ‫בית‬ ‫ ישראל‬implies “the Judahites and more specifically those currently in exile.”50 In this way, the insertion of v. 7 puts the reference to Jerusalem immediately after “the house of Judah,” so that the term “Judah” in v. 6 is not used as a contrasting term to the northern kingdom,51 but is used to emphasise that Judah is all of Israel that remains. In short, Ezek 4:4–8 represents redactional material which reflects a process of gradual development of the text; it contains at least three redactional layers (vv. 4, 5–6, 7–8).52 4.1.2.2 Ezekiel 4:12–15 as Expansion The sign-acts of 4:9–11 represents the scarcity of food during the time of the siege. On grounds of its content, Ezek 4:12–15 is obviously a secondary addition; it introduces an exilic setting that should not be regarded as a continuation of vv. 9–11. Verse 12 recounts a feminine exilic food, namely ‫“( עגת שערים‬a barley cake”) which is different from a siege food made from a mixture of grains, namely a masculine ‫“( לחם‬bread,” v. 9) and a masculine ‫“( מאכל‬food,” v. 10)

46 Schöpflin, Theologie als Biographie, 205–6. 47 Lust, “Ezekiel 4 and 5,” 134; Schöpflin, Theologie als Biographie, 205–6. 48 Wevers, Ezekiel, 62; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 165; Pohlmann, Hesekiel 1–19, 89. 49 Wevers, Ezekiel, 61; Pohlmann, Hesekiel 1–19, 89; Schöpflin, Theologie als Biographie, 202–3. 50 Friebel, Jeremiah’s and Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts, 213. 51 Friebel, Jeremiah’s and Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts, 213. 52 In this study, I am not claiming distinct redactional layers. On the contrary, I am dealing a set of expansions editing by one final redaction.

4.1 The Diachronic Analysis of Ezek 4:1–5:17

111

(see later discussion in section 4.2.2). Although both Ezek 4:9–11 and 4:12–15 are concerned with food preparation, Ezek 4:12–15 shifts the focus to the unclean food eaten in the exile: the feminine suffixes of the two verbs ‫“( אכל‬eat”) and ‫“( עוג‬bake”), as well as the feminine pronoun (‫ )היא‬in v. 12 agree with the feminine exilic food (‫ )עגת שערים‬rather than the masculine siege food (“‫”לחם‬ and “ ‫ )”מאכל‬mentioned in vv. 9–11.53 For these reasons, v. 12 should be regarded as a discontinuation of vv. 9–11. In contrast to the preceding sign-act in vv. 9–11, which speaks of famine due to the siege, the account of eating ‫ עגת שערים‬in 4:12 and the MT plusses in 4:13 make the context of exile explicit (see section 4.1.1). According to Allen, correctly I think, YHWH’s announcement in v. 13 reinterprets the sign-act in terms of the conditions of exile; this reinterpretation disturbs the context of the siege and fall of Jerusalem in Ezek 4.54 The motif of the rations for the siege in Ezek 4:9–11 is replaced by the motif of preparation of unclean food in exile in Ezek 4:12–15, which may therefore be a secondary expansion.55 In addition, Zimmerli has argued that a short dialogue between Ezekiel and YHWH within the sign-act makes it clear that vv. 12–15 were a later redaction to the original three sign-acts.56 This short dialogue begins with Ezekiel’s protest against ritual defilement. His protest here could be seen as a violation in the portrayal of the human protagonist of Ezekiel,57 since Ezekiel hardly ever speaks openly about his opposition to his role as YHWH’s authentic messenger in Ezekiel; “his reticence is typical of the radical theocentricity of Ezekiel.”58 Taken together, the peculiar account of Ezekiel’s protest, in conjunction with the very fact that vv. 12–15 switch to symbolism of exile from the symbolism of siege in vv. 9–11, is probably secondary material.

4.1.2.3 Ezekiel 4:16–17 as Expansion Ezek 4:16–17 reiterates the theme of the rations for the siege of 4:9–11; however the saying of 4:16–17 is presented with a new introduction in direct speech addressing the prophet (‫ויאמר אלי בן־אדם הנני‬, “he said to me, son of man, behold!”). This introductory-speech formula indicates a new subsection;

53 Ka Leung Wong, The Idea of Retribution in the Book of Ezekiel (VTSup 87; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 133. 54 Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 70. 55 Odell, Ezekiel, 64. 56 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 170. 57 Schöpflin, Theologie als Biographie, 208. 58 Tuell, Ezekiel, 39; Tiemeyer, “Ezekiel: A Compromised Prophet,” 177–80.

112

4 Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts

Ezek 4:16–17 is an inserted interpretation of the sign-act in 4:9–11.59 This interpretation goes beyond the actual meaning of the sign-act; it conveys insights that YHWH is the background actor who breaks the staff of bread in Jerusalem, and who recalls the indebtedness of the Israelites as the cause of the calamitous events in Jerusalem.60 The language regarding the food shortage of 4:9–11 is influenced by the covenant curses in Lev 26;61 Ezek 4:16–17 is probably a secondary interpretation alluding to Lev 26:25–26. Because of the interpretive nature, Ezek 4:16–17 is considered to be a later insertion.62 4.1.2.4 Ezekiel 5:3–4 as Expansion The sign-act in 5:1–4 begins with YHWH’s command ‫קח־לך‬, just as in 4:1–2 and 4:9–11, and the account of the sign-act speaks of the cutting of Ezekiel’s hair symbolising the consequences of Jerusalem’s siege. In 5:1–2 the hair is totally disposed of, thereby implying the totality of YHWH’s irrevocable judgement. However, 5:3–4 modifies the statement of v. 2; it elaborates more about the last third of hair that Ezekiel scattered to the wind. As such, on the one hand v. 3 contains the imagery of binding hairs in the edges of the garment, depicting an unexpected concept of a remnant. On the other hand, the command in v. 4a makes it clear that the remnants of the scattered hairs do not represent salvation for all.63 This unexpected imagery in 5:3–4 disturbs the account of three equally weighed sections of hair in vv. 1–2. Zimmerli has argued that the few strands of hair tucked away in the garment must represent a later addition, because the division into thirds accounts for the whole hair/population.64 The concept of the remnant in vv. 3–4 indicating that a small number of remnants survive in exile is a later corrective added after the fall of Jerusalem; as many scholars have proclaimed,65 the performances by Ezekiel which depict the exile are secondary material interpolated into a text originally only dealing with the siege.66 For these reasons, the concept of the remnant in 5:3–4 contradicts that of the inevitable judgement (vv. 1–2); therefore 5:3–4 has been considered as the secondary expansion.67 59 Eichrodt, Ezekiel, 80. 60 Pohlmann, Hesekiel 1–19, 93. 61 Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 71; Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 187. 62 Schöpflin, Theologie als Biographie, 208–9. 63 Pohlmann, Hesekiel 1–19, 96–7; Schöpflin, Theologie als Biographie, 210–11. 64 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 173. 65 Cooke, Ezekiel, 49–54; Eichrodt, Ezekiel, 21, 76–77; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 70, 164. 66 Cf. 4.1.2.1. 67 Cooke, Ezekiel, 57–58; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 173–74; Brownlee, Ezekiel 1–19, 81–82, 84; Pohlmann, Hesekiel 1–19, 94; Joyce, Ezekiel, 88; David Stacey, Prophetic Drama in the Old Testament (Westminster: Epworth Press, 1990), 189–90.

4.1 The Diachronic Analysis of Ezek 4:1–5:17

113

4.1.2.5 Ezekiel 5:11–13, 16–17 as Expansions Ezek 5:5–17 is considered as an expanded verbal address,68 interpreting all the sign-acts of Ezek 4:1–5:4 and telling the reason for the inescapable judgement. By viewing the verses as a summary compilation, these verses comprise later additions because there are changes in number, gender, and person of the addresses.69 In 5:5–6a the third feminine singular mention of Jerusalem is observed; however, there is a sudden shift to the third plural references to Jerusalem’s people in 5:6b, and another shift to the second masculine person of direct address in v. 7. In addition, in 5:7–17 the back-and-forth switch from the second masculine plural references to Jerusalem’s people (vv. 7, 16–17aα) to the second feminine person of direct address (vv. 8–12, 14–15, 17aβ, 17b) can be observed. Here the frequent switch in number, gender, and person of the addresses reflects a process of gradual expansion in 5:5–17.70 There is less consensus, however, regarding the identification of the redactional material in 5:5–17. Only 5:11–13 and 5:16–17 are widely accepted to be secondary.71 Ezek 5:11–13 contains a secondary interpretation of the sign-act described in 5:1–2. Ezek 5:11–13 is considered to be inserted later because of its interpretive nature. In v. 11 the word ‫“( לכן‬therefore”) serves as an introductory phrase that indicates the development of the preceding sign-act described in 5:1– 2, and that discloses a reason for the inevitable judgement.72 The reason for the symbolic action of the inevitable judgement is supplemented by v. 11: it is the defilement of the sanctuary.73 As such, the defilement of the sanctuary is further elaborated on by the addition of the combination of the phrases ‫בכל־שקוציך‬ (“with all your detestable things,” v. 11aβ) and ‫“( ובכל־תועבתיך‬with all your abominations,” v. 11aβ).74 Then follows an explicit interpretation of 5:2: verse 12 interprets the burning of one third of the hair with fire in the midst of the city

68 Sweeney, Reading Ezekiel, 40; Schöpflin, Theologie als Biographie, 212. 69 Wevers, Ezekiel, 64; Hals, Ezekiel, 33. 70 Contra Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 196, 200, where Block regards the shift in number, gender, and person of the addresses as stylistic indication. 71 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 174, proposes that the original material of the accompanying interpretation (Ezek 5:5–17) of the sign-acts is vv. 5–6a*, 8–9*, 14–15*. Wevers, Ezekiel, 64, suggests that vv. 13–17 “are an appendage which has no obvious connection with 4:1–5:4.” 72 Hals, Ezekiel, 31; Pohlmann, Hesekiel 1–19, 97–8, argues that several secondary expansions in Ezek 5:5–17 can be identified in the verses with the word ‫“( לכן‬therefore”). 73 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 176, has shown that the secondary addition in v. 11–13 is a later interpretation by the “Ezekiel School.” In his view, this later interpretation “is formally distinguished by the fact that it returns once again in v 11a* to describe the sin of Jerusalem and so once more prefaces the declaration of judgement with invective. This has in mind the desecration of the sanctuary which is described in detail by the prophet in ch. 8.” 74 See § 4.1.1.

114

4 Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts

(5:2) as both “pestilence” and “famine.”75 Here the fate of Jerusalem in Ezek 5:11– 12 sounds very much like the covenant curses in Lev 26:30–33; Ezek 5:11–12 is probably a redactional material alluding to Lev 26:30–33 (see Table 4 and section 4.3.2). Ezek 5:11–13 concludes with the recognition formula (v. 13). Ezek 5:13 reveals itself as a later addition “by the confusing transition from addressing Jerusalem to speaking about some unnamed majority.”76 Moreover, v. 13 is a later interpretation of the declaration of judgement in vv. 5–12, as evident from the recognition formula (v. 13b).77 This recognition formula is extended with a clause (‫ )בכלותי חמתי בם‬referring to “the execution of judgement as an accomplished fact.”78 Prior to the recognition formula, as I have discussed in section 4.1.1, there is the addition of the expression ‫ והנחמתי‬which in its present position creates tension with the surrounding contents. For these reasons, Ezek 5:11–13 represents a later redactional material. After the concluding self-introduction formula (‫ )אני יהוה דברתי‬of v. 15, no continuation is to be expected. However, the repetition of the concluding selfintroduction formula occurs at the end of v. 17.79 Here 5:16–17 seems to be a later attempt to interpret v. 12a further; vv. 16–17 increase the number of calamities by adding the expressions ‫“( חצי הרעב הרעים‬the deadly arrows of famine”), ‫“( חיה רעה‬wild beasts”), and ‫“( דם‬bloodshed”).80 These additions obviously draw upon Lev 26 and Deut 32. The sum of these observations suggests that 5:16–17 is a redactional insertion.81 Resulting from the above analysis, the redactional material in the account of the sign-acts most likely comprises of Ezek 4:4–8, 12–15, 16–17; 5:3–4, 11–13, 16–17. It is undoubtable that this redactional material shares a common feature, namely a priestly related context. For instance, 4:4–8 speaks of the idea of iniquity-bearing, whereas 4:12–15 is concerned with the protest against ritual defilement. Moreover, 4:16–17, 5:11–13, 16–17 are related to the priestly literature – the book of Leviticus. In this way, the following sections will draw attention to the influence of the priestly material on the study concerning the relation between the motif of restoration and the secondary material in Ezek 4–5.

75 Wevers, Ezekiel, 66; Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 75; Joyce, Ezekiel, 89. 76 Eichrodt, Ezekiel, 80. 77 Wevers, Ezekiel, 64; Pohlmann, Hesekiel 1–19, 99–100. 78 Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 76. 79 Wevers, Ezekiel, 64; Eichrodt, Ezekiel, 80. 80 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 176; Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 76–7. 81 Even though the original material refers to the context of siege, it doesn’t mean that any perspective of siege is an original material. In this case, the list of calamities in 5:16–17 differs

4.2 The Sign-Acts in Ezekiel 4

115

4.2 The Sign-Acts in Ezekiel 4 The original sign-acts in Ezek 4 portray the city of Jerusalem under siege and the outcome of the siege. The siege of Jerusalem is first depicted in 4:1–2 and is interpreted in v. 3b, in which YHWH commands Ezekiel to ‫“( כון את־פני אלי‬set your face against it [Jerusalem]”). In this case, as Odell has shown, the sign-act in 4:1–2 should be interpreted as YHWH’s active irrevocable judgement against Jerusalem rather than his passive negligence.82 The next original sign-act in vv. 9–11 refers back to the previous one, exaggerating the rations of food being experienced by those besieged in Jerusalem. The sign-act of the preparation of rationed food in 4:9–11 is further reinterpreted in vv. 16–17,83 in which the expression ‫“( הנני שבר מטה־לחם בירושלם‬Behold! I shall break the staff of bread in Jerusalem”) refers to YHWH’s cessation of bread supply in the impending siege of Jerusalem. The secondary interpretation in vv. 16–17 draws upon the covenant curses in Lev 26,84 highlighting the judgement that YHWH brings against the Israelites because of their covenant violation. Thus, the sign-act in 4:9–11 should undoubtedly be interpreted as YHWH’s hostile intention against Jerusalem. In short, the original sign-acts in 4:1–2 and vv. 9–11 are related to vehement declarations of YHWH’s judgement; they are object lessons signifying YHWH’s abandonment of Jerusalem.

4.2.1 Ezekiel 4:4–8 and the Reinstatement of Ezekiel’s Priestly Role While the original material of Ezek 4 conveys YHWH’s inevitable judgement against Jerusalem, later editorial layers of Ezek 4 might have supplemented the texts with material which conveys hope for the future, just as the motif of repentance and the mitigation of the divine punishment is being depicted in the redactional layers of Ezek 3:16–27. As I have shown above, the sign-act of iniquitybearing in vv. 4–8 is considered as a secondary expansion. In it the expression ‫“( נשא עון‬to bear the iniquity of”) in vv. 4–6 may have the sense of “forgive,” although some scholars,85 among them Joyce, contend that the performance of sign acts is “not to elicit repentance, but rather to enact the now irrevocable

from that in the original sign-act in 5:1–2. The difference in the list may represent difference in source. 82 Odell, Ezekiel, 59; Friebel, Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts, 209–10. 83 Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 70; Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 185; Friebel, Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts, 200. 84 Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 71; Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 108. 85 Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 66; Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 180, Friebel, Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts, 220–1.

116

4 Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts

judgement by visual representation.”86 Alongside Joyce, I agree that the performance of sign-acts, particularly the performance depicted in the primary material of the sign-acts in 4:1–2, 9–11, and 5:1–2, basically demonstrates the immutable judgement against the house of Israel. However, I believe that the phrase ‫ נשא עון‬in the redactional material of 4:4–8 has a range of senses including the expression of forgiveness, and that in vv. 4–8 Ezekiel is performing his priestly responsibility of representing the Israelites before YHWH. In the performance of iniquity-bearing, Ezekiel is carrying out that which is part of his function as a priest. Odell has shown that the account of iniquitybearing in vv. 4–8, is “Ezekiel’s personal stake in the symbolic act” because YHWH’s commands not only begin with a direct address ‫“( ואתה‬and you,” v. 4), but also end with the phrase ‫“( מצורך‬your siege,” v. 8) in which the possessive pronoun is masculine singular and attributes only to the prophet.87 These phrases suggest that the section vv. 4–8 is about “Ezekiel’s personal war.”88 When Ezekiel lies on his left side for 390 days and his right side for 40 days, his actions are no mere illustrations of the period of iniquity. He is said to “place the iniquity of house of Israel upon his side” (v. 4a), thereby being involved in bearing their iniquity (v. 4b).89 In my view, however, the sign-acts in 4:1–2 and 4:9–11 are object lessons and indeed mere illustrations, symbolising YHWH’s judgement against Jerusalem. Generally speaking, anyone who bears his/her iniquity “suffers the consequences, or bears the punishment.”90 In this respect, since Ezekiel is forced to bear the iniquity of house of Israel, his performance may carry the connotation of forgiveness or substitutionary suffering.91 Thus, some scholars,92 including this author, regard the account of Ezekiel’s iniquitybearing as the event of substitutionary suffering; his performance of iniquitybearing evokes his priestly role of identifying with the Israelites. In the following section, in light of the literary bridge between Ezekiel 4 and Leviticus 10, 16, I shall further argue that the phrase ‫“( נשא עון‬bear the iniquity”) recalls the action of Ezekiel’s priestly role of suffering for the Israelites. 86 Joyce, Ezekiel, 84. 87 Odell, Ezekiel, 61–2. Although here we are talking about a “siege,” in my view, it is a further, symbolic development of the siege motif in the earliest layer. 88 Odell, Ezekiel, 62. 89 Friebel, Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts, 220 n. 323, has shown that the expression ‫ עליו‬... ‫ושמת את עון‬ is “in the idiomatic sense of ‘attribute’ or ‘impute’;” it is “the sequential prerequisite to bearing the iniquity.” 90 Odell, Ezekiel, 63. 91 Contra Odell, Ezekiel, 63–4. 92 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 164; Brownlee, Ezekiel 1–19, 66–7; Odell, Ezekiel, 63; Fredrik Hägglund, Isaiah 53 in the Light of Homecoming after Exile (FAT II/52; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 89–90.

4.2 The Sign-Acts in Ezekiel 4

117

4.2.1.1 Lexical and Thematic Links between Ezekiel 4:4–8 and Leviticus 10 and 16 In addition to offering a visual representation of YHWH’s accusation of his people, Ezekiel fulfils a normal priestly role by bearing the iniquity of Israel for 390 days (v. 5) and thereby suffering the consequences of Israel’s iniquity for 40 days (v. 6) in a manner akin to a suffering servant. In this case, the phrase ‫ נשא עון‬means to “bear the iniquity” in v. 5, whereas it means to “bear the punishment” in v. 6. According to Zimmerli, the tradition that lies behind Ezek 4:4– 8 has contributed to “the formation of the picture of Servant of Yahweh who bears the guilt of the many.”93 Here I agree with Fredrik Hägglund who states that in Ezek 4:4–8 “Ezekiel suffers the consequences and ‘he bears the punishment’ (‫)נשא עון‬. In this way he represents Israel and his suffering prefigures the suffering that the people have deserved and will experience.”94 Above all, Block concludes that the two phrases of Ezekiel’s sign-act, of lying on the left side for 390 days and on the right side for 40 days, represent two successive events: the long history of Israel’s iniquity, and the subsequent punishment arising out of YHWH’s wrath.95 Even though the word ‫ עון‬has a wide range of meanings, conveying “iniquity” and “punishment,” why does the expression ‫ נשא עון‬mean bearing the iniquity in v. 5, while bearing the punishment in v. 6? Most scholars agree that the interpretation of vv. 4–5 involves the dual meaning of the word ‫עון‬.96 However, the expression ‫ נשא עון‬in vv. 4–6 is ambiguous as to which nuance, or possibly both, is meant: ‘to bear the iniquity’ or ‘to bear the punishment.’ In this section, I shall show that there is a literary relationship between Ezek 4:4–8 and Lev 10, 16. These lexical and thematic links will allow us to clarify the use of the dual meaning of ‫ נשא עון‬in vv. 4–6, and to identify the motif of hope and restoration expressed by the reinstatement of Ezekiel’s priestly role in Ezek 4. The possibility of lexical and thematic links between Ezek 4:4–8 and Lev 10 and 16 was brought to my attention by the comments in Daniel Block’s commentary, in which he has shown that YHWH’s command to ‫ושמת את־עון בית־ישראל‬ ‫“( עליו‬place the iniquity of the house of Israel on it,” v. 4aβ) and ‫תשא את־עונם‬ (“bear their iniquity,” v. 4bβ) recalls the actions of the high priest on the Day of Purgation in Lev 16:21–22.97 For a comparison between Ezek 4:4–6 and Lev 10 and 16, see Table 3 below.

93 94 95 96 97

Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 165. Hägglund, Isaiah 53, 89–90. Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 180; Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 68. Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 68; Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 176–79; Joyce, Ezekiel, 85. Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 176–77.

118

4 Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts

Tab. 3: A Comparison between Ezek 4:4–8 and Lev 10:1–20 and 16:1–22. Ezek 4:4–6

Lev 10:1–20; 16:1–22

‫ושמת את־עון בית־ישראל עליו‬ And place (‫ )שים‬the iniquity of the house of Israel on it. (4:4aβ)

‫תשא את־עונם‬ You will bear (‫ )נשא‬their iniquity (‫)עון‬ (4:4bβ)

‫ ונשאת עון‬... ‫ואני נתתי לך את־שני עונם‬ ‫בית־ישראל‬ I have put (‫ )נתן‬onto you a number of days corresponding to the years of their iniquity … and you shall bear the iniquity (‫ )נשא עון‬of the house of Israel. (4:5)

‫וכלית את־אלה ושכבת על־צדך הימיני שנית‬ When you have completed (‫ )כלה‬these, you will lie down on your right side a second time, (4:6aα)

‫ונשאת את־עון בית־יהודה ארבעים יום‬ You will bear the iniquity (‫ )נשא עון‬of the house of Judah; forty days, (4:6aβbα)

‫יום לשנה יום לשנה נתתין לך‬ I have put (‫ )נתן‬it to you a day for a year. (4:6bβ)

‫וישימו עליה קטרת ויקרבו לפני יהוה אש‬ ‫זרה אשר לא צוה אתם‬ And they placed (‫ )שים‬incense on it and offered unauthorized fire before YHWH, which he had not commanded them. (10:1aβb)

‫ויאמר אלהם קרבו שאו את־אחיכם מאת‬ ‫פני־הקדש אל־מחוץ למחנה‬ And he said to them, “Come forward, carry (‫ )נשא‬your brothers from before the sanctuary to the outside of the camp. (10:4b)

‫ואתה נתן לכם לשאת את־עון העדה‬ He gave (‫ )נתן‬it to you to bear the iniquity (‫ )נשא עון‬of the congregation (10:17bα)

‫וכלה מכפר את־הקדש ואת־אהל מועד‬ ‫ואת־המזבח‬ When he has completed (‫ )כלה‬purging the holy place, the tent of meeting, and the altar. (16:20a)

‫ונשא השעיר עליו את־כל־עונתם אל־ארץ‬ ‫גזרה‬ The goat shall bear all their iniquities (‫ )נשא עון‬on itself to an inaccessible land. (16:22a)

‫ונתן אתם על־ראש השעיר‬ He will put (‫ )נתן‬them on the head of the goat (16:21bα)

4.2.1.1.1 Purposeful Textual Reuse between Ezek 4:4–8 and Lev 10, 16 One way that redactors can demonstrate their intention to reuse an earlier text is by arranging the borrowing locutions in an identical word order as the evoked text. The presence of verbal parallels in Ezek 4:4–8 and Lev 10, 16 is shown in Table 3. The phrase ‫“( נשא עון‬bear the iniquity/punishment”) is an example of priestly terminology in Leviticus and Ezekiel (Lev 10:4b // Ezek 4:4bβ; Lev 10: 17bα // Ezek 4:5; Lev 16:22a // Ezek 4:6aβ), while the verbs in Ezek 4:4–8, and Lev 10 and 16, namely ‫שים‬, ‫נתן‬, and ‫כלה‬, are very common in the HB. Thus, their occurrence in isolation in Ezekiel is not significant for establishing literary

4.2 The Sign-Acts in Ezekiel 4

119

dependence. However, the use of ‫ נשא עון‬is a common link between Leviticus and Ezekiel. Moreover, Ezek 4:4–8 repeats the shared locutions, namely ‫נשא עון‬, ‫שים‬, ‫נתן‬, and ‫כלה‬, in the order of their appearance in Lev 10:1–20 and 16:1–22. Here the identical word order highlights the shared locutions and emphasises the intentional dependence of Ezek 4:4–8 on the earlier text, in this case the earlier text in Lev 10:1–20; 16:1–22 (cf. § 1.4.2.3 criterion 5a). In addition to verbal parallels in Ezek 4:4–8 and Lev 10, 16, the thematic links between the account of Ezekiel’s performance of iniquity-bearing in Ezek 4:4–8 and the description of the high priest’s performance on the Day of Atonement in Lev 16 further bridge these sections. The redactors of Ezek 4:4–8 appropriated the account of the high priest in Lev 10, 16 for their own purposes, namely to embed a hope expressed by Ezekiel’s atonement of the iniquity of Israel (see below).98 4.2.1.1.2 Ezekiel’s Priestly Role of Bearing Israel’s Iniquity Before we go further, a word about the relationship between Lev 10 and 16 is in order.99 Milgrom has shown that Lev 16:1 is an editorial connection between

98 The redactors might have appropriated the account of Nadab and Abihu in Lev 10 in order to reassert the legitimacy of the Zadokite priesthood, who were descendants of Eleazar, brother of Nadab and Abihu (Cf. Chapter 7). 99 Scholars have long noted a relationship between Lev 10 and 16. However, there is less consensus regarding the chronological relationship among different literary strata within the book of Leviticus. Christophe Nihan, From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch: A Study in the Composition of the Book of Leviticus (FAT II/25; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 20–68, 602, who argues that Lev 1–3; 8–9; and 11–15 constitute the original Priestly (P) layer, which was concluded in Lev 16. Moreover, he considers Lev 10 to be a very late addition (as Achenbach has already argued, see R. Achenbach, “Das Versagen der Aaroniden. Erwägungen zum literarhistorischen Ort von Leviticus 10,” in “Basel und Bibel”: Collected Communications to the XVIIth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Basel 2001, eds. M. Augustin and H. M. Niemann [BEATAJ 51; Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang, 2004], 55–70). In Nihan’s view, Lev 16 cannot be written earlier than the first decades of the fifth century BCE, while Lev 10 is the latest supplement to Leviticus, and as such is related to the Torah’s final editing in the late Persian or early Hellenistic period. In light of the work of Achenbach, Nihan, From Priestly Torah, 584–585; 602–603, suggests that the story of Nadab and Abihu in Lev 10 has many close parallels to the story of the 250 chieftains in Num 16 (see also R. Achenbach, Die Vollendung der Tora: Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch [BZAR 3; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2003], 93). He regards the story of rejection of the “profane fire” offered by Nadab and Abihu as the work of the final redactor of Leviticus, who should have been a member of the priestly school responsible for the “theocratic revision” in the book of Numbers. In my opinion, the interpretation of Achenbach and Nihan is inconclusive in its suggestion that the narrative of Numbers 16 is presupposed by the story in Lev 10, and as such represents a much later addition. Although Achenbach and Nihan are correct to point out the lexical and thematic parallels be-

120

4 Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts

chapters 10 and 16.100 It is most probable that originally Lev 16 immediately followed after Lev 10,101 in which Nadab and Abihu have polluted the sanctuary by their sin and subsequently, after their death, by their carcasses. The procedure for purging the sanctuary is not mentioned in Lev 10 but is described in Lev 16. Thus, Milgrom has suggested, correctly I think, that the purgation ritual depicted in Lev 16:2–28 “could be regarded as an emergency measure originally fits the case of Nadab and Abihu perfectly.”102 Nadab and Abihu were Aaron’s eldest sons who had just been ordained as priests (cf. Lev 8:30). In Lev 10:1, Nadab and Abihu place (‫ )שים‬illegitimate incense103 on coals not taken from the altar and present an unauthorized fire before YHWH. The sin of Nadab and Abihu involved an attempt to usurp the high priest’s privilege of offering incense. Instead of laying the iniquity of Israel on themselves, the priests, Nadab and Abihu place their own iniquity upon themselves by offering illicit incense; therefore, they are punished and die before YHWH (v. 2). In other words, the action of placing (‫ )שים‬illegitimate incense results in Nadab and Abihu placing their own iniquity upon themselves. Their death is the consequence of YHWH’s punishment; their carcasses are the palpable sign of their death. Their carcasses are then carried away (‫ )נשא‬from

tween Lev 10 and Num 16, the direction of dependence between the texts is not entirely clear. James W. Watts has mentioned, correctly I think, that “rather than regarding Lev 10 ‘as a kind of digest of the ordeal’ in Num 16, one could just as easily regard the latter as a midrashic expansion on the theme of the enigmatic story in Lev 10.” (see James W. Watts, review of From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch: A Study in the Composition of the Book of Leviticus, by Christophe Nihan, Biblica 91 [2010]: 595–598.) Moreover, Nihan’s interpretation seems to involve a conflict (see From Priestly Torah, 362–364). On the one hand, he describes that the censer-incense rite of Lev 16:12–13 is in the original P. On the other hand, he considers Lev 10, which also mentions censor incense, as the last addition made to Leviticus (see also From Priestly Torah, 585). 100 Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16 (AB 3; New York: Doubleday, 1991), 1011. 101 According to Milgrom, Lev 11–15 is an insert specifying the impurities that can pollute the sanctuary (15:31), for which the purgation rite of Lev 16 is mandated. See Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1011; Roy Gane, Leviticus, Numbers (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 189–90, has shown that the establishment of a yearly Day of Atonement, as prescribed in the present form of Lev 16, would presumably take care of residual pollution resulting from the demise of Nadab and Abihu. See also Martin Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions, trans. B. W. Anderson (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1972), 9, 272; John Hartley, Leviticus (WBC 4; Dallas: Word, 1992), 140; Lloyd R. Bailey, Leviticus-Numbers (SHBC 3; Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2005), 191. 102 Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1011, 1061. 103 Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 597, has shown that the illegitimate incense offered up by Nadab and Abihu is simply called ‫קטרת‬, which is different from the incense ‫ קטרת סמים דקה‬offered by the high priest on the Day of Purgation (Lev 16:12) and from the twice-daily incense ‫קטרת סמים‬ offered on the inner altar (Exod 30:7).

4.2 The Sign-Acts in Ezekiel 4

121

the sanctuary to a place outside the camp (vv. 4–5); otherwise, they would ritually pollute the sanctuary.104 Subsequently, in the periscope on the purification offering (vv. 16–20), Moses tells Aaron and his sons that the prebends from the purification offering, which involves purging the sanctuary altar of its accumulated impurity, have been given (‫ )נתן‬to the priests to eat in order to bear the iniquity (‫ )נשא עון‬of the congregation (v. 17).105 We come now to Lev 16. Verse 1 depicting the death of Nadab and Abihu in the sanctuary is an editorial connection between chapters 10 and 16. The purgation rite is then described in vv. 2–28, which was “an emergency measure invoked by the high priest whenever he felt that the entire sanctuary had to be purged.”106 As the impurities and transgressions of the Israelites have penetrated into the Holy of Holies and polluted the sanctuary (v. 16a), the sanctuary has to be cleansed annually in order that it functions effectively.107 The purgation of the sanctuary begins with a purification offering offered by the high priest (v. 6), who first makes expiation for himself and his house. He then casts lots over the two goats presented by the congregation to decide which one is to be sacrificed to YHWH as a purification offering and which one is to be sent off into the wilderness to Azazel (vv. 7–10).108 Finally, the purgation of the sanctuary concludes with the rites taken place in ‫“( הקדש‬the Holy of Holies,” vv. 12–16a), in ‫“( אהל מועד‬the tent of meeting,” vv. 16b–17b), and on the sacrificial altar (vv. 18–19b).109 Before turning to the Azazel goat (v. 21), the expression ‫וכלה‬ (“he has completed,” v. 20aα) means that the high priest has to finish the entire purgation ritual; all of the sanctuary’s impurities must first be released by the blood rite before the high priest can load them symbolically onto the head of the live goat.110 As Milgrom writes : “the purpose of v. 20a is to stress the

104 Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 606. 105 Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 623–25. 106 Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1061. 107 Hartley, Leviticus, 240. 108 There is no universal consensus regarding the meaning of Azazel. There are three major views. For a detailed interpretation, see Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1020–21. I follow Milgrom’s argument that Azazel is a name of a demon; however “he is no longer a personality, but just a name designating the place to which impurities and sins are banished.” Similarly, Hartley, Leviticus, 237–38, states that Azazel is the name of a demon; however the difference between the name of the place to which the goat departs and the name of a demon “is not great, for a society frequently names a place after an identity and vice versa.” 109 Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1063. 110 Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1044–45, has shown that the purgation of the sanctuary requires two goats, one to provide the blood to sprinkle the contaminated sanctuary and the other to transport the released impurities of the sanctuary to an uninhabited place. Although the goat depicted in the extant text (Lev 16:21) transports Israel’s sin, Milgrom acknowledges that the

122

4 Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts

fact that the purging of the sanctuary must be complete before beginning the Azazel rite.”111 Milgrom has conceded further that purgation and elimination rites go together in the ancient world.112 An authentic method to remove impurities and iniquities from human habitation is to banish them to the wilderness. After the high priest has completed (‫ )כלה‬purging the Holy of Holies, the tent of meeting, and the altar (16:20a), he would put (‫ )נתן‬his hands on the head of the live goat to transport the released iniquities of the sanctuary. Then in Lev 16:22, the live goat, which bears the iniquities of Israel, is sent off to the inaccessible (‫)גזרה‬ land, from which it cannot return,113 just as it goes into exile.114 Ezek 4:4–5 alludes to the tragic aftermath of the offering of Nadab and Abihu. YHWH’s command to ‫“( ושמת את־עון בית־ישראל עליו‬place (‫ )שים‬the iniquity/ punishment of the house of Israel on it,” v. 4aβ) and ‫“( תשא את־עונם‬bear (‫)נשא‬ their iniquity/punishment,” v. 4bβ) recalls the description of the death of Nadab and Abihu, who place (‫ )שים‬illicit incense resulting in placing their own iniquity upon themselves (Lev 10:1), and eventually their carcasses, which are the palpable sign of their death resulting from YHWH’s punishment, are carried away (‫ )נשא‬from the sanctuary (Lev 10:4b–5). By alluding to Lev 10:1–5, the expression ‫ שים עון‬in Ezek 4:4a and the expression ‫ נשא עון‬in 4:4b should mean “bearing the iniquity” and “bearing the punishment,” respectively. Then in Ezek 4:5, YHWH puts (‫ )נתן‬a number of days corresponding to the years of the iniquity of the house of Israel to Ezekiel and commands the prophet to bear their iniquity/punishment. Here Ezek 4:4–5 alludes to the account of Moses’ commands to Aaron as the purification offering given (‫ )נתן‬to Aaron to eat is to bear the community’s iniquity (‫)נשא עון‬. In this case, in Ezek 4:5 the prophet is commanded to bear the iniquity of the house of Israel for 390 days. In addition, the function of the priest depicted in Lev 10 is to remove Israel’s iniquity;115 the command to ‫“( נשא עון‬bear the iniquity of the house of Israel”) in Ezek 4:5 could thus likewise be understood as purging Israel’s iniquity.

goat forms an integral part of the ritual, whose original purpose was to dispatch the sanctuary’s impurities but at a later stage the goat was reinterpreted as an agent to eliminate the sins of Israel. 111 Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1040. 112 Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1044, 1071. 113 Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1045–46. 114 The verb ‫ גזר‬can mean “cut off” (Cf. Ezek 37:11; Isa 53:8; Ps 88:6; Lam 3:54). In Ezek 37:11 the statement ‫ נגזרנו לנו‬reflects the despondency of the exiles. The emotional impact of being cut off is expressed in the context of the exile. 115 Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 625.

4.2 The Sign-Acts in Ezekiel 4

123

After Ezekiel has completed (‫כלה‬, v. 6aα) the previous procedure by bearing or purging Israel’s iniquity (v. 5), the prophet is commanded to bear the ‫עון‬ (“iniquity/punishment”) of the house of Judah for 40 days (v. 6aβ). It is commonly agreed that the phrase “forty years” refers to the punishment of the whole generation of Israel (see later discussion).116 In Ezek 4:6 the ‫ עון‬of Israel is put (‫נתן‬, v. 6bβ) on the prophet, just like after completing (‫כלה‬, Lev 16:20a) the entire purgation ritual the released iniquities of the sanctuary are transported to the scapegoat by putting (‫ )נתן‬hands on its head (Lev 16:22). There is a play on the connotations of ‫ נשא עון‬in Lev 16:22a. On the one hand, ‫ נשא עון‬means “to bear iniquity” as the scapegoat receives the transported iniquities of the sanctuary after the high priest has laid his hands on its head. On the other hand, ‫ נשא עון‬means “to bearing punishment” as the scapegoat represents a substitute to bear the punishment for the Israelites; it receives the punishment by being sent to ‫“( ארץ גזרה‬inaccessible land”); the word ‫ גזר‬can mean “cut off,”117 that is to die – the judgmental consequences of the iniquity. In this respect, the scapegoat is sent to a place where its life is “cut off;” the fate of the scapegoat is death which is the punishment for bearing the iniquity. After the scapegoat actually enters the inaccessible land (v. 22b), the high priest can proceed with the ritual concerning the cleansing of the participants (vv. 23–28). The function of Lev 16:22b is to emphasise that the arrival of the scapegoat in the inaccessible land must precede the cleansing of the participants.118 In other words, the “cut off” of the scapegoat in the inaccessible land is an essential part of the ritual; the ritual focuses exclusively on exterminating the scapegoat, that is the consequences of committing iniquity; here the expression ‫ נשא עון‬most likely means “to bear punishment.”119 The motif of punishment in the inaccessible land is relevant in Ezek 4:6 that the number of 40 days/ 40 years in Ezek 4:6 may reflect an apparent reference to the Israelites’ wandering in the wilderness; in other words, the Babylonian exile is probably a second wilderness experience of Israel (see discussion below). By alluding to the punishment-bearing of the scapegoat depicted in Lev 16: 20–22, it is perhaps more likely that in Ezek 4:6 the expression ‫ נשא עון‬renders “to bear punishment.” The allusion of the Leviticus text in Ezek 4:4–6 has suggested that we should interpret the dual meaning of the phrase ‫ נשא עון‬in vv. 4–6 as follows:

116 Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 179; Joyce, Ezekiel, 86; Odell, Ezekiel, 63. 117 BDB, 1504; HALOT, 1:187; Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1046. 118 Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1046. 119 Friebel, Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts, 219–20 n. 320. In my view, the understanding of ‫ נשא עון‬as bearing iniquity and the meaning of ‫ נשא עון‬as bearing punishment are not to be held apart. However, for translation purpose ‫ נשא עון‬in 4:6 should be understood as “to bear punishment.”

124

4 Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts

And you lie down on your left side! Place the iniquity (‫ )ושמת את־עון‬of the house of Israel on it! You shall bear their punishment (‫ )תשא את־עונם‬for the number of days that you lie on it (v. 4). And I have put (‫ )נתתי‬to you a number of days, corresponding to the years of their iniquity (‫)עונם‬, three hundred and ninety days. Thus, you shall bear the iniquity (‫ )ונשאת עון‬of the house of Israel (v. 5). When you have completed (‫ )וכלית‬these, you shall lie down a second time on your right side and bear the punishment (‫ )ונשאת את־עון‬of the house of Judah; I have put it (‫ )נתתיו‬to you for forty days, a day for each year (v. 6).

In short, Ezek 4:4–6 patterns Ezekiel’s atonement of the iniquity of Israel on the similar deeds performed by the high priest and Aaron’s two sons, who were the surviving priests after the demise of Nadab and Abihu (Lev 10:17; 16:20–22). In addition, the sign-act effectively configures Ezekiel into a scapegoat, which bears Israel’s punishment to the “cut off” region.120 For these reasons, Ezek 4:4– 6 reflects on the priestly tradition and models Ezekiel upon the high priest in the sign-act; Ezekiel is called upon to “bear Israel’s iniquity/punishment” and to atone for them in a way reminiscent of the high priest. Ezek 4:4–6 recalls the action of Ezekiel’s priestly role of suffering for the Israelites. The literary connections between Ezek 4:4–8 and Lev 10 and 16 not only clarify the connotations of ‫ נשא עון‬in vv. 4–6, but also reveal the sense of “forgiveness” in Ezekiel’s performance of iniquity/punishment-bearing. The motif of punishment-bearing in Ezek 4:6 draws upon Lev 16:22 in which the Azazel rite highlights the elimination of Israel’s ‫עונת‬. Milgrom has shown that the evil power of the iniquity must be eradicated by banishing the evil to its place of origin, namely the netherworld, the wilderness, or to the enemy territory in which “its malefic power could work to benefit its sender” who has committed iniquity.121 In this case, just like the scapegoat is banished to the enemy territory, Ezekiel on the one hand bears the punishment of the whole generation of Israel, while he is among the exiles at Tel Abib – the enemy territory. On the other hand, Ezekiel bears the punishment from which the Israelites could be benefited; the house of Israel is spared punishment, implying the forgiveness of YHWH. The forgiveness of YHWH points the way of the house of Israel to a future hope. In Ezek 4:6 the prophet bears the punishment (‫ )עון‬of the nation for 40 days. The use of the numeral 40 further offers the key to the interpretation of the performance ‫ נשא עון‬and to the identification of the element of hope in the action ‫נשא‬ ‫עון‬. Some scholars have shown that the figure of 40 days / 40 years serves as a round number for the length of an entire generation, echoing the forty years

120 The “cut off” region is probably equivalent to life in exile. The exiles of the first deportation (597 B.C.E.) were “cut off” from Jerusalem and the Temple; they were marginalised concerning their patrimonial lands by the residents of Jerusalem. 121 Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1072.

4.2 The Sign-Acts in Ezekiel 4

125

that the Israelites wandered through the wilderness (Num 14:26–38).122 In the account of the survey of Canaan, the entire generation, who had come out of Egypt, rebelled against YHWH. As a result, none of them would see the promise land and all of them died in the wilderness. The 40 years designating one generation (Ezek 4:6) seem comparable to the 40 years’ punishment of the remnants in the wilderness (Num 14:26–35). In light of this correlation, the expression ‫ נשא עון‬in Ezek 4:6 certainly means “to bear punishment” with reference to the interpretation of the text in Numbers. Moreover, the use of a verbatim quotation from Num 14:34123 may reflect the redactors’ interpretation of Ezek 4:6 that the Babylonian exile is a second wilderness experience.124 The purpose of the echo of Num 14 in Ezek 4:6 is probably to highlight that the tragic failures of one generation can be retrieved in the experiences of the new generation, and the stage for a new beginning would be set after the end of the current generation. In this way, the element of hope and restoration underlies the account of the second wilderness experience of the Babylonian exile in Ezek 4:6. 4.2.1.2 The Cross Reference to Ezekiel’s Binding (3:16–27; 4:4–8) The cross-reference to the pun intended of Ezekiel’s binding (3:25; 4:8) helps to bind 3:16–27 and 4:4–8 together by highlighting the normal priestly role of bearing the iniquity of the people. Ezek 4:4–8 concludes with Ezekiel’s experience of binding (v. 8), which explicitly connects with the account of the prophet’s confinement in 3:25. The language of 4:8 is not a command for Ezekiel to perform a sign-act; rather, according to Kelvin G. Friebel, Ezek 4:8 is a “declarative of the divine imposition.”125 In his view, “the reference in 4:8 to God placing cords upon the prophet is a figurative way of expressing the divine enablement of the prophet to carry out daily the difficult task of remaining upon one side for an extended period.”126 I share his view, yet we need to pay more attention to the priestly material that lies behind the account of 4:8. Ezek 4–6 speaks of Ezekiel’s priestly role of bearing iniquity/punishment for the Israelites. Moreover, in 3:25 the ropes (‫ )עבותים‬that bind Ezekiel symbolises the reinstatement of his priestly role. For these reasons, the reference in 4:8 to YHWH placing ‫ עבותים‬may also be inter-

122 Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 105; Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 179; Lust et al., “Ezekiel 4 and 5,” 145; Thomas Renz, The Rhetorical Function of the Book of Ezekiel (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2002), 181; Odell, Ezekiel, 63; Joyce, Ezekiel, 86. 123 The expression ‫( ארבעים יום יום לשנה יום לשנה‬Ezek 4:6b) is literally identical with the expression in Num 14:34. Moreover, both texts have a similar phrase (‫)נשא עון‬. 124 Odell, Ezekiel, 63. 125 Friebel, Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts, 223. 126 Friebel, Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts, 223.

126

4 Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts

preted as the divine enablement of Ezekiel to carry out his priestly role in certain dimensions, namely the iniquity-bearing on behalf of the Israelites. In addition to the motif of Ezekiel’s binding, Ezek 3:16–27 and 4:4–8 are bound together by a sort of cross reference system of thematic resemblance. In Ezek 3:16–21, Ezekiel is called to be a watchman; he is appointed to reprove sinners on pain of bearing their bloodguilt. Ezekiel incurs the punishment of a negligent watchman; he is actually loaded with the iniquity of Israel and suffers on their account. By the call of 3:24b–26, Ezekiel is tied with ropes, and he is speechless as such; he cannot act as an intercessor between the Israelites and YHWH. In contrast with his inability to intercede with YHWH, in 3:27 the release from the muteness enables Ezekiel to speak again. Likewise, Ezek 4:4–8 recounts Ezekiel’s iniquity-bearing, his binding with ropes and his intercession127 – all of them are part of Ezekiel’s role as a priest. In this way, the redactional material in Ezek 3:16–27 and that in 4:4–8 are linked through the recurrence of the motif of restoration expressed by Ezekiel’s priestly role.

4.2.2 Ezekiel 4:12–15 and the Mitigation of the Divine Punishment Ezek 4:12–15 recounts the issue of food impurity. The preparation of the food over human excrement in v. 12 appears as a natural continuation of the account of the scarcity of the siege food in vv. 9–11.128 However, as mentioned before, Ezek 4:9–11 is the original layer of the account of sign-acts of Ezek 4–5, which deals with the siege food; whereas Ezek 4:12–15, which deals with the exilic food, is considered to be a secondary expansion (see section 4.1.1 and 4.1.2.2). Verses 12–15 should not be seen as the continuation of vv. 9–11. Rather, it may be the secondary expansion containing the motif of hope and restoration, just like the preceding redactional material in vv. 4–8. Now we should consider whether there is the motif of hope and restoration of Ezekiel’s priestly role in 4:12–15.129 127 Brownlee, Ezekiel 1–19, 69, argues that in Ezek 4:7 “Ezekiel’s directing of his face there [toward Jerusalem] and his laying bare of his arm now represent intercession.” In his view, Ezek 4:7 may reveal the role of Ezekiel as an intercessor. 128 Friebel, Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts, 225 n. 337, has shown that the act of making and eating mixed food does not violate the law of cleanness in Lev 19:19 and Deut 22:9–11; the laws are designed to “ensure the integrity of the crop.” Cf. Sweeney, Reading Ezekiel, 39. 129 As Mein notes, the message of judgement “contains within it a certain amount of priestly instruction, and this provides a degree of hope for the exiles: not everything is lost if the ritual categories can be maintained.” See Andrew Mein, “Ezekiel as a Priest in Exile,” in The Elusive Prophet: The Prophet as a Historical Person, Literary Character, and Anonymous Artist, ed. J. C. De Moor (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 199–213 (205).

4.2 The Sign-Acts in Ezekiel 4

127

In v. 12 YHWH commands Ezekiel to bake his cake ‫“( בגללי צאת האדם‬in dung of human excrement”). From the perspective of Ezekiel’s protest (v. 14), the use of human dung as fuel would render food unclean.130 YHWH explains the sign-act himself immediately that the action of baking the cake in human dung refers to eating unclean food in exile (v. 13). Moreover, further evidence is found in Deut 23:12–14, in which the Mosaic prescription for the disposal of human waste outside the camp is depicted.131 In v. 15 YHWH relents and allows Ezekiel to bake his bread over ‫“( צפועי הבקר‬cow dung”) instead, which was commonly used as fuel in the Mediterranean world.132 YHWH’s granting Ezekiel permission to use cow dung as fuel brought a relief to the prophet.133 Ezek 4:12– 15 reflects a mitigation of the divine punishment for the prophet himself. In vv. 12–15 the uncleanness of the food is caused by the method of cook134 ing. Ezekiel is to prepare his bread in the form of ‫“( ועגת שערים‬a barley cake,” v. 12). Zimmerli has shown that the word ἐγκρυφίας (ash-cakes) in LXX of v. 12 indicates that Ezekiel’s cake is cooked in hot ashes,135 expressing the view that his food has thoroughly been made in direct contact with the unclean fuel.136 Moreover, the preposition ‫ ב‬in the expression ‫והיא בגללי צאת האדם‬ ‫“( תעגנה לעיניהם‬you shall bake it in their sight in human dung,” v. 12b) also presents the same idea that the barley cake is in direct contact with the dung.137 In contrast, YHWH’s permission to cook the food ‫“ עליהם‬over [cow dung]” (v. 15b) indicates that Ezekiel can prepare his barley cake above the cow dung

130 Brownlee, Ezekiel 1–19, 78, proposes that since man is not classified as a clean animal by the Law given in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, human dung is impure. Mein, “Ezekiel as a Priest,” 205, has argued that “dung of any kind was not a normal fuel in Palestine, but was an essential for life in Babylonia, and the compromise of cooking with cow’s dung represents an accommodation of priestly legislation to exilic conditions.” 131 Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 107; Brownlee, Ezekiel 1–19, 77; Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 69; Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 186; Odell, Ezekiel, 65. 132 Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 107; Odell, Ezekiel, 64; Joyce, Ezekiel, 87. 133 Brownlee, Ezekiel 1–19, 78. 134 Contra Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 171; Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 107; Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 71; Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 186; Friebel, Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts, 248; Odell, Ezekiel, 66, who argue that any food prepared and eaten in a foreign country is considered unclean. In my view, Ka Leung Wong is correct in writing, “Ezekiel’s reply in v. 14 does imply that it is possible to eat ritually pure food even in exile since at the time of this sign action Ezekiel is already in Babylon” is true. See Wong, Idea of Retribution, 135. 135 The Greek word “ἐγκρυφίας” renders “a cake baked in ashes” in Gen 18:6; Exod 12:39; Num 11:8; 1 Kgs 17:12–13. 136 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 149. 137 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 149; Friebel, Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts, 248.

128

4 Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts

(‫)צפועי הבקר‬,138 rather than preparing his cake in the ashes; he is spared ritual defilement. Ezekiel utters the protest, implying that he would have been defiled (‫ )טמא‬if YHWH forced him to make his food in human dung. In 4:12–14 Ezekiel’s state of purity seems to be lost, but YHWH’s immediate sympathetic response (v. 15) keeps or restores his priestly state of purity.139 The sign-act in the context of the secondary expansion (vv. 12–15) emphasises two points. On the one hand, if Ezekiel ate the barley cake which was cooked in direct contact with the human dung, he would be imposed to model the unclean conditions of the exiles. On the other hand, YHWH’s response to Ezekiel’s protest underscores the restoration of Ezekiel’s state of purity because he is granted the concession of not violating the ritual purity. The use of human dung (‫ )בגללי צאת האדם‬as fuel represents not only ritual impurity but also probably implies the practice of idolatrous worship. Why did the redactors use neither the expression ‫ גלל‬nor the expression ‫ צפוע‬to render both the dung of human and of cow? Why did they only use the expression ‫גלל‬ to render “human dung”? It is because the redactors probably made use of the plural ‫“( גללי‬dung”) in Ezek 4:12, 15 as a pun on the plural construct of ‫י‬‫גּ‬ (“idols”).140 From the perspective of the prophet, the use of human dung here not only symbolises the unclean conditions of the exiles but may also signify the idolatrous practice among the Israelites. In Ezek 4:12–13 the worship of idols by the Israelites constitutes the grounds for their exile among the nations where they eat unclean things; relatedly, such texts may also stress the breaking of the covenant between YHWH and his people. In response to Ezekiel’s protest (v. 14), YHWH has given him a promise reversing the consequence of judgement: YHWH allows Ezekiel to use cow’s dung (‫ )צפועי הבקר‬instead of ‫גללי‬ ‫האדם‬. Here YHWH “graciously upholds of remaining untainted by any uncleanness”141 or any idolatry. Above all, the mitigation of the divine punishment and portrayal of restoration can be seen in the redactional material of vv. 12–15; in this case restoration means the reversal of the consequence of judgement.

138 Wong, Idea of Retribution, 135 has shown that the use of cow’s dung is ritually allowable. In addition, Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 171, has also shown that animal dung is ritually pure for cooking (contra Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 187; Friebel, Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts, 249–50). 139 Tiemeyer, “Ezekiel: A Compromised Prophet,” 193. 140 HALOT, 1:192, suggests a connection between the term ‫ל‬ (“droppings”) and the term ‫ים‬‫לּוּ‬ (“idols”); H. Preuss, “‫ים‬‫לּוּ‬,” TDOT 3:1–5 (2), considers the word ‫ים‬‫לּוּ‬ as a development of the word ‫ל‬ (“dung, manure”); Edward M. Curtis, “Idol, Idolatry,” ABD 3:376–81 (378): “Irrespective of etymology, [‫ים‬‫לּוּ‬] appears that the negative and derogatory associations of the word come from its similarity to the words [‫ל‬] and [‫ל‬‫]ָגּ‬, both of which means ‘dung’. Thus the idols are referred to as ‘dung pellets’.” 141 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 171; Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 70.

4.3 The Sign-Acts in Ezekiel 5

129

To sum up, in Ezek 4:4–8 Ezekiel is called upon to bear the iniquity of Israel and the punishment of Judah in a way reminiscent of the high priest, while in Ezek 4:12–15 Ezekiel’s state of purity as a priest is restored after he has granted the concession of not violating the ritual purity. The restoration aspect of Ezekiel’s priestly role in Ezek 4:4–8 and 4:12–15, as well as in Ezek 3:22–27 (see section 3.3), pertains to the reassertion of the legitimacy of Ezekiel as a priest. As such, the legitimacy of Ezekiel’s priestly role depicted in the above-mentioned redactional material was probably understood as hope and restoration by the exiles; the exiles might have perceived that once the reinstatement of priestly role occurred, the Temple liturgy and the Temple would also be restored in the future.

4.3 The Sign-Acts in Ezekiel 5 Ezek 5:1–4 is the third section of the three original sign-acts representing Jerusalem’s siege in Ezek 4–5. After Ezekiel has performed the making of bread from different grains (4:9–11), he now takes a sharpened sword to shave off his hair and beard. Here Ezek 5:1–4 symbolises the end of the siege of Jerusalem and the fate of the people there.142 This is followed by a series of verbal proclamation in 5:5–17 which clarifies what is implied in the sign-acts. As in the previous sections, the objective of this section is to demonstrate that the purpose of inserting the secondary material (5:3–4, 11–13, 16–17) is to add the motif of hope and restoration in the later interpretations of the prophet’s words, namely the addition of an unexpected concept of a remnant to the imagery of irrevocable judgement (vv. 3–4), and the occurrence of ‫ נחם‬in v. 13 and its tension with the surrounding contexts (vv. 11–12). The third sign-act (5:1–4) consists of two separate but related actions. In vv. 1–2 the shaven hair is divided and weighed out into three equal parts: a third of the hair the prophet burns in fire in the midst of the city; another third he strikes with the sword; the final third he scatters to the wind, while in vv. 3–4 Ezekiel takes ‫“( מעט במספר‬a small number”) of hair from the final third portion securing them in the edges of his garment, and then he picks up some of the scattered hairs and throws them into the fire. The preservation of the shaven hair signifies unexpected survivors. This concept of the remnant in 5:3–4 contradicts the totality of divine judgement mentioned in vv. 1–2; Ezek 5:3–4 is commonly considered as a secondary addition (see section 4.1.2.4).

142 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 172.

130

4 Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts

4.3.1 Ezek 5:3 and the Hope of Preservation The actions of gathering the few strands of hair and of binding them in the edges of the garment have the positive connotation of protection and preservation of the remnants.143 However, many scholars suggest, incorrectly I think, that such preservation is only for eventual judgement because the hair burnt in the fire in v. 4 is taken from the remnants of hair Ezekiel has placed in his garment (v. 3).144 I shall argue that some of the hairs being thrown into the fire are not from the remnants of hair placed in the garment. Here I follow Friebel’s argument that the antecedent of the suffix on ‫( ומהם‬v. 4) does not refer to the remnants of hair wrapped up in the garment but to the final third portion.145 In v. 3 the prophet is commanded to ‫“( לקח משם מעט מספר‬take a small number”) of hair from there (‫)משם‬. Allen has shown that these remnants of hair belong to the final third portion which has fallen on the ground.146 The word ‫( משם‬v. 3) refers to where the hairs are scattered (v. 2). In v. 4 the prophet is commanded to ‫“( ומהם עוד תקח‬take some of them again”). Friebel has shown that the word ‫“ עוד‬carries the sense of repeating the previous action which dealt with the scattered hairs specified in v. 3.”147 In addition, the preposition ‫ מן‬of the word ‫( ומהם‬v. 4) is a partitive ‫מן‬, meaning “some of them.” The action ‫“( עוד תקח‬you will take again”) of v. 4a with respect to the word ‫“( ומהם‬some of them”) seems to be parallel in meaning to the expression ‫“( ולקחת משם מעט במספר‬you will take a small number from there”) mentioned in v. 3. Thus, the hairs which are thrown into the fire in v. 4 are picked up from the scattered hairs which are still lying on the ground (v. 2) by Ezekiel; the hairs which are thrown into the fire are not from the hairs in the garment. Moreover, the expression ‫“( תצא־אש אל־כל־בית ישראל‬a fire will come out into all the house of Israel,” v. 4b) is parallel in meaning to ‫וחרב אריק אחריהם‬ (“I will unsheathe a sword after them,” v. 2bγ),148 implying that those scattered have to face an inescapable judgement. Both expressions conclude the statements in vv. 2, 4 with the totality of the impending judgement. If the phrase “you will take some of them again” (v. 4) was a sequential action following the action of v. 3, it would have been expressed in a construction of the perfect consecu-

143 Friebel, Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts, 240. 144 Cooke, Ezekiel, 58; Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 110; Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 72; Block, Ezekiel 1– 24, 195; Joyce, Ezekiel, 88; Dalit Rom-Shiloni, Exclusive Inclusivity Identity Conflicts between the Exiles and the People who Remained (LHBOTS 543; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013), 176. 145 Friebel, Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts, 241. 146 Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 72. 147 Friebel, Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts, 241. 148 Friebel, Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts, 241.

4.3 The Sign-Acts in Ezekiel 5

131

tivum. However, in v. 4 the action ‫ ומהם עוד תקח‬is expressed in Qal imperfect form, implying that the action in v. 4 is another action which deals with the remnants of the scattered hairs mentioned in v. 2, but not the remnants of hair wrapped up in the garment (v. 3). Although the third sign-act (5:1–4) portrays images of judgement, some of the hairs scattered to the wind will be retrieved from the ground and be kept (v. 3), signifying the concept of the remnant. There are two types of remnant in the passage: survivors who are sent into exile (the scattered hairs left on the ground but not thrown into the fire)149 and a preserved remnant (the scattered hairs kept in the garment) who has escaped the fire, the sword, and the scattering.150 Indeed, the preserved remnants will probably form the “nucleus of the restored Israel” in future.151 In the context of the impending judgement, there is a future hope that builds upon the judgement. The hope of protection and preservation is depicted in the secondary addition (5:3). Furthermore, in light of the parallel between Ezek 5:2–4 and Lev 26:33–39, it is very likely that the redactors of Ezek 5:3–4 intentionally embedded the motif of hope and restoration into the context of the inevitable judgement. In Ezek 5:2bγ ‫“( וחרב אריק אחריהם‬and I will unsheathe a sword after them”) is reminiscent of Lev 26:33aβ (see Table 4). This parallel in turn suggests that the preceding expression ‫“( והשלשית תזרה לרוח‬one third you will scatter to the wind,” v. 2bβ) alludes to the expression ‫[“( ואתכם אזרה בגוים‬YHWH] will scatter [the Israelites] among the nations”) in Lev 26:33aα.152 Lev 26:33–39 provides the key for interpreting Ezek 5:2–4. In fact, Lev 26:33b–35 interrupts the argument of judgement (vv. 27–39) by introducing a new topic: the restoration of the land. Milgrom has argued that Lev 26:33b–35 constitutes an addition that interrupts the continuation of vv. 33a, 36.153 On grounds of the parallel between Ezek 5:2 and Lev 26:33a, there may be a thematic parallel between Ezek 5:3 and Lev 26:34. Lev 26:34 depicts the restoration of land, signifying the concept of hope and restoration. Likewise, as I have just argued above, the account of tucking away a portion of hair in 5:3, which is regarded as the secondary expansion,

149 Friebel, Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts, 242, proposes that according to the expression ‫תצא־אש‬ ‫“( אל־כל־בית ישראל‬a fire will come out into all the house of Israel,” v. 4b), the survivors who have been taken into exile would continue to experience the work of unspecified judgement. In fact, the sentence division in the LXX differs from that in the MT. The LXX takes the expression ‫ אל־כל־בית ישראל‬together with v. 5, whereas the MT takes the expression ‫אל־כל־בית ישראל‬ together with ‫“( תצא־אש‬a fire will come out”) in v. 4. BHS recommends emending ‫ֶמּנּוּ‬ ‫שׁ‬‫א־‬ to  based on the LXX καὶ ἐρεῖς (“and you will say”). 150 Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 195; Friebel, Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts, 241. 151 Vawter and Hoppe, Ezekiel, 46. 152 Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 95. 153 Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27 (AB 3B; New York: Doubleday, 2001), 2322–23.

132

4 Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts

signifies the hope of preservation and restoration.154 In both passages, after the motif of hope and restoration (Ezek 5:3 // Lev 26:33b–35), judgement would come upon the survivors scattered among the nations (Ezek 5:4 // Lev 26:36–39). In this way, the motif of hope and restoration is inserted between the passages of judgement (Ezek 5:2, 4 // Lev 26:33a, 36–39). 4.3.1.1 Is Ezek 5:3 against the Relinquishment of Priestly Role? The import of Ezekiel’s third sign-act (5:1–4) is to signify that the hope of preservation and restoration is depicted in the context of the inescapable judgement. However, Block and Odell claim, incorrectly I think, that the third sign-act reflects the relinquishment of Ezekiel’s priestly role. Both scholars contend that the act of shaving one’s own head and cutting the beard is forbidden for a priest in accordance with the prohibition mentioned in Lev 21:5 and Deut 14:1.155 Such an interpretation is inadequate. According to Lev 21:5, the priests should not make any baldness on their heads because shaving the head or cutting the beard for mourning the dead was a regular practice among some of Israel’s surrounding nations, where the shaven hairs were offered as a sacrifice to the gods of the dead.156 In fact, most scholars have understood the forbidden act of shaving head as a polemic against the cult of the dead in the Canaanite fashion.157 It is by no means certain that YHWH commands the prophet to shave his hair to participate in the idolatrous cult of dead in Ezek 5:1–4. Here the shaving of Ezekiel’s head does not refer to his violation of the strict prohibition for priests and Levites. Thus, alongside Sweeney,158 I cautiously maintain that there is no indication in 5:1–4 that Ezekiel’s symbolic act reflects his repudiation of his priestly status. Indeed, the third sign-act (5:1–4) portrays images of imminent judgement of Jerusalem by highlighting the treatment dealt to the three equal portions of the shaven hair. The details of shaving the head and cutting the beard have no significance in themselves. Ezek 5:1–4 focuses on the result of hair rather than the action of shaving. It is not possible in the present context to provide evidence that Ezekiel has relinquished his role as the priest. Ezekiel’s shaven hairs symbolise the fate of Jerusalem’s people who are about to die in the siege, to be killed by swords of enemies, and to be sent into exile. YHWH’s symbolic judgement; however, gives way to protection and preservation of some of the remnants. The motif of hope of survival is depicted in the later redactional material (v. 3).

154 155 156 157 158

Contra Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 72. Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 192; Odell, Ezekiel, 67. Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22 (AB 3A; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 1802–803. Hartley, Leviticus, 348; Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1801. Sweeney, Reading Ezekiel, 40.

4.3 The Sign-Acts in Ezekiel 5

133

4.3.2 The Verbal Proclamation (5:5–17) Following the sign-act of Ezekiel’s shaven hair, an extended verbal proclamation (5:5–17) provides interpretation of the sign-acts. The redactional history of 5:5–17 has been briefly considered (see section 4.1.2.5); the secondary expansions in 5:5–17 include 5:11–13 and 5:16–17 will be examined here, with focus on whether this secondary material contains the motif of hope and restoration. Similarities in wording and themes between Ezekiel and Leviticus have been noted by many scholars.159 We have already looked at the relation between Ezek 4:4–8 and Lev 10, 16 in section 4.2.1.1. Allen has also shown that the interpretations of the sign-acts in 4:16–17 and 5:5–17 appropriate language and theme from the covenant curses of Lev 26.160 For a comparison between Ezek 4–5 and Lev 26, see Table 4 below.161 Tab. 4: Parallels Between Ezekiel 4–5 and Leviticus 26.162 Ezek 4–5

‫ויאמר אלי בן־אדם הנני שבר מטה־לחם‬ ‫בירושלם ואכלו־לחם במשקל ובדאגה‬ He said to me, Son of man, behold! I shall break the supply of bread in Jerusalem, and they will eat bread by weight and with anxiety (4:16a)

Lev 26

‫בשברי לכם מטה־לחם … והשיבו לחמכם‬ ‫במשקל‬ When I break your supply of bread … and they will bring back your bread by weight (26:26a)

159 Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 92–6; Wong, Idea of Retribution, 79–87; Odell, Ezekiel, 72; Tuell, Ezekiel, 32. A recent publication, namely Nihan, “Ezekiel and the Holiness Legislation,” 1015–1039, discusses the nonlinear relationship between Ezekiel and Lev 26. Nihan concedes that the MT usually contains an expansion betraying the influence of the locutions of Holiness Legislation in Lev 17–26; the MT represents a form of expansion of a shorter Hebrew text. However, the expansion, which is influenced by the language of Lev 17–26, can also occasionally be found in the OG of Ezekiel. Thus, Nihan claims that the parallels between Ezekiel and the Holiness Legislation “is part of a complex formative process, which impacted both the composition and the transmission of Ezekiel in the Second Temple period and which is documented by the comparison between the textual forms of this book preserved in the OG and the MT.” 160 Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 92–96, esp. 94. 161 Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 94–96, provides a table of shared locutions. 162 Similarities between Ezek 5:16 and Deut 32:23 is also given in Table 4. Verse from Deuteronomy and its translation are printed in italic fonts for differentiating themselves from verses of Leviticus. Alluding to Lev 26:22, 25–26, Ezek 5:16–17 concludes with several recurrent punishments of Ezek 4–5. Since the focus of the study is mainly on the relation between redactional material in Ezek 1–7 and the motif of hope and restoration, the discussion about a number of parallels between Ezek 5:16–17 and Lev 26:22, 25–26 is not included in this chapter.

134

4 Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts

Tab. 4 (continued) Ezek 4–5

Lev 26

‫ונמקו בעונם‬ … and they will be rotted away in their iniquity. (4:17bβ)

‫והשלשית תזרה לרוח וחרב אריק אחריהם‬ And one third you will scatter to the wind and I shall unsheathe a sword after them (5:2bβγ)

‫כי במשפטי מאסו וחקותי לא־הלכו בהם‬ For they have rejected against my ordinances and my statutes they have not walked in them (5:6b)

‫וחקותי לא־הלכו בהם‬ … and my statutes they have not walk in them (5:6bβ)

‫ועשיתי בתוכך משפטים לעיני הגוים‬ I shall execute judgements among you in the eyes of the nations. (5:8b)

‫לכן אבות יאכלו בנים בתוכך‬ Therefore, fathers will eat sons in your midst … (5:10aα)

‫וזריתי את־כל־שאריתך לכל־רוח‬ ... I shall scatter all your remnant to every wind. (5:10bβ)

‫והנשארים בכם ימקו בעונם בארצת איביכם‬ And those of you who are left will rot away in their iniquity in the lands of your enemies … (26:39a)

‫ואתכם אזרה בגוים והריקתי אחריכם חרב‬ And I shall scatter you among the nations and I shall unsheathe a sword after you (26:33a)

‫ואם־בחקתי תמאסו ואם את־משפטי תגעל‬ ‫נפשכם‬ If you reject my statutes and if your soul abhors my ordinances … (26:15a)

‫אם־בחקתי תלכו‬ If you walk in my statutes … (26:3a)

‫אשר הוצאתי־אתם מארץ מצרים לעיני‬ … ‫הגוים‬ whom I brought them out from the land of Egypt in the eyes of the nations, … (26:45b)

‫ואכלתם בשר בניכם‬ You will eat the flesh of your sons … (26:29a)

‫ואתכם אזרה בגוים‬ I shall scatter you among the nations … (26:33a)

‫אם־לא יען את־מקדשי טמאת בכל־שקוציך‬ ‫ובכל־תועבתיך וגם־אני אגרע ולא־תחוס עיני‬ ‫וגם־אני לא אחמול‬

‫והשמותי את־מקדשיכם ולא אריח בריח‬ ‫ניחחכם‬

… surely because you have defiled my sanctuary with all your detestable idols and with all your abominations. Therefore, I shall also withdraw and my eye will have no pity and I shall not spare. (5:11aβb)

… and I shall make your sanctuaries desolate and I shall not smell your soothing aromas. (26:31aβb)

‫והשלישית לכל־רוח אזרה וחרב אריק‬ ‫אחריהם‬

‫ואתכם אזרה בגוים והריקתי אחריכם חרב‬

… and one third I shall scatter to every wind and I shall unsheathe a sword after them (5:12b)

And I shall scatter you among the nations and I shall unsheathe a sword after you (26:33a)

4.3 The Sign-Acts in Ezekiel 5

135

Tab. 4 (continued) Ezek 4–5

Lev 26

‫ואתנך לחרבה ולחרפה‬ I shall make you a desolation and a

‫ונתתי את־עריכם חרבה‬ I shall put your cities to waste … (26:31aα)

reproach (5:14aα)

‫בשלחי את־חצי הרעב הרעים בהם אשר היו‬ ‫למשחית‬

‫אספה עלימו רעות חצי אכלה־בם‬

When I send the arrows of the evil famine

I shall heap disasters on them; I shall

against them which were for destruction …

complete my arrows on them. (Deut 32:23)

(5:16aα)

‫ושברתי לכם מטה־לחם‬ And I break your stalk of bread … (5:16bβ)

‫בשברי לכם מטה־לחם‬ When I break your supply of bread … (26:26aα)

‫ושלחתי עליכם רעב וחיה רעה ושכלך‬ I shall send famine and wild beast against

‫והשלחתי בכם את־חית השדה ושכלה אתכם‬ I shall let loose the wild beast against you,

you, and they will bereave you of children …

and they will bereave you of children …

(5:17aα)

(26:22aα)

‫ודבר ודם יעבר־בך וחרב אביא עליך‬

‫והבאתי עליכם חרב … ושלחתי דבר בתוככם‬

… pestilence and blood will also pass

I shall bring a sword on you … I shall send

through you and I shall bring the sword on

pestilence among you … (26:25)

you … (5:17aβbα)

4.3.2.1 Ezek 5:11–13 and YHWH’s Wrath From Table 4, the first similarities between Ezek 4–5 and Lev 26 can be found in Ezek 4:16–17 which alludes to Lev 26:26 and 26:39. The interpretation of the sign-act of the rations for the siege, given in 4:16–17, is linked to the covenant curses of famine mentioned in Lev 26. This linkage demonstrates that some parts of Ezekiel are dependent on Lev 26; in the same way, other interpretations of the sign-acts in Ezek 4–5 may also be dependent on Lev 26. Ezek 5:11–12 is another interpretation that is dependent on Lev 26. Ezek 5:12 refers back to and interprets the sign-acts in 5:1–2. Indeed, Ezek 5:12 is influenced by and intentionally alludes to Lev 26:33; its surrounding context, that is 5:11, also alludes to Lev 26:31 in which YHWH will cause war to ruin the Israelites’ cities and to make their sanctuaries (‫ )מקדשים‬desolate (‫)שמם‬. The destruction of Jerusalem is concerned with the Israelites’ disobedience and their hostility to YHWH. In Lev 26:30 YHWH commits a hostile act against their false places of worship and places their corpses on the corpses of their idols, implying that the Israelites have practised idolatry. Thus, the phrase ‫“( מקדשיכם‬your sanctu-

136

4 Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts

aries,” Lev 26:31) represents that the sanctuaries, where YHWH was once worshipped, have turned into places where idolatrous practices are now being conducted.163 Ezekiel explains the destruction of Jerusalem and the ensuing exile by setting up a cause-and-effect relationship between the Israelites’ behaviour and their irrevocable punishment.164 Alluding to Lev 26:30–31, Ezek 5:11 describes Jerusalem defiling YHWH’s sanctuary with her ‫“( שקוצים‬detestable things”) and ‫“( תועבות‬abominations”), referring to the idolatrous worship in sanctuaries mentioned in Lev 26:30–31. Ezek 5:12 then alludes to Lev 26:33, predicting a threefold disaster that will fall upon Jerusalem’s people for their idolatrous practices and their defilement of the sanctuary. Because of the Israelites’ disobedience, YHWH would not smell ‫“( ריח ניחוח‬the soothing aroma”) of their sacrifices (Lev 26:31), implying that YHWH would not act mercifully toward the Israelites.165 Likewise, Ezek 5:11 highlights that YHWH will not listen to cries for mercy, by bringing out the expression ‫“( ולא־תחוס עיני וגם־אני לא אחמול‬my eye will not pity and I will not spare”). With the threefold division of punishment, Ezek 5:12 gives an explicit interpretation of v. 2, but there is no reference to the remnant represented by the hairs wrapped up in Ezekiel’s garment, indicating that YHWH will have no pity and will not spare anyone.166 The imagery in the redactional material of 5:11–12 lacks the concept of the remnant. This lack is best explained as due to the allusion of Ezek 5:11–12 to Lev 26:30–33. After the threefold division of punishment (Ezek 5:12), YHWH will pursue Jerusalem’s people with an unsheathed sword (‫וחרב אריק אחריהם‬, v. 12bβ). Here the imagery represents the annihilation of the population,167 implying that YHWH would act relentlessly toward the Israelites. Thus, there is no reference to a remnant represented by the hairs placed in Ezekiel’s garment in section 5:11–12. Ezek 5:13 shifts readers’ attention from YHWH’s destruction of Jerusalem to the three expressions of YHWH’s emotions: ‫“( וכלה אפי‬my anger will be completed”), ‫“( והנחותי חמתי בם‬I shall calm my wrath on them”), and ‫והנחמתי‬ (“I shall relent”). Although many scholars suggest that the juxtaposition of the three phrases should be understood to express the immense intensity of YHWH’s anger,168 I hold the view that the interpolation of 5:13 in the present 163 Hartley, Leviticus, 467. 164 Lyons, From Law to Prophecy, 150. 165 Hartley, Leviticus, 468. 166 Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 210; Odell, Ezekiel, 70. 167 Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 210. 168 Contra the suggestion that “the three phrases are strung together to portray a deity totally consumed by fury and determined to vent his anger in full measure,” by Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 210–11. See also Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 76.

4.3 The Sign-Acts in Ezekiel 5

137

text emphasises the mitigation of the severity of the punishment in addition to the portrayal of the venting of YHWH’s wrath. The portrayal of YHWH’s wrath against his people was introduced with the juxtaposition of the first two phrases ‫ וכלה אפי‬and ‫ והנחותי חמתי בם‬in 5:13a. The use of the word ‫ כלה‬in the phrase ‫“( וכלה אפי‬my anger will be completed”) characterises the end of YHWH’s wrath after the finality of the fate described in previous vv. 11–12. Elsewhere in Ezekiel, the cluster of term ‫נוח‬, ‫חמה‬, and ‫ ב‬occurs in Ezek 5:13, 16:42, and 24:13.169 The expression ‫ והנחותי‬sometimes means “causes it to settle” on the object of YHWH’s wrath (e.g. in Ezek 24:13); however, it also means “calms my wrath on” in Ezek 16:42. According to Ezek 16:42, YHWH will stop Jerusalem’s harlotry and calm his wrath against her (‫והנחתי‬ ‫)חמתי בך‬, while in 24:13 YHWH declares that Jerusalem will never be cleansed again until he has caused his wrath to rest on her (‫)עד־הניחי את־חמתי בך‬. Or to put it in another way, YHWH declares that the definitive judgement against Jerusalem has to come before the end of his wrath. Ezek 16:42 and 24:13 may have influenced 5:13. In the face of both interpretations of the use of ‫ נוח‬in Ezek 16:42 and 24:13, it is convincing to conclude that the expression ‫והנחותי‬ ‫ חמתי בם‬in 5:13 probably underscores the end of YHWH’s wrath. However, there can be little doubt that the juxtaposition of the phrases ‫ וכלה אפי‬and ‫והנחותי‬ ‫ חמתי בם‬in 5:13a emphasises that the end of YHWH’s wrath comes after he has achieved his intended judgement. 4.3.2.1.1 Purposeful Textual Reuse between Ezek 5:11–13 and 24:13–14 Ezek 5:13 is designed to bring the motif of the mitigation of the divine punishment in view by inserting the orthographically similar expression ‫והנחמתי‬ (“I shall be comforted” or “I shall relent”)170 in conjunction with the concept of the venting of YHWH’s wrath expressed by the previous phrases ‫ וכלה אפי‬and ‫והנחותי חמתי בם‬.

169 The direction of influence between Ezek 5:13 and Ezek 16:42 is yet to be established, though I lean toward seeing Ezek 16:42 as the earlier text. Scholars claim that the section of accusation in Ezek 16:1–43 derives from Ezekiel, though vv. 41b–43 is an addition which follows upon the basic unit (see Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 334, 347; Hals, Ezekiel, 107, 110; Tuell, Ezekiel, 101). 170 See also § 4.1.1.

138

4 Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts

Ezek 5:11–13

‫לכן חי־אני נאם אדני יהוה אם־לא יען‬ ‫את־מקדשי טמאת בכל־שקוציך‬ ‫ובכל־תועבתיך וגם־אני אגרע ולא־תחוס עיני‬ ‫וגם־אני לא אחמול‬ “Therefore as I live,” declares the Lord YHWH, “surely because you have defiled my sanctuary with all your detestable things and with all your abominations. Therefore, I shall also withdraw and my eye will have no pity and I shall not spare. (5:11)

‫וכלה אפי והנחותי חמתי בם והנחמתי וידעו‬ ‫כי־אני יהוה דברתי בקנאתי בכלותי חמתי בם‬ And my anger will be completed and I shall calm my wrath on them and I shall relent and they will know that I am YHWH, I have spoken in my zeal when I have completed my wrath on them. (5:13)

Ezek 24:13–14

‫בטמאתך זמה יען טהרתיך ולא טהרת‬ ‫מטמאתך לא תטהרי־עוד עד־הניחי‬ ‫את־חמתי בך‬ In your uncleanness is lewdness, because I would have cleansed you and you were not cleansed from your uncleanness, you will not be cleansed anymore until I have calmed my wrath on you. (24:13)

‫אני יהוה דברתי באה ועשיתי לא־אפרע‬ ‫ולא־אחוס ולא אנחם כדרכיך וכעלילותיך‬ ‫שפטוך נאם אדני יהוה‬ “I am YHWH, I have spoken; it will come to pass and I shall do it. I shall not go back; I shall not pity and I shall not relent; according to your ways and your deeds, they will judge you,” declares the Lord YHWH. (24:14)

In my view, there is an obvious link between Ezek 5:11–13 and 24:13b–14. Among the shared locutions shown above, the presence of a rare expression ‫“( חוס‬to pity”) make their occurrence more likely to be intentional (cf. § 1.4.2.3 criterion 1). In addition, we find two syntactically unconnected locutions, namely the cluster of term ‫ ב‬+ ‫ חמה‬+ ‫“( נוח‬I calm my wrath on,” 24:13bγ) and the word ‫נחם‬ (“to relent,” 24:14aβ), from adjacent verses in Ezek 24 appearing together in Ezek 5:13. This indicates that the redactors of Ezek 5:11–13 were aware of an earlier Ezek 24:13–14 (cf. § 1.4.2.3 criterion 2); the material shared by Ezek 5:11– 13 and 24:13–14 is due to purposeful use. As mentioned above, Ezek 5:11–12 draws upon Lev 26:31–33. In other words, Ezek 5:11–13 represents a redactional blending of material from Lev 26:31–33 and Ezek 24:13–14. The merging of material from two different sources implies that Ezek 5:11–13 alludes to 24:13–14, and not vice versa.171

171 Ezek 24:13b–14 is considered as a later interpretation to the original material of 24:1–5, 9–10a. This later interpretation may derive from the time not much later than the year 587 (Cf. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 497–8; Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 57). Although the relative chronology of Ezek 5:13 and Ezek 24:13b–14 is yet to be established, I hold it probable that Ezek 24:13b– 14 is in all likelihood earlier and may be a source of influence for Ezek 5:13.

4.4 Conclusion

139

Ezekiel never uses the verb ‫ נחם‬to describe how YHWH relents from judgement, except in the case of ‫ נחם‬in Ezek 24:14.172 The expression ‫ולא אנחם‬ (“I shall not relent”, 24:14aβ) highlights the inevitability of divine judgement while in 24:13b YHWH has just declared that there will no resolution until the end of his wrath. The redactors of Ezek 5:13 preserved the concept of the venting of YHWH’s wrath through the expression ‫“( עד־הניחי את־חמתי בך‬until I have calmed my wrath on you”) in 24:13bγ, and they made a small adjustment by removing a negative particle from the phrase ‫ ולא אנחם‬in 24:14aβ. Ezek 5:13 interacts with the source text, Ezek 24:13–14 (cf. § 1.4.2.3 criterion 4). The redactors reinterpreted 24:13–14, which highlights the irrevocability of YHWH’s decision about judgement; they reused the word “relent” to create a new argument: YHWH relents from judgement after he has spent his wrath on Jerusalem. In this way, Ezek 5:13 speaks of the venting of YHWH’s wrath and his intention to mitigate the severity of the punishment. As such is expressed by the term ‫והנחמתי‬ (“I shall relent”). The language of judgement and devastation in Ezek 5:11–13 involves the element of hope in terms of the mitigation of the divine punishment.173

4.4 Conclusion To conclude, in the original text (4:1–2, 9–11, and 5:1–2) the sign-acts indicate that the coming judgement of Jerusalem’s fall cannot be avoided; the siege and destruction of Jerusalem is YHWH’s irrevocable punishment. However, the expression of forgiveness and the motif of hope and restoration are hidden in the redactional material in Ezek 4–5 and embedded in its textual allusion to Leviticus. First, the lexical and thematic links between Ezek 4:4–8 and Lev 10 and 16 show that the action of Ezekiel’s priestly role of bearing the iniquity for the Israelites has been restored, although Ezekiel is among the exiles, and has already been removed from the temple and its system of sacrifices. In addition, Ezekiel’s symbolic act also evokes his priestly vocation of identifying with his

172 The verb ‫( נחם‬Niphal or Piel) in Ezekiel (14:22–23; 16:54; 31:16; 32:31) is usually used in describing the people’s sorrow or comfort. Some scholars, among them Greenberg and Block, argue that the sense of the expression ‫( הנחמתי‬root ‫ )נחם‬in 5:13 is equivalent to that of Niphal in Isa 1:24; 57:6. Cf. Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 115; Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 205. In Isa 57:6, the verb ‫ נחם‬in Niphal form renders “shall I relent?” 173 Contra Lyons, From Law to Prophecy, 85–88, 117–22, who claims that Ezekiel profoundly disagrees with the message of Lev 26 on repentance; Ezekiel’s views of judgement is not restorative in nature. In my view, Lyons’ argument is on the right track, yet we need to pay more attention to the way that 5:11–13 not only alludes to Lev 26, but also interacts with Ezek 24:13–14.

140

4 Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts

people. Furthermore, in the context of the secondary expansions, the phrase ‫ נשא עון‬should be understood to mean expiatory suffering and vicarious punishment. Secondary, in Ezek 4:12–15, the account of the concession of using cow dung as fuel not only reflects YHWH’s mitigation of the severity of the punishment but also indicates that the motif of the restoration of Ezekiel’s ritual purity remains in this secondary expansion. Here the restoration aspect of Ezekiel’s priestly role (Ezek 4:4–8) and of his ritual purity (Ezek 4:12–15) might have been understood by the exiles as hope and restoration of the Temple in the future. Thirdly, the account of the few strands of hair placed in Ezekiel’s garment (5:3) symbolises that some of the Israelites will escape death and be spared from destruction because YHWH chose to deliver them. I follow most scholars’ argument that Ezekiel received its basic design in the exile;174 Ezekiel’s immediate readers are the community of exiles. One possible interpretation of their exile could be that YHWH chose to protect them and spare them from the fall of Jerusalem.175 The shaving of Ezekiel’s head here does not indicate the relinquishment of his priestly role. The act of shaving hair symbolises the judgement of Jerusalem’s people; it does not denote an act forbidden to priests, mentioned in Lev 21:5. Ezek 5:2b–4 describes that the motif of hope of survival (v. 3) is embedded in YHWH’s judgement upon the Israelites. Finally, by alluding to Lev 26:31–33 and Ezek 24:13–14, the juxtaposition of the expressions ‫כלה‬, ‫נוח‬, and ‫( נחם‬Ezek 5:13) in the context of judgement prophecy can be understood as highlighting the end of YHWH’s wrath and the mitigation of the divine punishment. Indeed, YHWH will act in judgement, but not without accompanying compassion. Here the secondary additions (Ezek 5:3, 11–13) have been shown to comprise the motif of hope of survival and hope of the punishment mitigation.

174 See Chapter Five footnote 1. 175 Tuell, Ezekiel, 30–31.

5 The Oracle against the Mountains of Israel In Chapter Four I demonstrated that the motif of hope and restoration is hidden in the redactional material in Ezek 4–5 and embedded in its textual allusion to Leviticus. In this chapter I shall explore the relation of the motif of hope and restoration with the redactional material in Ezek 6, namely 6:4b–7a, 8–10, and 13aβ–14. Ezekiel 6:1–14 constitutes the account of Ezekiel’s commission to address the mountains of Israel.1 In some senses, Ezek 6 is closely linked to Ezekiel’s sign-acts in chapters 4 to 5, as the expressive gestures in 6:2, 11 are reminiscent of those in the sign-acts.2 Moreover, in terms of thematic link, Ezek 6 continues with the threatening predictions found in in Ezek 4–5.3 However, Ezek 6 should be regarded as a separate literary unit, as the beginning and the end of this chapter are clearly distinguished by the prophetic word formula (‫ויהי דבר־יהוה‬ ‫ )אלי לאמר‬in 6:1 and 7:1.4

1 Most scholars, among them Bodi, Renz, Kutsko, Mein, and Joyce, have shown that the oracles in Ezekiel depict an exilic setting. The setting reflected by the original form of Ezekiel is also exilic. In other words, Ezekiel is largely of Babylonian origin. However, this does not exclude the presence of redactional material in Ezekiel that reflects a post-exilic setting. See Daniel Bodi, The Book of Ezekiel and the Poem of Erra (OBO 104; Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1991), 35–51; Renz, Rhetorical Function, 27–38; Kutsko, Between Heaven and Earth, 101–49; Andrew Mein, Ezekiel and the Ethics of Exile (OTM; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 41–50; Joyce, Ezekiel, 5–6. In Ezek 6, the expression “the mountains of Israel” refers both to the land itself and to the whole people of Israel in the text. I follow Block’s argument that Ezekiel’s primary audience was the exilic community, and “his primary goal was their mental and spiritual transformation, […] for rhetorical purposes he pretends to address a third hypothetical party,” namely the mountains of Israel. Ezekiel’s use of this expression “may reflect the perspective of the exilic community among whom he ministered. Residing in the flat alluvial plain of Babylonia, the homeland must have seemed a mountainous land.” See Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 221–24. Although Ezekiel has adopted this expression for his homeland, the intended audience of the oracle against “the mountains of Israel” is the people in exile; Ezekiel considered the exilic community as part of the house of Israel (the expression “the house of Israel” in Ezekiel refers to all of Israel in the text, including the exilic community). Moreover, Ezekiel’s use of the expression “the mountains of Israel” highlights pervasiveness of the idolatrous worship of the house of Israel; the idolatrous worship at the high places is usually associated with the mountains in HB. Here the focus of the oracle of judgement (6:1–14) is on the destruction of the high places, altars, and idols. 2 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 182; Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 84; Odell, Ezekiel, 77; Tuell, Ezekiel, 31. 3 J. Lust, K. Hauspie, and A. Ternier, “Notes to the Septuagint Ezekiel 6,” ETL 76 (2000): 396– 403 (396). 4 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 182; Hals, Ezekiel, 39; Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 84. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110711578-005

142

5 The Oracle against the Mountains of Israel

Ezek 6 is divided into two subunits, vv. 2–10 and 11–14; each subunit not only begins with a command to perform an expressive gesture (vv. 2, 11) and with the messenger formula (vv. 3, 11), but also concludes with the recognition formula (vv. 10a, 14).5 The subunit vv. 2–10, introduced by the first expressive gesture (‫)שים פניך אל־הרי ישראל‬, comprises the recognition formula (‫)ידע כי־אני יהוה‬, which is usually regarded as the conclusion of an address, in vv. 7 and 10. It is immediately evident that the subunit vv. 2–10 consists of two separate oracles in vv. 2–7 and 8–10. On the one hand, vv. 2–7 focus on the condemnation against the high places. On the other hand, vv. 8–10 supplement an interpretation of the concept of the remnant (5:3–4), which seems to be left out in the section regarding the interpretation of the sign-act of Ezekiel’s shaven hair (5:5–17).6 Thus, Ezek 6:1–14 is divided into three parts: the condemnation of the idolatrous practices (vv. 2–7), the fate of the remnant (vv. 8–10), and the devastation of the mountains of Israel (vv. 11–14). To set the stage for the ensuing discussion concerning the interpretation of the secondary material in Ezek 6, the relative chronology of different texts in Ezek 6 is first examined in order to identify the different editorial material and some quantitatively smaller glosses.

5.1 The Diachronic Analysis of Ezek 6:1–14 The textual variations within 6:1–14 are not as many as those in the previous chapters of Ezekiel. Once again, with respect to Ezek 6, the LXX is shorter than the MT. In line with the previous chapters of the book, I shall mainly consider the textual variants between LXX Ezek 6 and MT Ezek 6 that may be relevant to the exegetical analyses of my present study of Ezek 6 or to redaction-critical concerns. 6:4b–7a v. 4

Text with English Translation

‫ונשמו מזבחותיכם ]ונשברו[ חמניכם והפלתי חלליכם לפני גלוליכם‬ And your altars will be desolate, and your incense altars [will be broken], and I shall make your slain fall in front of your idols.

5 Zimmerli, Ezekiel, 182; Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 217–18; Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 84. 6 Brownlee, Ezekiel 1–19, 94; Odell, Ezekiel, 77.

5.1 The Diachronic Analysis of Ezek 6:1–14

143

Text with English Translation v. 5

‫]ונתתי את־פגרי בני ישראל לפני גלוליהם[ וזריתי את־עצמותיכם סביבות‬ ‫מזבחותיכם‬ [And I shall put the dead bodies of the sons of Israel before their idols]; and I shall scatter your bones around your altars. (MT) καὶ διασκορπιῶ τὰ ὀστᾶ ὑμῶν κύκλῳ τῶν θυσιαστηρίων ὑμῶν. And I shall scatter your bones around your altars. (LXX)

vv. 6, 7a

[‫בכל מושבותיכם הערים תחרבנה והבמות תישמנה למען יחרבו ]ויאשמו‬ [‫מזבחותיכם ונשברו ]ונשבתו[ גלוליכם ונגדעו המניכם ]ונמחו מעשיכם‬ ‫ונפל חלל בתוככם‬ In all your dwellings, the cities will be waste and the high places will be desolate, that your altars will be waste [and will be guilty], your idols will be broken [and will be ceased], your incense altars will be cut down, [and your works will be wiped out]. And the slain will fall in the midst of you. (MT) ἐν πάσῃ τῇ κατοικίᾳ ὑμῶν αἱ πόλεις ἐξερημωθήσονται καὶ τὰ ὑψηλὰ ἀφανισθήσεται, ὅπως ἐξολεθρευθῇ τὰ θυσιαστήρια ὑμῶν, καὶ συντριβήσονται τὰ εἴδωλα ὑμῶν, καὶ ἐξαρθήσεται τὰ τεμένη ὑμῶν, καὶ πεσοῦνται τραυματίαι ἐν μέσῳ ὑμῶν, In all your dwellings, the cities will be devastated, and the high places will be ruined, that your altars will be destroyed completely, and your idols will be broken, and your shrines will be removed. And slain will fall in the midst of you. (LXX)

6:8–10 v. 8

‫]והותרתי[ בהיות לכם פליטי חרב בגוים בהזרותיכם בארצות‬ [And I shall leave a remnant] that you will have those who escaped the sword among the nations when you are scattered among the countries. (MT) ἐν τῷ γενέσθαι ἐξ ὑμῶν ἀνασῳζομένους ἐκ ῥομφαίας ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν καὶ ἐν τῷ διασκορπισμῷ ὑμῶν ἐν ταῖς χώραις when there are some of you who are preserved from the sword among the nations, and are in your dispersion among the countries. (LXX)

v. 9

‫וזכרו פליטיכם אותי בגוים אשר נשבו־שם ]אשר[ נשברתי את־לבם הזונה‬ ‫]אשר־סר[ מעלי ואת עיניהם הזנות אחרי גלוליהם ונקטו בפניהם ]אל־הרעות‬ ‫אשר עשו[ לכל תועבתיהם‬ Those of you who escape will remember me among the nations where they are carried captive, [when] I have broken7 their whoring hearts [which turned away] from me, and their eyes which go whoring after their idols; and they will loathe themselves in their own sight [for the evils which they have committed], for all their abominations. (MT)

7 I follow BHS that reads ‫“( אשר שברתי את־לבם הזונה‬when I have broken their whoring hearts”) by emending ‫“( נשברתי‬I have been broken”) to ‫“( שברתי‬I have broken”). In this way, the text is more in keeping with Ezekiel’s overall view of a radical theocentricity.

144

6:8–10

5 The Oracle against the Mountains of Israel

Text with English Translation καὶ μνησθήσονταί μου οἱ ἀνασῳζόμενοι ἐξ ὑμῶν ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, οὗ ᾐχμαλωτεύθησαν ἐκεῖ· ὀμώμοκα τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτῶν τῇ ἐκπορνευούσῃ ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ καὶ τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς αὐτῶν τοῖς πορνεύουσιν ὀπίσω τῶν ἐπιτηδευμάτων αὐτῶν, καὶ κόψονται πρόσωπα αὐτῶν ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς βδελύγμασιν αὐτῶν· Those of you who escape will remember me among the nations where they are carried captive. I have sworn against their heart which is whoring away from me, and against their eyes which are whoring after their practices and they will strike their faces for all their abominations. (LXX)

[‫וידעו כי־אני יהוה ]לא אל־חנם[ דברתי ]לעשות להם הרעה הזאת‬

v. 10

And they will know that I am YHWH, I have [not] said [in vain] [that I would make this evil on them]. (MT) καὶ ἐπιγνώσονται διότι ἐγὼ κύριος λελάληκα. And they will know that I, the Lord, have spoken (LXX) 6:13aβ–14 v. 13 aβ

‫בהיות חלליהם בתוך גלוליהם סביבות מזבחותיהם אל כל־גבעה רמה‬ ‫]בכל ראשי ההרים[ ותחת כל־עץ רענן ]ותחת כל־אלה עבתה[ מקום אשר‬ ‫נתנו־שם ריח ניחח לכל גלוליהם‬ when their slain are in the midst of their idols around their altars, on every high hill, [on all the tops of the mountains], under every green tree [and under every leafy oak] – the place where they offered a pleasing smell to all their idols. (MT) ἐν τῷ εἶναι τοὺς τραυματίας ὑμῶν ἐν μέσῳ τῶν εἰδώλων ὑμῶν κύκλῳ τῶν θυσιαστηρίων ὑμῶν ἐπὶ πάντα βουνὸν ὑψηλὸν καὶ ὑποκάτω δένδρου συσκίου, οὗ ἔδωκαν ἐκεῖ ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας πᾶσι τοῖς εἰδώλοις αὐτῶν. when your slain lie among your idols around your altars, upon every high hill, and under every shady tree, where they gave a pleasing smell to all their idols. (LXX)

v. 14

‫ונטיתי את־ידי עליהם ונתתי את־הארץ שממה ומשמה ממדבר דבלתה בכל‬ ‫מושבותיהם וידעו כי־אני יהוה‬ And I shall stretch out my hand against them and I shall make the land into a desolation and a waste from the wilderness to Diblah, in all their dwellings; and they will know that I am YHWH.

5.1.1 Textual Criticism The first textual variant to be discussed is Ezek 6:5. MT Ezek 6:5 has a plus ‫“( ונתתי את־פגרי בני ישראל לפני גלוליהם‬I shall put the dead bodies of the sons of Israel before their idols,” v. 5a). The MT plus in v. 5a interrupts a consistent 2m. pl. context and does not fit into the direct address because of the occurrence of the anomalous third person suffix in the word ‫“( גלוליהם‬their idols”)

5.1 The Diachronic Analysis of Ezek 6:1–14

145

in contrast to the surrounding text (cf. ‫“ גלוליכם‬your idols,” v. 4bβ; ‫עצמותיכם‬ “your bones,” v. 5bα). The MT plus in v. 5a shares lexical terms with Lev 26:30; it clarifies the addressee in Ezek 6:5a. As suggested by Greenberg, the expansion of v. 5a was used to explicate that the addressee in 6:4b–5 has been shifted to the inhabitants of the land: “[S]ince it is a strain to understand the pronoun of ‘your slain’ in vs. 4b as still referring to the mountains, vs. 5a refers the pronoun to the inhabitants of the (mountainous) land in language inspired by Lev 26:30.”8 In this way, v. 5a may be a secondary gloss and probably alludes Lev 26:30;9 the purpose of adding v. 5a to the MT is to bring the oracle against the “mountains of Israel” (6:2–7) in closer proximity to the language of Lev 26:30–33.10 In 6:6 the MT contains pluses ‫“( ויאשמו‬and they will be guilty,” v. 6bα), ‫“( ונשבתו‬and they will be ceased,” v. 6bα), and ‫“( ונמחו מעשיכם‬and your works will be wiped out,” v. 6bγ). According to Mackie, the first two MT pluses (‫ויאשמו‬, ‫ )ונשבתו‬may be a “scribal elaboration via the addition of [a] synonymous” verb.11 Moreover, with regard to ‫ונשבתו‬, its incorporation next to the word ‫ונשברו‬, which has a similar sound to ‫ונשבתו‬, creates a verbal clause of ‫ ;ונשברו ונשבתו גלוליכם‬the second MT plus in v. 6 is an alliterative addition.12 The third MT plus ‫“( ונמחו מעשיכם‬your works may be wiped out”) at the end of v. 6 is not attested by LXX. I follow Mackie’s suggestion that the phrase ‫ונמחו‬ ‫ מעשיכם‬is an “expansion via synonymous expressions which mimic the syntactic shape of the co-text.”13 Moreover, the verb ‫“( מחה‬wipe out”) occurs elsewhere in Ezekiel only in Ezek 6:6; it is an uncommon word for divine judgement in Ezekiel. Furthermore, the use of the expression ‫“( מעשיכם‬your works) to refer to “idols” is unique in Ezekiel.14 For these reasons, v. 6b is suggested as a later interpretative addition.15 In MT Ezek 6:8, the plus ‫“( והותרתי‬And I shall leave a remnant”) is attested before the phrase ‫“( בהיות לכם פליטי חרב בגוים‬that you will have those who escaped the sword among the nations”). Many scholars have shown that the

8 Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 132. See also Jake Stromberg, “Observations on Inner-Scriptural Scribal Expansion in MT Ezekiel,” VT 58, 2008: 68–86 (71–2); Mackie, Expanding Ezekiel, 189–90. 9 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 190; Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 132; Hals, Ezekiel, 38; Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 220 n. 13; Lust et al., “Ezekiel 6,” 401; Klein, Schriftauslegung im Ezechielbuch, 325. 10 Nihan, “Ezekiel and the Holiness Legislation,” 1022. 11 Mackie, Expanding Ezekiel, 106. 12 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 179; Mackie, Expanding Ezekiel, 106. 13 Mackie, Expanding Ezekiel, 101–6. 14 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 179; Mackie, Expanding Ezekiel, 106. 15 Wevers, Ezekiel, 69; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 179, 187; Lust et al., “Ezekiel 6,” 401; Mackie, Expanding Ezekiel, 106.

146

5 The Oracle against the Mountains of Israel

MT plus in 6:8 is an addition influenced by Ezek 12:16.16 LXX Ezek 6:8 begins with the clause ἐν τῷ γενέσθαι ἐξ ὑμῶν ἀνασῳζομένους ἐκ ῥομφαίας ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν (‫ )בהיות לכם פליטי חרב בגוים‬and continues the sentence of v. 7 (“And slain will fall in the midst of you, and you will know that I am YHWH”); the text preserved in the LXX would have kept the sense of threatening.17 In this respect, the insertion of ‫ והותרתי‬turns the verse into “an oracle of salvation”18 (or so-called the survivor motif).19 MT Ezek 6:9 attests to two phrases, namely ‫“( אשר־סר‬which turned away,” v. 9a) and ‫“( אל־הרעות אשר עשו‬for the evils which they have committed,” v. 9b), which are absent in the LXX. In fact, the text preserved in LXX Ezek 6:9a is a syntactically correct sentence in which the cluster of terms ‫ מעל‬+ ‫ זנה‬only occurs in Hos 9:1 and Ezek 6:9; the MT plus ‫ אשר־סר‬is probably a secondary addition.20 Stromberg, as well as Mackie, has further shown that the secondary expansion ‫ אשר־סר‬is probably drawn from Jer 32:40b21 as elsewhere in the HB the combination ‫ מעל‬+ ‫ סור‬+ ‫ לב‬is attested only in Jer 32:40 and Ezek 6:9.22 Here the addition of ‫ אשר־סר‬is to clarify the use of the phrase ‫הזונה מעלי‬ (“which whored from me,” v. 9a). With regard to the second MT plus in 6:9b, ‫“( אל־הרעות אשר עשו‬for the evils which they have committed”), many scholars take it as a comparative gloss alluding to Ezek 20:43.23 Moreover, the MT has pluses in 6:10, namely ‫“( לא אל־חנם‬not in vain,” v. 10bα) and ‫“( לעשות להם הרעה הזאת‬that I would make this evil on them,” v. 10bβ). According to Zimmerli, the MT pluses in 6:10 may be influenced by Ezek 14:23.24 These pluses expand the concluding recognition formula (‫וידעו‬ ‫ )כי־אני יהוה‬in the MT by modifying both the content and purpose of the formula so that the expanded recognition formula serves the same rhetorical function as 14:23: “the people will know that YHWH’s judgment was completely justified.”25 Finally, the MT attests to the phrases ‫“( בכל ראשי ההרים‬on all the tops of the mountains,” v. 13bα) and ‫“( ותחת כל אלה עבתה‬and under every leafy oak,” 16 Wevers, Ezekiel, 69; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 179; Lust et al., “Ezekiel 6,” 401; Mackie, Expanding Ezekiel, 169. 17 Lust et al., “Ezekiel 6,” 401. 18 Lust et al., “Ezekiel 6,” 401. 19 Joyce, Ezekiel, 92. 20 Stromberg, “Observations,” 75–6; Mackie, Expanding Ezekiel, 184. 21 Jer 32:40b ‫ואת־יראתי אתן בלבבם לבלתי סור מעלי‬, (“and I shall put the fear of me in their heart, so that they will not turn away from me”). 22 Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 134; Stromberg, “Observations,” 76; Mackie, Expanding Ezekiel, 184. 23 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 180; Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 83; Lust et al., “Ezekiel 6,” 402. 24 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 180. 25 Mackie, Expanding Ezekiel, 156–59.

5.1 The Diachronic Analysis of Ezek 6:1–14

147

v. 13bβ) in 6:13. These MT pluses are probably secondary additions, highlighting the relation between the mountains of Israel and the idolatrous practices.26 In the recognition formula in v. 13a the verb ‫“( וידעתם‬and you will know,” v. 13aα) is in the second person plural form. However, the nouns ‫“( חלליהם‬their slain,” v. 13aβ), ‫“( גלוליהם‬their idols,” v. 13aβ) and ‫“( מזבחותיהם‬their altars,” v. 13aγ) which are in the form of the third person plural, are inappropriate for the address to the people in v. 13aα. In contrast, the LXX maintains the use of the personal pronouns in v. 13aβγ with the initial second person plural verb ‫וידעתם‬ (“and you will know”); however, at the end of v. 13 the LXX returns to using the third person plural form in the expression ‫“( גלוליהם‬their idols,” v. 13b).27 Here v. 13aβγ repeats the nouns, namely ‫חלל‬, ‫גלול‬, ‫מזבח‬, ‫גבעה‬, and ‫הר‬, mentioned in vv. 1–4 where the readings are written in a consistent 2m. pl. context; v. 13aβγ is syntactically dependent on vv. 1–4. It is reasonable that the original text in v. 13aβγ follows the 2m. pl. context. As explicated by Cooke, the use of the second person plural form was probably changed to the third person plural form when v. 13 was placed in its now present position.28 As I have just mentioned, in the LXX v. 13aβγ uses the 2m. pl. form, whereas v. 13b uses the 3m. pl. form. In contrast, MT Ezek 6:13aβb reads the 3m. pl. throughout. In this way, it is probable that the reading of the LXX is lectio difficilior and thus the earlier one.

5.1.2 Redaction Criticism As mentioned above, Ezek 6:1–14 can be divided into two basic oracles, vv. 2–10 and 11–14. Through the repetition of the recognition formula in vv. 7 and 10, the oracle vv. 2–10 can be further divided into vv. 2–7 and 8–10. Based on the content, we have to recognise two separate segments of oracle in vv. 2–7 and 8–10,29 where different themes are shown: the devastation on the mountains of Israel (vv. 2–7) and the survival of the remnant (vv. 8–10).

5.1.2.1 Ezekiel 6:4b–7a as Expansion Within the context of the devastation on the mountains of Israel (vv. 2–7), the oracle in vv. 2–4a is addressed to the “mountains of Israel,” but in vv. 4b–7 the

26 27 28 29

Mackie, Expanding Ezekiel, 177–78. Cf. Wevers, Ezekiel, 71; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 181. Cooke, Ezekiel, 72; Lust et al., “Ezekiel 6,” 403. Cooke, Ezekiel, 72. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 183.

148

5 The Oracle against the Mountains of Israel

addressee becomes the Israelites.30 It is obvious that ‫“( חלליכם‬your slain,” v. 4b) and ‫“( עצמותיכם‬your bones,” v. 5b) are not literally referring to “mountains,”31 but to people. The shift in address occurs in 6:4b–7a, which repeats the message of vv. 2–4a using other words but without introducing any new ideas. V. 4b and v. 7a are linked through the recurrent phrase ‫( והפלתי חלליכם‬v. 4b; ‫ונפל חלל‬, v. 7a); they form an inclusio around vv. 4b–7a. As such may be regarded as a redactional enrichment of the oracle of the mountains of Israel (vv. 2–4a).32 The first half of v. 5 with its third person plural context breaks the connection between v. 4b and v. 5b; v. 5a seems to be a secondary addition.33 V. 5a recounts the dead bodies of the Israelites in the third person plural and was probably added in the extant text with the intention of identifying the bones scattered around the altars in v. 5b with the dead bodies of the Israelites.34 Indeed, the expressions ‫“( חלליכם‬your slain,” v. 4b) and ‫“( עצמותיכם‬your bones,” v. 5b) do not suit the address to the mountains;35 the extant position of the expression ‫“( וזריתי את־עצמותיכם סביבות מזבחותיכם‬I shall scatter your bones around your altars”) betrays the trace of secondary expansion, because according to v. 4a the altars have already been destroyed.36 Thus, it is obvious that the whole vv. 4b–5 are a later insertion. The subsequent vv. 6–7a are regarded as a gloss that is dependent on Lev 26:31–33 and are probably an elaboration of the previous message of the devastation on the mountains of Israel.37 It seems obvious to identify a

30 Eichrodt, Ezekiel, 92–93; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 183; Hals, Ezekiel, 38; Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 87– 88; Schöpflin, Theologie, 235–6. According to Schöpflin, it is undoubtedly evident from v. 6aα, which speaks of “all your dwellings,” that the addressee becomes the Israelites in vv. 5–7. 31 The high places on which cultic rituals were performed often located on the mountains. The altars and incense altars were items associated with the high places. The expressions ‫“( במותיכם‬your high places,” v. 3bβ), ‫“( מזבחותיכם‬your altars,” v. 4aα) and ‫“( חמניכם‬your incense altars,” v. 4aβ) literally refer to “mountains.” As such vv. 3b–4a continue to address to “the mountain of Israel.” 32 Cooke, Ezekiel, 69; Eichrodt, Ezekiel, 92–93; Garscha has shown that Ezek 6:4–7 is a later redactional unit because of its closeness to Lev 26. See Jörg Garscha, Studien zum Ezechielbuch: Eine redaktionkritische Untersuchung von 1–39 (Bern: Lang, 1974), 94–96. 33 Schöpflin, Theologie, 235; Klein, Schriftauslegung im Ezechielbuch, 325. 34 Klein, Schriftauslegung im Ezechielbuch, 326. 35 Pohlmann, Hesekiel 1–19, 103–4. Cooke, Ezekiel, 69, has mentioned that “the sudden change from the third to second person plural (“their idols” in v. 5a … “your bones” in v. 5b) can hardly be original.” 36 Cooke and Zimmerli who state that vv. 1–4 are an original text of pre-587 B.C.E. See Cooke, Ezekiel, 68; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 183. It can be suggested that the address to the personified mountain in 6:1–4* is the original text because of the consistent 2mp context. The existence of the altars in vv. 5–6 implies that the destroyed altars mentioned in v. 4a have been rebuilt. Thus, Ezek 6:5–6 is a text later than v. 4a. 37 Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 88.

5.1 The Diachronic Analysis of Ezek 6:1–14

149

secondary expansion in vv. 6, 7a, which explicitly extends the threat of judgement from the mountains of Israel to the entire country including the cities with their illegitimate high places;38 Zimmerli has stated that “in vv. 6, 7a there appears to be a second formulation of the whole movement of thought, which can easily be removed as a subsequent expansion of the original saying.”39 For these reasons, vv. 4b–7a are probably redactional. 5.1.2.2 Ezekiel 6:8–10 as Expansion As I have discussed in section 5.1.1, the incorporation of the MT plus ‫והותרתי‬ (“And I shall leave a remnant,” v. 8a) interrupts the context of the devastation in vv. 5–7 and turns v. 8 into an oracle of salvation. Some scholars have shown, correctly I think, that the redactors inserted the message of the survival of the remnants into the original oracle of Ezek 6.40 I follow Hals’s suggestion that vv. 8–10 are an update of a pre-587 B.C.E. message;41 these verses relate the event to the period in which the sword had already accomplished its work after the fall of Jerusalem.42 While vv. 2–7 are addressed to the mountains and the Israelites, the addressee in vv. 8–10 becomes the fugitives who escaped from the sword after the Israelites had been scattered among other countries.43 Cooke has claimed that “vv. 8–10 have no direct connexion with vv. 1–4, 13–14; they introduce a fresh topic, the remnant (v. 8a), and the lessons of the exile (vv. 9, 10).”44 In my view, the tone shifts suddenly from the threat of the sword in vv. 2–7 to the motif of the surviving remnant. In this respect, vv. 8–10 probably gives a delayed interpretation of the symbolic action of preserving the remnant in 5:3–4. The presumed interpretation of 5:3–4 is excluded from the verbal proclamation in Ezek 5:5–17 which is supposed to interpret the original text of signacts in Ezek 4–5.45 There is no vivid objection against the view that the saying of vv. 2–7 about the threat of the sword is presupposed by the account of those who escaped the sword (vv. 8–10); Ezek 6:8–10 is probably a post 586 B.C.E. addition.

38 Schöpflin, Theologie, 235–36. I shall discuss the relation between the motif of restoration and the elements with regard to the destruction and the defilement of the idols, the altars and the high places in § 5.2.1. 39 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 183. 40 Cooke, Ezekiel, 70; Wevers, Ezekiel, 68; Eichrodt, Ezekiel, 96; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 185; Blenkinsopp, Ezekiel, 42. 41 Hals, Ezekiel, 40. 42 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 184, 190. 43 Pohlmann, Hesekiel 1–19, 103. 44 Cooke, Ezekiel, 70. 45 Brownlee, Ezekiel 1–19, 94; Odell, Ezekiel, 77.

150

5 The Oracle against the Mountains of Israel

5.1.2.3 Ezekiel 6:13aβ–14 as Expansion One of the striking features of the second major oracle, appearing in vv. 11–14, is the repeated use of the recognition formula (vv. 13aα, 14b). Subsequent to v. 13aα, v. 13aβ is introduced by the infinitive construct ‫“( בהיות‬when … are”), which appears to be an expansion of the recognition formula (v. 13aα).46 Since vv. 13aβ–14 are syntactically dependent on the previous verses, the clause beginning with ‫ בהיות‬functions as an elaboration of vv. 11–13aα.47 Verses 13aβ–14 have undergone an expansion which connects back to the subject of vv. 2–4a, the idolatrous practice on the mountains.48 Thus, Ezek 6:13aβ–14 may be regarded as a later redactional addition to link the chapter together.49 In addition, this second major oracle (vv. 11–14) is concerned with the house of Israel, and contains the recognition formula “and you will know that I am YHWH” in v. 13aα. In this way, the addressee in vv. 13aβ–14 is distinguished from the house of Israel in its affliction. While the house of Israel is directly affected by sword, famine, and pestilence (vv. 11–12), the addressees in vv. 13aβ– 14 are only indirectly affected by these three disasters when they are told that they will recognise YHWH in the corresponding manner of the house of Israel.50 Or to put another way, the addressees in vv. 13aβ–14 have in mind Ezekiel’s exilic audience; the addressees are now able to learn from the death of the house and eventually to recognise YHWH.51 Verses 13aβ–14 are probably an addition by a later hand. To sum up, vv. 4b–7a, 8–10, 13aβ–14 are the secondary additions in Ezek 6. This understanding of the redaction history of the chapter will assist in determining whether the motif of hope and restoration might be in the later redactional expansions of Ezekiel.

5.2 Ezekiel 6 and the Motif of Hope and Restoration The first prophetic oracle in Ezek 6:2–10 is addressed against ‫“( הרי ישראל‬the mountains of Israel”) and the Israelites. Regarding the addressee ‫הרי ישראל‬, it is commonly argued that the expression ‫ הרי ישראל‬refers both to the whole

46 Pohlmann, Hesekiel 1–19, 108, has shown that the type of connection to the recognition formula with ‫( בהיות‬infinitive construct + preposition ‫ )ב‬is a characteristic of text extension. 47 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 184. 48 Cooke, Ezekiel, 72; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 191; Mackie, Expanding Ezekiel, 177–78. 49 Wevers, Ezekiel, 67; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 191; Pohlmann, Hesekiel 1–19, 108–9. 50 Pohlmann, Hesekiel 1–19, 103, 108–9. 51 Hals, Ezekiel, 39.

5.2 Ezekiel 6 and the Motif of Hope and Restoration

151

land of Israel,52 and to all of Israel in the text. In addition, the choice of ‫הרי‬ ‫ ישראל‬here may be because of its connotation of the idolatrous worship “on every high hill, on all mountaintops” in the second prophetic oracle (vv. 11– 14).53 The connection between mountains and idolatrous worship explains why the covenant curses related to the idolatrous worship in Lev 26 are selectively used in Ezek 6.54 To this topic we now turn.

5.2.1 Ezekiel 6:4b–7a and the Anticipation of Hope and Restoration The wording and themes in Ezek 6:2–7 are reminiscent of Lev 26:30–33.55 The phrase ‫“( ואבדתי במותיכם‬I shall destroy your high places”) in Ezek 6:3b is parallel to Lev 26:30aα (‫)והשמדתי את־במתיכם‬, whereas v. 4aβb provides another parallel to Lev 26:30a.56 In addition, the expression ‫ונתתי את־פגרי בני‬ ‫“( ישראל לפני גלוליהם‬I shall put the dead bodies of the sons of Israel before their idols”) in v. 5a is undoubtedly connected to Lev 26:30.57 Verse 5a provides a parallel to the expression ‫“( וזריתי את־עצמותיכם סביבות מזבחותיכם‬I shall scatter your bones around your altars,” v. 5b).58 Although the curse in v. 5 focuses on the ‫“( גלולים‬idols”) and ‫“( מזבחות‬altars”), the curse in v. 6 also includes the destruction of all their locations: ‫“( בכל מושבותיכם‬in all your dwellings”). As I have discussed in section 5.1, the expressions “your bones” (v. 5b) and “all your dwellings” (v. 6a) do not suit the address to the “mountains” (vv. 2–4a). Moreover, the addition in v. 5a “I shall put the dead bodies of the sons of Israel before their idols” shares lexical terms with Lev 26:30. Thus, the addition clarifies to the addressee of vv. 5–6 that “your bones” (v. 5b) and “all your dwellings” (v. 6a) do not literally refer to the “mountains” but to the Israelites.59 The occurrence of these locutions in Ezek 6 probably draws upon the human addressees in Lev 26:30–33. Lyons has shown that “the lack of coherence in the

52 Wevers, Ezekiel, 60; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 185; Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 222; Wong, Idea of Retribution, 96. 53 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 186; Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 221; Wong, Idea of Retribution, 97. 54 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 185; Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 218–19; Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 88, 94; Wong, Idea of Retribution, 97; Odell, Ezekiel, 97. 55 Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 94–96; Wong, Idea of Retribution, 80–86. 56 Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 94; Wong, Idea of Retribution, 97. 57 The expression ‫ פגריכם‬in Lev 26:30 changes to ‫ פגרי בני ישראל‬of Ezek 6:5a. As a result, the second masculine plural form of ‫ גלוליכם‬in Lev 26:30 also correspondingly changes to the third person plural suffix of ‫( גלוליהם‬Ezek 6:5a). 58 Wong, Idea of Retribution, 99. 59 Lyons, From Law to Prophecy, 139.

152

5 The Oracle against the Mountains of Israel

context of Ezekiel indicates that Ezekiel is using Leviticus, and not vice versa.”60 Ezek 6:2–7 alludes to Lev 26:30–33; some curses which have to do with the idolatrous practice in Lev 26 are employed in Ezek 6:4b–7a, indicating that the curses mentioned in the past are appropriate for the idolaters who had broken the covenant as a result of illegitimate worship.61 The announcement of the curse against the illegitimate worship clearly employs the imagery of defilement. In Ezek 6:5 the corpses of the Israelites being scattered around their idols represent the deaths of those associated with the idols. The defilement, inasmuch as contacting any location or person with corpses and the bones of the dead, constitutes the ultimate pollution of the cultic places.62 As pointed out by Sweeney, “priestly thought presumes that human action affects the status of the land or creation on which they dwell;” thus, the land of Israel becomes profane and desolate when the Israelites worship the idols and break YHWH’s covenant.63 Just as the depiction in Lev 26:30–31, where the destruction of the high places is associated with the desolation of the cities, in Ezek 6:4b–6 the cities (‫ )הערים‬in which the Israelites dwelt became waste and desolate when the high places and the altars were demolished because of the Israelites’ violation of YHWH’s covenant.64 The punishment of the high places and the idols, which first appear in vv. 3–5, is now extended to the cities or the dwellings where those high places and idols were located (v. 6). Indeed, the addition of Ezek 6:4b–7a reveals an ulterior motive of the redactors that he envisioned the defilement of the idols, the altars and the high places as a prerequisite for restoration in the aftermath of exile. But how? As mentioned before, Ezek 6 is dependent on Lev 26. After describing the covenant curses related to the idolatrous worship in Lev 26:30–31, Lev 26:34–35 mentions that when Israel is being punished in exile, YHWH will restore the land and use the rest for the land to compensate for all the lost sabbatical years of the land.65 Due to the close relationship between Ezek 6 and Lev 26, Ezek 6 most likely draws upon the theme and content of Lev 26, in which the restora-

60 Lyons, From Law to Prophecy, 63. With regard to the chronological relationship between Ezekiel and Leviticus, see § 4.2.1.1 and 4.3. 61 Wong, Idea of Retribution, 100. 62 Sweeney, Reading Ezekiel, 43–44. Mary Douglas has explained that the scattering of human bones on a “holy place” is a pollution because it is a mixture of different elements which are incompatible and do not belong together. See Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Population and Taboo (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1969), 29–40. 63 Sweeney, Reading Ezekiel, 44. 64 Sweeney, Reading Ezekiel, 45. 65 Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2323.

5.2 Ezekiel 6 and the Motif of Hope and Restoration

153

tion of the land is consequential to curses against the Israelites for their violation of the covenant. In this way, some elements related to the motif of restoration may be embedded within Ezek 6:2–7, in particular in the redactional material of the text.66 According to Allen, within the first oracle in vv. 2–7 the parallels of Ezek 6 to Lev 26 “move consecutively through the catalogue of curses” in Lev 26.67 In my view, Allen is on the right track, yet we need to pay more attention to the way that the text imparts the information. It should be noted that the statement ‫“( וזריתי את־עצמותיכם סביבות מזבחותיכם‬I shall scatter your bones around your altars,” v. 5b) has no parallel in Lev 26. In addition, as pointed out by Wong, “the destruction of the idols, which is mentioned here [v. 6b] for the first time, has no counterpart in Lev 26.”68 Ezek 6:5b–7a lacks a counterpart of the covenant curses in Lev 26 because it is a secondary addition to the material in Ezek 6:1–4; this secondary addition is not only influenced by Lev 26, but also by 2 Kgs (see below). It is likely that the interpolation of Ezek 6:4b–7a is to embed the motif of the anticipation of restoration, which is probably drawn from other source material (i.e. 2 Kgs) than Lev 26, into the extant context. To this topic we now turn. 5.2.1.1 Purposeful Textual Reuse between Ezek 6:4b–7a and Lev 26:30–33, 2 Kgs 23:16 One of the indications of purposeful use is “interaction with the source text” (cf. § 1.4.2.3). The redactors of Ezek 6:4b–7a can demonstrate their creative interaction with Lev 26:30–33 and 2 Kgs 23:16 by highlighting a perceived analogy within the context of the source text:

‫והשמדתי את־במתיכם והכרתי את־חמניכם ונתתי את־פגריכם על־פגרי גלוליכם וגעלה נפשי‬ :‫אתכם‬ ‫ונתתי את־עריכם חרבה והשמותי את־מקדשיכם ולא אריח בריח ניחחכם׃‬ I shall destroy your high places, and cut down your incense altars, and put your dead bodies on the dead bodies of your idols, and my soul will abhor you. And I shall make your cities waste and cause your sanctuaries to desolate, and I shall not smell your soothing aromas. (Lev 26:30–31)

:‫ואתכם אזרה בגוים והריקתי אחריכם חרב והיתה ארצכם שממה ועריכם יהיו חרבה‬ And I shall scatter you among the nations and draw out a sword after you; and your land will become desolate, and your cities will become waste. (Lev 26:33)

66 In line with previous chapters of the book, it is reasonable to assume that the motif of hope and restoration appears in the redactional layer of Ezek 6. 67 Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 94. 68 Wong, Idea of Retribution, 100.

154

5 The Oracle against the Mountains of Israel

‫ויפן יאשיהו וירא את־הקברים אשר־שם בהר וישלח ויקח את־העצמות מן־הקברים וישרף‬ ‫על־המזבח ויטמאהו כדבר יהוה אשר קרא איש האלהים אשר קרא את־הדברים האלה׃‬ When Josiah turned, he saw the graves which were there on the mountain, and he sent and took the bones from the graves and burned them on the altar and defiled it according to the word of YHWH which the man of God proclaimed, who proclaimed these words. (2 Kgs 23:16)

‫ונשמו מזבחותיכם ונשברו חמניכם והפלתי חלליכם לפני גלוליכם׃‬ ‫ונתתי את־פגרי בני ישראל לפני גלוליהם וזריתי את־עצמותיכם סביבות מזבחותיכם׃‬ ‫בכל מושבותיכם הערים תחרבנה והבמות תישמנה למען יחרבו ויאשמו מזבחותיכם ונשברו‬ ‫ונשבתו גלוליכם ונגדעו חמניכם ונמחו מעשיכם׃‬ And your altars will become desolate and your incense altars will be broken, and I shall make your slain fall in front of your idols. And I shall put the dead bodies of the sons of Israel before their idols; and I shall scatter your bones around your altars. In all your dwellings, the cities will become waste and the high places will be desolate, that your altars will become waste and made desolate, your idols will be broken and brought to an end, your incense altars will be cut down, and your works will be wiped out. (Ezek 6:4–6)

Ezek 6:4–6 conflates Lev 26:30–33 and 2 Kgs 23:16. Lev 26:30–33 depicts the covenant curses related to the idolatrous worship. The curses include the destruction of the illegitimate places of worship, as well as the defilement of idols, and dispersion among the nations, as well as the desolation of the cities. 2 Kgs 23:16 depicts the defilement of an illegitimate altar by Josiah, who burned human bones upon the altar to desecrate it. By merging the two passages in 2 Kgs 23:16 and Lev 26:30–33, Ezek 6:4–6 elaborates the extent of defilement mentioned in Lev 26. Ezekiel depicts a thorough defilement of the illegitimate cultic places including not only idols, but also illegitimate altars, and as such are defiled by the most derogatory objects, namely dead bodies, and their bones.69 Ezekiel draws on both Lev 26:30–33 and 2 Kgs 23:16 to highlight the motif of defilement.70 Ezek 6:5–6 involves a historical re-contextualisation of the earlier text in Lev 26, and hence a revision of it. Ezek 6:5 changes the direct object of the verb ‫“( זרה‬scatter”) from the addressees (‫אתכם‬, “You,” i.e. the Israelites) in Lev 26:33aα to the inanimate ‫“( עצמים‬bones,” Ezek 6:5b). In Lev 26:33 the scattering of the Israelites among the nations is their ultimate punishment,71 which is followed by the desolation of the cities (Lev 26:33bβ). The subsequent Lev 26:34–35 states that, when the Israelites are driven from their land and scat-

69 John Hartley, Leviticus (WBC 4; Dallas: Word, 1992), 467. 70 The significance of the motif of defilement in increasing the coherence of Ezekiel will be discussed in Chapter 8. 71 Hartley, Leviticus, 468.

5.2 Ezekiel 6 and the Motif of Hope and Restoration

155

tered among the nations, YHWH will restore the land and use the rest for the land to compensate for all the lost sabbatical years of the land.72 By conflating Lev 26:30–33 and 2 Kgs 23:16, Ezek 6:5–6 uses similar locutions to convey a message of punishment concerning the scattering of the dead bodies and bones upon the illegitimate cultic places instead of the punishment concerning dispersion (cf. § 1.4.2.3 criterion 4). Although the expressions ‫“( עצמים‬bones”) and ‫“( מזבחות‬altars”) in Ezek 6:5 occur in 2 Kgs 23:16, I would not go so far as to claim that Ezek 6:5 alludes to 2 Kgs 23:16. Rather, on a literary level, they both make use of the imagery of defilement that was customary for divine oracles to convey a message of judgement. The occurrence of the expressions ‫ עצמים‬and ‫ מזבחות‬in Ezek 6:5 is probably influenced by 2 Kgs 23:16. Ezek 6:5–6 draws upon Lev 26:30–33 in order to point out a perceived analogue:73 after the account of YHWH’s punishment, the motif of restoration is anticipated. The curses mentioned in Lev 26:30–33 anticipate Israel’s failure to observe the rule of keeping the sabbatical years; however, the focus of attention in Lev 26:34–35 is the restoration of rest for the land. In 2 Kgs 23, the account of defiling the illegitimate altar by Josiah (vv. 16, 20) is followed by a description of the restoration of the Passover celebration (vv. 21–23). Here the motif of defilement anticipates Israel’s failure to observe the rule of the Passover. Ezek 6:5–6 not only borrows from but also reinterprets Lev 26:30–33 by conflating Lev 26:30– 33 and 2 Kgs 23:16. Ezek 6:5–6 may be influenced by 2 Kgs 23:16; Ezek 6:5–6 not only elaborates the extent of the illegitimate cultic places that are defiled, but also revises the element of the anticipated restoration in the evoked text in Lev 26. Perhaps the redactors (or author) of Ezek 6:5–6 recontextualised the elements in Lev 26 in order to direct their audience’s attention to the message that they wished to emphasise, namely the anticipation of the restoration of cultic rules borrowed from 2 Kgs 23.74 In order to alert readers to the textual reuse, the redactors of Ezek 6:4b–7a not only applied the technique “Interaction with the Source Text,” but also

72 Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27 (AB 3B; New York: Doubleday, 2001), 2323. 73 Schultz, Search for Quotation, 226, who mentions that “whether a person quotes a statement in order to point out a perceived analog, to ironically reverse or reject it … or to refocus the statement by draining it of its contextual meaning, the quoted text will be distinctively rehandled.” 74 The concern over the restoration of cultic rules, in particular the restoration of the proper sacrificial worship of YHWH, is consonant with the similar focus in the post-exilic writing, namely Mal 1:6–2:9. Cf. Iain M. Duguid, “Putting Priests in Their Place: Ezekiel’s Contribution to the History of the Old Testament Priesthood,” in Ezekiel’s Hierarchical World Wrestling with a Tiered Reality eds. Stephen L. Cook and Corrine L. Patton (SBLSymS 31; Atlanta: SBL, 2004), 43–59 (49–58).

156

5 The Oracle against the Mountains of Israel

demonstrated their awareness of the source text in 2 Kgs 23 (cf. the example mentioned in § 1.4.2.3 criterion 2). To sum up, Ezek 6:4b–7a is purposefully using locutions from Lev 26 and 2 Kgs 23. The redactors of Ezek 6:4b–7a signalled to the readers that they intended to reuse Lev 26:30–33 and 2 Kgs 23:16. Although Lev 26:30–33 and 2 Kgs 23:16 never mention the issue of restoration, readers of Ezek 6:4b–7a might have recalled the context in the subsequent Lev 26:34–35 or 2 Kgs 23:21–22, both of which speak of restoration.75 The account of scattering corpses and bones around the idols and the altars of illegitimate gods recalls the scenario of Josiah’s reforms (2 Kgs 23:4–20), in which the cluster of terms ‫“( גלולים‬idols”), ‫עצמות‬ (“bones”), ‫“( למען‬for the sake of”), ‫“( שבר‬to break”), ‫“( שבת‬to cease”),76 and ‫“( מעשים‬works”) occurs together in Ezek 6:5–6, but is found nowhere in Lev 26: 30–31. In 2 Kgs 23:4–20, King Josiah not only demolished the high places and altars of Israel, but also defiled them with the bones of dead bodies. Here the destruction and defilement of cultic places is a prerequisite for restoration (see discussion below). Thus, on the one hand, Ezekiel follows the catalogue of curses in Lev 26; on the other hand, the rest of vv. 5–6 reflects 2 Kgs 23 phraseology. The account of cult reform of Josiah is selected to complement the particular context: the anticipation of restoration, which is not only recounted in Lev 26: 34–35, but is also a concern of the redactors of Ezek 6. In 2 Kgs 23 the cult reform of Josiah is limited to Jerusalem and Bethel: after the destruction and defilement of cultic places at Bethel (2 Kgs 23:15–20), Josiah was back to Jerusalem and proclaimed the celebration of Passover. Josiah’s Passover is mentioned to be not an absolute innovation, but a restoration of celebrating the Passover that once existed. According to 2 Kgs 23:22, there was no celebration of the Passover in Jerusalem during the days of the judges and those of the monarchy. In the present context, Josiah has restored the celebration of the Passover and the cult according to Deut 16:5–6;77 he has also established “the worship of Yahweh as the one and only God in the temple at Jerusa-

75 Leonard, “Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions,” 261–62, who has shown that “[a] common feature in medieval Jewish commentary is the use of partial citations to represent larger crossreferences. Although only a few words are cited, the parshan assumes that the reader will know to bear in mind the larger passage when considering the interpretation. In biblical texts as well, when weighing the possibility that one passage depends on another, it is important to consider the possibility that the lemma will already be known.” 76 In Ezekiel 6:6 the verb ‫“( שבר‬to break”) and ‫“( שבת‬to cease”) are in the Niphal form, while in 2 Kings 23:11 the verb ‫ שבת‬is in Hiphil form, and in 2 Kings 23:14 ‫ שבר‬is in the Piel form. 77 J. G. McConville, “Restoration in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic Literature,” in Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspective, ed. J. M. Scott (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 13.

5.2 Ezekiel 6 and the Motif of Hope and Restoration

157

lem.”78 In this way, according to 2 Kgs 23, the destruction and defilement of cultic places is a necessary part of the process of purification and a prerequisite for restoration. The ‫“( במות‬high places) are a consistent interest throughout the Kings narrative, and their destruction forms an important part of Josiah’s reform, which includes the defilement of ‫ גלולים‬and ‫ מזבחות‬by human bones. As mentioned before, the method of the defilement in 2 Kgs 23:4–20 is parallel to that of Ezek 6:5, where ‫ פגרי בני ישראל‬and their ‫ עצמות‬are described as desecrating ‫“( גלוליהם‬their idols”) and their ‫“( מזבחות‬altars”). In other words, the destruction and defilement of cultic places in Ezek 6:5–6 recalls the cult reform of Josiah, who restored the celebration of Passover in Jerusalem after demolishing the cultic places. By alluding to Josiah’s reform with the restoration of the Passover, the destruction and defilement of cultic places in Ezek 6:5–6 may reflect the anticipation of restoration. As mentioned above, the covenant curses related to illegitimate worship in Lev 26 are employed in Ezek 6:2–7. In order to complement the motif of the defilement of the altars (Ezek 6:5b) and the destruction of idols (Ezek 6:6b), both of which lack counterpart in Lev 26, the redactors of Ezek 6:4b–7a textually reused 2 Kgs 23. Leonard has shown that the later author might have alluded to the evoked text partially to represent larger crossreferences because the later author presumed some “elements to be inferred from the hearer’s knowledge of the earlier tradition.”79 It is probable that when the redactors of Ezek 6:4b–7a talked about the defilement of the altars and the destruction of idols, they had in mind the anticipation of restoration which is associated with the context of the covenant curses in Lev 26 and with that of Josiah’s reform in 2 Kgs 23. Indeed, the redactors might have followed the arrangement in Lev 26 and 2 Kgs 23; they depicted the extent of defilement in Ezek 6:4b–7a with locutions from Lev 26:30–33 and 2 Kgs 23:16, and then patterned an anticipated restoration motif in subsequent 6:8–10 (see below). 5.2.1.2 The role of YHWH in Ezekiel 6:4b–7a In the case of Ezek 6, there is a change in the addressee from “the mountains” in vv. 2–4a to the Israelites in v. 4b; however, the punishment in vv. 5–6 is mainly against the various items associated with the cultic places, namely the idols, the altars, the high places, and the incense altars. The expressions ‫ונתתי את־פגרי‬ ‫“( בני ישראל‬and I shall put the dead bodies of the sons of Israel,” v. 5a) and

78 Volkmar Fritz, A Continental Commentary: 1 & 2 Kings (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2003), 408–409. 79 Leonard, “Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions,” 262. Cf. footnote 75 above.

158

5 The Oracle against the Mountains of Israel

‫וזריתי את־עצמותיכם‬

(“and I shall scatter your bones,” v. 5b) indicate that YHWH is the one who is involved in the defilement of the idols and the altars. Here YHWH will defile the idols and the altars of the Israelites by scattering the corpses and human bones around them. YHWH’s action of destroying the cultic places and eradicating the idolatrous worship is still explicitly shown in v. 6, though the verbs denoting the destruction of the cultic places are passive, expressed through the Niphal stem.80 The word ‫“( שבת‬to cease”) occurs 13 times in Ezekiel. Of these, more than two-thirds are in the Hiphil stem with the meaning “cause to cease,” and in these cases the subject of ‫ שבת‬is most often YHWH. Thus, in v. 6 it is reasonable to argue that the idol will be broken and brought to an end (‫ )נשבתו‬by YHWH. Following 2 Kgs 23, Ezekiel shows that in anticipation of restoration YHWH overthrows the practices of idolatry by demolishing and defiling the cultic places. The phrase ‫“( ונמחו מעשיכם‬your works may be wiped out”), which occurs nowhere else in Ezekiel except in 6:6, summarises YHWH’s desire with respect to the eradication of the cultic places. Block has shown that the significance of the uncommon verb ‫“( מחה‬to wipe out”) is “illustrated vividly in 2 Kgs 21:13: Yahweh threatens to wipe Jerusalem clean as one wipes a dirty dish.”81 The noun ‫ מעשה‬has two connotations: “what has been done; work,” that means the result of the work, and “the doing, the deed,” that means the act of working.82 The close relationship between Ezek 6:5–6 and 2 Kgs 23:4–20 invites us to have a closer look at the connotation of ‫ מעשה‬in Ezek 6:6 based on its meaning in 2 Kgs 23:4–20. In 2 Kgs 23:19 ‫ מעשה‬should be interpreted as the former rendition because it refers to the removal of the high places in Bethel that had been accomplished before (cf. 2 Kgs 23:15).83 Following 2 Kgs, the phrase ‫ונמחו מעשיכם‬ in Ezek 6:6 may refer to “your result” (‫ )מעשיכם‬of all the cultic installations that will be wiped out (‫ )נמחו‬by YHWH. Or to put it in another way, all the human-made idolatrous accessories will not only be wiped out, but the consequences of making such items will also be wiped out. In this respect, the phrase ‫ ונמחו מעשיכם‬may epitomize YHWH’s intent of mitigating the severity of the punishment. To sum up, Ezek 6:2–7 is dependent on Lev 26:30–33; Ezek 6:2–7 is centred on the covenant curses related to the idolatrous worship. Here the announce-

80 The verbs in term of the destruction of the cultic places are ‫“( שבר‬to break”), ‫“( שבת‬to cease”), and ‫“( גדע‬to cut down”). 81 Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 227. 82 H. Ringgren, ThWAT 6/3–5, col. 427–430. 83 W. B. Barrick, The King & the Cemeteries Toward a New Understanding of Josiah’s Reform (VTSup 88; Leiden: Brill, 2002), 39.

5.2 Ezekiel 6 and the Motif of Hope and Restoration

159

ment of the curses against the cultic places employs the imagery of defilement, which is depicted in the redactional material of Ezek 6:4b–7a. The imagery of defilement involves the scattering of bones and the destruction of idols. However, the scattering of bones (v. 5b) and the destruction of idols (v. 6b) have no counterpart in Lev 26. The defilement and destruction of cultic places in vv. 4b– 7a is probably also an allusion to the scenario of Josiah’s reforms in 2 Kgs 23:16 where it is followed by the restoration of the celebration of Passover in Jerusalem after demolishing the cultic places. In this way, Ezek 6:4b–7a alludes to Lev 26 and 2 Kgs 23; the redactional material of Ezek 6:4b–7a reflects not only YHWH’s initiative to mitigate the severity of his punishment within the context of the defilement and destruction of cultic places, but also the anticipation of restoration, as the defilement and destruction of cultic places is a prerequisite for restoration. Indeed, the motif of hope and restoration is probably anticipated in the subsequent redactional material of Ezek 6:8–10.

5.2.2 Ezekiel 6:8–10 and the Oracle of Salvation Another secondary expansion is found in vv. 8–10. As mentioned before, the expression ‫“( והותרתי‬And I shall leave a remnant”) is not attested in LXX v. 8. It is inserted in front of the clause ‫“( בהיות לכם פליטי חרב בגוים‬that you will have those who escaped the sword among the nations”), so as to introduce the oracle of salvation, rather than simply continuing the threatening sense of the devastation on all the dwellings of the Israelites in v. 7.84 In vv. 9–10a, a threefold event takes place among these remnants through their bitter experiences in exile: remembering, loathing, and knowing.85 Elsewhere in Ezekiel the words which describe the remnants’ “remembering of themselves” (‫)זכר‬, “loathing their evil deeds” (Niphal ‫)קוט‬, and “knowing of YHWH” (‫ )ידע‬occur together in Ezek 6:9– 10; 20:43–44; 36:31–32. Apart from the address to the mountains of Israel,86 the cluster of terms ‫ זכר‬+ ‫ קוט‬+ ‫ ידע‬creates overarching bridges to the oracle of salvation in Ezek 6:8–10, to the account of Israel’s return to the land in Ezek 20:39– 44, and to the account of restoration of the house of Israel in Ezek 36:16–38.

84 Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 229 n. 58, 230; Lust et al., “Ezekiel 6,” 401. 85 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 189. 86 Schöpflin, Theologie, 245, highlights the contrast between Ezek 6 and 36: Ezek 6 announces judgement to the mountains of Israel, while Ezek 36 recounts the restoration to the mountains of Israel. Indeed, Ezek 20:39–44 speaks of the restoration of the land, it also mentions that the people will come to “[YHWH’s] holy mountain, the high mountain of Israel” and be accepted by YHWH (v. 40).

160

5 The Oracle against the Mountains of Israel

Interestingly, the sayings in Ezek 20:43–44 and 36:31–32 are about the message of positive hope for future. These accounts share significant aspects which suggest that Ezek 6:8–10 might be meant to be interpreted in light of Ezek 20:43– 44, whereas Ezek 36:16–38 is part of a late addition in the MT and probably alludes to Ezek 6:8–10 and 20:43–44.87 It is not surprising, therefore, to find that the secondary expansion of Ezek 6:8–10 might have been inserted to convey the perspective of hope and restoration in the formation of Ezekiel. Ezekiel connects the language of memory to human self-knowledge and the knowledge of YHWH. In Ezek 6:9, the first element before the people’s restoration of memory and their acquisition of the knowledge of YHWH is YHWH’s initiative.88 Before we go into the relation between memory and the knowledge of YHWH, as well as the self-knowledge of humanity, a word about YHWH’s action is in order. In 6:9–10 a divine action is the first element to enable the occurrence of self-awareness and the subsequent acquisition of the knowledge of YHWH. The Israelites will remember their own past behaviour after YHWH’s action, which in this case refers to the expulsion of the Israelites from the land and the breaking of the heart and eyes.89 Once the Israelites are able to look back upon their past after the divine action, they will feel ashamed of themselves. As Zimmerli notes, “the expression ‫[ נקטו בפניהם‬and they will loathe themselves] lies the recollection of shame over what has happened.”90 In 6:9 self-loathing opens up a new level of consciousness of the self. Eventually they gain the knowledge of themselves and of YHWH (v. 10). Thus, the restoration of memory, the gaining of human self-knowledge and the restoration of the knowledge of YHWH are the consequences of YHWH’s initiative toward Israel.91 After YHWH has taken the Israelites into captivity and broken their whoring hearts, it is possible for the remnants to remember and to acquire the knowledge of YHWH and self-knowledge, both of which are crucial to their moral transformation.92 In Ezek 6:9, 20:43, and 36:31, remembering is related to the

87 Ezek 36:23bβ–38 is not attested in the Greek Papyrus 967 that represents a more primitive witness than the MT. Johan Lust, “Ezekiel 36–40 in the Oldest Greek Manuscript,” CBQ 43 (1981): 517–33, who has shown that MT Ezek 36:23bβ–38 is secondary expansion. As such, Ezek 36:31– 32 is part of a late addition in the MT, and belongs to the reception history of Ezek 6. 88 Lapsley, Can These Bones Live, 129. 89 Jacqueline E. Lapsley, “Shame and Self Knowledge: The Positive Role of Shame in Ezekiel’s View of the Moral Self,” in The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives, eds. Margaret S. Odell and John T. Strong (SBLSymS 9; Atlanta: SBL, 2000), 154–55. 90 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 190; Joyce, Ezekiel, 92. 91 Lapsley, “Shame and Self Knowledge,” 156. 92 Lapsley, Can These Bones Live, 128–29.

5.2 Ezekiel 6 and the Motif of Hope and Restoration

161

expression of self-loathing, which is unique in Ezekiel.93 Self-loathing and shame are synonymous in Ezekiel.94 Of the three occurrences in Ezekiel, the occurrences of ‫ קוט‬in 6:9 and 20:43 function similarly to the word “shame” (‫ בוש‬and ‫ )כלם‬in the texts of Ezek 16: YHWH announces that the Israelites will loathe themselves because of all their evil past (6:9; 20:43).95 It is commonly agreed that the experience of shame involves an awareness of the self; shame perceives a failure of the self.96 This kind of shame is the most important aspect of shame for Ezekiel.97 Lapsley has pointed out that “self-loathing is the result of the same kind of self-awareness that shame entails, at least in Ezekiel.”98 As in Ezek 20,99 in Ezek 6:8–10, once the divine acts of deliverance have come, the remnants will be able to reflect on their past (remembering) and will acquire the knowledge of YHWH.100 Remembering will develop a sense of shame for them. The remnants will feel ashamed and loathe themselves as the result of that shame. In this respect, self-loathing and shame not only are gifts from YHWH,101 but they also become a means to self-knowledge that leads to the creation of a new self.102 The view that YHWH’s deliverance will induce shame and self-loathing is unique to Ezekiel. In light of this view in Ezek 20:39–44,103 93 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 190; Joyce, Ezekiel, 92; Odell, Ezekiel, 81. 94 Lapsley, “Shame and Self Knowledge,” 153. 95 The other occurrence of ‫ קוט‬in 36:31 appears in parallel to ‫ בוש‬and ‫כלם‬. Cf. Lapsley, “Shame and Self Knowledge,” 153 n. 33. 96 Carl D. Schneider, Shame, Exposure, and Privacy (Boston: Beacon, 1977), 22; M. Lewis, Shame: The Exposed Self (New York: Free Press, 1995), 2; James W. Fowler, Faithful Change: The Personal and Public Challenges of Postmodern Life (Nashville: Abingdon, 1996), 92; Lapsley, “Shame and Self Knowledge,” 152. 97 Lapsley, “Shame and Self Knowledge,” 152. 98 Lapsley, “Shame and Self Knowledge,” 153. 99 In 20:40–41, YHWH will accept the Israelites who come to the holy mountain, and will renew the relationship with them. After YHWH’s deliverance and their return to the land, the restoration of memory and consequent self-loathing occur in 20:43. 100 Lapsley, Can These Bones Live, 121–25, has shown that “when the people receive [the] knowledge of Yahweh they will be changed at the core of their own identity in addition to possessing a new understanding of Yahweh; knowledge of God implies knowledge of self.” 101 Lapsley, “Shame and Self Knowledge,” 145. 102 Lapsley, “Shame and Self Knowledge,” 139–42. 103 Ezek 6:8–10 may allude to Ezek 20:39–44. MT Ezek 6:9 has a plus, ‫אל־הרעות אשר עשו‬ (“for the evils which they have committed,” v. 9b). Emanuel Tov, “Recensional Differences between the MT and LXX of Ezekiel,” ETL 62 (1986): 89–101 (97), has shown that this MT plus is a harmonising plus alluding to 20:43 (‫ונקטתם בפניכם בכל־רעותיכם אשר עשיתם‬, “you will loathe yourselves in your own sight for all your evil which you have done”). It is widely agreed that Ezek 6:9 alludes to Ezek 20:43. See Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 180; Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 83; Stromberg, “Observations,” 77. The likelihood that Ezek 6:9 is later than 20:43 makes it probable that Ezek 20:39–44 is the earlier text to which Ezek 6:8–10 alludes rather than vice versa.

162

5 The Oracle against the Mountains of Israel

the connection of the language of remembering to human self-knowledge and the knowledge of YHWH in 6:8–10 reflects the motif of hope and restoration: YHWH’s initiative gives hope to the remnants that they will be transformed to a new moral self as a result of the sense of shame which leads to the restoration of self-knowledge and of the knowledge of YHWH.104 Here the restoration of self-knowledge and of the knowledge of YHWH may in turn create a restored divine-human relationship. As Odell notes, a reference to the Israelites’ remembering of YHWH occurs elsewhere in Ezekiel only in 6:8– 10.105 On the one hand, remembering of YHWH by the remnants was a remembering of God who had brought the sword of judgement upon those whose whoring hearts had turned away from him and whose eyes had desired their idols;106 the remembering here may reflect a kind of self-awareness that the Israelites may turn away from their usual practice of forgetting YHWH, according to the text of Ezekiel.107 On the other hand, the remembering of YHWH may imply a renewal of covenantal relationship between Israel and YHWH,108 because the verb ‫ זכר‬means “to take into account, to pay attention to” in the usage encountered earlier in Ezek 3:20.109 Here the term “remembering” in 6:9aα reflects the need for the remnants to “take account” of YHWH by the acquisition of “the knowledge of YHWH that has long been available to them.”110 In addition, Odell has shown that “nearly all the occurrences of self-loathing or shame in Ezekiel appear alongside covenantal language (16:59–62; 20:33–44; 36:22–32).”111 Alongside Odell, I agree that the motif of self-loathing should be interpreted within the context of the covenantal relationship. The Israelites misunderstand that their deportation is due to YHWH’s failure to fulfil his obligations to them. In vv. 8–10, the redactors reverse the Israelites’ misplaced loathing and redirects loathing toward the Israelites themselves because of their violation of the covenant: ‫ונקטו בפניהם אל־הרעות אשר עשו לכל‬ ‫“( תועבתיהם‬they will loathe themselves in their own sight for the evils which they have committed for all their abominations,” v. 9b). On the contrary, for Ezekiel the fall of Jerusalem and the sword of judgement become the evidence

104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111

Lapsley, Can These Bones Live, 157. Odell, Ezekiel, 80. In 20:43 and 36:31, the Israelites remember their evil ways and deeds. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 189. Odell, Ezekiel, 80. Cf. 22:12; 23:35. Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 231; Odell, Ezekiel, 80. Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 231. Lapsley, Can These Bones Live, 129. Odell, Ezekiel, 82 (sidebar: “Shame in Ezekiel”).

5.2 Ezekiel 6 and the Motif of Hope and Restoration

163

of YHWH’s loyalty to the covenant and of his trustworthiness; once the divine action has acted, the remnants will know that ‫לא אל־הנם דברתי לעשות להם‬ ‫“( הרעה הזאת‬I [YHWH] have not said in vain that I would make this evil on them,” v. 10b). As mentioned above in connection with the meaning of “‫זכר‬,” Block has shown that the remembering of YHWH may imply the renewal of covenantal relationship between Israel and YHWH.112 Remembering contains a promise that self-loathing of the past behaviour will arise.113 Through this remembering and self-loathing, the remnants have established “a pattern of rehabilitation;”114 the remnants will realise that trustworthy YHWH had good reason for bringing judgement upon them, indicating their acknowledgement of YHWH as the covenant Lord (‫)וידעו כי־אני יהוה‬. The recognition formula is often the sign of the conclusion of the address, summarising the act that will lead to the knowledge of YHWH. However, the recognition formula in v. 10 does not simply function as the prophetic proof-saying, but also specifically involves the hope of the restoration of the covenant among the remnants. It is worth putting Lapsley’s conclusion here. She arrives at her conclusion that remembering, shame, and self-loathing are a crucial factor for the restoration of the relationship between the people and YHWH because remembering, shame, and self-loathing allow “the people [to] see themselves as ‘they really are,’ i.e., as Yahweh sees them.”115 In other words, through remembering, shame, and selfloathing of the remnant, YHWH provides a new moral self for the remnant so as to restore the covenantal divine-human relationship. 5.2.2.1 The Whoring Heart in Ezek 6:9 As mentioned in section 5.1.1, the MT plus in Ezek 6:9a, ‫“( אשר־סר‬which turned away”), is probably drawn from Jer 32:40b in order to clarify the words before and after its present position (cf. ‫“ הזונה מעלי‬which whored from me,” v. 9a). As Mackie notes, Jer 32:40b is located within an oracle of restoration that envisages that the exiles are to be gathered back to the land (vv. 36–37) and that their return will be marked by a renewed and eternal covenant (vv. 40–41).116 Before the expansion, the image of the rebellious hearts of the Israelites is already very obvious (‫“ את־לבם הזונה מעלי‬their hearts which whored from me”) in the text. Why did the redactors expand the original image of rebellious hearts by a seemingly “redundant” phrase (‫“ אשר־סר‬which turned away”)? In light of the resto-

112 113 114 115 116

Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 231; Odell, Ezekiel, 80. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 190. Odell, Ezekiel, 83. Lapsley, Can These Bones Live, 145. Mackie, Expanding Ezekiel, 184.

164

5 The Oracle against the Mountains of Israel

ration motif expressed by the threefold event (remembering, loathing and knowing) in Ezek 6:8–10, one probable answer is that the redactional activity behind this expansion in v. 9 intended to incorporate another element of the restoration motif by conflating LXX Ezek 6:9a (ὀμώμοκα τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτῶν τῇ ἐκπορνευούσῃ ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ, “I have sworn an oath against their heart which whored from me)117 with its terminological counterpart in Jer 32:40b (‫ואת־יראתי‬ ‫אתן בלבבם לבלתי סור מעלי‬, “and I will put the fear of me in their heart, so that they will not turn away from me”); here the redactors conceptualised the restoration in Ezek 6:9 in terms of that in Jer 32:36–41.118 To sum up, the survivor motif in Ezek 6:8–10 recounts the message of positive hope for the future. Ezek 6:8–10 is clearly connected to the motif of hope and restoration in Ezek 20:39–44. In 6:9 the remnants are told that after YHWH has acted they will remember YHWH, as well as their evil deeds; then they will feel ashamed of and loathe themselves. As a result, a new moral self for the remnant will be provided, implying that the covenantal divine-human relationship will be restored. In addition, the language of restoration in Ezek 6:9 is very close to that in Jer 32:40; the restoration motif in Jer 32:36–41 is most likely the source material of the secondary expansion in Ezek 6:9.

5.2.3 Ezekiel 6:13aβ–14 and the Divine Presence The prophetic oracle in vv. 11–14 introduced by the second expressive gesture (‫ )הכה בכפך ורקע ברגלך ואמר־אח‬comprises of two subunits, vv. 11–13aα and 13aβ–14, both of which conclude with the recognition formula. Verses 13aβ–14 have been regarded as the secondary expansion which refers back to the theme of the opening address of Ezek 6, the idolatrous worship on the mountains, in order to tie the chapter together.119 The two subunits are merged into the extant form of the proof-saying, proclaiming as in vv. 2–7 that the purpose of the inevitable judgement is to lead Israel to the acknowledgment of YHWH.120 The saying in 6:13aβ–14 is the inescapable divine judgement upon the house of Israel; moreover, it is centred on the condemnation of Israel’s idolatry. 117 The LXX renders ‫( נשבעתי‬ὀμώμοκα, “I have sworn”) for the MT reading ‫“( נשברתי‬I have broken”). As Mackie, argues, “[w]hile this affects the basic semantic import of the sentence, it does not affect the OG’s quantitative representation of the MT, in which every element is present except the relative clause.” See Mackie, Expanding Ezekiel, 184 n. 158. Cf. Lust et al., “Ezekiel 6,” 402. 118 Stromberg, “Observations,” 75–78. 119 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 191; Odell, Ezekiel, 83. 120 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 192; Odell, Ezekiel, 83.

5.2 Ezekiel 6 and the Motif of Hope and Restoration

165

Although the theme of the divine judgement is emphasised and recapitulated, the secondary addition, vv. 13aβ–14, nevertheless contains some elements related to the motif of hope and restoration: YHWH warns that he will destroy the idols (‫ ;)גלולים‬as conceded by John F. Kutsko, the judgement against idolatry, which is the main reason for exile in Ezekiel, ironically “provides the conceptual means for social-spiritual survival and for hope of return.”121 The expression ‫“( גלוליהם‬their idols”) occurring at the beginning and the end of v. 13aβb implies a misrepresentation of the divine presence. Kutsko has shown that the vocabulary in Ezekiel for idols, namely ‫גלולים‬, is a negative expression connoting literal powerlessness.122 Moreover, in Ezekiel “the generic term ‫ אלהים‬for ‘gods’ and for the God of Israel is never used to describe divine images or foreign gods.”123 Alongside Kutsko, I agree that Ezekiel tries to substitute ‫ גלולים‬for ‫ אלהים‬to avoid any misunderstanding of the use of the term ‫ אלהים‬in the condemnation of idolatry.124 For Ezekiel, ‫ גלולים‬are not symbols of the gods’ presence but arguments for their absence and impotence. In the redactors’ view, the physical presence of idols in 6:13aβ–14 indicates their powerlessness. The “gods” which Israel’s idols represent are not gods at all; they never existed. In 6:13aβ–14 idols are not legitimate representations of divine presence. Hence, despite the abundance of idols on every high hill, on all the mountain tops, under every green tree, and under every leafy oak (v. 13aβb), a deity is absent from the land. There are different examples in the literature of the ancient Near East that show that the destruction of a city was related to the absence of a god.125 The redactors probably seemed to respond to this old idea in v. 14, in which YHWH will make the land more desolate and waste because of the impotence and vacuity of idols in the land. In this way, the desolation of the land and the defilement of idols not only represent the divine judgement

121 Kutsko, Between Heaven and Earth, 42. 122 Kutsko, Between Heaven and Earth, 34–35. 123 John F. Kutsko, “Ezekiel’s Anthropology and Its Ethical Implications,” in The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives, eds. Margaret S. Odell and John T. Strong (SBLSymS 9; Atlanta: SBL, 2000), 122. 124 Kutsko, “Ezekiel’s Anthropology,” 123. 125 Bertil Albrektson, History and the Gods: An Essay on the Idea of Historical Events as Divine Manifestations in the Ancient Near East (ConBOT 1; Lund: Gleerup, 1967), 24–34. Peterson, Ezekiel in Context, 100, has shown that in ancient Near Eastern culture, the defeat of a king and his army was strong evidence to his people of the land that their gods were not with them. In addition, Speiser notices that the gods’ displeasure with a particular king is seen to be directly related to the end of the regime of that king. Cf. E. A. Speiser, “Ancient Mesopotamia,” in The Idea of History in the Ancient Near East ed. Robert C. Dentan (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1955), 35–76 (56).

166

5 The Oracle against the Mountains of Israel

but also imply the manifestation of YHWH presence and his victory against the vacuous idols. Thus, the motif of YHWH presence is found here in 6:13aβ–14, where the redactors intentionally highlighted that YHWH is not a god among many, but the only God. Moreover, in 6:13aβ–14, the message of judgement and hope are inextricably linked: On the one hand, the redactors emphasised the judgement against idolatry. On the other hand, they affirmed YHWH’s presence and his sovereignty as he would not fail in the presence of foreign idols.

5.3 Conclusion In this chapter, we have demonstrated that vv. 4b–7a, 8–10, 13aβ–14 are the secondary expansions in Ezek 6. There is little reason to doubt that the redactors of Ezek 6 embedded some elements of hope and restoration in the present form of the book. The redactors, by employing the language of curses from Lev 26 and by alluding to the account of Josiah’s cult reform, aimed to show that YHWH’s presence and action are involved in the destruction and defilement of the high places and the idols. It is YHWH who actively overthrows the practices of idolatry by scattering the corpses of the Israelites around their idols and demolishing the cultic places in all the Israelites’ dwellings (vv. 4b–7a). These verses demonstrate that only divine intervention can effectively remove the detestable and idolatrous things. The restoration of the land for its sabbaticals and the restoration of celebrating the Passover are preceded by the description of the curses related to idol worship in Lev 26 and the account of the defilement of cultic places in 2 Kgs 23, respectively. Alluding to Lev 26 and 2 Kgs 23, Ezek 6:4b–7a anticipates the motif of hope and restoration in the subsequent passage. Thus, the content of Ezek 6:4b–7a serves to clarify and stress the unique motif of the oracle against “the mountains of Israel” – the active role of YHWH in compelling the Israelites to eliminate idolatry in advance of the restoration. The active role of YHWH can also be observed in other secondary additions of Ezek 6. First, in vv. 8–10 the divine action, in this case the preservation of the remnants, is the first element to enable the occurrence of remembering and self-loathing. In fact, the restoration of memory is YHWH’s gracious intent. Once the remnants are able to look back upon their past behaviour after YHWH’s action, they will feel ashamed of themselves, then they will gain the knowledge of self and restore the gift of knowledge of YHWH. In addition, through this remembering and self-loathing, the remnants will realise that trustworthy YHWH had good reasons to punish them, indicating their acknowledgement of YHWH as the covenant Lord and perhaps implying the renewal of covenantal relationship between YHWH and them.

5.3 Conclusion

167

Second, the motif of YHWH’s action and his presence is also at the heart of the secondary expansion in 6:13aβ–14. The redactors of 6:13aβ–14 intentionally avoided the use of ‫ אלהים‬for “gods,” which Israel’s idols represent; they imply that YHWH is the only God. In their view, the “gods” represented by idols never existed. On account of the vacuity of idols, the account of the desolation and destruction of the land (v. 14) probably implies the manifestation of YHWH’s presence and his victory against the vacuous idols. Some conclusions concerning the motif of hope and restoration in the secondary expansions of Ezek 6 can be drawn. The oracle of salvation (vv. 8–10) contains some elements of restoration, namely the restoration of memory, of YHWH’s recognition, and of the covenant. As I have argued before, Ezek 6:4b– 7a alludes to Lev 26:30–33 and 2 Kgs 23:4–20. The divine action links the account of idolatry elimination (vv. 4b–7a) and the oracle of salvation (vv. 8–10) together. Thus, in the redactional material of Ezek 6, the oracle of salvation may be regarded as the motif of hope and restoration following the account of curses and idolatry elimination in accordance with the plot structures in both Lev 26 and 2 Kgs 23.

6 The Oracle concerning the End of the Land of Israel In the previous chapter, I considered the motif of hope and restoration in the secondary expansions of Ezek 6. This chapter takes the study further by examining the relationship between the secondary expansions in Ezek 7 and the motif of hope and restoration. I begin by offering a brief sketch of the structure and contents of Ezek 7. Ezek 7 is divided into two major sections, vv. 2–4 and 5–27. Each begins with the messenger formula (‫ )כה אמר אדני יהוה‬in vv. 2aβ and 5a, and concludes with the recognition formula (‫ וידעו כי־אני יהוה‬/ ‫וידעתם‬, vv. 4, 27). There is a modified recognition formula in v. 9 (‫)וידעתם כי אני יהוה מכה‬, and as such, along with the messenger formula, sets Ezek 7:5–9 apart as a separate unit; this unit may represent a parallel variant to vv. 2–4.1 The presence of the recognition formula in the oracle implies that the genre of Ezek 7 is the prophetic proof saying,2 and that “the coming judgement against Israel is a revelation of divine presence and action within the world of creation.”3 Ezek 7 is divided into three prophetic proof sayings in vv. 2–4, 5–9, 10–27. Ezek 7 begins with the announcement of the coming of the “end” (‫קצץ‬, vv. 2, 3, 6). In connection with the “end”, the expression ‫“( קרוב היום‬the day is near,” v. 7), which recalls the Day of YHWH, is introduced later in the text. Ezek 7 employs the motif of the Day of YHWH as the judgement against the land of Israel. The judgement of the land is recounted in further detail in vv. 10–27, which establish a connection with the preceding account in vv. 2–9 by cross-referencing to similar vocabulary concerning the Day of YHWH (vv. 10a, 12a; cf. vv. 2, 5–6), especially the rare word ‫ צפירה‬in vv. 7a and 10a.4 Compared with the first two prophetic proof sayings (vv. 2–4, 5–9), the lengthy content in the third prophetic proof saying (vv. 10–27) makes it difficult to recognise a clear structure or line of development.5 In light of the work by Block,6 Ezek 7:10–27 may be subdivided into five parts on the basic of style and content: the announcement of the Day of YHWH (vv. 10–12a); the economic ef-

1 Wevers, Ezekiel, 71; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 193–94; Odell, Ezekiel, 88; Sweeney, Reading Ezekiel, 48. 2 Walther Zimmerli, I am Yahweh, ed. W. Brueggemann (Atlanta: John Knox, 1982), 102–3; Hals, Ezekiel, 43; Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 240. 3 Sweeney, Reading Ezekiel, 48. 4 Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 243. 5 Hals, Ezekiel, 43; Odell, Ezekiel, 90–91. 6 Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 254. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110711578-006

6.1 The Diachronic Analysis of Ezek 7:1–27

169

fect of the wrath of YHWH (vv. 12b–14); the imagery of war (vv. 15–18); the punishment upon idolatry and the temple (vv. 19–24); the collapse of leadership in the society (vv. 25–27). This chapter is dedicated to examining the presence of the elements of hope and restoration in the redactional material of Ezek 7. A first step toward this is to analyse different texts in Ezek 7 to map out the relative diachronic relationship of them and to identify some quantitatively smaller glosses.

6.1 The Diachronic Analysis of Ezek 7:1–27 In Ezek 7 a great number of divergences exist between the MT and the LXX. On the one hand, MT Ezekiel 7 is longer than the corresponding LXX text. On the other hand, the LXX preserves a different Vorlage which has a different order of verses in the first part of the chapter from that of the MT. Many scholars, among them Lust, have taken the short text of the LXX as the more original text because in most instances a shorter text represents an earlier stage in the history of a text.7 Hence, Tov, followed by Stromberg, has shown that the longer text of the MT Ezekiel is considered as an editorial expansion. In their views, most of the expansions in Ezekiel represent layers of “contextual exegesis, clarification and slight editing.”8 Here I follow Stromberg’s suggestion that the secondary expansions in the MT may be identified “by using the shorter text of the LXX in conjunction with contextual observations on the MT material which suggest secondary composition.”9 7:3–910 v. 3 (LXX v. 7)

Text with English Translation

‫עתה הקץ עליך ושלחתי אפי בך ושפטתיך כדרכיך ונתתי עליך את כל־תועבתיך‬ Now the end is upon you, and I shall send my anger against you, and I shall judge you according to your ways and I shall put all your abominations upon you. (MT)

7 Wevers, Ezekiel, 71; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 201; Pierre-Maurice Bogaert, “Les deux rédactions conservées (LXX et TM) d’Ezéchiel 7,” in Ezekiel and His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and their Interrelation, ed. J. Lust (BETL 74; Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 1986), 21–47; Tov, “Recensional Differences,” 92; Stromberg, “Observations,” 70; Timothy P. Mackie, “Transformation in Ezekiel’s Textual History: Ezekiel 7 in the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint,” in Transforming Visions: Transformations of Text, Tradition and Theology in Ezekiel, eds. M. A. Lyons and W. A. Tooman (Cambridge: James Clarke & Co., 2010), 249–278 (251). 8 Tov, “Recensional Differences,” 92. 9 Stromberg, “Observations,” 70. 10 The LXX has a different order of vv. 1–11 from that of the MT.

170

6 The Oracle concerning the End of the Land of Israel

Text with English Translation νῦν τὸ πέρας πρὸς σέ, καὶ ἀποστελῶ ἐγὼ ἐπὶ σὲ καὶ ἐκδικήσω σε ἐν ταῖς ὁδοῖς σου καὶ δώσω ἐπὶ σὲ πάντα τὰ βδελύγματά σου· Now the end is upon you, and I shall send upon you, and I shall punish you in your ways, and I shall give against you all your abominations. (LXX) v. 4 (LXX v. 8)

‫]ו[לא־תחוס עיני ]עליך[ ולא אחמול כי דרכיך עליך אתן ותועבותיך בתוכך‬ ‫תהיין וידעתם כי־אני יהוה‬ [And] my eye will have no pity [upon you], nor shall I spare, but I shall put your ways upon you, and your abominations will be in the midst of you; and you will know that I am YHWH. (MT) οὐ φείσεται ὁ ὀφθαλμός μου ἐπὶ σέ, οὐδὲ μὴ ἐλεήσω, διότι τὴν ὁδόν σου ἐπὶ σὲ δώσω, καὶ τὰ βδελύγματά σου ἐν μέσῳ σου ἔσται· καὶ ἐπιγνώσῃ διότι ἐγὼ κύριος. My eye will not spare, nor shall I have pity; for I shall give your way against you, and your abominations will be in your midst, and you will know that I am the Lord. (LXX)

v. 5 (LXX v. 9)

v. 6 (LXX v. 3)

[‫כה אמר אדני יהוה ]רעה אחת רעה הנה באה‬ Thus said the Lord YHWH, [an evil, a unique evil, behold, it is coming]. (MT) διότι τάδε λέγει κύριος because this is what the Lord says, (LXX)

[‫]קץ בא[ בא הקץ ]הקיץ אליך הנה באה‬ [An end has come]; the end has come; [it has awakened against you; behold, it has come]. (MT) ἥκει τὸ πέρας The end has come. (LXX)

v. 7 (LXX v. 4)

‫]באה הצפירה[ אליך יושב הארץ בא העת קרוב היום מהומה ולא־הד הרים‬ [The ṣefirah has come] to you, the inhabitant of the land; the time has come, the day is near – tumult rather than joyful shouting on the mountains. (MT) ἐπὶ σὲ τὸν κατοικοῦντα τὴν γῆν, ἥκει ὁ καιρός, ἤγγικεν ἡ ἡμέρα, οὐ μετὰ θορύβων οὐδὲ μετὰ ὠδίνων. Upon you, the inhabitant of the land; the time has come, the day is near, not with tumult, and not with pains. (LXX)

v. 8 (LXX v. 5)

‫עתה מקרוב אשפוך חמתי עליך וכליתי אפי בך ושפטתיך כדרכיך ונתתי עליך‬ ‫את כל־תועבותיך‬ Now I shall soon pour out my wrath upon you, and I shall complete my anger on you, and I shall judge you according to your ways, and I shall put on you all your abominations. (MT) νῦν ἐγγύθεν ἐκχεῶ τὴν ὀργήν μου ἐπὶ σὲ καὶ συντελέσω τὸν θυμόν μου ἐν σοὶ καὶ κρινῶ σε ἐν ταῖς ὁδοῖς σου καὶ δώσω ἐπὶ σὲ πάντα τὰ βδελύγματά σου· Now I shall soon pour out my wrath upon you, and I shall complete my anger against you, and judge you in your ways; and I shall give against you all your abominations. (LXX)

6.1 The Diachronic Analysis of Ezek 7:1–27

171

Text with English Translation v. 9 (LXX v. 6)

‫]ו[לא־תחוס עיני ולא אחמול כדרכיך עליך אתן ותועבותיך בתוכך תהיין וידעתם‬ ‫כי אני יהוה מכה‬ [And] my eye will not have pity and I shall not spare. I shall put on you according to your ways, and your abominations are in your midst; then you will know that I am YHWH who smites. (MT) οὐ φείσεται ὁ ὀφθαλμός μου, οὐδὲ μὴ ἐλεήσω, διότι τὰς ὁδούς σου ἐπὶ σὲ δώσω, καὶ τὰ βδελύγματά σου ἐν μέσῳ σου ἔσονται, καὶ ἐπιγνώσῃ διότι ἐγώ εἰμι κύριος ὁ τύπτων. My eye will not spare, nor shall I have pity; for I shall give your ways against you, and your abominations will be in your midst; and you will know that I am the Lord who smites. (LXX)

7:12–14, 16 v. 12

[‫בא העת הגיע היום הקונה אל־ישמח והמוכר אל־יתאבל ]כי חרון אל־כל־המונה‬ The time has come, the day has arrived. Let not the buyer rejoice, nor the seller mourn; [for wrath is upon all her horde]. (MT) ἥκει ὁ καιρός, ἰδοὺ ἡ ἡμέρα· ὁ κτώμενος μὴ χαιρέτω, καὶ ὁ πωλῶν μὴ θρηνείτω· The time has come, behold the day. Let not the buyer rejoice, and let not the seller mourn. (LXX)

v. 13

‫כי המוכר אל־הממכר לא ישוב ועוד ]בחיים חיתם כי־חזון אל־כל־המונה לא‬ ‫ישוב[ ואיש בעונו חיתו לא יתחזקו‬ For the seller will not regain what he has sold [as long as they may both be alive, for the vision upon all her hordes will not return], and a man in his iniquity will not preserve his life. (MT) διότι ὁ κτώμενος πρὸς τὸν πωλοῦντα οὐκέτι μὴ ἐπιστρέψῃ, καὶ ἄνθρωπος ἐν ὀφθαλμῷ ζωῆς αὐτοῦ οὐ κρατήσει. For the buyer will no longer return to the seller, and a man will not master his life with his eye. (LXX)

v. 14

[‫תקעו בתקוע והכין הכל ]ואין הלך[ למלחמה ]כי חרוני אל־כל־המונה‬ They have blown with the trumpet and prepared everything, [but no one is going to the battle, for my wrath is upon all her horde]. (MT) σαλπίσατε ἐν σάλπιγγι καὶ κρίνατε τὰ σύμπαντα. Blow the trumpet and judge everything. (LXX)

v. 16

‫ופלטו פליטיהם והיו אל־ההרים ]כיוני הגאיות[ כלם המות איש בעונו‬ And their fugitives escape, they will be on the mountains [like doves of the valleys], all of them mourning, each over his iniquity. (MT) καὶ ἀνασωθήσονται οἱ ἀνασῳζόμενοι ἐξ αὐτῶν καὶ ἔσονται ἐπὶ τῶν ὀρέων· πάντας ἀποκτενῶ, ἕκαστον ἐν ταῖς ἀδικίαις αὐτοῦ. But those who escape of them will be delivered and will be upon the mountains; I shall kill them all, every one for his iniquities. (LXX)

172

6 The Oracle concerning the End of the Land of Israel

Text with English Translation 7:19–24 v. 19

‫כספם בחוצות ישליכו וזהבם לנדה יהיה ]כספם וזהבם לא־יוכל להצילם ביום‬ ‫עברת יהוה[ נפשם לא ישבעו ומעיהם לא ימלאו כי־מכשול עונם היה‬ They will throw their silver into the streets and their gold will become an unclean thing; [their silver and their gold will not be able to deliver them in the day of the wrath of YHWH]. They cannot satisfy their souls; they will not fill their stomachs, for it was the stumbling block of their iniquity. (MT) τὸ ἀργύριον αὐτῶν ῥιφήσεται ἐν ταῖς πλατείαις, καὶ τὸ χρυσίον αὐτῶν ὑπεροφθήσεται· αἱ ψυχαὶ αὐτῶν οὐ μὴ ἐμπλησθῶσιν, καὶ αἱ κοιλίαι αὐτῶν οὐ μὴ πληρωθῶσιν· διότι βάσανος τῶν ἀδικιῶν αὐτῶν ἐγένετο. Their silver will be thrown in the streets, and their gold will be despised; their souls will not be satisfied and their stomachs will not be filled, for torture has come for their iniquities. (LXX)

v. 20

‫]ו[צבי עדיו לגאון שמהו וצלמי תועבתם ]שקוציהם[ עשו בו על־כן נתתיו להם‬ ‫לנדה‬ [And] the beauty of his ornament, he set it into pride; but they made the images of their abominations [and of their detestable things] with it; therefore I have made it an unclean thing to them. (MT) ἐκλεκτὰ κόσμου εἰς ὑπερηφανίαν ἔθεντο αὐτὰ καὶ εἰκόνας τῶν βδελυγμάτων αὐτῶν ἐποίησαν ἐξ αὐτῶν· ἕνεκεν τούτου δέδωκα αὐτὰ αὐτοῖς εἰς ἀκαθαρσίαν. The choice ornaments, they made them into pride, and they made from them images of their abominations; therefore I have given them unclean to them. (LXX)

v. 21

‫ונתתיו ביד־הזרים לבז ולרשעי הארץ לשלל וחללה‬ And I shall give it into the hands of foreigners as plunder, and to the wicked of the earth as spoil; and they will profane it.

v. 22

‫והסבותי פני מהם וחללו את־צפוני ובאו־בה פריצים וחללוה‬ I shall turn my face from them, and they will profane my treasured place; and robbers will go into it and they will profane it.

v. 23

‫עשה הרתוק כי הארץ מלאה משפט דמים והעיר מלאה המס‬ Make the chain, for the land is full of judicial murders11 and the city is full of violence.

v. 24

‫]והבאתי רעי גוים וירשו את־בתיהם[ והשבתי גאון עזים ונחלו מקדשיהם‬ [And I shall bring the worst of the nations, and they will possess their houses]; and I shall make the pride of the strong ones cease, and their holy places will be profaned. (MT) καὶ ἀποστρέψω τὸ φρύαγμα τῆς ἰσχύος αὐτῶν, καὶ μιανθήσεται τὰ ἅγια αὐτῶν. And I shall turn away the pride of their strength, and their temple will be defiled. (LXX)

11 The LXX does not read ‫משפט‬, and probably reads λαῶν (‫עמים‬, “people”) instead of the expression ‫“( דמים‬blood”) in the MT. See Zimmerli, Ezekiel, 200; Lust et al., “Notes to Ezekiel 7,” 393–94.

6.1 The Diachronic Analysis of Ezek 7:1–27

173

Text with English Translation 7:27

‫]המלך יתאבל ו[נשיא ילבש שממה וידי עם־הארץ תבהלנה מדרכם אעשה אותם‬ ‫ובמשפטיהם אשפטם וידעו כי־אני יהוה‬ [The king will mourn and] the prince will clothe with desolation, and the hands of the people of the land will be feeble. According to their ways, I shall do to them and by their judgements I shall judge them. And they will know that I am YHWH. (MT) ἄρχων ἐνδύσεται ἀφανισμόν, καὶ αἱ χεῖρες τοῦ λαοῦ τῆς γῆς παραλυθήσονται· κατὰ τὰς ὁδοὺς αὐτῶν ποιήσω αὐτοῖς καὶ ἐν τοῖς κρίμασιν αὐτῶν ἐκδικήσω αὐτούς· καὶ γνώσονται ὅτι ἐγὼ κύριος. The prince will clothe with desolation, and the hands of the people of the land will be feeble. According to their ways, I shall do to them and according to their judgement I shall judge them. And they will know that I am the Lord. (LXX)

6.1.1 Textual Criticism Taking the LXX as a reference to the more original text, we find that there are a number of expansions in MT Ezek 7:5–7 and 12–14 which are absent in the LXX. In vv. 5–7 the MT contains pluses ‫“( רעה אחת רעה הנה באה‬an evil, a unique evil, behold it is coming,” v. 5b), ‫“( קץ בא‬an end has come,” v. 6aα), ‫“( הקיץ אליך הנה באה‬it has awakened against you; behold, it has come!” v. 6aβb), and ‫“( באה הצפירה‬the ṣefirah has come,” v. 7a).12 All these MT pluses “specify the evil that is coming at the end of the days.”13 Lust has shown that the composition of Ezek 7:1–11 in the LXX is a strictly concentric structure, emphasising a short phrase in v. 6: ὸ τύπτων (“the one who smites”).14 Bogaert has also demonstrated that the composition of Ezek 7:2–12 in the MT displays a concentric structure; however, its structure is more complex.15 The expression ‫ הצפירה‬in vv. 7, 10, which is absent in the LXX, occupies the central and final position of the MT concentric structure. As explicated by Bogaert, the reorganisation of the verse order in the MT is intended to draw the readers’ attention to the term ‫הצפירה‬.16 Alongside Bogaert, Tov has suggested that the expression ‫“( הקיץ אליך הנה באה באה הצפירה‬it has awakened against you! Behold, it

12 A similar plus ‫“( הנה באה יצאה הצפרה‬Behold it is coming! The ṣefirah has gone forth”) occurs in v. 10. 13 Lust et al., “Ezekiel 7,” 384. 14 Lust et al., “Ezekiel 7,” 384–86; Bogaert, “Les deux redactions,” 23–4. 15 Bogaert, “Les deux redactions,” 24. 16 Bogaert, “Les deux redactions,” 25.

174

6 The Oracle concerning the End of the Land of Israel

has come! The ṣefirah has come”) represents an addition to the MT during the redactional stages of the book.17 By comparing the MT and the LXX, at least three MT pluses are observable in vv. 12–14. Some of them are refrains, which are similar in form and content. The centre refrain in v. 13b contains the expression ‫כי־חזון אל־כל־המונה‬ (“for the vision upon all her horde”), while vv. 12, 14 end with a similar refrain ‫“( כי חרון אל־כל־המונה‬for wrath is upon all her horde”). In addition, vv. 13, 14 have also been enlarged by adding an expression with three Hebrew words ‫ועוד‬ ‫“( בחיים חיתם‬as long as they may both be alive”) and ‫“( ואין הלך למלחמה‬but no one is going to the battle”) before the centre and the outer refrain, respectively. Furthermore, there are divergences in translation between the MT and the LXX in vv. 13, 14. In 7:13aα, the LXX says διότι ὁ κτώμενος πρὸς τὸν πωλοῦντα οὐκέτι μὴ ἐπιστρέψῃ (“for the buyer will no longer return to the seller”), while the MT says ‫“( כי המוכר אל־הממכר לא ישוב‬for the seller will not regain what has been sold”). LXX Ezek 7:14 says σαλπίσατε ἐν σάλπιγγι καὶ κρίνατε τὰ σύμπαντα (“Blow the trumpet and judge everything”), and reads the verb σαλπίσατε (“blow”) as an imperative. The MT reads the verb ‫“( תקעו‬they have blown”) as a perfect tense, followed by a cognate accusative: ‫תקוע‬ “trumpet.” In MT Ezek 7:16, the plus ‫“( כיוני הגאיות‬like doves of the valleys”) is attested after the clause ‫“( ופלטו פליטיהם והיו אל־ההרים‬And their fugitives escape, they will be on the mountains,” v. 16aαβ). Following the plus, the MT reads a feminine plural participle of the verb ‫“( המה‬to moan”) and thus reads the expression ‫ כלם המות‬as “all of them mourning,”18 linking with the context of doves. In contrast, the LXX translates a derivative of the verb ‫ מות‬as πάντας ἀποκτενω (“I shall kill them all”).19 MT Ezek 7:19 has a plus ‫כספם וזהבם לא־יוכל להצילם ביום עברת יהוה‬ (“their silver and their gold will not be able to deliver them in the day of the wrath of YHWH,” v. 19aβ), which alludes to Zeph 1:18: ‫גם־כספם גם־זהבם‬ ‫“( לא־יוכל להצילם ביום עברת יהוה‬Neither their silver nor their gold will be able to deliver them in the day of YHWH’s wrath”).20 According to Stromberg, 17 Tov, Textual Criticism, 348–49. 18 The incongruity of the masculine suffix on ‫ כלם‬and the feminine participle ‫ המות‬can be explained by “vacillation between doves and men as the subject.” See Greenberg, Ezekiel 1– 20, 151. 19 G. R. Driver, “Linguistic and Textual Problems: Ezekiel,” Bib 19 (1938): 60–69 (62), where he states that LXX ἀποκτενω seems to read ‫י‬, while J. Goettsberger, “Ez 7,1–16 textkritisch und exegetisch untersucht,” BZ 22 (1934): 195–223 (219–20), reads ‫ית‬ for ἀποκτενω. Driver, “Linguistic,” 62, and BHS suggest reading ‫“( ימותו‬they will die”). 20 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 211; Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 110; Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 264; Lust et al., “Ezekiel 7,” 392; Stromberg, “Observations,” 81–3.

6.1 The Diachronic Analysis of Ezek 7:1–27

175

there are two lines in LXX Ezekiel 7:19, which are concluded with an explanatory expression ‫“( כי־מכשול עונם היה‬for it was the stumbling block of their iniquity”); the two lines have a syntactically parallel 3 + 3 pattern, and each also demonstrates a clear semantic pattern.21 Hence, Stromberg has shown that the MT plus (‫ )כספם וזהבם לא־יוכל להצילם ביום עברת יהוה‬in v. 19aβ interrupts the tightly structured syntactic parallelism of the two lines because it is inserted in the middle of this parallel structure.22 For the above-mentioned two reasons, as well as due to the absence of v. 19aβ in the LXX, it seems appropriate to follow many scholars’ assertions that Ezek 7:19b is a secondary expansion.23 Another textual variant is attested in v. 24. The beginning of MT Ezek 7:24 contains a plus ‫“( והבאתי רעי גוים וירשו את־בתיהם‬And I shall bring the worst of the nations and they will possess their houses”). Here the MT plus connects with the previous verses as the phrase ‫“( רעי גוים‬the worst of the nations,” v. 24aα) is probably a synonym for the expression ‫“( רשעי הארץ‬the wicked of the earth”) in v. 21. Moreover, the MT plus indicates the agent of the judgement,24 and as such coheres with the recurrent insistence in the secondary expansions that recount the coming of ‫הצפירה‬. As mentioned previously, some of the differences between the LXX and the MT are due to the result of deliberate redactional additions to the Vorlage of the MT. For instance, the MT has a plus ‫“( המלך יתאבל‬The king will mourn”) in 7:27a. As noted by Lust, “the title ‘king’ is unusual in the Hebrew text of Ezekiel when reference is made to the king of Israel.”25 Moreover, the title ‫“( מלך‬king”) in Ezekiel usually occurs either when listing a past or present monarch of Israel, or when mentioning a present king of Babylon or of Egypt.26 In contrast, the title ‫“( נשיא‬prince”) is frequently expressed in Ezekiel in the sense of “the reigning and future Davidic ruler.”27 Indeed, any claim of a future Davidic ruler strongly implied the removal of the current king. Writing or composing during the post-exilic period, the redactors had to disguise any oracle that announced a desire for the demise of the reigning regime. In order to hide the claim of a

21 Stromberg, “Observations,” 81. 22 Each half of the first line consists of noun with suffix (‫ וזהבם‬,‫ )כספם‬+ noun with preposition (‫ לנדה‬,‫ )בחוצות‬+ imperfect verb (‫ יהיה‬,‫)ישליכו‬, while each half of the second line consists of noun with suffix (‫ מעיהם‬,‫ )נפשם‬+ negative (‫ )לא‬+ imperfect verb (‫ ימלאו‬,‫)ישבעו‬. 23 Cooke, Ezekiel, 82; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 199; Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 102; Mackie, Expanding Ezekiel, 190. 24 Lust et al., “Ezekiel 7,” 394. 25 Lust et al., “Ezekiel 7,” 394. 26 Iain M. Duguid, Ezekiel and the Leaders of Israel (VTSup 56; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 18–25; Tuell, Ezekiel, 38. 27 Duguid, Ezekiel and Leaders, 25.

176

6 The Oracle concerning the End of the Land of Israel

future Davidic ruler, the redactors added the title ‫ מלך‬here and used the title ‫ נשיא‬as a separate subordinate alongside the monarchy. Moreover, the addition of ‫ המלך‬to ‫ נשיא‬and ‫“( עם־הארץ‬people of the land”) creates a triad of the ineffective leadership that is parallel to the triad of religious leadership – “prophet, priest, and elders” – in the previous verse.28 Thus, the expansion in v. 27 may represent added material of contextual exegesis and clarification.

6.1.2 Redaction Criticism 6.1.2.1 Redaction in Ezekiel 7:3–9 In 7:3–9 the divergences between the LXX and the MT show that a reorganization of the material took place within the MT. LXX Ezek 7:3–6 is transposed and is attested in MT vv. 6aβ, 7–9, whereas LXX Ezek 7:7–9 is transposed and is attested in MT vv. 3–5a.29 Lust and his colleagues have argued that “these divergences are not due to accidental errors in the transmission of the text. Most of them are the result of a redactional activity on the side of the MT.”30 Ezek 7:8– 9 is a doublet of vv. 3–4 and serves as “a Wiederaufnahme [resumption] allowing the insertion of vv. 5b–7.”31 As mentioned in section 6.1.1, the MT pluses in vv. 5b–7 contain some words, namely ‫ צפירה‬/ ‫ קץ בא‬/ ‫אחת רעה‬, that are new in the context. As such these new words specify the coming of the evil at the end of the days. The term ‫ אחת רעה‬in v. 5b is further depicted as the ṣefirah (‫ )הצפירה‬in vv. 7, 10. These additions draw attention to a new feature in vv. 3–9: in the LXX it is YHWH himself who brings judgement (cf. LXX 7:6, καὶ ἐπιγνώσῃ διότι ἐγώ εἰμι κύριος ὁ τύπτων, “you will know that I am the Lord who smites”); however, in the MT it is the ṣefirah (‫ )הצפירה‬who acts as the agent of YHWH’s judgement.32 In this way, the addition of these new words between vv. 3–4 and their Wiederaufnahme in vv. 8–9 puts the accent on the announcement of the imminent coming of ‫הצפירה‬.33

28 Tuell, Ezekiel, 37. 29 J. Lust, K. Hauspie, and A. Ternier, “Notes to the Septuagint Ezekiel 7,” ETL 77 (2001): 384– 394 (384–86). 30 Lust et al., “Ezekiel 7,” 384. 31 Johan Lust, “The Use of Textual Witnesses for the Establishment of the Text: The Shorter and Longer Texts of Ezekiel an Example Ez. 7,” in Ezekiel and His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and their Interrelation, ed. J. Lust (BETL 74; Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 1986), 7–20 (18). 32 Bogaert, “Les deux redactions,” 25; Lust et al., “Ezekiel 7,” 384–5; Mackie, Expanding Ezekiel, 201. 33 Lust, “Use of Textual Witnesses,” 18; Bogaert, “Les deux redactions,” 32.

6.1 The Diachronic Analysis of Ezek 7:1–27

177

6.1.2.2 Redaction in Ezekiel 7:12–14 The third prophetic proof saying (vv. 10–27) echoes the contexts of the previous two prophetic proof sayings. However, Ezek 7:10–27 recounts the impact on human daily life after the announcement of the Day of YHWH. Just like the first subunit (vv. 10–11), the subsequent subunit in vv. 12–14 begins with the announcement of the Day of YHWH (‫בא העת הגיע היום‬, “The time has come, the day has arrived,” v. 12aα). However, a stylistic shift can be observed when we compare the personal suffixes in vv. 10–11 with those in vv. 12–14. The personal suffixes of the series of four expressions in v. 11b, namely ‫“( לא־מהם‬none of them”), ‫“( ולא מהמונם‬none of their horde”), ‫“( ולא מהמהם‬none of their wealth”), and ‫“( ולא־נה בהם‬no eminence among them”) are third masculine plural, probably referring to the Israelites. In contrast, vv. 12–14 (in particular the MT pluses) switch to third feminine singular suffixes, which probably refer to ‫( הצפירה‬the ṣefirah) as it is the closest feminine antecedent. As stated previously, the MT pluses in vv. 5b–7, 10 draw attention to the coming of ‫הצפירה‬. It is possible that the redactors continue the focus of ‫ הצפירה‬by adding three similar refrains pertaining to ‫ הצפירה‬in vv. 12–14, although originally the verses were probably only a description of the economic effect of the Day of YHWH. It is therefore most likely that the description of the economic effect of the Day of YHWH has been changed through the refrains pertaining to ‫( הצפירה‬vv. 12b, 13bα, 14b). 6.1.2.3 Redaction in Ezekiel 7:19–24*, 27 A stylistic difference can be observed when we compare the first prophetic proof saying in vv. 2–4, as well as its parallel variant in vv. 5–9, with the third one in vv. 10–27. The prophetic proof saying in vv. 2–9 is mainly in the first person, whereas that in vv. 10–27 is mainly in the third person.34 As noted by Hals, the third prophetic proof saying (vv. 10–27) “continues at great length in impersonal formulation, with no speaker identified and no audience indicated.”35 Both Wevers and Hals have argued that the only materials written in the first person, namely vv. 20b–22, 24, and 27bα, seem to interrupt the third prophetic proof saying. I follow Wevers’s suggestion that these personal elements are probably a later expansion and an elaboration on the original material.36 In addition, Zimmerli argues that the announcement of judgement in vv. 21– 24* is a later text because it “is distinguished from the threats of the original text above all by the fact that it appears to have in view the fall, plunder, and burning

34 Wevers, Ezekiel, 71. 35 Hals, Ezekiel, 43. 36 Wevers, Ezekiel, 71.

178

6 The Oracle concerning the End of the Land of Israel

of the city of Jerusalem and its sanctuary in a much more concrete way.”37 Furthermore, Pohlmann has shown that v. 24b is probably a direct continuation of v. 20.38 In v. 24b YHWH will put an end to the “pride” (‫ )גאון‬of the strong; here v. 24bα takes up the catchword ‫“( גאון‬pride”) of v. 20a, which depicts people’s use of temple treasures to manufacture idols as their pride. In this respect, v. 24bβ provides a consequence with regard to v. 20a: all “images” (‫צלם‬, v. 20aβ) that they have created, and “their holy places” (‫ )מקדשיהם‬are profaned (‫)חלל‬.39 Apart from v. 24bβ, the verb ‫ חלל‬also appears three times in vv. 21–22, where the extent of desecration is further elaborated on. Thus, vv. 21–24a may be considered as a secondary expansion that elaborates on the original text. Another redactional insertion can probably be found in 7:19. The influence of Zeph 1:18 on v. 19aβ is obvious. As mentioned in 6.1.1, the addition of v. 19aβ interrupts the structural parallelism of the verse.40 Stromberg has shown that this addition clarifies a vague idea in v. 19aα, which depicts the people throwing away their silver and gold. It is customary that the people would need their silver and gold to buy food under severe conditions (cf. the continuance of the commercial activity depicted in vv. 12–13). “Why cast out wealth when the people would need it to feed themselves? The scribal comment explains that money would be useless to save on the day of YHWH’s wrath.”41 Thus, v. 19aβ is most like a secondary gloss for clarifying the ambiguity in the original verse. Likewise, as stated previously, the MT plus in v. 27a shares a similar function of clarifying the thought found in the original text. To sum up, 7:5b–7a*, 12b–14, 16, 19–24*, and 27 show traces of redactional activities in Ezek 7. This understanding allows us to start determining whether the motif of hope and restoration might be in the later redactional expansions of Ezek 7.

6.2 Exegesis of the Redactional Material of Ezekiel 7 6.2.1 Ezek 7:5b–7a*, 12b–14, 21–24 and the Motif of Judgement Ezek 7:1–27 constitutes the fourth subunit of the literary unit of Ezek 1–7 with an account concerning the announcement of judgement against Israel on the Day of YHWH. As mentioned above, the differences between MT 7:3–9 and LXX 7:3–9 can 37 38 39 40 41

Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 212. Pohlmann, Hesekiel 1–19, 121. Pohlmann, Hesekiel 1–19, 120–21. Cf. footnote 20. Stromberg, “Observations,” 82.

6.2 Exegesis of the Redactional Material of Ezekiel 7

179

be explained as the result of intentional redactional additions aimed at highlighting the ‫ צפירה‬as a specific agent of YHWH’s judgement. I propose here that the term ‫ הצפירה‬may refer to a hostile king, whose description in Ezek 7 seems to be a mirror image of Jeremiah’s portrayal of Nebuchadnezzar (see below). 6.2.1.1 The Meaning of the ‫צפירה‬ The interpretation of the expression ‫ הצפירה‬needs addressing before I establish the relationship among the secondary expansions of Ezek 7, namely vv. 5b–7a*, 12b–14, and 21–24, within the oracle of judgement. The expression ‫באה הצפירה‬ (“the ṣefirah has come”) is added in Ezek 7:7. Bogaert, who has been followed by Lust,42 has shown that the appearance of the rare expression ‫ הצפירה‬in the central position (v. 7) and at the end (v. 10) of the concentric structure is the kernel of secondary material in the MT.43 However, the meaning of ‫ הצפירה‬in vv. 7, 10 is uncertain. Some scholars, among them Boagert, suggest that ‫הצפירה‬ is a feminine noun of the word ‫“( צפיר‬he-goat”) of Dan 8:5–8, in which ‫צפיר‬ symbolises the king of Greece.44 Others suggest that the only other occurrence of the word ‫ צפירה‬in the HB is in Isa 28:5,45 where it means “diadem” or “crown” in light of its parallel expression ‫“( לעטרת צבי‬a beautiful crown”).46

42 Lust et al., “Ezekiel 7,” 384. 43 Bogaert, “Les deux redactions,” 25. 44 According to Boagert, “Les deux redactions,” 41–47, the redactional expansions in Ezek 7:5b– 10 allude to the events of the reign of Antiochus IV and to the visions of Daniel 8, where the image of “he-goat” refers to Alexander. Bogaert suggests the identification of ‫“( רעה אחת רעה‬an evil, a unique evil”) with ‫הצפירה‬. Because of the expression ‫“ רעה גדלה‬a great calamity” mentioned in Daniel’s prayer (Dan 9:12–14) after the account of the “he-goat”, Bogaert believes that there is a connection between the account of “the insolent king who will destroy to an extraordinary degree” (Dan 8:23–24) and the ‫“ אחת רעה‬unique evil” of Ezek 7:5. Boagert suggests that ‫ הצפירה‬symbolises the kingdom of the Seleucid. Boagert is followed by Lust et al., “Ezekiel 7,” 384–394. Lust suggests the identification of ‫ הצפירה‬with the army of Antiochus IV. In his view, the editor of Ezekiel inserted the addition of ‫ הצפירה‬to reflect the historical events in the Seleucid period. However, Mackie, “Transformation,” 260–67 proposes that the addition of ‫ הצפירה‬in Ezek 7:7 does not simply reflect the disastrous events related to Antiochus IV. He argues that there were two stages in the development of MT Ezek 7. In the first stage, Dan 7–12 alluded to the language and imagery of the judgement oracle of LXX Ezek 7:9b, 20–24; the second stage involved the expansions in Ezek 7, in which the addition of ‫ הצפירה‬is to identify the agent of judgement in Ezek 7 as the “insolent king” in Dan 8:23. 45 Isa 28:5 reads: ‫“ ביום ההוא יהיה יהוה צבאות לעטרת צבי ולעפירת תפארה לשאר עמו‬In that day, YHWH of Hosts will become a beautiful crown, and a glorious diadem for the remnant of his people.” 46 H. Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, trans. T. H. Trapp (CC; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002), 5 has shown that the word ‫ צפירה‬is related to Arabic ṣafara, meaning something such as “interwoven, wreath.” In Isa 28:5 it means “a braided crown.”

180

6 The Oracle concerning the End of the Land of Israel

In that text, ‫ צפירה‬symbolises the “crown” of the invader;47 the “crown” is the palpable sign of the “king.” I follow Joyce’s suggestion that the ‫ צפירה‬in Ezek 7:7, who ‫“( באה‬has come”), or is about to come, probably refers to a hostile king.48 Some scholars argue that the addition of ‫ הצפירה‬in v. 7 is probably motivated by an interest in connecting the word ‫ הצפירה‬with an animate subject, in particular a hostile king,49 who is the agent of YHWH’s punishment and whose arrival is associated with the impending disastrous events. The reference of ‫ הצפירה‬to a hostile king rests on three factors: First, Ezek 7:7 is linked with Jer 25:8–11 in depicting the attack of the Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar, upon Judah. In Jer 25:8–11, Nebuchadnezzar serves as YHWH’s “servant” to destroy the land (‫ )הארץ‬and its inhabitants (‫)ישביה‬. As a result, the voice of joy and the noise of grinding of the millstones will cease; the activity of human daily life will cease. Likewise, in Ezek 7:7, the ‫ צפירה‬has come against ‫“( יושב הארץ‬the inhabitant of the land,” v. 7a) resulting in the cessation of joy at the harvest.50 The portrayal of ‫ הצפירה‬as a hostile king in Ezek 7:7 is probably influenced by the descriptions of Nebuchadnezzar in Jer 25:8–11. The second piece of evidence supporting the identification of ‫ הצפירה‬with the hostile king comes from the refrains ‫“( כי חרון אל־כל־המונה‬for wrath is upon all her horde,” vv. 12b, 14b). After the redactional addition of the announcement of the ṣefirah (‫ )הצפירה‬in vv. 7, 10, the feminine suffix on ‫ המונה‬probably refers to ‫ הצפירה‬because the word ‫ הצפירה‬is now the closest feminine antecedent in the text; the expression ‫“( המון‬horde”) of the added refrains may represent the army of ‫הצפירה‬.51 Elsewhere in Ezekiel, the word ‫ המון‬is related to “chaos” and is used primarily in the description of the military power of the Egyptian Pharaoh (13 times).52 In this respect, the combination of ‫ הצפירה‬+ ‫ המון‬is most likely shaped in reference to the account of Pharaoh/Egypt and the hordes in Ezekiel.

47 Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 252. 48 Joyce, Ezekiel, 94. 49 Some scholars postulate that ‫ הצפירה‬symbolises the king of Babylon. See Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 252; Joyce, Ezekiel, 94. Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 159–60, notes the connection between Ezek 7 and Isa: 13:1–16 where the attack of the Babylonian armies upon Judah and Jerusalem is depicted. 50 The expression ‫“( הד הרים‬joyful shouting on the mountains,” v. 7b) is probably connected with the joyful shouts of harvesters mentioned in Isa 16:10 and Jer 48:33. See Brownlee, Ezekiel 1–19, 109; Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 253; Odell, Ezekiel, 89–90. 51 Lust et al., “Ezekiel 7,” 390, claims that “the multitude (‫ )המון‬probably refers to the army of the Seleucid king symbolised by the feminine ṣefirah.” Mackie, Expanding Ezekiel, 202 concedes that the feminine noun ‫( הצפירה‬vv. 7, 10) is the only possible antecedent for the feminine suffix of ‫ כל המונה‬in the editorial additions in vv. 12–14. 52 Safwat Marzouk, Egypt as a Monster in the Book of Ezekiel (FAT II/76; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 119–21.

6.2 Exegesis of the Redactional Material of Ezekiel 7

181

Thirdly, as mentioned above, once added into the text, ‫ הצפירה‬is identified with the enemies who plunder (‫ )בז‬the Israelites’ property and spoil (‫ )שלל‬the land (7:21). Elsewhere in Ezekiel, the verbs ‫“( בז‬plunder,” 23:46; 26:5; 29:19) and ‫“( שלל‬spoil,” 26:12; 29:19) are used primarily in association with the attack of YHWH’s agent, Nebuchadnezzar (cf. 23:23; 26:7; 29:19). In light of the lexical connections, it cannot be doubted that the description of YHWH’s hostile agent and of the ‫ צפירה‬stand in some relation to each other. For these three reasons, the redactional layers in Ezek 7 portrays ‫ הצפירה‬as the hostile king whom YHWH brings up as his agent of punishment against the inhabitants of the land.

6.2.1.2 Ezek 7:5b–7a*, 12b–14, 21–24 and the Notion of the “Day of YHWH” “The time has come, the day is near” (‫ )בא העת קרוב היום‬in v. 7b recalls “the Day of YHWH.” The motif of “the Day of YHWH” is an element of prophetic critique in the HB;53 the prophets argue that the Day of YHWH is a day in which YHWH will judge against those who fail to observe his will. The ‫ צפירה‬is the agent of YHWH’s punishment and is associated with ‫“( העת‬the time”) and ‫היום‬ (“the day”) of reckoning.54 The ‫ צפירה‬is presumably referring to the hostile king who is about to come against ‫“( יושב הארץ‬the inhabitant of the land”) on the Day of YHWH. Ezek 7:5b–7a* connects the invasion of ‫ הצפירה‬on the day of reckoning to the harvest celebrations on the mountains, and this connection is explicitly seen in v. 7b: ‫“( בא העת קרוב היום מהומה ולא־הד הרים‬The time has come, the day is near – of tumult, not of joyful shouting on the mountains”).55 Here the phrase ‫ מהומה ולא־הד הרים‬is probably an antithesis, in which the ‫“( מהומה‬tumult”) refers to the screams of panic during invasion, and ‫ הד‬refers to the “joyful shouting” at the harvest. This antithesis is similar to the expression ‫“( הוא־חשך ולא־אור‬darkness, not light”) in the account of the Day of YHWH in Amos 5:18, 20.56 As in Amos 5:18–20, the day of reckoning depicted in Ezek 7 is no occasion for joy, but a cause for panic. After depicting the invasion of ‫הצפירה‬, Ezek 7:8–9 tells us that YHWH will pour out his fury (‫ )חמה‬and his anger (‫)אף‬. Who is the target of YHWH’s anger? Before we go further, it may be useful to turn to the use of the pronominal suffixes in Ezek 7:2–9 so as to identify the target of YHWH’s anger in the passage. The original subunit of the oracle (vv. 2–4) begins with the messenger formula followed by an exclamation ‫“( קץ‬an end”). In 7:3–4, the text is ad-

53 54 55 56

Cf. Amos 5:18–20; Isa 13:1–22; Joel 1:15; 2:1–11; 3:4; 4:14; Zeph 1:2–18. Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 148; Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 253; Tuell, Ezekiel, 34. Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 253; Odell, Ezekiel, 89–90. Joyce, Ezekiel, 94.

182

6 The Oracle concerning the End of the Land of Israel

dressed to the land of Israel; the antecedent of the second person feminine pronominal suffix refers to the feminine noun ‫“( אדמת ישראל‬the land of Israel”) mentioned in v. 2. Thus, vv. 3–4 describe ‫“( הקץ‬the end”) in terms of ‫“( אף‬the anger”) sent to the land of Israel, which will be judged according to its ways without pity and charged with its abominations. As mentioned before, Ezek 7:8– 9 is probably the parallel variant to vv. 2–4. Being influenced by the parallel text in vv. 2–4, the target of YHWH’s anger in vv. 8–9 is the land of Israel, while the target in v. 7 changes to the inhabitants of the land who are addressed in the second person masculine form by using the phrase ‫אליך‬.57 In 7:2–9 the divine punishment is directed to the land of Israel and its inhabitants. Ezek 7:10–27 serves as an intentional exposition of the divine punishment mentioned in vv. 2–9, and thus there are lexical and thematic links between both texts. Ezek 7:10–27 begins with the announcement of the Day of YHWH (v. 10a; cf. vv. 2, 5–7) and the rare expression ‫( הצפרה‬v. 10bα; cf. v. 7a). The redactors wished to adapt the account of ‫ הצפירה‬to their historical situation; as suggested by Lust, the redactors might have lived in a period “in which ‘the worst of nations’ took possession of Israel’s house” (7:24).58 In other words, the redactors might have drawn upon the account of ‫ הצפירה‬and “the worst of nations,” so as to craft a text that conveys the close parallels between the Day of YHWH and the descriptions in 7:21–24. The portrayal of the desecration of the temple by “foreigners” and “robbers” (vv. 21–22) and the description of Israelite houses given to “the worst of nations” (v. 24) are clear images of the invasion of ‫הצפירה‬. After the addition of the expression ‫ הצפירה‬into the extant text, ‫הצפירה‬, who is the agent of divine punishment, is identified with the enemies mentioned in the redactional layer of vv. 21–24, namely ‫“( הזרים‬the foreigners”, v. 21aα), ‫“( רשעי הארץ‬the wicked of the earth”, v. 21aβ), ‫“( פריצים‬robbers”, v. 22b), and ‫“( רעי גוים‬the worst of nations”, v. 24aα).59 Ezek 7:21–24 not only gives further detail concerning YHWH’s judgement, but also highlights the motif of defilement and vindication of YHWH’s name. Tooman has explicated that the Babylonian exile damaged YHWH’s status and reputation, and that the exile profaned God’s name as a patron of Israel and a sovereign of the universe.60 In Ezek 7:23–24 the command to ‫“( עשה הרתוק‬make the chain,” v. 23a) and the portrayal of Israelites’ houses given to ‫“( רעי גוים‬the worst of nations,” v. 24a) both clearly describe that the Israelites are defeated and ex-

57 Eichrodt, Ezekiel, 101–2; Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 148–9; Clements, Ezekiel, 30; Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 107. 58 Lust, “Use of Textual Witnesses,” 18; Lust et al., “Ezekiel 7,” 385. 59 Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 252, 266. 60 Tooman, Gog of Magog, 171, 175.

6.2 Exegesis of the Redactional Material of Ezekiel 7

183

pelled from the land.61 In addition, YHWH will give the objects of plunder and desecration to the foreigners; the portrayal of the desecration of the temple by the foreign enemies (‫וחללו את־צפוני‬, v. 22aβ)62 and the expression ‫והשבתי גאון‬ ‫“( עזים‬I shall make the pride of their strength cease,” v. 24bα) indicate the defilement of the sanctuary.63 It is very likely that the imagery of the exile and the temple’s defilement in 7:23–24 implies the profanation of God’s name. The motif of defilement plays an important role in increasing the coherence of the book of Ezekiel (see further discussion in section 8.4).

6.2.2 Ezek 7:5b–7a*, 12b–14, 21–24 and the Motif of Hope Based on the discussion in Chapters Three to Five, we found that the motif of hope and restoration is usually embedded within the redactional material of Ezek 3–6. It is probably that the motif of hope and restoration may also appear elsewhere in the redactional material of Ezek 7. I propose here that the references to ‫ הצפירה‬include the elements of hope and restoration. In 7:2–9 the targets of YHWH’s anger are the land of Israel and its inhabitants. However, by adding the expression ‫הצפירה‬, the redactors provide a comment regarding YHWH’s anger depicted in vv. 8–9. As mentioned above, before the addition of the phrase ‫“( באה הצפירה‬The ṣefirah has come,” v. 7a), the divine punishment in v. 7 was initially directed to the inhabitant of the land, who is addressed in the second person masculine form (‫)אליך‬, while the wrath (‫ )חמה‬and the anger (‫ )אף‬of YHWH were initially directed to the land of Israel, which is addressed in the second feminine form ( ,‫ַל‬, “you”). After the addition of the phrase ‫באה הצפירה‬, YHWH’s wrath and anger against the second feminine person ( ,‫ַל‬, “you”) are specified in v. 8 (‫עתה מקרוב אשפוך‬ ‫ ;)חמתי עליך וכליתי אפי בך ושפטתיך כדרכיך ונתתי עליך את כל־תועבותיך‬the antecedent of the second person feminine pronominal suffix now refers to the closest feminine noun ‫הצפירה‬. The oracle of divine punishment was initially addressed to the land of Israel and its inhabitant, but later came to involve the

61 Odell, Ezekiel, 95; Sweeney, Reading Ezekiel, 50; Joyce, Ezekiel, 95, interprets the expression ‫ עשה הרתוק‬as the chains of deportation. 62 The expression ‫ צפוני‬is a passive participle from a root ‫ צפן‬meaning to “hide.” Thus, ‫צפוני‬ could be translated as “secret.” Brownlee, Ezekiel 1–19, 121, suggests that the most holy place of the temple may be designated by ‫ ;צפוני‬Odell, Ezekiel, 87, also concedes that ‫“ צפוני‬the treasured place” that has been profaned by the idols is regarded as the temple. 63 Mackie, “Transformation,” 263, has shown that ‫“ גאון עזים‬the pride of their strength” represents the temple with reference to the expression in Ezekiel 24:21: ‫הנני מחלל את־מקדשי גאון‬ ‫“ עזכם‬I shall defile my sanctuary, the pride of your strength.” Cf. Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 111.

184

6 The Oracle concerning the End of the Land of Israel

ṣefirah (‫)הצפירה‬, that is a hostile king. The redactors intentionally clarify that the targets of YHWH’s fury and anger now include not only the land and its inhabitant but also probably ‫הצפירה‬. The Wiederaufnahme (vv. 8–9) concludes with the recognition formula (‫ )וידעתם כי אני יהוה‬followed by the phrase ‫מכה‬ (“the one who smites”). Here the recognition formula is addressed to an unnamed third party, presumably Ezekiel’s readers,64 who recognise YHWH’s righteousness and his sovereignty over all creations: YHWH is the one who punishes the land of Israel and ‫ הצפירה‬according to what they have done. The motif of YHWH’s judgement against the ṣefirah can still be found in other redactional material of Ezek 7. With reference to the three inserted refrains in 7:12b–14, after the addition of the phrase ‫ באה הצפירה‬into the extant text, the closest antecedent of the feminine singular suffix on the word ‫“( המון‬horde”) becomes the ‫ ;צפירה‬the expression “horde” represents the army of ‫הצפירה‬, the hostile king.65 Ezek 7:12b–14 indicates the economic effect of the wrath of YHWH since the arrival of ‫“( העת‬the time”) of reckoning; moreover, the refrain ‫ כי חרון אל־כל־המונה‬in Ezek 7:12b–14 recounts the wrath upon ‫המונה‬, that is the army of the hostile king. As mentioned above, the ‫ צפירה‬is the agent of divine punishment, which is identified with the four expressions in the redactional layer of vv. 21–24, namely “the foreigners,” “the wicked of the earth,” “robbers,” and “the worst of nations.” They desecrate the temple and plunder Israelites’ property. In v. 22 it is YHWH’s “treasured place” that is to be profaned (‫ ;)חללו את־צפוני‬YHWH will turn his face from them (‫)והסבותי פני מהם‬. Here I follow the claim of Lust and others that the persons or objects from whom YHWH will turn his face (‫ )והסבותי פני מהם‬in v. 22 are probably ‫“( הזרים‬the foreigners”) mentioned in v. 21.66 In this way, although the foreigners are appointed by YHWH as the punishing instruments of his fury,67 eventually “when they become conceited, they are to be punished in turn” (vv. 21–22).68 To sum up, the redactional additions in Ezek 7: 5b–7a*, 12b–14, and 21–24 make up the oracle of judgement, which include the element of “the Day of YHWH,” the motif of defilement, and the motif of YHWH’s judgement against the ṣefirah, the hostile king. After the addition of the phrase ‫“( באה הצפירה‬the ṣefirah has come”), apart from the announcement of the punishment carried

64 Renz, Rhetorical Function, 19–22, who has shown a theory of the multiple level of communication in Ezekiel. 65 Cf. footnote 49. 66 Lust et al., “Ezekiel 7,” 393. 67 Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 266. 68 Lust et al., “Ezekiel 7,” 393. Cf. Isa 10:6–19.

6.2 Exegesis of the Redactional Material of Ezekiel 7

185

out by the ṣefirah on the Day of YHWH, the redactional additions convey messages about YHWH’s judgement against the ṣefirah. Those denouncements concerning Israel’s enemies lead up to a harbinger of better times for the people of Israel in the context of the inevitable judgement.

6.2.3 Ezekiel 7:12–14, 16 and the Law about the Jubilee The redactional material in Ezek 7:12–14, 16 contains the motif of hope and restoration. The wordings and contents of Ezek 7:12–14 call for a comparison (1) with the law about the Jubilee in Lev 25, and (2) with the relationship between land inheritance and the scattering of Israel depicted in Ezek 46, which is an integral part of the restoration programme of Ezek 40–48. The expression ‫“( הקונה אל־ישמח והמוכר אל־יתאבל‬Let not the buyer rejoice, nor the seller mourn,” v. 12aβγ) and the content of the first part of Ezek 7:13 recall Lev 25:25–28.69 According to Lyons, the context of Ezekiel does not explain anything about the nature of the sale. However, in light of Lev 25:25–28, the sale in question is found to be the business transaction of the patrimonial land.70 There the law of redeeming the patrimony at the Jubilee is described:71 an Israelite has to sell (‫ )מכר‬part of his land due to poverty; if he cannot redeem the land, the buyer (‫ )קנה‬will retain ‫“( ממכר‬what has been sold”) until the year of the Jubilee. But at the Jubilee ‫ ממכר‬will be returned to the Israelite who has sold it.72 In Ezek 7:12–14, the redactors embedded the locutions of Lev 25 in the announcement of the day of YHWH to argue that the landowner who has sold his patrimonial land to cover his debt should not mourn his loss, nor should the buyer of the land rejoice.73 Thus, Ezekiel implies that ‫“( בא העת הגיע היום‬when the time comes, the day arrives,” v. 12aα), the law about the Jubilee will be useless,74 because of the imminent invasion and destruction of the city (Ezek 7:15– 16). On the one hand, during the invasion neither buyer nor seller will be alive to see the return of the patrimonial property. On the other hand, even though

69 Lyons, From Law to Prophecy, 178, has shown that the cluster of term ‫ מכר‬+ ‫ ממכר‬+ ‫שוב‬ ‫ קנה‬+ (“return” + “what has sold” + “sell” + “buy”) only occurs in Lev 25:25–28 and Ezek 7:12– 13. 70 71 72 73 74

Lyons, From Law to Prophecy, 65. Lust et al., “Ezekiel 7,” 390. Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2191. Lyons, From Law to Prophecy, 65, 144. Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 259–60.

186

6 The Oracle concerning the End of the Land of Israel

both parties of the business transactions are alive (‫)ועוד בחיים חיתם‬,75 there will be no time for the seller to return to his patrimonial land, nor can the buyer retain what he has bought due to the collapse of the economy. As there will never be any commercial activity on the day of YHWH,76 there is no reason for rejoicing or mourning over the business transactions. The locutions from Lev 25:25–28 are embedded in the announcement of the day of YHWH in Ezek 7:12–13, where they specify the futility of the law about the Jubilee on the day of YHWH. In fact, in Lev 25, the law about the Jubilee prohibits anyone from selling his land (vv. 23–38) and himself (vv. 39–55) off permanently. Ezek 7:12–13 focuses only on the redemption of the land, without mentioning the redemption of slaves, though it uses the locutions of Lev 25. The reason is that Ezek 7:12–13 alludes not only to Lev 25:25–28, but also to Ezek 46:16–18, which is an integral part of the programme of restoration (Ezek 40–48). In order to highlight the close relationship between Ezek 40–48 and the redactional material of Ezek 7, the redactors of Ezek 7:12–13 borrowed the material from 46:16–18 as the redactors might have been aware of a number of links between the futility of the law about the Jubilee and the law about the prince’s property in Ezek 46:16–18. Ezek 46:16–18 focuses on the issue of land inheritance. This text is concerned with not only the land of the prince, but also the inheritance of the land for all of Israel. The account of the law about the prince’s property concludes in v. 18 with a prohibition against the prince seizing the lands from his people through his greed, emphasising the point that the people of Israel may not be deprived of their land so that they would not be scattered from their possession.77 The redactors of Ezek 7:12–13 evoked 46:16–18 (see below) by repeating its emphasis on the law about land redemption and on the relationship between land inheritance and the scattering of Israel. This allusion serves as an extra elaboration of the account of the business transaction of the patrimonial land in 7:12–13. It is customary that both sides of the commercial activity rejoice: a buyer rejoices in his purchase and a seller also rejoices in making a profit. However, in the case of Ezek 7:12–13, Brownlee has shown that the buyer rejoices while the seller mourns because the selling price has been lowered drastically.78 It reflects a situation that the seller falls victim to the buyer’s avarice; this situation is reflected in 46:18 with a denouncement of the greed of the prince. 75 The addition of ‫ ועוד בחיים חיתם‬is designed as a comment on the first sentence of MT Ezek 7:13 that the law of redeeming a patrimony at the Jubilee would be useless on the day of YHWH. 76 Lust et al., “Ezekiel 7,” 390. 77 Sweeney, Reading Ezekiel, 220. 78 Brownlee, Ezekiel 1–19, 118.

6.2 Exegesis of the Redactional Material of Ezekiel 7

187

Given that the thematic parallels in the redactional material of Ezek 6–7 and the law of the Temple are arranged almost at the same point in the plot (see the detailed interpretation in sections 8.2 and 8.3), it seems probable that Ezek 7:12–16* was written as a later development of Ezek 46:16–18. In 46:16–18, it is said that the people may keep a gift from the prince’s inheritance until the year of liberty, which refers to the Jubilee according to Lev 25:10.79 Moreover, the prince is commanded that he may not seize the Israelite patrimony through his greed, lest the people be scattered from their patrimonies. As a later development, Ezek 7:12–13 alludes to these sayings in 46:16–18 and recalls the locutions from Lev 25:25–28, in which the law about the land redemption at the Jubilee is described. Ezek 7:12–13 then combines and thus transforms the sayings in Ezek 46:16–18 and Lev 25:25–28 into the account of the sale of property on the approaching day of YHWH. Because of the collapse of the economy on the Day of YHWH, neither the buyer would rejoice nor the seller would mourn. However, as mentioned above, it is an unusual case in the commercial activity that only the buyer rejoices in the purchase. Thus, 7:12–13 may also draw upon the idea in 46:16–18 that the seller falls victim to the buyer’s greed. As a result, the redactors make a comment that the seller and the buyer will soon be scattered (7:16) and have to abandon their possessions. Then whoever sells his patrimony has nothing to mourn over; nor has the buyer reason for rejoicing. In this case, just like the relationship between the dispossession of the patrimonial land and the scattering of Israel appears in 46:16–18, the dispossession of the Israelite patrimony (Ezek 7:12–13) and the scattering of Israel among the nations (Ezek 7:16) stand in a cause-and-effect relationship with each other. It could of course be the other way around. Ezek 7:12–16* is probably influenced by Ezek 46:16–18.

6.2.3.1 The Mitigation of the Severity of the Punishment in MT Ezekiel 7:16 The redactional material in 7:12–14 and 7:16 are closely related to each other. As mentioned above, just like the scenario in Ezek 46:16–18, the idea in Ezek 7 is that the seller falls victim to the buyer’s greed in vv. 12–13 and the motif of the scattering of Israel in v. 16 are being linked together. Ezek 46:16–18 is an integral part of the programme of restoration. Without doubt, due to the relation between 7:12–16* and 46:16–18, the motif of hope and restoration is probably embraced in the redactional material of 7:12–14, 16. In this case, the MT plus in v. 16 contains the element of hope and restoration in terms of the mitigation of the divine punishment.

79 Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 268; Tuell, Ezekiel, 322; Sweeney, Reading Ezekiel, 220.

188

6 The Oracle concerning the End of the Land of Israel

In contrast to MT Ezek 7:16, the LXX rendering recounts the image of judgement. LXX Ezek 7:16 says καὶ ἀνασωθήσονται οἱ ἀνασῳζόμενοι ἐξ αὐτῶν καὶ ἔσονται ἐπὶ τῶν ὀρέων· πάντας ἀποκτενῶ, ἕκαστον ἐν ταῖς ἀδικίαις αὐτοῦ (“But those who escape of them will be delivered and will be upon the mountains; I will kill them all, every one for his iniquities”). The translation continues the war imagery of 7:15, in which the triad of punishments consisting of the sword, the pestilence, and the famine is reminiscent of the texts in 5:12 and 6:12.80 As mentioned in section 6.1.1, the redactors of the MT inserted the expression ‫כיוני‬ ‫“( הגאיות‬like the doves of the valleys”) in 7:16 before the expression πάντας ἀποκτενω (“I shall kill them all”). This addition seems to interrupt the original flow of thought of LXX Ezek 7:15–16, in which even ‫“( פליטיהם‬their fugitives”) will be killed.81 The MT implies ‫“( המות‬mourning”) for ‫“( המת‬ἀποκτενω”), connecting with the doves: “all of them mourning.”82 Block has shown that the sound of the fugitives’ mourning resembles the mournful cooing of doves.83 The fugitives, who have sought refuge in the mountains, are mourning in their iniquity like doves.84 The purpose of inserting the phrase ‫ כיוני הגאיות‬appears to make explicit a meaning of the word ‫המות‬, as well as a relationship between the mourning and the physical gesture mentioned in v. 18. The redactors connected the mourning of the fugitives with the physical symbols of mourning, selfloathing, and shame, namely the girding of the sackcloth and the shaving of the head in v. 18. By comparing the content of MT Ezek 7:16 with the menacing war imagery in the LXX, the threat in MT Ezek 7:16 is weakened;85 the redactional material of Ezek 7:12–14, 16 contains the motif of the mitigation of the severity of punishment. Moreover, the imagery in v. 16 emphasises the mourning and the self-loathing of the fugitives in their iniquity; self-loathing in view of past sins, as mentioned in section 5.2.2, is a prerequisite for the restoration. To sum up, in Ezek 7:12–16* the redactors not only drew upon the law about the Jubilee in Lev 25, but also, by cross-referencing to Ezek 46:16–18, pointed to the link between the dispossession of the Israelite patrimony and the scattering of Israel among the nations. Ezek 7:12–16* is related to Ezek 46:16–18, which is the concluding section regarding the law about the land redemption in the programme of restoration (Ezek 40–48).86 Through the interpolation of ‫כיוני‬

80 81 82 83 84 85 86

Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 260. Lust et al., “Ezekiel 7,” 391. Lust et al., “Ezekiel 7,” 391. Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 260–61. Odell, Ezekiel, 93. Lust et al., “Ezekiel 7,” 391. Tuell, Ezekiel, 322.

6.2 Exegesis of the Redactional Material of Ezekiel 7

189

‫“( הגאיות‬like the doves of the valleys”), the redactors did place the element of restoration and the motif of the mitigation of divine punishment by providing the theme of the mourning and self-loathing in the account of the fugitives, who have been scattered among the nations and have been deprived of their patrimonial land. Apart from the above-mentioned elements of restoration, another element of restoration expressed by the reinstatement of the Zadokite priesthood is inserted in Ezek 7:12–16. This additional element will be discussed in the following section.

6.2.4 Ezekiel 7:12–14 and the Blossoming Rod in 7:10–11 Ezek 7 is divided into three prophetic proof sayings. Verses 10–12a concerning the announcement of the Day of YHWH form the first part of the lengthy content in the third prophetic proof saying (vv. 10–27). The announcement includes the coming of ‫ הצפירה‬and imagery of the blossoming rod. The expression ‫צץ המטה פרח‬ ‫“( הזדון‬the rod has blossomed, the arrogance has budded,” v. 10bβ) recalls the imagery of Num 17–18, a passage that deals with the establishment of the priestly authority of the line of Aaron and with the redefined role for the priests and the Levites. Following the imagery of the blossoming rod, the economic effect of the wrath of YHWH, as well as the wrath upon the army of ‫הצפירה‬, is described in 7:12–14. The flow of thought continues in v. 14, in which the people are supposed to prepare to fight back in the face of the invasion of the army of ‫הצפירה‬. However, the addition in v. 14 shows the futility of their preparation: when the trumpet has been blown to call their force to do battle, no one goes to the battle. The meaning of the blossoming rod is ambiguous. The imagery of the blossoming rod in 7:10–11 appears to connect with the secondary expansion of Ezek 7:14; the sayings in vv. 10–11, 14 are concerned with the reference to priesthood. As mentioned above, the imagery of the blossoming rod recalls the account of Num 17–18. The link to Num 17 is strengthened by the recurrent occurrences of a parallel pair of verbs ‫“( צץ‬to blossom”) and ‫“( פרח‬to bud”) in both texts.87 It is widely agreed that the blossoming rod refers to the Aaronite priesthood and its authority.88 With regard to Ezek 7:14, the addition of ‫ואין הלך‬ ‫“( למלחמה‬but no one is going to the battle,” v. 14aβ) introduces a new feature to the oracle that the addition identifies the purpose of blowing the trumpet; here the trumpet is blown to call the army to do battle. It is the responsibility of

87 Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 255 n. 62. 88 Philip J. Budd, Numbers (WBC 5; Dallas: Word Books, 1984), 198; Gane, Leviticus, Numbers, 644; Tuell, Ezekiel, 3; Sweeney, Reading Ezekiel, 49.

190

6 The Oracle concerning the End of the Land of Israel

the priest to blow the trumpet for signalling during the battle. Thus, Tuell has shown that Ezek 7:14 is an indirect reference to the priesthood.89 In Num 10:1–10, Moses is asked to make two silver trumpets for the priests, the sons of Aaron, who are responsible for blowing the trumpets. The role of the sons of Aaron to blow the trumpets are said to be given as a perpetual ordinance (v. 8). Apart from assembling the whole community and the leaders (vv. 3–4), the trumpet sounds are also depicted as a reminder that in battle the Israelites will be remembered by YHWH and rescued from the enemies (v. 9). In addition, Num 31:6 speaks about Aaron’s grandson Phineas, the priest who blew the war trumpet after Moses had sent the Israelites into the Midianite battle, while Josh 6:9, 13 notes how the seven priests blew the trumpets and followed the armed guard to march around the city of Jericho. In the case of Ezek 7:14, it is likely that the priests had failed to accomplish their missions. Although the priests had blown the trumpets, no one followed the priests’ trumpet signal and therefore the Israelites did not go to the battle; the priests failed in assembling the Israelites to prepare for the invasion. Moreover, the priests failed in reminding the Israelites that they would be remembered and saved by YHWH in the battle. Or put it in another way, the priests failed in teaching the Israelites to express their complete dependence on God. Why is the theme of the priests’ failure of fulfilling their obligations added in the subunit vv. 12–14? It is likely that the redactors placed their comment in v. 14 to reiterate the corruption of the temple and priesthood mentioned in vv. 10–11. Before we go further, a word about an apparently contradictory meaning of ‫“( מטה‬rod”) in vv. 10 and 11 is in order. Although v. 11 is nearly unintelligible, the references to ‫“( הזדון‬the arrogance,” v. 10b), ‫“( החמס‬the violence,” v. 11a), and ‫“( רשע‬wickedness,” v. 11a) are intelligible as symbols of evil. The two repeated words ‫“( מטה‬rod”) in v. 10b and at the end of v. 11a forms an inclusio, underlining its importance, but its meaning is still a vexed question.90 On the one hand, when the readers of Ezekiel heard the expression ‫“( למטה־רשע‬to the rod of wickedness,” v. 11a), the imagery of the culmination of evil on the Day of YHWH’s judgement would have been brought to them. On the other hand, when the readers heard the expression ‫“( צץ המטה‬the rod has blossomed,” v. 10bβ), they would have immediately thought of the authority of the Aaronite priesthood. Block has claimed, correctly I think, that the connection between v. 10b 89 Tuell, Ezekiel, 36. 90 Some critics are try to repoint ‫“ מטה‬rod” as ‫מטה‬, the Hophal participle of ‫נטה‬, referring to “perverted justice.” However, Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 256, has shown that “this interpretation creates a logical problem in that it has the evil actions blossoming before they have budded.” In addition, there is no manuscript support for the change.

6.2 Exegesis of the Redactional Material of Ezekiel 7

191

and v. 11a is obscured by the fact that there is a contradictory connotation of

‫ מטה‬in both texts.91 In fact, the blossoming rod may refer to Israelite corruption.92 For according to Num 17:25, the blossoming rod is kept as a sign in order to stop the muttering of the rebellious Israelites so that they might not die as those who had rebelled against YHWH.93 In this way, the redactors of Ezek 7 attempted to show that the use of the imagery of the blossoming rod in vv. 10–11 implies the corruption of the priesthood on the Day of YHWH.94 Owing to the ambiguity of the connotation of ‫מטה‬, the insertion of the phrase ‫ ואין הלך למלחמה‬in v. 14 is designed as a clarification upon the connotation of ‫ מטה‬in vv. 10b–11a. The purpose of this addition is to highlight the priests’ failure of fulfilling their obligations and accomplishing their missions: when the priests had blown the trumpets, they failed to assemble the Israelites to go to the battle; the Israelites refused to follow the priests’ instruction. The redactors’ comment explains that the priests’ failure described in v. 14 is supporting evidence for the collapse of the authority of the Aaronite priesthood mentioned in vv. 10–11. In light of v. 14, the image of the blossoming rod is probably a negative one, suggesting the growth of arrogance in the Aaronite priesthood leading to wickedness. The denouncement of the Aaronite priesthood in Ezek 7:10–14 is indirectly related to the motif of hope and restoration. Or to put it in another way, the collapse of the authority of the Aaronite priesthood implies the restoration of the legitimacy of the Zadokite priesthood. The disputes among the Levites, the Aaronite and the Zadokite priesthood will be discussed in section 7.2. Here is the brief historical context regarding the disputes: the Aaronite priesthood may have begun to function as priests to the remnants of Judah in Jerusalem after that the Zadokite priesthood was deported to Babylon.95 However, once they returned, the Zadokite priesthood tried to reclaim their priestly rights over the altar in the Jerusalem temple. As a result, the conflict of interests between the Zadokites and the Aaronites, as well as the Levites, was provoked.96 As I have 91 Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 255. 92 Lust et al., “Ezekiel 7,” 389; Sweeney, Reading Ezekiel, 49. 93 Timothy R. Ashley, The Book of Numbers (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 335. 94 Sweeney, Reading Ezekiel, 49, concedes that the use of the imagery here to signal the coming disaster indicates “the collapse of priestly authority in the aftermath of the corruption of the temple and the land at large in Ezekiel’s view.” 95 Joachim Schaper, Priester und Leviten im achämenidischen Juda: Studienzur Kult- und Sozialgeschichte Israels in persischer Zeit (FAT 31; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 187–88. 96 Schaper, Priester und Leviten, 126, 192. Schaper’s study aims at a historical reconstruction in terms of an institutional development of priests and Levites from the time of Josiah to the end of the Persian period. Recent works by Ulrich Dahmen and Harald Samuel, which employ historical-critical methodology, are also relevant to determine the relationship of priests and

192

6 The Oracle concerning the End of the Land of Israel

argued in the previous chapters, the motif of restoration is probably expressed by the reinstatement of Ezekiel’s priestly role; the redactors attempted to reassert the traditional priestly rights of the Zadokite priesthood by inserting the reinstatement of Ezekiel’s priestly role into the original call narrative and signacts. In this respect, the redactors not only paint a picture of the restoration and the legitimacy of the exiled priesthood in Ezekiel, but also prompt the readers that the resuming of the Zadokite priestly roles will be related to the collapse of the authority of the Aaronite priesthood in 7:10–11 by the insertion of the expression ‫ ואין הלך למלחמה‬in v. 14. In this way, ‫ מטה‬may be turned from its originally positive symbol of the legitimate authority into a negative symbol denoting the wickedness of the Aaronite priesthood.

Levites from the late monarchy down through the late Second Temple period. Dahmen’s work aims at a reconstruction of textual growth in Deuteronomy (U. Dahmen, Leviten und Priester im Deuteronomium: Literarkritische und redaktionsgeschictliche Studien [BBB 110; Bodenheim: Philo, 1996]), while Samuel’s Von Priestern zum Patriarchen: Levi und die Leviten im alten Testament (BZAW 448; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014) is a survey of the Levite issue in Hebrew Bible, Sirach and Qumran. The details of Dahmen’s and Samuel’s study cannot be recounted here. It is sufficient to note that Dahmen sees the “pro-levitical redaction” in Deuteronomy as a post-exilic redaction which takes up all aspects of priestly function from the earlier layers of the book and claims them for the Levites or the entire tribe of Levi (cf. Leviten und Priester, 400–401). In his view, the perspective of the “pro-levitical redaction” was subsequently challenged by a priestly “aaronidische Reaktion,” which was demonstrated in Deut 10:6–7. The legitimisation of the Aaronite priesthood in Deut 10:6 relativizes the pro-levitical redaction in Deut 10:8–9 that reclaims for the Levites their role in blessing and participating in cult events. Dahmen argues that the debates over the priesthood between the priestly “aaronidische Reaktion” and the “pro-levitical redaction” in Deuteronomy are also clearly visible in Numbers 16–17 (cf. Leviten und Priester, 399, 401, 405). Here Samuel’s work, in particular regarding the theme of the Levites in the book of Numbers, deserves a special attention. Samuel divides the development of Num 16:1–18:7 into three main stages. The basic layer in Num 16:12–15*, 23–34* recounts the uprising of Datan and Abiram against Moses. It was subsequently expanded by Num 16:2–7* where a rebellion led by community leaders turns into a dispute about the holiness of the whole community; moreover, Num 17:6–15*, 27–28; 18:1–2*, 4–5* were added. Finally, a story of rebellious Levites led by Korah (Num 16:1–2, 5–11*, 16–22, 32b, 35) and an account of the miraculous blossoming of Aaron’s rod (Num 17:16–26 [Eng. Num 17:1–11]) were inserted in the book of Numbers (cf. Von Priestern zum Patriarchen, 224–227). The accusation of Levites’ pursuit of the priesthood in Num 16:8–11 presumes the concept of hierarchy within the cultic personnel in Numbers, while the account of Num 17:16–26 establishes Aaron as the head of all Levites. The late stage of the redactional activity in Num 16:1–18:7 reflects the conflicts between Aaronite priests and Levites, who gradually developed into a secondary class of cult staff, and introduces a clear distinction between Aaronite priests and Levites (cf. Von Priestern zum Patriarchen, 403–404). Above all, the redactional-critical analysis of Deuteronomy and of Numbers show that the references to Aaronite priest, the Levites, or both were added to the ordinary narratives in response to the conflicts between priesthood.

6.3 Conclusion

193

6.3 Conclusion It is the objective of this chapter to show that there is a relationship between the redactional material of Ezek 7 and the motif of restoration. I have demonstrated that Ezek 7:5b–7a*, 12b–14, 16, 19–24, which are regarded as secondary material of contextual exegesis and clarification, contain elements of hope and restoration. First, the redactional additions in Ezek 7:5b–7a*, 12b–14, and 21–24 primarily convey a message of judgement. The secondary expansions of Ezek 7 announce the coming judgement upon the Israelites where ‫“( הצפירה‬the ṣefirah,” vv. 7, 10) is YHWH’s agents of punishment. The expression ‫ הצפירה‬may represent the hostile king who is about to come on the Day of YHWH. Within this context of judgement, there are denouncements regarding YHWH’s judgement against ‫“( הצפירה‬the ṣefirah”): In Ezek 7:8–9, 12b–14, 21–24, YHWH will pour out his wrath and anger against the ṣefirah, the whole horde, and the foreigners who profaned the temple. The messages about the annihilation of Israel’s rival is a harbinger of better future for the Israelites under the threat of punishment. Secondly, Ezek 7:12–16* continues to recount the oracle of judgement in which YHWH metes out judgement for seller and buyer alike. Ezek 7:12–16* probably alludes to Ezek 46:16–18 and Lev 25:25–28. The redactors of Ezek 7:12– 13 evoked both texts by emphasising the law about the land redemption and the relationship between the dispossession of the patrimonial land and the scattering of Israel. The major critique in 46:16–18 is that the prince is not allowed to seize the Israelites’ patrimonies through his greed, lest the people will be scattered from their possession. As a later development, Ezek 7:12–13 alludes to this saying in 46:16–18, and links it with 7:16 that after the seller falls victim to the buyer’s greed (7:12–13), the seller and the buyer will soon be scattered (7:16) and will have to abandon their possessions. Thus, whoever sells his patrimonial land has nothing to mourn over; nor should the buyer of the land rejoice. In addition, the redactors added the motif of mitigation of the severity of punishment to vv. 12–16 by interpolating the expression ‫“( כיוני הגאיות‬like the doves of the valleys”). In this way, the threat of the war imagery in v. 16 is weakened; the redaction of v. 16 now emphasises that those who have been scattered and thus abandoned their patrimonies mourn and loathe themselves due to all their iniquity. Self-loathing of past sins is regarded as a prerequisite for the restoration; and therefore the imagery in v. 16 contains the element of restoration. Finally, the expression ‫“( ואין הלך למלחמה‬but no one is going to the battle”) introduces a new feature to Ezek 7:12–14, namely the theme of the collapse of priestly authority. In light of v. 14, the blossoming rod probably symbolises the growth of the Aaronite priesthood’s arrogance into wickedness. It is likely

194

6 The Oracle concerning the End of the Land of Israel

that the redactors added the comment in v. 14 in order to reiterate the corruption of the Aaronite priesthood (vv. 10–11). At the same time, the redactors clarified the connotation of ‫ מטה‬by inserting the expression ‫ ואין הלך למלחמה‬in 7:14 so as to underscore the collapse of the authority of Aaronite priesthood in Ezek 7. Such an interpretation coheres with the recurrent motif of restoration expressed by the reinstatement of Ezekiel to his priestly role in the redactional layers of Ezek 3–5, who is the representative of the Zadokite priesthood.

7 The Reassertion of the Legitimacy of the Zadokite Priesthood in the Early Persian Period According to the findings of the previous chapters, the motif of hope and restoration expressed in the redactional material of Ezek 1–7 has been clearly shown. Now it is time to proceed to the next step. As I mentioned in Chapter Three, Ezek 3:16–5:17, which is demarcated by the prophetic word formula in 3:16 and 6:1, constitutes the second subunit within the literary unit Ezek 1–7. In this chapter, I shall examine more closely the relationship among the redactional layers in the subunit Ezek 3:16–5:17. This investigation also involves the establishment of the interrelatedness between the redactional material of Ezek 3:16–5:17 and Zech 3. In light of the historical context of Zech 3, I shall argue that the insertion of the restoration aspect of Ezekiel’s priestly role into the redactional layers of Ezek 3–5 is related to the reassertion of the legitimacy of the Zadokite priesthood in the early Persian period. In other words, the historical situation in Yehud and the textual material in Zech 3 may have given rise to the redactional material of Ezek 3:16b–5:17. Finally, I shall explore the influence of the concept of priesthood on the redactional material of Ezek 3:16b–5:17.

7.1 Overview The redaction history of Ezek 3–5 has been determined by means of a diachronic approach in the previous chapters. The redactional material of Ezek 3:16b– 5:17 and their corresponding messages are shown in Table 5. As shown in Table 5, most of the redactional material not only contains the motif of the mitigation of the divine punishment, but also conveys messages concerning hope and restoration, in particular the motif of restoration expressed by the reinstatement of Ezekiel’s priestly role. For example, in Ezek 3:22–27 a symbolic act of binding Ezekiel with ‫ עבותים‬signifies his reincorporation into the Israelite community as the priest; whereas in 4:4–8 Ezekiel is called upon to bear Israel’s iniquity and Judah’s iniquity in a way reminiscent of the high priest. Moreover, Ezek 4:12–15 acknowledges the ritual purity of Ezekiel among the exiles, implying his legitimacy as priest. Aspects of the reinstatement of the priesthood may have been the concern of the redactors of Ezek 3:16b–5:17. Regarding the purpose of inserting the secondary material, there are reasons to suspect that the redactors of Ezek 3:16b–5:17 identified the messages delivered in the redactional material with contemporaneous events concerning the priesthood. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110711578-007

196

7 The Reassertion of the Legitimacy of the Zadokite Priesthood

Tab. 5: The Motif of Hope and Restoration vs the Motif of Judgement. Redactional Text

The Message in Ezekiel 3–5

The Motif of the Context

3:16b–21

The Account of Watchman: Repentance of the Righteous man

Mitigation of the Severity of the Punishment

3:22–27

Ezekiel’s Binding and Reopening of his Mouth

Hope and Restoration

4:4–8

Ezekiel’s Iniquity-Bearing

Hope and Restoration

4:12–15

Ezekiel’s Ritual Purity

Hope and Restoration; Mitigation of the Severity of the Punishment

4:16–17

The Destruction of Food Supply

Judgement

5:3–4

The Preservation of the Shaven Hair

Hope and Restoration

5:11–12

YHWH’s Judgement against Jerusalem

Judgement

5:13

The End of YHWH’s Wrath

Mitigation of the Severity of the Punishment

5:16–17

YHWH’s Fourfold Punishment

Judgement

In my opinion, it is likely that large sections of Ezekiel were composed by the end of the sixth century B.C.E (see section 1.3). In order to understand the relation between the redactional material of Ezek 3:16b–5:17 and the historical situation of the priesthood during the period of the composition of Ezekiel, I shall begin with a brief review concerning the historical development of the Judean priesthood from pre-exilic to post-exilic period.

7.2 Historical Context: The Disputes over the Temple Hierarchy in the Late-Exilic and Early Post-Exilic Period A complete description of the history of the Judean priesthood is nowhere to be found in the HB. It is widely agreed that the pre-exilic priesthood was Zadokite, although the biblical text gives an overall impression of the Aaronite priesthood.1 Many scholars, among them Joachim Schaper, have shown that since

1 Aelred Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood (AnBib 35; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969), 136–41; Rainer Albertz, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period, vol. 2, From the Exile to the Maccabees (OLT; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 427; Lester L. Grabbe, “Were the Pre-Maccabean High Priests “Zadokites”?”, in Reading from Right

7.2 The Disputes over the Temple Hierarchy

197

the time of Josiah’s reform the Zadokite priesthood had been in charge of the Jerusalem temple,2 while the Levites, who had been the priests of local YHWH shrines, became the lower clergy at the Jerusalem temple.3 At that time, the Aaronite priests were in Bethel.4 Belonging to the pre-exilic Judean elite, probably almost all Zadokite priests had been deported. After the exile of the Jerusalem priesthood to Babylon and the destruction of the temple by the Neo-Babylonian armies, a priestly cult might have been maintained to some extent among the ruins of Jerusalem temple. With reference to Jer 41:5, eighty pilgrims from Shechem, Shiloh, and Samaria brought their offerings (‫ )מנחה‬and incense (‫ )לבונה‬to “the house of the Lord” (‫)בית יהוה‬. Their pilgrimage to Jerusalem implies that some form of cultic worship took place at Jerusalem despite the ruin of the temple.5 According to Schaper, the pilgrims may have attended the Feast of Tabernacles, which was celebrated in the seventh month (Jer 41:1; cf. Lev 23:33–36, 39–43).6 The pilgrims anticipated priests to perform the practices of sacrifice at the Feast of Tabernacles at the temple of Jerusalem during the exilic period. In this respect, Jer 41:5 attests that some sorts of priests were active on the site of the ruined temple after the Zadokite priesthood had been deported by the Babylonians.7 Who was capable of providing the Jerusalem worship during the exile? The first group

to Left: Essays on the Hebrew Bible in Honour of David J. A. Clines, eds. J. Cheryl Exum and H. G. M. Williamson (JSOTSup 373; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003), 206–7; Grabbe, A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period, vol.1 (LSTS 47; New York: T. & T. Clark, 2004), 225–26. Contra MacDonald, Priestly Rule, 147–48, who argues that “the sons of Zadok were a later innovation in the biblical texts and an intertextual ideal.” 2 Schaper, Priester und Leviten, 93–95, 126. See also Nigel Allan, “The Identity of the Jerusalem Priesthood during the Exile,” HeyJ 23 (1982): 259–69 (258). 3 Risto Nurmela, The Levites: Their Emergence as a Second-Class Priesthood (South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism 193; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998), 66; Schaper, Priester und Leviten, 125–27; Grabbe, “Were the Pre-Maccabean,” 213. 4 Francis S. North, “Aaron’s Rise in Prestige,” ZAW 66 (1954): 191–99; Nurmela, Levites, 58– 81; Schaper, Priester und Leviten, 193; Grabbe, “Were the Pre-Maccabean,” 213. According to Blenkinsopp, the account of 2 Kgs 17:24–28, in which one of the priests from among the exiles was sent back to Bethel by the king of Assyria, provides evidence of a priesthood functioning in Bethel; he suggests that according to the message of Zech 7:1–3 Aaronite was probably the Bethel priesthood who continued to serve in Judah after the Babylonian conquest. See Joseph Blenkinsopp, “The Judaean Priesthood during the Neo-Babylonian and Achaemenid Periods: A Hypothetical Reconstruction,” CBQ 60 (1998): 25–43 (35). 5 Allan, “Identity,” 262–63; Blenkinsopp, “Judaean Priesthood,” 25–30. 6 Schaper, Priester und Leviten, 167. 7 Schaper, Priester und Leviten, 167; Joseph Blenkinsopp, Sage, Priest, Prophet: Religious and Intellectual Leadership in Ancient Israel (LAI; Louisville, KY.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995), 86.

198

7 The Reassertion of the Legitimacy of the Zadokite Priesthood

that probably maintained the sacrificial cult on the ruins of the Jerusalem temple was the rural levitical priests (“the Levites”), who either had become the lower clergy or had become redundant in carrying out the sacrificial cult after Josiah’s reform. The Levites might have long sought to displace the Zadokites. They might have come and invoked their right, mentioned in Deut 18:1–8, to carry on the worship of Jerusalem temple after the exile of the Zadokite priesthood.8 The second group that might have continued the sacrificial cult during the exilic period were the Abiatharites of Anathoth, whose ancestor had, according to 1 Kgs 2:26, been banished by Solomon to the small country town because of Abiathar’s behaviour during the dispute over David’s succession.9 Abiathar was a representative of the priestly house of Eli, which was traditionally in opposition to the Zadokite priesthood.10 With reference to 1 Sam 2:36, Schaper has argued, correctly I think, that the house of Eli might have continued to be admitted to the priestly ministry until Josiah’s reform.11 Because of their priestly experience, the Abiatharites might have come to Jerusalem to fill the gap of religious leadership and begun to function as priests, together with the Levites, to the remnants of Judah.12 The last group that could claim for the priesthood was the Aaronites of Bethel who, however, were acting ritually in Bethel during the exilic period. As Bethel was the religious centre of the Babylonian province of Judah,13 it is unlikely that the Aaronites left Bethel and moved to Jerusalem to take over the cult there.14 However, the Aaronites of Bethel might have had some influence on the Judean population remaining in Judah;15 the non-deported inhabitants of Jerusalem might have reorganised their religious practice with the advice of the Aaronites. In many respects, the Levites and the Abiatharites, perhaps also the Aaronites of Bethel, might have taken over the sacrificial cult in the ruins of the temple during the exilic period.16 When the Persians defeated the Neo-Babylonians, the conglomeration of the Levite, the Abiatharite, and the Aaronite priesthood in Judah was disturbed.

8 Allan, “Identity,” 265–6; Schaper, Priester und Leviten, 187. 9 Schaper, Priester und Leviten, 187–88, postulates that although Solomon forbade Abiathar to practise the priesthood, there is no evidence to show that the entire house of Eli was forbidden from practising their right to the priesthood forever. See also Gabriele Boccaccini, Roots of Rabbinic Judaism: An Intellectual History, from Ezekiel to Daniel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 62. 10 Boccaccini, Roots of Rabbinic Judaism, 62. 11 Schaper, Priester und Leviten, 188. 12 Schaper, Priester und Leviten, 188. 13 Blenkinsopp, “Judaean Priesthood,” 30–34. 14 North, “Aaron’s Rise,” 192; Blenkinsopp, “Judaean Priesthood,” 36; Schaper, Priester und Leviten, 170. 15 Nurmela, Levites, 73; Schaper, Priester und Leviten, 169–70, 173. 16 Schaper, Priester und Leviten, 187–88; Grabbe, History of Jews and Judaism, 228.

7.2 The Disputes over the Temple Hierarchy

199

Throughout the Babylonian exilic period, the assumed coalition of three priestly groups might have continued the sacrificial cult in Judah,17 whereas the Zadokite priests might have made plans for the time after return. These plans include designs for the restructuring of the priestly ministry,18 and the reconstruction of the Jerusalem temple.19 To achieve these plans, the returning Zadokite priesthood firstly desired to reclaim their priestly rights over the altar in the Jerusalem temple.20 But on return from exile, what was to happen to those who had remained in Judah and who had replaced the exiled priesthood? In this case, it is not difficult to imagine that a conflict of interests between the Zadokite priesthood and the assumed coalition of priestly groups who remained in Judah would have been ignited. This conflict turned out to be a dispute over the legitimacy of the incumbent.21 In this situation, the Levites, the Abiatharites, and the Aaronites of Bethel, were unwilling to give up their right to officiate at Jerusalem; they might have argued that the Zadokite priesthood had been contaminated when the Zadokites were in exile. The allegations against the Zadokites might have included their ritual impurity by living in foreign countries,22 as well as their suspicious relationship with Babylonian paganism.23 Thus, the Levite, the Abiatharite, and the Aaronite priesthood rejected the resuming of the Zadokites’ roles as altar priests. In short, from a religious point of view, the Zadokites had to respond to the reproaches of the Levites, the Abiatharites, and the Aaronites in order to defend their claim to the high priesthood office. Schaper has suggested, correctly I think, that Zech 3 is the priestly response to a situation wherein the Levites and the Aaronites condemned the impurity of the Zadokite priests.24 Elsewhere in the HB, Zech 3 is usually interpreted as the return of Joshua the high priest to Jerusalem amid the accusations. Lester L. Grabbe, who has built upon Schaper’s view, has shown that the function of Zech 3:1–10 is to prompt the reader that the resumption of the priestly roles of the exiled Zadokites “was held by a worthy individual with divine approval.”25 17 Schaper, Priester und Leviten, 186–90. Allan, “Identity,” 265–66, states that the levitical priests might have carried on the sacrificial cult in Judah during the Exile. Cf. Blenkinsopp, “Judaean Priesthood,” 35. 18 Schaper, Priester und Leviten, 126. 19 Boccaccini, Roots of Rabbinic Judaism, 82. 20 Schaper, Priester und Leviten, 192. 21 Schaper, Priester und Leviten, 191–92. 22 Amos 7:17 and Hos 9:3 attest the concept of impurity by living in foreign countries. Cf. Schaper, Priester und Leviten, 183–84, 186–87. 23 Schaper, Priester und Leviten, 185. 24 Schaper, Priester und Leviten, 177–78, 192. See also Allan, “Identity,” 259. 25 Grabbe, History of Jews and Judaism, 228; Schaper, Priester und Leviten, 182–83.

200

7 The Reassertion of the Legitimacy of the Zadokite Priesthood

7.3 Zech 3: A Key to Understanding the Reestablishment of the Zadokite Priesthood The literary form of Zech 3 is that of a divine oracle (vv. 6–10) embedded into a vision report (vv. 1–5). In Zech 3 an interpretation of Zechariah’s visual experience is blended with contemporaneous events.26 I follow Tiemeyer’s suggestion that the events depicted in Zech 3 are related to a specific historical situation in Judah around 520 B.C.E.27 Zech 3 specifically involves three characters: Joshua, an angel of YHWH, and ‫“( השטן‬the Adversary”). Many scholars, including this author, agree that Joshua in Zech 3 is a historical character in the sixth century.28 Joshua was the son of Jehozadak (Zech 6:11; 1 Chr 5:40–41[6:14–15]), whose father, Seraiah the chief priest, was executed at Riblah (2 Kgs 25:18) in 587 B.C.E. Jehozadak probably sired Joshua in Babylon, from where Joshua returned to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel after 539 B.C.E.29 According to Elizabeth R. Achtemeier, Joshua was the head and the representative of the Zadokite priesthood; Zech 3 belongs to the Zadokite tradition.30 The use of the character of Joshua in Zech 3 probably reflects an increased power and authority of the position of the high priest after the loss of the monarchy and following the incorporation of Judah into the Persian Empire.31 Thus, the use of the character of Joshua probably reflects the real historical situation in the Persian period when the Zadokite priesthood had gained more importance as the political and religious leaders of the Jewish community in Yehud. The fact that the author of Zech 3 may have acknowledged Joshua as being the high priest inspires the reader to make a connection between Joshua’s change of clothes and the reinstatement of his priestly role after the exile.32

26 Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer, Zechariah and His Visions: An Exegetical Study of Zechariah’s Vision Report (LHBOTS 605; London: Bloomsbury T. & T. Clark, 2015), 118, 145. 27 Tiemeyer, Zechariah and His Visions, 133, 146. 28 N. L. A. Tidwell, “Wāʾōmar (Zech 3:5) and The Genre of Zechariah’s Fourth Vision,” JBL 94 (1975): 343–55 (346); Elizabeth R. Achtemeier, Nahum – Malachi (IBCTP; Atlanta: John Knox, 1986), 122; B. R. Gregory, Longing for God in An Age of Discouragement: The Gospel According to Zechariah (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing Company, 2010), 75; Antonios Finitsis, Visions and Eschatology: A Socio-Historical Analysis of Zechariah 1–6 (LSTS 79; London: T&T Clark, 2011), 105–7, 129–30; Tiemeyer, Zechariah and His Visions, 120–21. 29 Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 188. 30 Achtemeier, Nahum – Malachi, 110–11, 121. 31 Tiemeyer, Zechariah and His Visions, 121; R. L. Smith, Micah-Malachi (WBC 32; Dallas: Word Books, 1984), 199. 32 Smith, Micah-Malachi, 200; P. L. Redditt, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi (NCBC; London: Harper Collins, 1995), 63–64; M. A. Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets (Berit Olam; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2000), 593–94.

7.3 A Key to Understanding the Reestablishment of the Zadokite Priesthood

201

Tiemeyer has shown that the exilic experience of Joshua is not the reason for the impurity of his present state.33 As explicated by Tiemeyer, the expression ‫“( הלוא זה אוד מאש‬Is this not a brand plucked from the fire?” v. 2)34 and the sharp contrast between the metaphor of removing Joshua’s ‫“( בגדים צואים‬filthy garments,” v. 3) and that of the dressing in ‫“( מחלצות‬vestments,” v. 4) together indicate that the reason for Joshua’s state of uncleanness stems from the participation of the people in unorthodox worship of YHWH.35 Joshua shares the iniquity of the priesthood and he is also guilty in his role as the representative of the people of Judah because of idolatry and unorthodox worship of YHWH.36 As a result, some members of the divine council are charged to remove the filthy garments from Joshua (v. 4). As pointed out by both David L. Petersen and Michael R. Stead, the removal of the filthy garments parallels the removal of the ‫“( עון‬iniquity,” v. 4).37 After the symbolic act of removing Joshua’s iniquity, “pure vestments” (‫מחלצות‬, v. 4bβ)38 are put on Joshua and a “pure turban” (‫צניף טהור‬, v. 5) is placed upon his head, implying that Joshua is effectively reappointed as high priest.39 Another character mentioned in Zech 3 is ‫“( השטן‬the Adversary”). In contrast to Joshua who is a historical person, ‫ השטן‬is “a mythological being in line with the identically named character in the prologue of the book of Job.”40 Right at the start of the episode of Joshua’s change of clothes (3:3–5), Joshua is accused by ‫השטן‬. The reason for accusing Joshua is ambiguous, but we may refer to vv. 4–5 for explanation. As mentioned above, vv. 4–5 speak of the removal of Joshua’s iniquity and his restitution as the high priest who, as part of his office, has to bear the ‫ עון‬of the people of Judah. However, the high priest has to be ritually pure to bear the ‫ עון‬of others. Joshua and his people might involuntarily

33 Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer, “The Guilty Priesthood (Zech 3),” in The Book of Zechariah and its influence, ed. C. M. Tuckett (Aldershot, England: Ashgate, 2003), 5–6. 34 Tiemeyer, “Guilty Priesthood,” 7, where Tiemeyer argues that the expression ‫אוד מצל מאש‬ (“a brand plucked from the fire,” v. 2b) alludes to Amos 4:4–11, in which vv. 4–5 accuse the people of participating in “non-YHWH-istic or unorthodox YHWH-istic rites.” Thus, she suggests that the allusion to Amos 4 in Zech 3:2b “sought to convey that Joshua and the rest of the Judahite priesthood were guilty of similar sins.” 35 Tiemeyer, “Guilty Priesthood,” 5–8. 36 Tiemeyer, “Guilty Priesthood,” 3–4. 37 Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 194; Michael R. Stead, The Intertextuality of Zechariah 1–8 (LHBOTS 506; London: T&T Clark, 2009), 159. 38 James C. VanderKam, “Joshua the High Priest and the Interpretation of Zechariah 3,” CBQ 53 (1991): 553–70 (556–57). 39 Stead, Intertextuality, 158–60; Tiemeyer, Zechariah and His Visions, 130. 40 Tiemeyer, Zechariah and His Visions, 121. Cf. Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 189–90; Mark J. Boda, The Book of Zechariah (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), 230.

202

7 The Reassertion of the Legitimacy of the Zadokite Priesthood

have come into contact with foreign unorthodox cults and become ritually polluted. He is unable to purge himself of the ‫עון‬, as he would have done if “the temple purificatory system had been in order,”41 before he bear the ‫ עון‬of the people of Judah. Joshua’s filthy garments are a symbol of his inability to function properly in the role of high priest. The Adversary (‫ )השטן‬may query Joshua’s ability to remove the ‫ עון‬of his people when he himself is unclean.42 In this respect, the legal case of ‫ השטן‬is against Joshua’s legitimacy as high priest.43 As mentioned before, the events depicted in Zech 3 are pertinent to the historical situation in Judah around 520 B.C.E. It therefore seems reasonable that the accusations by ‫ השטן‬and the reference to the filthy garments are related to the conflict between Joshua, the representative of the Zadokite priesthood, and other parties.44 Whose criticism of Joshua is put into the mouth of ‫ השטן‬by the author of Zech 3? Schaper has put the question more precisely and pointed out that the criticism could only have come from those who considered Joshua’s exercise of high priest as a threat. I follow his suggestion that the potential candidates include the Levite, the Abiatharite, and the Aaronite priesthoods.45

7.4 The Redactional material of Ezekiel 3–5 and Zechariah 3 Before I start examining the relationship between the redactional material of Ezek 3:16–5:17 and Zech 3, it is necessary to explain my rationale for treating the redactional material of Ezek 3–5 together with Zech 3.46 Most of the redactional material in Ezek 3–5 contain the motif of hope and restoration, although the visual representation of the sign-acts in Ezek 4–5 indicates YHWH’s furious, inevitable judgement against Jerusalem. In some cases, the motif of restoration in Ezek 3:16–5:17 is expressed by the reinstatement of Ezekiel as priest;

41 Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 196. 42 Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 195. 43 Tiemeyer, Zechariah and His Visions, 126; Boda, Zechariah, 236. 44 Paul D. Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic: The Historical and Sociological Roots of Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), 254, postulates that the accusations by ‫ השטן‬is related to tension between priests and prophets. Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 25B; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1987), 184–85, suggest that ‫ השטן‬can be identified with either the Persian administration or the Judean community, namely the disaffected priests and landowning citizenry. 45 Schaper, Priester und Leviten, 184–87. 46 The direction of influence between the redactional material of Ezek 3–5 and Zech 3 is yet to be established, even though I lean towards seeing that both the redactional material of Ezek 3–5 and Zech 3 were composed by the end of sixth century B.C.E.

7.4 The Redactional material of Ezekiel 3–5 and Zechariah 3

203

Tab. 6: The Relation between the Redactional Material of Ezek 3–5 and Zech 3. Theme

Redactional Material of Ezek 3–5 Zech 3

YHWH’s Action in the Legal Context

A quasi-legal style in the account YHWH’s unilateral act to remove of YHWH’s commission to Ezekiel Joshua’s iniquity in the setting of to serve as watchman (3:16b–21) a legal court proceeding (vv. 1–5)

Reinstitution of Priestly Role

Ezekiel’s binding and reopening (‫ )פתח‬of his Mouth signify the reinstatement of his priestly role (3:22–27)

Joshua’s pure clothes (vv. 4–5) and the “engraved” (‫)מפתח פתחה‬ stone (v. 9) symbolise the re-investiture of his role as high priest

Removal of Impurity

Ezekiel is spared defilement of cooking in human dung (‫צאת‬ ‫( )האדם‬4:12–15)

Joshua’s “filthy” (‫ )צוא‬garments are removed (v. 3)

The Day of Atonement

Ezekiel’s Bearing Iniquity (‫)עון‬ (4:4–8)

Removal of Iniquity (‫ )עון‬of the Land in One Day (v. 9)

Concept of Remnant

The Preservation of the Shaven Hair (5:3)

The expression “a brand plucked from the fire” (v. 2) symbolises that Joshua had been saved from the judgement of exile

Mitigation of Judgement

The mitigation of the divine punishment and the end of YHWH’s wrath (5:11–13)

The expression “under his vine and fig tree” (v. 10) represents a peaceful day

it does not relate to the original material of Ezekiel which mainly contains the message of divine judgement and speaks of legitimising Ezekiel as prophet (see section 1.1 and 2.3). The recurrent reference to the reinstitution of the priesthood is the point at which the redactional material of Ezek 3–5 connects with Zech 3, which depicts the reinstitution of the priesthood amid opposition and criticism. Before considering the links in detail, Table 6 shows some of the interlocking thematic plots in Zech 3 and the redactional material of Ezek 3–5. These parallels suggest that the redactional material of Ezek 3–5 is of an interrelated nature. Both Zech 3 and the redactional material of Ezek 3–5 are centred on the promises about the priesthood. It is for these reasons that I shall examine the above-mentioned interrelated themes in detail. There is no consensus on the dating of Zech 3 and Ezekiel. Many scholars would accept that Zech 3 is an integral and an original part of the vision report,47 which was written at the time of Zechariah himself, reflecting the histori-

47 David L. Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8: A Commentary (OLT; Philadelphia, PA: Westminster John Knox, 1984), 112; Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, liii–lvii;

204

7 The Reassertion of the Legitimacy of the Zadokite Priesthood

cal situation in Judah around 520 B.C.E.48 For the book of Ezekiel, the composition was a complex process; recent scholars generally agree that Ezekiel was completed by the end of the sixth century B.C.E.49 Even though both Zech 3 and the redactional material of Ezek 3–5 might have been composed by the end of the sixth century B.C.E, I lean towards seeing that the redactional material of Ezek 3–5 interacts with Zech 3. In some way the redactors patterned the redactional material on the virtually identical plot structure of Zech 3. The thematic parallels noted in Table 6 between Zech 3 and the redactional material of Ezek 3–5, combined with the observation that in both cases the references to the expression ‫ פתח‬is related to the priest’s reinstitution, may favour the view concerning intentional literary dependence between Zech 3 and the redactional material of Ezek 3–5 (see § 1.4.2.3 criterion 5b). In addition, the presence of a rare word (‫צוא‬, Ezek 4:12; Zech 3:4) does further suggest literary dependence (see § 1.4.2.3 criterion 1). Because of the cohesion of the textual material in Zech 3, in contrast to the scattered pattern of the redactional material in Ezek 3–5, the redactional material of Ezek 3–5 is the later text; it is not only a response to the historical situation in Yehud, but also to the textual portrayal in Zech 3.50

Wolter H. Rose, Zemah and Zerubbabel: Messianic Expectations in the Early Postexilic Period (JSOTSup 304; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 37–41; Stead, Intertextuality, 43; Tiemeyer, Zechariah and His Visions, 116–17. See also Thomas Pola, “Form and Meaning in Zechariah 3,” in Yahwism After the Exile: Perspectives on Israelite Religion in the Persian Era, eds. Rainer Albertz and Bob Becking (STAR 5; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2003), 156–67 (156–59, 167), who argues that Zech 3 shows a literary unity (except v. 5abα), and “is characterized by a movement of topics developed one from another and culminating in its last verse.” In his view, Zech 3 was added to the visions in Zech 1–6 by Zechariah himself (or one of his students) before the consecration of the temple in 515 BCE in order to address the problem of the authorisation of the new cult and the chief priest. 48 According to the dating formulae provided in Zech 1–8, the historical setting of Zech 3 appears to reflect the period of Zechariah’s ministry which began “in the eight month in the second year of Darius” (Zech 1:1) and continued until “the fourth year of King Darius, … in the fourth day of the ninth month” (Zech 7:1), that is 520–518 BCE. Tiemeyer, Zechariah and His Visions, 123, has shown that the close relation between the event depicted in Zech 3 and the historical situation of the priesthood in the post-exilic period is because of Zechariah’s “knowledge of Joshua from outside of the visionary world.” 49 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 9–11, 68–74; Clements, “Chronology of Redaction,” 294; Renz, Rhetorical Function, 27–55; Mein, Ezekiel and the Ethics, 49–50; Tuell, Ezekiel, 2–3; Joyce, Ezekiel, 16. Contra Klein, Schriftauslegung, 350–406, who suggests that Ezekiel was written in the Persian period and completed by the Hellenistic era. 50 David L. Petersen, “Zechariah’s Vision: A Theological Perspective,” VT 34 (1984): 195–206 (203–5), where he argues that Zechariah was acquainted with the restoration programme of Ezek 40–48, and that Zechariah has presented “an alternative to or a revision of the notions of restoration present in Ezek 40–48.”

7.4 The Redactional material of Ezekiel 3–5 and Zechariah 3

205

7.4.1 Ezek 3:16b–21 and Zech 3 A strong legal flavour permeates both Ezek 3:16b–21 and Zech 3. The legal context is evident in the vision and the oracle of Zech 3,51 which depicts a scene from the divine council. First, the description in Zech 3:1–2 shows “the ancient life setting of a legal court proceeding,”52 in which Joshua is a defendant standing before the judge (i.e. ‫)מלאך יהוה‬, with a prosecuting attorney (i.e. ‫)השטן‬ standing at the right hand of the defendant.53 In this instance, ‫ מלאך יהוה‬delivers a verdict and rebukes ‫השטן‬, the prosecuting attorney. The legal context continues in the divine oracle (Zech 3:6–10). As Petersen has shown, the use of the expression –‫“( ויעד ב‬admonish”) in 3:6 is familiar in the legal context (cf. Deut 4:26; 30:19; 31:28).54 Here the ‫ מלאך יהוה‬admonishes Joshua and tells him what YHWH has said to him. The divine oracle involves two conditions (v. 7aα) and two tasks for Joshua (v. 7aβ). Moreover, it includes a promise that Joshua will be granted a privilege if he faithfully complies with the following two conditions (v. 7b):55 ‫“( אם־בדרכי תלך‬walk in my [God’s] ways”) and ‫אם את־משמרתי‬ ‫“( תשמר‬keep my [God’s] requirement”). In this way, the divine oracle (vv. 6–7) speaks of a bilateral agreement, whereas the legal imagery of the vision account (vv. 1–5) speaks of YHWH’s gracious unilateral act to remove Joshua’s iniquity (see below).56 Or to put it in another way, as Mark J. Boda writes, “[t]he gracious act of removal of guilt provides the conditions for a new start for Joshua (and Jerusalem and the people), but this will entail a response from the priest.”57 Ezek 3:16b–21 is a secondary addition in its present position, recounting Ezekiel’s responsibility as a watchman. Compared to the legal context in Zech 3, the genre of Ezek 3:16b–21 is considered as a “quasi-legal pronouncement.”58 In the context of this account of the watchman, we have a casuistic style familiar in biblical case law, in which a conditional sentence is introduced with a structure of a subject followed by ‫ כי‬+ verb (vv. 19, 21; cf. Lev 1:2, ‫;אדם כי‬ 51 Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 202–3. Boda, Zechariah, 218–20, notes the influence of the legal context in the beginning of Zech 3 and claims that “its influence wanes as the vision report progresses.” 52 Boda, Zechariah, 218. 53 Boda, Zechariah, 218; Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 190–91. 54 Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 202. 55 The syntactical understanding of Zech 3:7 is a matter of some debate concerning where the protasis ends and the apodosis begins. For a detailed interpretation, see Tiemeyer, “Guilty Priesthood,” 11–14; Stead, Intertextuality, 162; Anthony R. Petterson, Haggai, Zechariah & Malachi (AOTC 25; Downers Grove, IL.: InterVarsity Press, 2015), 137. 56 Boda, Zechariah, 244. 57 Boda, Zechariah, 244. 58 Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 142; Hals, Ezekiel, 23.

206

7 The Reassertion of the Legitimacy of the Zadokite Priesthood

2:1, ‫)נפש כי‬.59 In addition, the messages of Ezek 3:18–21 are typical of the judge’s verdicts: ‫“( מות תמות‬You will surely die,” v. 18aα); ‫הוא רשע בעונו ימות‬ (“that wicked man will die in his iniquity,” v. 18bα); ‫“( בחטאתו ימות‬he will die in his sin,” v. 20bα); ‫“( חיו יחיה‬he will surely live,” v. 21bα).60 The legal context of Zech 3 contains the motif of YHWH’s gracious unilateral act (vv. 1–5): Without the temple purification system, Joshua is unable to purge himself of the ‫ עון‬and to remove the ‫ עון‬of the people. The command by YHWH to remove Joshua’s filthy garments symbolises his gracious act towards Joshua. This gracious act provides an opportunity for Joshua to bear the iniquity of his people. Moreover, Joshua will be granted the prerogatives of the priesthood if he faithfully “walks” in the ways of YHWH (Zech 3:6–7). Likewise, the gracious act of YHWH is also embedded within the legal context of Ezek 3:16b–21. In addition to emphasising Ezekiel’s responsibility for conveying YHWH’s word, the most startling feature of the account of the watchman in Ezek 3:16b–21 is that YHWH is concerned with the repentance of the righteous man. The noun ‫“( מכשול‬stumbling block”) appears in the extant text concerning the repentance of the backsliding “righteous” man. As I have discussed in section 3.2.3.1, the ‫ מכשול‬is a kind of mitigation of the divine punishment, serving as a short period and as a last chance provided by YHWH for the backsliding righteous man to refuse committing iniquity and instead to turn away from the offences after heeding the watchman’s warning. YHWH’s act of putting the ‫מכשול‬ in the way of the backsliding righteous man provides the prerequisite for the repentance of the backsliding righteous man (Ezek 3:20), but this will entail a response from him (Ezek 3:21). The redactors of Ezek 3:16b–21 appropriated YHWH’s gracious act towards Joshua (Zech 3:3–5) for highlighting YHWH’s call to repentance by the use of the word ‫מכשול‬. Moreover, the redactors appropriated YHWH’s promises made to Joshua (Zech 3:6–7) for underlining the response of the backsliding righteous man by incorporating the casuistic conditional sentence. Coincidentally the conditional sentences in both Ezek 3:20–21 and Zech 3:7 are related to the notion of walking in God’s ways.61

7.4.2 Ezek 3:22–27 and Zech 3 The scene in Zech 3 is pertinent to the historical situation of the priesthood in Judah around 520 B.C.E. In the vision account of Zech 3, Joshua is clothed with 59 Walther Zimmerli, “The Special Form- and Traditio-Historical Character of Ezekiel’s Prophecy,” VT 15 (1965): 515–27 (524). 60 Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 142, has listed seven elements contributing to the legal context of Ezek 3:16b–21. 61 See § 3.2.3.2.

7.4 The Redactional material of Ezekiel 3–5 and Zechariah 3

207

pure vestments after being stripped of his filthy garments (vv. 3–5). The action of Joshua’s cleansing and change of clothing symbolises some form of re-investiture of his role as high priest.62 Joshua then receives the privilege that he is allowed to have ‫“( מהלכים בין העמדים האלה‬access among those who are standing,” v. 7b) in the divine council if he fulfils his obligations and keeps his responsibilities.63 Janet E. Tollington has suggested, correctly I think, that the expression ‫ מהלכים בין העמדים האלה‬is associated with the notion of intercession. Intercession on behalf of the people is a significant aspect of the priestly role.64 This privilege of presenting intercessions was also granted to Joshua’s priestly predecessors, namely Moses, Aaron, and Samuel.65 On the condition that Joshua keeps his obligations, he is promised access like a priest, who is able to intercede with YHWH on behalf of the people. Continuing the promise of Zech 3:7, 3:9 begins with “a stone with seven eyes” (‫ )על אבן אחת שבעה עינים‬and concludes with another of YHWH’s promise. In v. 9aα, YHWH has set the stone before Joshua, upon which YHWH is about to “engrave an inscription” (‫)מפתח פתחה‬. Here the stone is part of Joshua’s high-priestly vestments; it probably refers to either an engraved “rosette” (‫ )ציץ‬on the turban (Exod 28:36–38), or the ephod of the high priest (Exod 28:9–12).66 Therefore, the stone in v. 9a may symbolise Joshua’s ability to bear the iniquity of his people; it is related to the removal of iniquity in one day mentioned in v. 9b.67 The message of the divine oracle (vv. 6–7, 9), read in this way, is joined closely to the contents of the vision account (vv. 3–5). Joshua is first clothed with pure vestments as a sign of restitution. This restitution includes a promise of restoring Joshua’s priestly role as the intercessor and a promise of the removal of iniquity in one day.

62 Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 199; Tiemeyer, Zechariah and His Visions, 130. See also Pola, “Form and Meaning in Zechariah 3,” 163–64, who argues that “Zech 3:3–5 is more interested in Joshua’s purity than in an investiture.” 63 Lena-Sofia. Tiemeyer, Priestly Rites and Prophetic Rage: Post-Exilic Prophetic Critique of the Priesthood (FAT 2/19; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 254. It is widely agreed that “those who are standing” are members of the divine council. See Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 207; Tiemeyer, Zechariah and His Visions, 135. 64 See § 3.3.1.4 footnote 103. 65 Tollington, Tradition and Innovation, 160–61. 66 Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 211–12; Deborah W. Rooke, Zadok’s Heir: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient Israel (OTM; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 140; Thomas Pola, Das Priestertum bei Sacharja: Historische und traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur frühnachexilischen Herrschererwartung (FAT 35; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 214–16, 222; Stead, Intertextuality, 169–70; Tiemeyer, Zechariah and His Visions, 140–41; Boda, Zechariah, 259–61. VanderKam, “Joshua the High Priest,” 567–69, postulates that the seven “eyes” in Zech 3:9 refers to the total of fourteen stones on the ephod in Exod 28:22–28. 67 Tiemeyer, Zechariah and His Visions, 141; Boda, Zechariah, 260.

208

7 The Reassertion of the Legitimacy of the Zadokite Priesthood

Similarly, the redactional layer in Ezek 3:22–27 may also be pertinent to the historical situation, which is the ceremony of the high priest’s reinstitution, mentioned in Zech 3. In Ezek 3:25 YHWH directs Ezekiel to perform a symbolic act of binding himself with ‫“( עבותים‬ropes”). As I have argued before,68 the word ‫ עבותים‬is used generally in the priestly texts to refer to the gold cords that bind the ephod and the breastplate of judgement on the high priest. Ezekiel restores his priestly role through the act of his binding: the ropes are put on the prophet to bind him to his people so that he demonstrates his reincorporation into the Israelite community as the priest. Thus, the interpretation of Ezekiel’s binding indicates Ezekiel’s sharing the fate of the community and his re-investiture of the priestly role. There are lexical and thematic parallels between Zech 3:9 and Ezek 3:27. The scenario in Zech 3 shows that the stone, upon which YHWH engraves an inscription (‫)מפתח פתחה‬,69 symbolises the ephod of Joshua’s high-priestly vestments, and that after the ceremony of the high priest’s reinstitution, Joshua is portrayed as the intercessor. Likewise, in Ezek 3:27 YHWH promises to ‫“( פתח את־פה‬open the mouth”) of the prophet after Ezekiel’s priestly role has been restored. As a result, Ezekiel’s priestly role as intercessor is promised to be restored, although the prophet is not allowed to intercede in the previous verse (3:26). Because Zech 3 and the redactional material in Ezek 3:22–27 speak about a similar circumstance, the redactional material in Ezek 3:22–27 may be pertinent to the historical context of Zech 3, which depicts a ritual of cleansing of Joshua and his reinvestiture as high priest, as well as his intercession on behalf of the people.

7.4.3 Ezek 4:4–8 and Zech 3 The prominent feature of Joshua’s change of clothes in Zech 3 gives the information about the high priest’s re-investiture. The stripping of Joshua’s filthy garments is a sign-act that expresses the removal of Joshua’s iniquity. The fact that Joshua bears iniquity does not necessarily mean that he himself has erred.70 Being a high priest, Joshua bears iniquity of his people. Tiemeyer has shown that Joshua’s iniquity is the result of the participation of the entire community

68 See § 3.3. 69 The root ‫ פתח‬can denote either the verb “to open” (‫ פתח‬I) or the rare expression “to engrave” (‫ פתח‬II). Tiemeyer provides a detailed discussion of these two interpretative options in her book, namely Zechariah and his Visions, 140; Tiemeyer, “Guilty Priesthood,” 9–11; J. G. Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi: An Introduction and Commentary (TOTC; Leicester: IVP, 1988), 117–18. 70 Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 195; Tiemeyer, Zechariah and His Visions, 126.

7.4 The Redactional material of Ezekiel 3–5 and Zechariah 3

209

in unorthodox worship in light of the allusion to Amos 4:4–11. In my view, Joshua’s iniquity is localised in his filthy garments; dressing in his filthy garments symbolises that Joshua bears iniquity as high priest and as a representative of the entire community. However, without the temple purification system, Joshua needs a gracious act of YHWH who removes his iniquity by issuing a command of changing Joshua’s garments. In accordance with the tradition in the Torah, the high priest had to change garments on two occasions: at the ceremony of inauguration and at the Day of Atonement.71 Indeed, the reference to ‫ומשתי‬ ‫“( את־עון הארץ־ההיא ביום אחד‬I [YHWH] shall remove the iniquity of the land in one day,” v. 9bβ) brings to mind the Day of Atonement,72 especially given the bearing of and removal of iniquity and Joshua’s reinstatement to serve as high priest in vv. 3–5. In 9abα, “[t]he stone is primarily connected with the notion that the high priest carries the sins of the people;”73 a one-day removal of iniquity of the land by the high priest connects Zech 3:9 with the Day of Atonement. Moreover, the occurrence of the word ‫“( עון‬iniquity”) in v. 4 and v. 9 indicates a connection between the removal of Joshua’s iniquity and of that of the land.74 In short, Zech 3 is centred on the restoration of Joshua’s ability to bear iniquity for the sake of the Day of Atonement. I agree with the conclusion of Tiemeyer that “Zech 3 preaches the message that God has forgiven Joshua, which, in turn, enables him to atone for the guilt of the people in Yehud.”75 The account of Ezekiel’s sign-acts contains redactional material that concerns the Day of Atonement. The sign-act of bearing iniquity in Ezek 4:4–8 is considered as a secondary expansion (see section 4.1.2.1). In this passage, Ezekiel is forced to bear the iniquity (‫ )נשא עון‬of Israel for 390 days (v. 5) and bear the iniquity of Judah for 40 days (v. 6). By comparing the lexical and thematic links between Ezekiel 4:4–8 and Leviticus 10 and 16, in which the rituals performed in the Day of Atonement are depicted,76 we found that Ezek 4:4–6 patterns Ezekiel’s bearing the iniquity of Israel on similar deeds performed by the high priest (Lev 10:16–17; 16:20–22). Thus, I have argued that the action of Ezekiel’s priestly

71 Tiemeyer, “Guilty Priesthood,” 8. 72 Stead, Intertextuality, 170; Tiemeyer, Zechariah and His Visions, 139–45; Boda, Zechariah, 259–61. 73 Tiemeyer, Zechariah and His Visions, 140. 74 Tiemeyer, “Guilty Priesthood,” 9; Pola, “Form and Meaning in Zechariah 3,” 166, who argues that “just as Yahweh himself removed the iniquity of Joshua as the representative of the people in v. 4 in the heavenly council, so the high priest will celebrate the removal of the iniquity of the land on the day of atonement;” Pola, Das Priestertum bei Sacharja, 217–18. 75 Tiemeyer, Zechariah and His Visions, 146. Similarly, see also Stead, Intertextuality, 169–70; Boda, Zechariah, 261. 76 Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1011; Gane, Leviticus, Numbers, 189–90.

210

7 The Reassertion of the Legitimacy of the Zadokite Priesthood

role of bearing the iniquity for the Israelites has been restored in Ezek 4:4–8 (see section 4.2.1). As mentioned above, the scenario of Zech 3 portrays that the removal of Joshua’s iniquity prepares the way for him as the high priest to participate in the Day of Atonement so as to carry the iniquity of the people and to remove the iniquity of the land.77 In the same way, the redactional material of Ezek 4:4–8 also suggests a connection to the Day of Atonement rituals. In Ezek 4:4–8 Ezekiel is called upon to bear Israel’s iniquity in a way reminiscent of the high priest; moreover, he bears Israel’s punishment just as the scapegoat on the Day of Atonement. As a result, the iniquity is exterminated from the land of Israel.78

7.4.4 Ezek 4:12–15 and Zech 3 Although the removal of Joshua’s filthy garments parallels the removal of iniquity, the notion of filthy garments may carry meanings of moral impurity and the lack of holiness.79 Tiemeyer has shown that the adjective ‫“( צואים‬filthy”) has connotations of ritual impurity,80 while the basic meaning of ‫ צוא‬is “excrement.”81 In this case, as mentioned in section 7.3, one of the accusations against Joshua is probably related to his disqualification for service in the high priestly office because of his ritual impurity. In order to rectify immediately Joshua’s unclean condition, YHWH issues a command to replace Joshua’s filthy garments with pure vestments and to put on Joshua’s head a pure turban. Here the removing and redressing of Joshua’s clothes are sign-acts reflecting that Joshua’s ritual state of purity, as well as his priestly role, has been restored by YHWH’s gracious act.82 As Tiemeyer said, “[b]ecause of God’s compassion alone, Joshua is miraculously cleansed and reinstalled in his office, rather than being left in his filthy clothes, unable to serve as priest.”83 Zech 3 gives us several hints about its relation to Ezek 4:12–15, which is the secondary expansion of Ezekiel’s sign-act in 4:9–11 (see section 4.2.2). One of the most prominent ones is the noun ‫“( צוא‬excrement,” v. 12; cf. Zech 3:3–4). Ezek 4:12–15 recounts the preparation of food in exile where YHWH commands Ezekiel to bake his cake ‫“( בגללי צאת האדם‬in dung of human excrement”). 77 78 79 80 81 82 83

Petersen, Zechariah, 212; Tiemeyer, “Guilty Priesthood,” 11. See § 4.2.1.1. Cf. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1040–46. Petersen, Zechariah, 193; Rooke, Zadok’s Heirs, 139. Tiemeyer, “Guilty Priesthood,” 7. BDB, 844a. Mark J. Boda, Haggai, Zechariah (NIVAC; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004), 256. Tiemeyer, “Guilty Priesthood,” 6.

7.4 The Redactional material of Ezekiel 3–5 and Zechariah 3

211

YHWH explains in 4:13 that his purpose of asking Ezekiel to bake the cake in human excrement is to symbolise the unclean food that the exiles will eat in Babylon. In response to this, Ezekiel protests and asserts that he has never eaten anything unclean. Ezekiel utters his protest, implying that he would have been defiled if YHWH had forced him to make the cake in human excrement (‫)צוא‬. This shows that the exile itself did not make people unclean, only actions in which the people participate made them unclean.84 Because of YHWH’s compassion, Ezekiel’s state of purity was not violated. Ezekiel’s state of purity seems to be restored after he has been granted the concession of using cow dung as fuel instead of human excrement. Ezek 4:12–15, which depicts the restoration of Ezekiel’s state of purity, is probably a response to the scepticism of the ritual impurity of the exiled priesthood. The scepticism of the ritual impurity may also be a part of the Adversary’s accusations against Joshua in Zech 3. The function of Ezek 4:12–15 is to tell the reader that the exile itself was not impure; even if the priests came into contact with impurity during their time in Babylon, YHWH gracious act would have restored their purity upon their return from exile. In short, Ezek 4:12–15 connects back to Zech 3 through the cross-referencing of the word ‫צוא‬, of the motif of the restoration of ritual purity and of the motif of YHWH’s gracious act. Both the redactors of Ezek 4:12–15 and the author of Zech 3 attempted to reassert the ritual purity of the exiled priesthood. On the one hand, the redactors of Ezek 4:12–15 achieved the goal by highlighting Ezekiel’s state of purity during the exile. On the other hand, the author of Zech 3 achieved the goal through the conviction that YHWH approves of Joshua’s state of purity. To sum up, I have argued that the action of Ezekiel’s priestly role of bearing the iniquity for the Israelites has been restored in Ezek 4:4–8. Taking together the parallel between the restoration of ritual purity in Ezek 4:12–15 and in Zech 3:3–5, what connects the text of Zech 3 and that of the secondary expansions of Ezek 4 is the idea that the newly purified priest partakes in purgation of the ritual impurities and iniquity of all Israelites on the Day of Atonement. Within the redactional material of Ezekiel’s sign-acts, the redactors have continuously interpreted the texts of Ezek 4:4–8 and 4:12–15 against the historical background alluded to in Zech 3, using this historical situation to paint a picture in the book of Ezekiel concerning the restoration and the legitimacy of the exiled priesthood. The redactors might have regarded Ezekiel as a priest of the Zadokite lineage.85 In the perspective of the redactors, Ezekiel the prophet is the repre84 Tiemeyer, “Guilty Priesthood,” 6. 85 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 111; Blenkinsopp, Ezekiel, 16. Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 88, speculates that Ezekiel was a descendant of Zadokite family because many features of Ezekiel are dependent on the practices of the Zadokite priesthood. See also Sweeney, “Ezekiel: Zadokite Priest,” 125– 43, who argues that Ezekiel acts as a Zadokite priest throughout his career; he saw his priestly

212

7 The Reassertion of the Legitimacy of the Zadokite Priesthood

sentative of the Zadokite priesthood. By embedding passages of Ezek 3–5 that contain the reinstatement of Ezekiel’s priestly role, the restoration of Ezekiel’s ability to intercede with YHWH, the responsibility of Ezekiel’s iniquity-bearing for the exiles, and the maintenance of Ezekiel’s ritual purity during his stay in Babylon, the redactors attempted to convey a message that the Zadokites had not been contaminated during their stay in Babylon; they were still the legitimate priests to officiate in the Jerusalem temple as they returned from the exile. In this way, the purpose of inserting the redactional material of Ezek 3:16b–5:17 is to argue for the eminence of the Zadokite priesthood and for their right to regain their former priestly supremacy.

7.4.5 Ezek 5:3–4 and Zech 3 In Zech 3:2 Joshua the high priest is described as ‫“( אוד מצל מאש‬a brand plucked from the fire”). As mentioned before, the phrase ‫ אוד מצל מאש‬may allude to the nature of Joshua’s iniquity, that it is the result of the participation of the Israelites in unorthodox worship. This phrase is commonly recognised as an allusion to the metaphor ‫“( אוד מצל משרפה‬a brand plucked from a blaze”) in Amos 4:11 where the metaphor serves to describe those who have survived YHWH’s judgement.86 In this way, by alluding to Amos 4:11, the expression ‫אוד מצל מאש‬ symbolises that Joshua had been saved from the judgement of exile87 or of the destruction of Jerusalem.88 In any case, the expression ‫ אוד מצל מאש‬contains the concept of the remnant; it is also a sign of YHWH’s saving mercy.89 Ezek 5:3–4 and Zech 3 are linked by the concept of a remnant. Ezek 5:1–4 is the third part of the three sign-acts symbolising Jerusalem’s siege. It consists of two separate but related actions: 5:1–2 is an original layer depicting the cutting of the prophet’s hair; 5:3–4 is a secondary addition depicting the preserva-

work as a fulfilment or continuation of Josiah’s reform. Similarly, Meindert Dijkstra, “The Valley of Dry Bones: Coping with the Reality of the Exile in the Book of Ezekiel,” in The Crisis of Israelite Religion: Transformation of Religious Tradition in Exilic and Post-exilic Times, eds. B. Becking and Marjo C. A. Korpel (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 114–133 (117), argues that Ezekiel possibly belonged to the Zadokite priesthood in exile (cf. 1 Chron 24:16). 86 Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 192; Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, 187; Tiemeyer, “Guilty Priesthood,” 6; Boda, Zechariah, 234. 87 VanderKam, “Joshua the High Priest,” 555–56; Stead, Intertextuality, 158. 88 Petterson, Haggai, Zechariah & Malachi, 139; Boda, Zechariah, 234–35. 89 I follow Tiemeyer’s suggestion that the expression ‫ הלוא זה אוד מצל מאש‬not only refers to God’s saving mercy, but also conveys that Joshua and the Judahite priesthood were guilty of offering illegitimate sacrifices. Cf. Tiemeyer, “Guilty Priesthood,” 5–7.

7.4 The Redactional material of Ezekiel 3–5 and Zechariah 3

213

tion of the shaven hair. It is commonly argued that the third sign-act portrays images of judgement, yet 5:3 indicates that some of the hairs scattered to the wind will be retrieved from the ground and be bound in the edges of the garment, signifying the concept of a remnant. Within the context of YHWH’s imminent judgement, the account of the few strands of hair placed in Ezekiel’s garment symbolises that some of the Israelites will escape death and be spared from destruction (see section 4.3.1). A future hope of protection and preservation is depicted in the redactional layer (Ezek 5:3–4).

7.4.6 Ezek 5:13 and Zech 3 The motif of hope and restoration persists throughout Zech 3. Before the beginning of the scene of Joshua’s change of clothes (3:3–5), ‫ השטן‬is rebuked by YHWH. This rebuke reveals a notion that YHWH is the God who has chosen Jerusalem (v. 2aβ). YHWH’s choice of Jerusalem has been mentioned in Zech 1:17 and 2:16. As Stead notes, the repetition of the notion of YHWH’s dwelling place links Zech 3 with previous vision accounts; the notion also links Joshua’s change of clothes to YHWH’s return to dwell in Jerusalem.90 The relation between Jerusalem as YHWH’s dwelling place and the metaphor of Joshua’s garments implies that the impurity of Jerusalem is connected with the impurity of the high priest.91 In the same way, the connection between the removal of the high priest’s impurity and that of Jerusalem is expressed by the relation between Joshua’s re-investiture and the expression ‫ומשתי את־עון הארץ־ההיא ביום אחד‬ (v. 9bβ). Thus, by focusing on YHWH’s choice of Jerusalem, the author of Zech 3 emphasised the relation between the restoration of Jerusalem and that of the Zadokite priesthood; this relation reveals that in the perspective of the author of Zech 3 the reinstitution of the Zadokite priesthood is for the sake of the restoration of Jerusalem.92 In addition the expression “every one of you will invite his neighbour to sit under the vine and under the fig tree” (v. 10) indicates a time of peace and prosperity.93 This image of peace in Zech 3:10 conveys a message of hope that a new age is dawning.94 90 Stead, Intertextuality, 157. 91 Tiemeyer, “Guilty Priesthood,” 4–5. 92 Pola, “Form and Meaning in Zechariah 3,” 162–63; Boda, Zechariah, 233, 258. 93 Pola, “Form and Meaning in Zechariah 3,” 159, 166; Pola, Das Priestertum bei Sacharja, 218–19. In his view, the inclusion of the people (v. 10) demonstrates that “the people benefit from the newly established temple and priesthood system.” See also Barry G. Webb, The Message of Zechariah (The Bible Speaks Today; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2003), 89; Al Wolters, Zechariah (Historical Commentary on the Old Testament; Leuven: Peeters, 2014), 109. 94 VanderKam, “Joshua the High Priest,” 569. According to VanderKam, the new age is characterised by the removal of iniquity, the atonement for sin, and the coming of a Davidic heir.

214

7 The Reassertion of the Legitimacy of the Zadokite Priesthood

Likewise, the motif of hope and restoration is expressed in Ezek 5:13. The juxtaposition of the three expressions of YHWH’s emotions in 5:13: ‫וכלה אפי‬ (“my anger will be complete”), ‫“( והנחותי חמתי בם‬I will cause my wrath to rest on them”), ‫“( והנחמתי‬I will be appeased”) underscores the end of YHWH’s wrath and his relenting from judgement, implying the mitigation of the severity of the punishment and the anticipation of the hope and restoration (see section 4.3.2.1). To sum up, although the reinstatement of Ezekiel’s priestly role is neither mentioned in the secondary material of the sign-act of shaving head (5:3–4) nor in the secondary expansion of the verbal proclamation (5:13), the motif the mitigation of the divine punishment and the motif of hope are expressed in both of the above-mentioned redactional material. The redactors of Ezek 5:3–4, 13 may have recalled the experience of the people who felt a new beginning to be imminent and anticipated the issue of restoration during the high priest Joshua’s era. That experience may have been reflected in Zech 3 where “a theological warrant for the more mundane work of restoration” is provided.95

7.5 The Redactional Material of Ezek 3–5 and the Concept of Priesthood in Ezek 40–48 The redactional material of Ezek 3–5 is seen clearly in relation to the motif of the reinstitution of the priesthood. This restoration aspect of the priesthood is also contained in the elaborate description of the restoration of the Jerusalem Temple (Ezek 40–48). The redactional material of Ezek 3–5 may connect back to Ezek 40–48 through the cross-referencing of the motif the priesthood. Ezek 40–48 concludes Ezekiel with a visionary programme for restoring the priesthood and the cult, and for reorganising the land. Within the restoration programme in Ezek 40–48, Ezek 44 deals with the temple personnel; the priestly status differentiation demarcating the Zadokites and the Levites is found in vv. 10–16. On the one hand, an account is given of the Levites’ failure. They did cultic service for the Israelites, but are faulted for leading them astray to wor-

Zech 3:8 introduces the words ‫“ עבדי‬my servant” and ‫“ צמח‬Branch,” which is a title for a Davidic heir in Jer 23:5 and 33:15. (see, e.g., Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 210–11; Boda, Zechariah, 254–55, 258–59). Tiemeyer, “Guilty Priesthood,” 1–2, concludes that within the historical context, the hope of the coming of either a David heir or the coming of the future saviour together with the peaceful imagery depicted in Zech 3:10 suggest that the contemporaries of Zechariah anticipated the beginning of the new age and a hopeful picture of the future. 95 Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 119.

7.5 The Redactional Material and the Concept of Priesthood

215

ship idols. As a result, the Levites will bear their iniquity (‫נשאו עונם‬, v. 12)96 and will not act as priests (v. 13). On the other hand, the Zadokites faithfully carried out the duties of the sanctuary, and thus are identified as the authorised priesthood of the Jerusalem Temple (vv. 15–16). The announcement of reward is grounded in the behaviour of the Zadokites,97 while the demotion of the Levites results from their past sins. Moreover, priestly concerns over the distinctions among clean, unclean, sacred and profane are evident in the vision of the restored temple and land in Ezek 40–48.98 Ritual purity is the precondition for access to the sanctuary; the priesthood had to maintain their ritual purity in order to have access to the sanctuary (44:15–16, 23–27). The concern over purity and access is also significant in Ezek 40–48.99 The redactional material of Ezek 3–5 reflects the concept of priesthood in Ezek 40–48. Elsewhere in Ezekiel the fact that YHWH acts in favour of human beings in response to their behaviour occurs in Ezek 44:10–16.100 The pronouncement of reward and punishment in Ezek 44:10–16 correlates with the behaviour of the Zadokites or the Levites, respectively. In Ezek 3:16–21, the redactors emphasised that YHWH offered a choice of “life” and “death” to the righteous and the wicked (see § 3.2.2.2). The backsliding righteous man who repents will live, while those who are wicked and refuse to repent will die. Just like the pronouncement of reward and punishment in Ezek 44:10–16, the pronouncement of life and death in Ezek 3:16–21 is also on account of people’s action. The reference to the Zadokite pre-eminence further connects the redactional material of Ezek 3–5 to Ezek 44. In Ezekiel the expression ‫“( נשא עון‬to bear iniquity”) is found only in 4:4–6, 14:10 and 44:10, 12. In Ezek 44:10, 12 the ex-

96 In Priestly Rule, 49–51, MacDonald has shown that the expression ‫“( נשאו עונם‬they bear their sin,” 44:12), combined with the use of the phrase “they bear their shame” (‫)נשאו כלמתם‬ in the subsequent v. 13, means that the Levites have to “suffer the consequences of a sin committed.” 97 Friedrich Fechter, “Priesthood in Exile According to the Book of Ezekiel,” in Ezekiel’s Hierarchical World Wrestling with a Tiered Reality eds. Stephen L. Cook and Corrine L. Patton (SBLSymS 31; Atlanta: SBL, 2004), 27–41 (32). 98 Duguid, “Putting Priests in Their Place,” 51–55. 99 Duguid, “Putting Priests in Their Place,” 55. 100 Fechter, “Priesthood in Exile,” 32. Most scholars, including this author, concede that YHWH’s saving actions are elsewhere justified in his unilateral decision alone. As C. A. Strine notes in his article, namely “The Role of Repentance in the Book of Ezekiel: A Second Change for the Second Generation,” JTS 63.2 (2012): 467–91, that the motif of repentance and obedience to YHWH’s commands is subsidiary to the concern for YHWH’s unilateral saving acts in Ezekiel. In this respect, I build upon Strine’s view that Ezek 3:16–21 and 44:10–16 present repentance and obedience to YHWH’s commands as the markers of who will constitute YHWH’s future community in the land of Israel after YHWH’s unilateral saving acts.

216

7 The Reassertion of the Legitimacy of the Zadokite Priesthood

pression ‫ נשא עון‬expresses the punishment for Levitical transgression; the Levites suffer the consequences of their own iniquity. The hierarchical distinction between the Zadokites and the Levites is found in Ezek 44. In Ezek 4:4–8, Ezekiel, who is the representative of the Zadokite priesthood, bears the Israelites’ iniquity (‫ )נשא עון‬and suffers the consequences of people’s iniquity. His suffering prefigures the suffering that the people have deserved and will experience (see § 4.2.1.1). The expression ‫ נשא עון‬in 4:4–8 reveals the sense of forgiveness or substitutionary suffering in the performance of iniquity/punishment-bearing of the Zadokite priesthood. As the bearing of iniquity/punishment was one of the privileges of the authorised priesthood, the expression ‫ נשא עון‬in 4:4–8 reveals the priestly supremacy of the Zadokite priesthood. As such it reflects the concept of the hierarchical distinction between the Zadokites and the Levites in Ezek 44. A priestly concern over ritual purity is evident in Ezek 4:12–15 and 44:15–31. Purity is a priestly state which is necessary for access to the cult, while impure people are denied that access.101 In Ezek 44:15–31 the Zadokite priesthood have to remain ritually pure; they must dress in linen vestments rather than wool one when attending to their duties at the altar (vv. 17–19).102 Moreover, they cannot come into contact with the dead unless it is a blood relative (vv. 25–27), and they have to avoid eating meat that has died naturally or been torn by a predator (‫כל־נבלה וטרפה … לא יאכלו‬, v. 31). Ezek 44 explicitly defines that only the ritually pure Zadokite priesthood are granted access to the entire temple. The combination of concerns over ritual purity and access is central to the interest of Ezek 44. Within the texts of 4:12–15, Ezekiel is depicted as a Zadokite priest who is concerned to maintain his own purity. Ezekiel protests to YHWH that he has neither eaten meat that has died from a natural death, nor meat killed by a predator (‫ונבלה וטרפה לא־אכלתי‬, 4:14) when YHWH commands him to bake his cake in human dung. Thus, Ezek 4:12–15 demonstrates that the redactors might have been familiar with the proscription on eating carrion in Ezek 44. In particular, the redactional material of Ezek 4:12–15 probably connects back to Ezek 44:31 through the use of a parallel yet distinctive expression ‫נבלה וטרפה לא אכל‬. There is an intentional literary dependence between Ezek 44 and the redactional material of Ezek 3–5. The redactors of Ezek 3–5 borrowed two rare expressions, namely ‫“( נשא עון‬to bear iniquity”) and ‫“( נבלה וטרפה לא אכל‬neither eat meat that has died naturally death, nor meat that was torn”) from Ezek 44:10, 12, 31 (see § 1.4.2.3 criterion 1). Owing to the scattered pattern of the re-

101 Mein, Ezekiel and the Ethics, 147. 102 For the regulations concerning the priestly clothing, see § 8.3.2.2 n. 59.

7.6 Conclusion

217

dactional material in Ezek 3–5, the cohesion of the textual material in Ezek 44 reveals that Ezek 44 is an earlier text. The redactors of Ezek 3–5 were aware of the context in which the two rare expressions appear; the redactional material of Ezek 3–5 intentionally reflects the notion that YHWH treats human beings in correlation to their acts, the concept of Zadokite priesthood pre-eminence, and the priestly concern over ritual purity mentioned in Ezek 40–48.

7.6 Conclusion In conclusion, there is little reason to doubt that the redactors of the redactional material of a series of sign-acts in Ezek 3:16b–5:17 connected the restoration aspect of Ezekiel’s priestly role with the historical situation of the priesthood in the Persian period and the textual portrayal in Zech 3. On the one hand, a number of elements in the original call narrative (Ezek 2:3–3:15) explicitly show that Ezekiel may no longer consider himself as a priest; there are reasons to suspect that Ezekiel’s state of purity was lost during the Jerusalem’s siege and the exilic period. However, as I have argued before, there are motifs of the reinstatement of Ezekiel as priest in the redactional material of the call narrative and that of the sign-acts (Ezek 3–5). On the other hand, in the Persian period the exiled Zadokite priests attempted to regain full priestly status after they had returned from exile; they reasserted the legitimacy of their priesthood by using Zech 3:1– 10 in response to the denunciation of their ritual impurity. The redactors of the redactional material of Ezek 3–5 appropriated not only the historical situation in Yehud but also the textual situation in Zech 3 for their own purpose, using them to reassert the traditional priestly rights of the exiled priests by inserting the restoration aspect of Ezekiel’s priestly role into the original call narrative and sign-acts. Zech 3 and the secondary expansions of the call narrative (Ezek 3:16b–21) and of the sign-acts (Ezek 3:22–27; 4:4–8, 12–15; 5:3, 13) display similarities in terms of their plot. In the opening scene of Zech 3 Joshua is present in the divine council which is operating as a law court. He is wearing old filthy garments (v. 3) symbolising his state of uncleanness. However, because of YHWH’s grace, Joshua is cleansed and thus made fit to serve as the high priest (vv. 4–5), interceding on behalf of the public (v. 7b). In addition, he resumes the duty to bear the iniquity of the Israelites on the Day of Atonement, and as such is a sign of the removal of iniquity of the land (v. 9). Indeed, the election of Jerusalem (v. 2 aβ) and YHWH’s promise to remove the iniquity of this land in one day are linked together to convey a message that the reinstitution of the Zadokite priesthood is for the sake of the restoration of the land. Likewise, first, the redactors of the

218

7 The Reassertion of the Legitimacy of the Zadokite Priesthood

secondary expansions mentioned the account of the watchman (Ezek 3:16b–21) which contains the casuistic style familiar in biblical case law. The legal context of Ezek 3:16b–21 is followed by the account of Ezekiel’s binding, which symbolises the reinstatement of Ezekiel’s priestly role by putting the ropes on the prophet (3:25), and his duty of intercession (3:27). The account of bearing the iniquity of Israel (4:4–8), a ritual performed on the Day of the Atonement, is presupposed by the restoration of Ezekiel’s state of purity (4:12–15). Finally, the concept of the remnant (5:3) and the calming of YHWH’s wrath (5:13) express the mitigation of the severity of the punishment in the last part of the secondary expansions of sign-acts (Ezek 3–5). Several thematic parallels found in Zech 3 and the secondary expansions of Ezek 3–5 at the same point in the plot make it unlikely that these similarities are coincidental. The later redactions of Ezekiel’s sign-acts can be aligned with the perspective of Zech 3, in which the historical situation in Yehud is mentioned. In the original layers of Ezek 2–5 Ezekiel may no longer be considered as a priest and he is depicted as an accomplice in YHWH’s vehement judgement. It is more logical to argue that the redactional material of Ezek 3:16b–5:17 has drawn upon both the historical events and the textual portrayal in Zech 3, expressing the hope of YHWH’s mitigation of the severity of the punishment and his restoration of the priesthood. In this way, the secondary material of Ezek 3:16b–5:17 responds directly to the situation envisaged by Ezekiel’s original call narrative and signacts, that is the inevitable judgement of Israel and the discontinuance of Ezekiel’s priestly role who represents the Zadokite priesthood. It is obvious that the messages in the secondary material of Ezek 3:16b–5:17 are pertinent to the major interests, in particular the legitimacy of the Zadokite priesthood. Even though the evidence is not conclusive, I nevertheless suggest that the redactional material of a series of symbolic acts in Ezek 3:16b–5:17 was composed by the Zadokite priesthood in the Persian Period. Apart from the allusion to Zech 3, the redactional material of Ezek 3:16b– 5:17 is also influenced by the concept of priesthood in the visionary account of the restored temple in Ezek 40–48. Building upon the relation between Ezek 40– 48 and the redactional material of Ezek 3–5, the possibility of the lexical and thematic parallels between the law of the Temple (Ezek 43–46) and the redactional material of Ezek 6–7 is brought to my attention. To this topic I shall discuss in the following chapter.

8 The Relation between the Secondary Material in Ezekiel 6–7 and the Law of the Temple In Chapter Seven, I explored the interrelatedness of the motif of hope and restoration within the secondary expansions of Ezek 3:16b–5:17; I have shown that the elements of hope and restoration in the secondary additions of Ezek 3:16b–5:17 have been aligned with the perspective of Zech 3 and have drawn upon the historical situation in post-exilic Judean society. Moreover, the redactional material of Ezek 3:16b–5:17 reflects the concept of priesthood in Ezek 40–48. In this chapter, I shall explore the interrelatedness of the motif of hope and restoration within the secondary expansions of Ezek 6–7; I shall show that the sequence of the motif of hope and restoration in Ezek 6–7 is aligned with the law of the Temple (44:6– 46:18) as well as with its prologue (43:7–11). This endeavour involves the question of textual allusions to the law of the Temple in Ezek 40–48. Thus, in the first two parts of this chapter, I shall briefly evaluate literature on the redaction history of Ezek 40–48 and conjecture the relative chronological order of the secondary expansions in Ezek 6–7 and those of Ezek 43–46. After examining the connection between the redactional layers of Ezek 6–7 and the law of the Temple, in the later parts of the chapter, I shall further examine more closely the purpose of interpolating these secondary expansions, which contain the motif of hope and restoration, into Ezek 6–7. I shall deal with the question of how the redactional layers of Ezek 6–7 increase the coherence of the book, and examine how the vision accounts of Ezekiel and the motif of defilement, as well as the motif of the land, have been intertwined in the final redaction of Ezekiel.

8.1 Redaction in Ezekiel 40–48 in Modern Scholarship The focus of this chapter is the relationship between the redactional material of Ezek 6–7 and the law of the Temple. Building upon the insights of many scholars (see below the literature review of the redaction history of Ezek 40–48), I shall not only identify the redactional material in the law of the Temple (Ezek 43– 46), but also examine whether the themes and the locutions of the secondary expansions in Ezek 6–7 and those of the secondary expansions in Ezek 43–46 share affinity. The second temple-vision in Ezek 40–48 owes its present appearance to a complex redactional process. Many recent redaction models draw on the contribution made by Hartmut Gese and Walther Zimmerli. Gese proposes that the original Führungsvision in Ezek 40–42 was expanded in a series of two discrete https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110711578-008

220

8 The Relation between the Secondary Material and the Law of the Temple

layers. In his view, the vision account outside of Ezek 40–42, namely the return of YHWH’s Glory (43:1–11), is a very late stage redactional material that links an earlier discrete layer, a nasi-Schicht (prince layer), to the original Führungsvision.1 The nasi-Schicht, comprising 44:1–3; 45:20–25; 46:1–10, 12, was further expanded later through various secondary additions (45:8b–9; 46:16–18 and 48:1–29).2 Another discrete layer is designated as a Ṣadoqidenschicht (Zadokite layer). This later-dated Ṣadoqidenschicht, comprising 44:6–16, 28–30a, was also expanded through various secondary additions (44:17–27, 31 and 45:1–8) and some smaller glosses (40:46b; 43:19; 48:11).3 Accordingly, almost all the laws concerning the priests in Ezek 44 are secondary material. Zimmerli appropriates the work of Gese. He agrees that the Führungsvision in Ezek 40–42 is the original material. He considers the account of 43:1–11 as the secondary material. Henceforth, he assumes that the original vision account first had 41:5–15a and 42:15–20 inserted to it before 43:1–11 was added.4 Zimmerli attributes Gese’s prince layer and his Zadokite layer to subsequent expansions of this extended vision account. In Zimmerli’s view, the dating of the original vision account is 573 B.C.E.;5 the regulations of the prince and the community regarding the national festivals (44:3 and 45:21–46:12) are considered to be late exilic (571–538 B.C.E.);6 the account of the tension between the Zadokites and the Levites (44:6–31 and 45:1–8) is thought to be early post-exilic;7 and the rituals for the dedication of the altar (43:18–27) and the expiation ritual for the start of the year (45:18–20) are dated to the post-exilic period.8 In much recent scholarship, the law of the Temple (Ezek 43:10–46:24*) is regarded as secondary material. According to Thilo A. Rudnig, who continues in the tradition of Gese and Zimmerli, the basic vision account is enriched by later redactional additions.9 He concedes that the diaspora-oriented expansions in Ezek 43–48, which in his view are dated to the second half of the fifth cen-

1 Hartmut Gese, Der Verfassungsentwurf des Ezechiel (Kap 40–48): Traditionsgeschichtlich untersucht (BHT 25; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1957), 110. 2 Gese, Der Verfassungsentwurf, 85, 110, 113–20. 3 Gese, Der Verfassungsentwurf, 67, 111–13. 4 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 548. 5 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 552. 6 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 552. 7 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 551, 553. 8 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 553. 9 The basic vision account includes 40:1, 2b*, 4*, 17, 28aα; 40:47b–41:4*; 41:15b–20a*; 43:6a, 7a; 44:5aα; 45:17a, 21a, 22–25; 46:4–7; 47:1, 8*, 9aβbβ, 12a; 47:13aβ, 15b–20* and 48:35b. See Rudnig, Heilig und Profan: Redaktionskritische Studien zu Ez 40–48 (BZAW 287; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2000), 345–49.

8.1 Redaction in Ezekiel 40–48 in Modern Scholarship

221

tury, comprise 43:7b–9; 44:6–7; 45:8b–9; 46:16–18.10 A series of priestly additions, including 43:13–24; 44:6–16, 17–31; 45:1–8a, 15b–16, 17b–20a; 46:1–3, 8–11, 19–24; 48:8aβ–23a, were then inserted in the fourth century.11 Finally, the sections 43:10–12;12 44:1–3, 4–5 were inserted in the early third century.13 Another recent redaction model is that by Michael Konkel. He remains relatively close to Rudnig when he defines his original layer.14 After Konkel has defined the original layer, he proposes two major redactional expansions to it. The first expansion consists of 40:2; 43:3a; 44:1–3; 46:1–3, 8–10, 12; 47:1–21; 48:1– 10, 13–21a, 23–29.15 The second expansion is characterised by the rituals for the dedication of the altar (43:11–27), the hierarchical distinction between the Zadokites and the Levites (44:4–31), and some regulations regarding the prince (45:1–25; 46:4–7, (11), 16–24).16 According to Konkel, the original layer is dated to the exilic period; the first and second expansions are dated to the end of the exile and to the post-exilic period, respectively. In contrast to Rudnig and Konkel, Steven Tuell denies a multi-level redaction history of the text. He proposes that the basic vision of Ezekiel has been expanded once purposely and deliberately: “the final form of the text is built on an authentic vision of Ezekiel, chosen by our editors as the perfect statement of their society’s foundation and end: right worship in the right Temple.”17 In his view, the original vision account is defined as 40:1–43:7a (with minor insertions at 40:5 and 42:13–14); 44:1–2; 47:1–12; and 48:30–35.18 The expansion, which Tuell calls the “law of the Temple,” has been done all together once,19 by putting three major insertions at 43:7b–27, 44:3–46:24, and 47:13–48:29. These insertions transform the original vision account from its chiastic structure cen-

10 The diaspora-oriented expansions in Ezek 43–48 also include 47:13aβ*γ, 14–15a, 21; 48:1– 8aα, 23b–29. See Rudnig, Heilig und Profan, 232–43, 351–54. 11 Rudnig, Heilig und Profan, 244–334, 356–364. 12 Klein also agrees that 43:10–12 is later literary reworkings of the temple vision. See Anja Klein, “Ezek 6:1–7 and 36:1–5: The Idea of the Mountains in the Book of Ezekiel,” in Ezekiel: Current Debates and Future Directions, eds. William A. Tooman and Penelope Barter (FAT 112; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), 62. 13 Rudnig, Heilig und Profan, 332–42, 364–65. 14 Konkel, Architektonik des Heiligen, 236–39. In contrast to Rudnig, Konkel thinks that Ezek 43:1–2, 3b–10 is original. 15 Konkel, Architektonik des Heiligen, 240, 270–286. 16 The second expansion also includes 40:38–43, 46b; 42:1–14; 47:22–23 and 48:11–12. Konkel, Architektonik des Heiligen, 242, 286–348. 17 Steven S.Tuell, The Law of the Temple in Ezekiel 40–48 (HSM 49; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), 14. 18 Tuell, Law of the Temple, 75. 19 Tuell, Law of the Temple, 13.

222

8 The Relation between the Secondary Material and the Law of the Temple

tred on the divine promise of eternal presence into a new chiastic structure centred on the divine word as legislation.20 Henceforth, Ezekiel’s vision account of YHWH’s presence has become a law, indicating the way by which YHWH’s presence can be encountered; the law “is to be read as programmatic for the reconstruction of the society and cult of the Judean restoration” by the postexilic community.21 Although Tuell attributes the present form of Ezek 40–48 to a single purposive redaction, he follows most scholars in identifying the law of the Temple as redactional material. Whether the redaction history of Ezek 40–48 reveals a series of expansions or not, the focus of this section is on the identification of redactional material in Ezek 40–48 based on a comprehensive redaction-critical discussion by scholars. Among those who employ redaction criticism, most scholars, including this author, consider the entire law of the Temple (43:12–46:24*) as later additions to the account of the second temple-vision. However, the redaction history of the prologue of the law of the Temple (43:7–11) is quite disputed: Konkel regards Ezek 43:1–10* as the original part of the second temple-vision account,22 while some scholars consider Ezek 43:1–12* as a later addition.23 In my view, the prologue of the law of the Temple (43:7–11) should also be considered as a secondary expansion of Ezek 40–48. Indeed, I follow Wevers’s suggestion that 43:7b–12 is a series of additions. Wevers has shown that vv. 7b–8 form a statement concerning the defilement of corpses and judgement,24 which is quite different from the context of restoration and of the return of YHWH’s Glory. In addition, the command to describe the details of the temple and the ordinances to the people of Israel (vv. 10–11) is an elaboration of 40:4, indicating that vv. 10–11 are also secondary.25 Just like Wevers had argued, Tuell has also shown that Ezek 43:7b–8 shifts YHWH’s unconditional promise to the people’s defilement and the pronouncement of judgement.26 Indeed, vv. 7b–9 interrupt the natural movement from the depiction of YHWH’s Glory in the temple to the description of the temple ordinances. Ezek 43:7aβ–9 is probably a secondary addition with a “repetitive resumption,” an editorial device for marking insertions; vv. 7aβ–9 begin and end with references to YHWH’s promise “I

20 Tuell, Law of the Temple, 74–5. 21 Tuell, Law of the Temple, 79. 22 Konkel, Architektonik des Heiligen, 236–39. 23 Gese, Der Verfassungsentwurf, 31–33, 40–41, 108–9; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 548; Rudnig, Heilig und Profan, 83–96, 133–36, 232–33; Pohlmann and Rudnig, Hesekiel 20–48, 532–34, 538–39. 24 Eichrodt, Ezekiel, 551–53, argues that Ezek 43:7b–8a* is a detailed description of the people’s abominations, which is not expected at this position of the extant text. 25 Wevers, Ezekiel, 311. 26 Tuell, Law of the Temple, 38–9; Rudnig, Heilig und Profan, 94.

8.2 Textual Dependence between Ezekiel 6–7 and Ezekiel 43–46

223

will dwell among [the sons of Israel/them] forever.”27 Moreover, the use of the expression ‫“( מלכיהם‬their kings,” vv. 7b, 9) to describe Israel’s kings is probably a clue that Ezek 43:7b–9 is an expansion.28 Tuell has suggested, correctly I think, that Ezek 43:7aβ–9 is the insertion that fits into the Persian setting because “[t]he polemic in this insertion against Israel’s kings, and particularly against memorializing those kings, must come from a context in which it was necessary, or at least prudent, to downplay Israel’s past imperial aspirations.”29 In short, the text regarding the law of the Temple and its prologue should probably be attributed to the secondary expansions of the second temple-vision. Above all, it is commonly agreed that the secondary expansions in Ezek 43–46 are dated to the post-exilic period.

8.2 Textual Dependence between Ezekiel 6–7 and Ezekiel 43–46 The relationship between the secondary expansions in Ezek 6–7 and those in Ezek 43–46 will be manifested in the following paragraphs. We begin by summarising the lexical and thematic parallels between the law of the Temple and the secondary expansions of Ezek 6–7 in Table 7 below.

Tab. 7: A Comparison between Ezek 6–7 and the Law of the Temple. Plot of Ezekiel 6–7

Plot of Ezekiel 43:7b–46:24

Defilement of the altars by the corpses of the sons of Israel (‫)פגרי בני ישראל‬ (Ezek 6:5–7)

YHWH’s return to the sons of Israel (‫ )בני־ישראל‬involves a reversal of the defilement of his holy name by their abominations (‫)תועבות‬, the whoring (‫)זנה‬, and the corpses (‫ )פגר‬of their kings (Ezek 43:7–9)

27 Tuell, Law of the Temple, 41–2. 28 Tuell, Ezekiel, 294. Rudnig, Heilig und Profan, 94, has shown that “the house of Israel” is the subject at the beginning of v. 7b; however the expression ‫“( ומלכיהם‬their kings”) becomes the subjects of the misconduct alleged in v. 7bβ. The reference to “their kings” interrupts the account of defilement of YHWH’s holy name; the resumption of the expression ‫וטמאו את־שם‬ ‫“( קדשי‬they have defiled my holy name”) in v. 8bα identifies the text from ‫ ומלכיהם‬in 7bα to ‫“( את־שם קדשי‬my holy name”) in 8bα as an insertion. 29 Tuell, Ezekiel, 295.

224

8 The Relation between the Secondary Material and the Law of the Temple

Tab. 7 (continued) Plot of Ezekiel 6–7

Plot of Ezekiel 43:7b–46:24

Self-Loathing and Shame: After YHWH broke their whoring (‫ )זנה‬heart, the Israelites will loathe (‫)קוט‬30 themselves for the evils that they have committed (‫ )הרעות אשר עשו‬for all their abominations (‫)תועבות‬ (Ezek 6:8–10)

Self-Loathing and Shame: After the temple was described to the Israelites, they will be ashamed (‫ )כלם‬of all that they have committed (‫( )מכל אשר־עשו‬Ezek 43:10–11)

The Extent of the Illegitimate Altars (‫)מזבחת‬ on the Mountains (‫( )ההרים‬Ezek 6:13–14)

The Measurements of the Altar (‫ )מזבח‬with the Hearth (‫ )ההראל‬which is rendered literally as “the mountain of God” (Ezek 43:13–27)

Profanation (‫ )חלל‬of the Temple by the Foreigners (Ezek 7:5b–7a*, 21–24)

Profanation (‫ )חלל‬of the Temple by the Levites and the Foreigners (Ezek 44:6–8)

Accusation against the Aaronite Priesthood (Ezek 7:10–14*)

Hierarchical Distinction between the Zadokite and the Levite Priesthood (Ezek 44:9–45:6)

Dispossession of the Patrimonial Land (Ezek 7:12–13) Scattering of Israel among the nations (Ezek 7:15–16)

Prohibition against the Prince Seizing the Lands (Ezek 45:7–8, 46:16–18) Scattering of Israel from their possession (46:18b)

Israel’s Leaders (Ezek 7:23–27) “The land is full of judicial murders (‫משפט‬ ‫ )דמים‬and the city is full of violence (‫( ”)חמס‬v. 23) Profanation of Illicit Sacred Sites (‫מקדש‬, 7:24) Failure of the Leaders (7:26–27), including the Priest (‫)כהן‬, the Prince (‫)נשיא‬, the People of the Land (‫)עם־הארץ‬

Israel’s Leaders (Ezek 45:9–46:15) “Princes of Israel; put away violence (‫ … )חמס‬justice (‫ )משפט‬and righteousness” (v. 9a). Purification of the Sanctuary (‫מקדש‬, 45:18–20) Responsibilities of the Leaders (45:21– 46:15), including the Prince (‫)נשיא‬, the Priests (‫)כהנים‬, and the People of the Land (‫)עם־הארץ‬

8.2.1 Direction of Dependence between Ezekiel 6–7 and Ezekiel 43–46 The prophetic oracle in Ezek 6:2–7 is addressed against the mountains of Israel. As I have mentioned in section 5.2.1, Ezek 6:4b–7a draws on Lev 26:30–31 and Ezek 43:7–9. On the one hand, the expression ‫ונתתי את־פגרי בני ישראל לפני‬

30 The word ‫“( קוט‬to loathe”) and the word book of Ezekiel. Cf. § 5.2.2.

‫“( כלם‬to be ashamed”) are synonymous in the

8.2 Textual Dependence between Ezekiel 6–7 and Ezekiel 43–46

225

‫“( גלוליהם‬I shall put corpses of sons of Israel before their idols”) in v. 5a is undoubtedly connected to Lev 26:30. On the other hand, the addressees in Ezek 6 are “mountains;” however, v. 5a introduces a reference to the sons of Israel (‫בני‬ ‫)ישראל‬, which probably alludes to a promise of the divine presence in Ezek 43:7– 9. In Ezek 43:7–9, it is said that YHWH will dwell among the sons of Israel (‫בני‬ ‫ )ישראל‬forever. And the house of Israel will not again defile YHWH’s name by the corpses (‫ )פגרים‬of their kings in their high places (‫)במה‬. Thus, Ezek 6:5–7 is clearly secondary. By alluding to Lev 26:30–31, Ezek 6:5b mentions the expression ‫“( וזריתי את־עצמותיכם סביבות מזבחותיכם‬I shall scatter your bones around your altars”) which “presuppose the human addressees in Lev 26.”31 However, the anomalous third person suffix in v. 5a (‫“ גלוליהם‬their idols”), which stands in contrast to the second-person references in v. 5b, reveals that the clause v. 5a may derived from Ezek 43:7–9, in which third-person language is found. According to Lyons’s criteria that could be used to indicate the direction of dependence (see section 1.4.2), “the Lack of Coherence” or the so called “Incongruity” in Ezek 6:5–7 indicates that Ezek 6:5–7 is borrowing locutions from Lev 26:30–3132 and Ezek 43:7–9. It is preferable to see Ezek 6:5–7 as the later text which alludes to Ezek 43:7–9. Another criterion to determine the direction of dependence is “Interpretive Expansion” (see section 1.4.2). It is commonly agreed that redactors inserted expansions which may contain allusions to earlier texts. In such cases, they have often modified the evoked text in order to make it fit its new context in the alluding text; the shorter text is more likely to be the evoked text.33 In Ezek 7:21–24 we can see how redactors have modified a source text. Ezek 7:21–24 shows that the redactors developed the account of judgement against the Israelites on the Day of YHWH by couching it in terminology drawn from Ezek 44:7. On the one hand, in Ezek 44:7, the Levites brought (‫ )בוא‬the foreigners to profane (‫ )חלל‬YHWH’s sanctuary (‫)מקדש‬. On the other hand, in 7:21–24, YHWH allows the foreigners to profane (‫ )חלל‬the temple and brings (‫ )בוא‬the worst of the nations to profane (‫ )חלל‬the illicit cult sites (‫ )מקדש‬of Israel’s leaders. Here the redactors were taking the locutions from 44:7 and transforming the accusation against the Levites (44:7) into the judgement against the Israelites on the day of YHWH (7:21– 24). After the interpretive expansion, the enemies which desecrate the temple and plunder the Israelites’ property are further defined in four expressions in 7:21–24, namely “the foreigners, the wicked of the earth, robbers, and the worst of nations.” Thus, it is likely that the image of the profanation of the temple by

31 Lyons, From Law to Prophecy, 63. 32 Lyons, From Law to Prophecy, 61–63. 33 Lyons, From Law to Prophecy, 65.

226

8 The Relation between the Secondary Material and the Law of the Temple

foreigners in Ezek 7:21–24 is influenced by the account of the admission of foreigners to the sanctuary in Ezek 44:7. Here the shorter text, Ezek 44:7, is probably the source. Using the account of the economic effect on the day of YHWH (7:12–13) as an example, we can see how “Conceptual Dependence” can be used as another criterion for determining the direction of dependence. Although Ezek 7:12–13 does not clarify the nature of the sale, in light of the law of redeeming the patrimony at the Jubilee (Lev 25), Lyons has shown that the sale mentioned in 7:12–13 is found to be the business transaction of the patrimonial land.34 In Lev 25, the law about the Jubilee prohibits anyone from selling his land (vv. 23–38) and himself (vv. 39– 55) off permanently. Although Ezek 7:12–13 uses the locutions of Lev 25, it focuses only on the redemption of the land, without mentioning the redemption of slaves. In addition, Ezek 7:12–13 reflects a situation of an unfair trade practice on the day of YHWH.35 Similarly, Ezek 46:16–18 speaks of the law about the land inheritance, as well as the prohibition against the “greedy” prince seizing the lands from his people. On grounds of the criteria mentioned in section 1.4.2, Ezek 7:12–13 shows “conceptual dependence” on Lev 25, Ezek 45:7–8 and 46:16–18. As Lyons says, the intelligibility of Ezek 7:12–13 not only “depends on the readers’ knowledge of the situation referred to in Leviticus (regulations for the land tenure),”36 but also the earlier context in Ezek 45:7–8 and 46:16–18, both of which recount the law of the land inheritance and the denouncement of the greed of the prince. It is probable that Ezek 7:12–13 is influenced by Ezek 45:7–8 and 46:16–18. On grounds of the above examples, there are no strong objections against the view that the secondary expansions of Ezek 6–7 are influenced by the redactional material in Ezek 43–46. There is thus good support for the direction of dependence that I shall apply to the other shared locutions mentioned in the following sections.

8.2.2 Purposeful Textual Reuse between Ezekiel 6–7 and Ezekiel 43–46 As shown in Table 7, the high frequency of the shared locutions in Ezek 6–7 and 43–46 testifies to intentional reuse. The redactors’ awareness of the context in which these shared locutions occur is another indication of purposeful use (cf. § 1.4.2.3 criterion 2). The expression ‫“( בני ישראל‬the sons of Israel,” Ezek 6:5a; 43:7aβ) is a very common term in the HB, while the word ‫“( פגר‬the corpses,”

34 Lyons, From Law to Prophecy, 65. 35 See § 6.2.3. 36 Lyons, From Law to Prophecy, 65.

8.2 Textual Dependence between Ezekiel 6–7 and Ezekiel 43–46

227

Ezek 6:5a; 43:7bβ, 9a) is a rare expression. These two separate locutions from Ezek 43:7 appear together also in Ezek 6:5a. In Ezek 43:7, YHWH will come back and establish his residence among ‫( בני ישראל‬v. 7aβ), while he will not tolerate that the Israelites defile his holy name by the corpses of their kings (‫פגרי מלכיהם‬, v. 7bβ). The occurrence together of these two locutions in Ezek 6:5 testifies to the redactors’ awareness of the earlier text in Ezek 43: the combination of the expressions ‫ פגר‬and ‫ בני ישראל‬is found nowhere else in the HB. The redactors of Ezek 6–7 further demonstrate their purposefully use of the earlier textual material of Ezek 43–46 by reusing the locutions to create a new argument: the redactors changed the phrase ‫ בני ישראל‬from being a reference of hope regarding YHWH’s dwelling among the sons of Israel (43:7–9) to being a description of judgement against the sons of Israel and idolatry (cf. § 1.4.2.3 criterion 4). Ezek 7:5b–7a*, 21–24 transforms the accusation against the Levites into the way of YHWH’s defilement of Israelites’ illicit cult sites. The redactors developed the account of judgement against the Israelites on the Day of YHWH by couching it in terminology drawn from Ezek 44:6–9 (For a detailed discussion, see § 8.3.2.1). The redactors reused multiple separate locutions from the source text (Ezek 44) to create a new argument; such interaction with Ezek 44 can be attributed to purposeful reuse (cf. § 1.4.2.3 criterion 4). The judgement against the Israelites on the day of YHWH (7:5b–7a*, 21–24) shares with the accusation against the Levites (44:6–9) the motif of the defilement of cultic places and the temple by the foreigners. The terms ‫“( כהן‬the priest”), ‫“( נשיא‬the prince”), and ‫“( עם־הארץ‬the people of the land”) are very common expressions in the HB. Elsewhere in the HB, however, the collocation of these three terms is very rare (cf. Ezek 7:26–27; 46:2– 3, 8–10). Ezek 46:1–3, 8–10 specifies that the Israel’s leaders, namely the prince, the priests and the people of the land,37 have to observe the gate ordinances for the Sabbath, the new moon, and the appointed feasts. In 7:26–27 the redactors combined these three terms in close proximity, in order to demonstrate their awareness of the earlier texts in Ezek 46; the redactors changed the borrowed material in order to portray the images of the failure of leadership (cf. § 1.4.2.3 criteria 2 & 4). The redactors of Ezek 6–7 patterned the redactional material on the virtually identical plot structure of Ezek 43–46. The distinctiveness of the plot and the thematic parallels, together with the rarity of the combinations of common

37 Duguid, Ezekiel and Leaders, 119–21, has shown that the expression ‫“( עם־הארץ‬the people of the land”) denotes a group of powerful people in Jerusalem. Cf. Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 671; Odell, Ezekiel, 95.

228

8 The Relation between the Secondary Material and the Law of the Temple

words (as shown above), makes the relation between the redactional material of Ezek 6–7 and Ezek 43–46 more likely to be a case of intentional literary dependence (see § 1.4.2.3 criterion 5b).

8.3 The Secondary Expansions in Ezekiel 6–7 and the Law of the Temple In Chapters Five and Six, I considered the motifs of hope and restoration in the redactional material of the account of Ezekiel’s commission concerning the mountains of Israel (Ezek 6) and in the redactional material of the account of Ezekiel’s commission concerning the judgement against the inhabitant of the land (Ezek 7). The motif of hope and restoration in Ezek 6–7 contains the defilement of cultic sites, the desolation of the land, and the theme of divine presence. As I have argued in section 5.2.2, the oracle of salvation in Ezek 6:8–10 is probably editorial, in which the redactors linked the remembering of YHWH with self-loathing and with the restoration of Israelites’ recognition of YHWH. Although the secondary expansions in 6:4b–7a and 13aβ–14 are within the context of the divine judgement, they still contain elements related to the motif of hope and restoration. On the one hand, the redactors envisioned the defilement and destruction of the altars in vv. 4b–7a as the prerequisite for restoration in the aftermath of exile. On the other hand, the description of scattering the dead corpses of the people among the idols and altars is recapitulated in vv. 13aβ– 14, in which the desolation of the land is related to the abundance of idols on every high hill, on all the mountain tops, under every green tree, and under every leafy oak. In the case of Ezek 7, some of the secondary expansions in Ezek 7 indicate literary cross-references to the law code in Ezek 40–48, which is regarded as regulations for preserving the sanctity of the temple, and the ways by which the divine presence may legitimately be accessed.38 These regulations explain the emphasis on the motif of defilement and the separation of the consecrated from the unconsecrated in the law of the Temple.39 The motif concerning the defilement is recapitulated in the secondary expansions of Ezek 7, in which the objects of the defilement include the temple (vv. 21–22) and the illicit sanctuaries (v. 24). It is fair to suggest that the redactors of Ezek 6–7 were not only concerned with the motif of restoration, but also with the motif of defilement of the

38 Tuell, Law of the Temple, 75. 39 Tova Ganzel and Shalom E. Holtz, “Ezekiel’s Temple in Babylonian Context,” VT 64 (2014): 211–226.

8.3 The Secondary Expansions in Ezekiel 6–7 and the Law of the Temple

229

place and the object of worship. In some cases, the defilement of cultic places is a prerequisite for restoration. In addition, the account concerning the failure of priestly obligation (Ezek 44:9–31) and that concerning the inheritance of the patrimonial land (Ezek 45:7–8; 46:16–18) appear in Ezek 7:12b–16.

8.3.1 The Relation between Ezekiel 6 and 43:6–27 Ezek 43:13–46:24 as a whole is a law code in the restoration programme of Ezek 40–48; “the law of the Temple” (‫תורת הבית‬, Ezek 43:12) is the heading of this law code.40 There are passages in Ezekiel that contains material very similar to what we see in the law of the Temple. As shown in the previous section, many of the secondary expansions in Ezek 6–7 have been shaped to allude to the law of the Temple. The first allusion occurs in the secondary material of Ezek 6:4b– 7a which demonstrates that YHWH actively overthrows the practices of idolatry by scattering the corpses of the Israelites around their idols and demolishing the cultic places in all the Israelites’ dwellings. These verses indicate the active role of YHWH in compelling the Israelites to eliminate idolatry. Ezek 6:4b–7a comprises of the motif of defilement. We also see the motif of defilement in the prologue of the law of the Temple (43:7–11). Here, I shall begin by providing an outline of the material in Ezek 43:6–27 and then show how the later extensions in Ezek 6 interact with it. In this way, I shall show that the interpolation of secondary expansions into Ezek 6–7 creates additional bridges connecting the four vision accounts in Ezekiel. 8.3.1.1 Ezekiel 6:4b–7a and 43:7–9 The law of the Temple in Ezek 43 is preceded by a declaration of YHWH’s intentions in returning to the Temple (43:7–9). In his declaration, YHWH promises to live among the Israelites forever (vv. 7, 9), and demands the cessation of the behaviour that will defile his holy name. The accusation of the Israelites’ iniquitous behaviour includes ‫“( זנותם‬their whoring,” vv. 7, 9), the pollution of the temple by ‫“( פגרי מלכיהם‬the corpses of their kings,” vv. 7, 9), and ‫תועבותם‬ (“their abominations,” v. 8). After the declaration of the Israelites’ charge and the promise of his presence, YHWH commands Ezekiel to describe ‫“( צורת‬the layout,” v. 11) and the “statutes (‫ )חקות‬and laws (‫ ”)תורת‬of the temple to the people of Israel, so that they may be ashamed (‫ )כלם‬of their sins (vv. 10, 11). Just like the first secondary expansion in Ezek 6:4b–7a (see section 5.2.1), the

40 Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 591; Tuell, Ezekiel, 302.

230

8 The Relation between the Secondary Material and the Law of the Temple

prologue of the law of the Temple (43:7–11) contains the motif of defilement. Here the account of the divine presence embeds the motif of defilement, which is presupposed by the bodies of the law of the Temple. The repeated expression ‫“( זאת תורת הבית‬this is the law of the Temple,” 43:12a, 12bβ) forms an inclusio with the expression ‫“( על־ראש ההר כל־גבלו סביב סביב קדש קדשים‬all its surrounding area on the top of the mountain will be most holy,” 43:12bα), highlighting the association of the law code with the holiness of the mountain top. In addition to this expression ‫על־ראש ההר כל־גבלו סביב סביב קדש קדשים‬, the motif of defilement in vv. 7b–9 foregrounds the central theme of the law of the Temple again: the holiness of the temple and its precincts, which is preserved by the right liturgy performed according to a hierarchical distinction between the Zadokite priests, the Levites, and the prince.41 The secondary expansions in Ezek 6–7 are terse and compressed statements. They begin by recapitulating the motif of defilement in the prologue of the law of the Temple (Ezek 43). In 6:4b–7a, it is said that YHWH will defile the high places (‫ )במה‬of the sons of Israel (‫ )בני ישראל‬by scattering the corpses (‫ )פגרים‬and human bones around their idols and altars, after his announcement of imminent invasion of the land (6:3). As a later development, Ezek 6:4b–7a picks up the promise of the divine presence in 43:7–9: “I shall dwell among the sons of Israel (‫ )בני ישראל‬forever. And the house of Israel will not again defile my holy name … by the corpses (‫ )פגרים‬of their kings in their high places (‫)במה‬,” and transforms it into an image of YHWH’s punishment against the sons of Israel, and on the high places and the idols: YHWH will put the corpses of the sons of Israel before their idols (‫ונתתי את־פגרי בני ישראל לפני גלוליהם‬, 6:5a).42

8.3.1.2 Ezekiel 6:8–10 and 43:10–11 The following Ezek 6:8–10 functions in a similar way as a reapplication of 43:10–11. Both texts specify the topic about self-loathing and shame. In 43:10– 11, it is the details of the temple design that leads to the shame of the Israelites.43 In other words, as explicated by Milgrom, “the shame that will be generated among the people when Ezekiel relates to them the details of the sanctuary grounds will increase manifold, when the people themselves perform these measurements.”44 Here the Israelites are invited to YHWH’s presence by his

41 42 43 44

Tuell, Ezekiel, 302. See § 8.2.2. Tuell, Ezekiel, 301. Milgrom, Ezekiel’s Hope, 114.

8.3 The Secondary Expansions in Ezekiel 6–7 and the Law of the Temple

231

grace alone;45 the details of the temple design enable them to look back upon their past behaviour that they have committed (‫מכל אשר־עשו‬, 43:11a). In the same way, it is the active role of gracious YHWH that enables the occurrence of remembering and self-loathing in 6:8–10. In 6:8–10, once the Israelites are able to remember their evils that they have committed (‫אל־הרעות אשר עשו‬, 6:9bβ) after the divine action, they will feel ashamed of themselves, which, in turn, will restore their recognition of YHWH (see section 5.2.2). 8.3.1.3 Ezekiel 6:13aβ–14 and 43:13–27 The secondary expansion in Ezek 6:8–10 shares the motif of self-loathing in the prologue of the law of the Temple. The subsequent redactional material in Ezek 6:13aβ–14 is an allusion to the opening section of the law of the Temple, Ezek 43:13–27. Ezek 43:13–27 designates the proper altar of burnt offering and the rituals for its consecration. The redactors of the law of the Temple specified the measurements of the altar in detail. The altar contains ‫“( חיק‬a trench,” vv. 13–14) and ‫האראיל‬/‫“( ההראל‬the altar hearth,” vv. 15–16). In v. 18, two functions of the altar are specified: it is built to offer the whole burnt offerings to YHWH and to be the place upon which the blood-sprinkling ritual is performed. Thus, the trench here functioned as a receptacle for carrying off the blood from the sacrifices and thereby keeping the blood separate from the rest of the temple, preventing the defilement of the sacred ground.46 According to the priestly ideology of Ezekiel, the Israelites have defiled the land with their past iniquity.47 Ezek 43:13–14 directs the reader back to the motif of defilement and that of the land (cf. Ezek 36:16–21; Lev 18:24–30). By means of the regulations regarding the altar, the redactors of the law of the Temple now sought to add hope to those who may be ashamed of their iniquities and, as a result, now observe all the statues (vv. 10, 11). Similarly, Ezek 6:13aβ–14 reiterates the motif of defilement and the motif of the land, as well as the terms “the altar” (‫ )מזבח‬and “the mountain tops” (‫בכל‬ ‫ ;ראשי ההרים‬cf. Ezek 43:12, 15). The saying in 6:13aβ–14 is the inescapable divine judgement upon the house of Israel; the focus of the condemnation is on Israel’s idolatry. Rather than depicting the measurements of the altar as in 43:13–14, the redactors of 6:13aβ–14 highlighted the extent of the illegitimate

45 Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 589. 46 Tuell, Ezekiel, 303; Milgrom, Ezekiel’s Hope, 120; Sweeney, Reading Ezekiel, 209. 47 Tikva Frymer-Kensky, “Pollution, Purification, and Purgation in Biblical Israel,” in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday, eds. Carol L. Meyers, Michael P. O’Connor, and David N. Freedman (ASOR 1; Winona Lake, IN.: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 399–414 (406–9); Tuell, Ezekiel, 245–46.

232

8 The Relation between the Secondary Material and the Law of the Temple

altars by means of two pairs of parallel lines: on every high hill, on all the tops of the mountains; and beneath every green tree and every leafy oak. Instead of offering a sacrifice to YHWH as in 43:18–27, the Israelites in 6:13aβ–14 put an odour of soothing to all their idols. As a result, their slain ones will be among their idols around their altars (6:13aβ), and the land will become more desolate and waste (6:14). Apart from the motifs of defilement and of the land, both Ezek 6:13aβ–14 and 43:13–27 contain the motif of divine presence. The use of a symbolic expression in describing the parts of the altar, namely ‫“( חיק‬a trench”) and ‫האראיל‬/ ‫“( ההראל‬the altar hearth”), reflects the motif of divine presence. In Ezek 43:13– 17, the expression ‫ ומחיק הארץ‬is best understood as “from the trench on the ground;” however, the expression is rendered literally as “from the bosom of the earth.”48 Accordingly, Milgrom has shown that the expression ‫ומחיק הארץ‬ symbolically refers to the location of the altar at the centre of the earth.49 The altar hearth is called ‫ ההראל‬in v. 15 and ‫ האריאל‬in v. 16. The expression ‫ההראל‬ is rendered literally as “the mountain of God.”50 Tuell has suggested that the altar is a symbolic mountain: “the description of the altar hearth as ‘the mountain of God’ is particularly evocative, given the altar’s structure. It is a threelevel stepped pyramid, like the ziggurats of ancient Mesopotamia.”51 What all this suggests is that the altar hearth symbolically represents “the mountain of God,” which is the meeting place of heaven and earth, while the altar’s foundation, namely ‫חיק‬, is at the centre of the world.52 In this way, the altar in Ezek 43:13–17 was at one time regarded as the centre of the world or the point of contact with the divine presence.53 The motif of divine presence and the motif of hope and restoration are inseparable. The restoration of the temple and the land is connected with and dependent upon the return of the divine presence. Similarly, the motif of divine presence is also at the heart of the account in 6:13aβ–14, in which the redactors intentionally avoided the usage of ‫ אלהים‬for

48 Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 370 n. 132; Tuell, Ezekiel, 303; Milgrom, Ezekiel’s Hope, 120. 49 Milgrom, Ezekiel’s Hope, 120. 50 Jon D. Levenson, Sinai and Zion An Entry into the Jewish Bible (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987), 139; Milgrom, Ezekiel’s Hope, 120. 51 Tuell, Ezekiel, 304. 52 In the imagery of the ancient Near Eastern temple, the temple symbolises the cosmic mountain where is an intersection between heaven and earth, and is at the centre of the world. 53 Levenson, Sinai and Zion, 139–40, has argued that “the center (or navel or axis or fulcrum) is not a point in space at all, but the point in relation to which all space attains individualization and meaning … It is for this reason that the Hebrew Bible is capable of affirming God’s heavenly and his earthly presence without the slightest hint of tension between the two.”

8.3 The Secondary Expansions in Ezekiel 6–7 and the Law of the Temple

233

“gods.” Moreover, the redactors used the expression ‫“( גלולים‬idols”) to imply a misrepresentation of the divine presence (see section 5.2.3). In their perspective, the “gods,” which Israel’s idols represent, are not gods at all; they were impotent; they never existed. In this way, the redactors implied that YHWH is not a god among many, but the only God.54 In 6:13aβ–14, despite the abundance of idols everywhere, the physical presence of idols is not legitimate representations of divine presence. On account of the vacuity of idols, 6:14 envisions the judgement concerning the desolation and destruction of the land. In other words, the desolation of the land and the defilement of idols imply the manifestation of YHWH presence and his sovereignty, as well as his victory against the vacuous idols. The law of the Temple begins with the design of the altar (43:13–17), which not only conveys the theme of the divine presence but also a way of preventing the defilement of the sacred ground. Ezek 6:13aβ–14 is influenced by 43:13–27, emphasising the close relationship between the defilement of the land and the absence of the deity. Here we see the conceptual dependence of the secondary material in Ezek 6 on 43:13–27, in which the symbolic names of the altar hearth and the trench, as well as the function of the trench, suggest that the divine presence and the defilement of the land are mutually exclusive.

8.3.2 The Relation between Ezekiel 7 and 44:6–46:18 As we have noted, the redactional material of Ezek 6 shares with the prologue of the law of the Temple (43:7–11), as well as with the regulations regarding the altar’s design and its consecration (43:13–27), a set of basic values concerning the relationship between the divine presence and the defilement of land. How, then, do the Israelites’ violation of the sacred space (44:6–8) and the law concerning the Levites’ access to the temple (44:9–14) relate in any way to the redactional layers of Ezek 7? To answer this question, one needs to see the concern about the motif of defilement in the regulations governing movement and access. In the following paragraphs, I shall work out the connections between the secondary material of Ezek 7 and the law code in the restoration programme of Ezek 40–48. 8.3.2.1 Ezekiel 7:5b–7a*, 21–24 and 44:6–8 The redactors of Ezek 7 evoked the law of the Temple, principally by recapitulating the elements of defilement. The secondary expansions in 7:5b–7a*, 21–24, in 54 Kutsko, “Ezekiel’s Anthropology,” 122–23.

234

8 The Relation between the Secondary Material and the Law of the Temple

which the motif of defilement of cultic places or of the temple occurs, suggest a closer association with the regulations pertaining to the Levites’ access to the sacred space, including their violation of the sacred space in the past (44:4–14). Ezek 44:6–8 provides the background and the reason for the judgement against the Levites:55 the Levites broke the covenant with all their abominations (‫)תועבה‬. In addition, the Levites brought (‫ )בוא‬the foreigners, who were uncircumcised in heart and flesh, into the sanctuary (‫)מקדש‬, profaning (‫ )חלל‬the temple when they offered the food, the fat, and the blood. Likewise, throughout the secondary expansions in Ezek 7, it is clear that ‫ הצפירה‬is about to come because of the people’s abominations (‫תועבה‬, 7:8). The ‫ צפירה‬is the agent of punishment whom YHWH sends to punish Israel, but eventually becomes the enemy against whom YHWH turns his face (see section 6.2.2). The character of this agent of divine punishment is reflected in the four expressions in 7:21–24, namely the foreigners (v. 21), the wicked of the earth (v. 21), robbers (v. 22), and the worst of nations (v. 24).56 Accordingly, the foreigners and the wicked of the earth are said to desecrate (‫ )חלל‬the temple and to plunder the Israelites’ property, while YHWH will bring (‫ )בוא‬the worst of the nations to profane (‫ )חלל‬the illicit sacred sites (‫ )מקדש‬of Israel’s leaders. It seems probable that the secondary expansions in Ezek 7 were written in development of Ezek 44:6–14. As such, Ezek 7:5b–7a*, 21–24 transforms the accusation against the Levites into the way of YHWH’s defilement of Israelites’ illicit sacred sites. In addition, Ezek 7:5b–7a*, 21–24 shows that the redactors developed the account of judgement against the Israelites on the Day of YHWH by couching it in terminology drawn from Ezek 44:6–9. On the one hand, in Ezek 44:6–9, the Levites (‫ )בוא‬brought the foreigners to profane (‫ )חלל‬the YHWH’s sanctuary (‫)מקדש‬. On the other hand, in 7:21–24, YHWH allows the foreigners to profane (‫ )חלל‬the temple and brings (‫ )בוא‬the worst of the nations to profane (‫ )חלל‬the illicit sacred sites (‫ )מקדש‬of Israel’s leaders. In this way, the judgement against the Israelites on the day of YHWH (7:5b–7a*, 21–24) shares with the accusation against the Levites (44:6–9) the motif of the defilement of cultic places and the temple by the foreigners. These thematic and lexical connections provides us with clue to the motif of the ascendancy of the Zadokite priesthood in the redactional material of Ezek 7. To this topic we now turn. 8.3.2.2 Ezekiel 7:10–11, 14 and 44:9–45:6 Ezek 7:10–11, 14 continues to allude to Ezek 44:9–31, highlighting the collapse of the authority of the Aaronite priesthood and the failure of the priests to ac55 Tuell, Ezekiel, 307. 56 Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 266.

8.3 The Secondary Expansions in Ezekiel 6–7 and the Law of the Temple

235

complish their missions. Ezek 44:9–14 emphasises the Levites’ limited access to the temple, while 44:15–31 grants access to the temple to the Zadokite priests and deals with the conduct and duties of the priests. The account of the Levites begins with YHWH’s accusation against the Levites, who were implicated in the idolatries of the house of Israel. According to 44:12, the Levites even led the Israelites astray in their idolatrous way.57 As a result, they were barred from performing priestly duties. The account of the Zadokite priests’ duties begins by comparing the Levites with the Zadokites, who faithfully kept charge of the sanctuary when the Israelites went astray from YHWH. As a result, YHWH granted the Zadokites exclusive rights to the priesthood and access to the entire temple. In short, Ezek 44 develops the theme of the special status of the Zadokites over against the Levites:58 although the Levites are allowed to serve as guards at the temple gates and to slaughter and prepare offerings for the altar, it is the Zadokite line of priests alone who shall enter the sanctuary and approach the altar. The hierarchical distinction between the Zadokites and the Levites continues in 45:1–6, which takes up the allocation of sacred spaces to the priests, the Levites, and the prince. The holy portion of land (‫ )קדש מן־הארץ‬is divided into two portions; one is for the priests while another is for the Levites (45:4–5). In keeping with 44:9–31, Ezek 45:1–6 has assumed the special status of the Zadokites, whose allotted portion includes the holy area for the sanctuary (45:3–4). In short, because of the act of defilement, the Levites were punished with the loss of their priestly role. Henceforth, the laws concerning Zadokites’ obligations (44:17–27) are a series of regulations against the act of defilement.59 Moreover, Ezek 45:1–6 highlights the ascendancy of the Zadokites. The increased ascendancy of the Zadokites is illustrated by their ministry in the sanctuary before YHWH and the location of the sanctuary in their allotted land.

57 Milgrom, Ezekiel’s Hope, 162. 58 Joyce, Ezekiel, 232. 59 The regulations begin with the issue regarding the priestly clothing in 44:17–19: Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 640, has shown that the priests are prohibited to wear any garments made of wool (‫ )צמר‬because this material causes perspiration, and sweat, like other bodily excretions, was considered defiling (cf. Deut 23:12–14). Secondly, in 44:23, the priest has an obligation to teach the people to observe the distinctions among the holy and the profane, and to cause them to discern the unclean and the clean. Thirdly, in 44:25–27 the priestly responsibilities towards the dead are mentioned; the regulations for purification following defilement enable the priests to resume their duties in the sacred precincts of the Temple, where the divine presence has already returned. The laws concerning the Zadokites’ obligations (44:17–27) are related to the motif of defilement and that of the divine presence. The redactors of the law of the Temple expanded and reinterpreted the motif of defilement by intruding the duties of the Zadokite priesthood into the law of the Temple.

236

8 The Relation between the Secondary Material and the Law of the Temple

The redactional material of 7:10–14* is connected with Ezek 44:9–45:6 insofar as the accusation against the Levites is concerned. The imagery of the blossoming rod of wickedness (Ezek 7:10–11) and the failure of the priests to assemble the Israelites to go to battle by blowing the trumpet (7:14) imply the corruption of the Aaronite priesthood and the Israelites’ denial of the Aaronite leadership (see section 6.2.4). Both of these instances in 7:10–11 and 7:14 may be influenced by the failure of the Levites’ priestly obligation in Ezek 44:9–45:6. Milgrom has shown that according to Deut 18:6–9 the Levites have the right to serve at the sanctuary.60 Thus, as I have argued in section 7.2, the Levites and the Aaronite priesthood may have begun to function as priests to the remnants of Judah in Jerusalem after the Zadokite priesthood was deported to Babylon in 597 B.C.E. However, after their return, the Zadokite priesthood tried to reassert their traditional priestly rights over the altar in the Jerusalem temple. Thus, in order to highlight the account of failure of the coalition of the Levite and the Aaronite priesthood, the redactors of Ezek 7 recapitulated the accusation against the Levites in 44:6–14 and the exaltation of the Zadokite priesthood by rejecting the Levites as priests in 44:15–45:6. 8.3.2.3 Ezekiel 7:12–13 and 45:7–8, 46:16–18 There is a link between the account of the economic effect of the day of YHWH (7:12–13) and the laws in 45:7–8 and 46:16–18. The laws in 45:7–8 and 46:16–18 attempt to outline the prince’s obligation to the people in order to prevent the people from falling victim to the prince’s greed. In 46:16–18, it is said that the people may keep a gift from the prince’s inheritance until the year of liberty, which probably refers to the Jubilee, in accordance with Lev 25:10.61 Moreover, the prince is commanded not to seize the Israelite patrimony through his greed, otherwise the people may be dispossessed of their patrimonies. In fact, the accusation of the princes’ greed has already been mentioned in Ezek 45:8: ‫ולא־יונו‬ ‫“( עוד נשיאי את־עמי והארץ יתנו לבית־ישראל לשבטיהם‬my princes will no longer oppress my people but will give the land to the house of Israel according to their tribes”). The account of the law about the prince’s property concludes in 46:18 with a prohibition against the prince seizing the lands from his people through his greed, emphasising the point that the people of Israel may not be deprived of their land so that they would not be scattered from their possession.62 As a later development, Ezek 7:12–13 was influenced by the saying in the law of the Temple, and was transformed into the account of the sale of the patri-

60 Milgrom, Ezekiel’s Hope, 162. 61 Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 268; Tuell, Ezekiel, 322; Sweeney, Reading Ezekiel, 220. 62 Sweeney, Reading Ezekiel, 220.

8.3 The Secondary Expansions in Ezekiel 6–7 and the Law of the Temple

237

monial land on the approaching day of YHWH. As mentioned in section 6.2.3, in light of the law of redeeming the patrimony at the Jubilee (Lev 25:25–28), the business transaction in 7:12–13 is found to be the sale of the patrimonial land.63 Henceforth, the redactors of Ezek 7:12–13 embedded the locutions of Lev 25 in the announcement of the day of YHWH to argue that the landowner who has sold his patrimonial land to cover his debt should not mourn his loss, nor should the buyer of the land rejoice.64 The futility of the law about the Jubilee on the day of YHWH is due to the fact that during the invasion neither buyer nor seller will be alive to see the return of the patrimonial property. However, if both parties are alive, it is customary that both sides of the business transactions rejoice: a buyer rejoices in his purchase and a seller also rejoices in making a profit. In the case of Ezek 7:12–13, the buyer rejoices while the seller mourns because the selling price has probably been lowered drastically.65 It reflects a situation that the seller falls victim to the buyer’s avarice. Indeed, the account in Ezek 7:12–13 focuses on the unfair trade deal and the dispossession of the patrimonial land on the day of YHWH. It seems probable that Ezek 7:12–13 was written in development of Ezek 45:7– 8 and 46:16–18. The redactors of Ezek 7:12–13 evoked 46:16–18 by repeating its emphasis on the motif of the land: the law about land redemption, as well as the relationship between the land inheritance and the scattering of Israel. Allusions to the relationship between the dispossession of the patrimonial land and the scattering of Israel appear in 46:16–18, the dispossession of the Israelite patrimony (Ezek 7:12–13) and the scattering of Israel among the nations (Ezek 7:15–16) stand in a cause-and-effect relationship with each other. The redactional material of Ezek 7:12–13 is related to the restoration programme of Ezek 40–48.

8.3.2.4 Ezekiel 7:23–27 and 45:9–46:15 Following the account of the economic effect of the Day of YHWH, the portrayal of the foreign invasion (7:23–24) and images of the failure of Israel’s leaders (7:25–27) continue to be influenced by the subsequent laws pertaining to the prince in Ezek 45:9–46:15. Ezek 45:9–17 defines the role of the prince, beginning with a prophetic critique:66 “Enough, you princes of Israel; put away violence (‫ )חמס‬and destruction” (v. 9aαβ). This prophetic critique is followed by a command to practise justice (‫ )משפט‬and righteousness (v. 9aγ). Following the com-

63 64 65 66

Lyons, From Law to Prophecy, 65. Lyons, From Law to Prophecy, 65, 144. Brownlee, Ezekiel 1–19, 118. Tuell, Ezekiel, 315.

238

8 The Relation between the Secondary Material and the Law of the Temple

mand, 45:10–12 takes up the prince’s obligation to practise justice by employing honest measures. After that, vv. 13–17 focus on the prince’s obligation to provide all of the temple’s offerings for the people. Ezek 45:18–25 then turns to the purification of the sanctuary (vv. 18–20) and the role of the prince as patron of the liturgy (vv. 21–25). Ezek 46:1–15 concludes the laws regarding the prince not only by specifying the prince’s obligations on the major feasts, Shabbat, and new moons, but also the regulations concerning the prince’s proper entry and exit of the temple. There are verbal affinity and thematic parallels between Ezek 7:23–27 and 45:9–46:15 (see also § 8.2.2). Ezek 7:23–27 and 45:9 share an impressive cluster of terms (‫ משפט‬+ ‫)המס‬. In the law of the Temple, in particular in 45:9–12 the princes are commanded to give up violence (‫ )חמס‬and practise justice (‫)משפט‬, on the one hand, and in 7:23 the leaders who committed the judicial murders (‫ )משפט דמים‬are responsible for making the city full of violence (‫)חמס‬, on the other. Here I follow most scholars’ suggestion that the phrase ‫ משפט דמים‬is rendered as judicial murder (7:23),67 “a reference to legally sanctioned abuses of power that harm the weaker members of the community. Those responsible for such crimes are the political elite who use the legal system to their advantage.”68 In response to the judicial murder and the violence throughout the city, YHWH pronounces in Ezek 7:23–27: “Make the chain, for the land is full of judicial murders (‫ )משפט דמים‬and the city is full of violence (‫ … )חמס‬and by their judgment (‫ )משפט‬I will judge (‫ )שפט‬them.” Elsewhere in the HB the word ‫רתוק‬ (“chain”) only occurs in Ezek 7:23a; it is probably derived from the root ‫רתק‬ (“to bind”).69 The expression ‫“( עשה הרתוק‬make the chain,” v. 23a) probably implies the imagery of binding which refers to the judgement against Israel’s leaders.70 Following the pronouncement of making the chain, YHWH will bring “the worst of the nations” (‫ )רעי גוים‬to desecrate the pagan cult sites of the strong ones (7:24); the strong ones are “a special class” closely associated with the pagan cult sites who gain power from the religious institution.71 In this case, the strong ones probably constitute a group of Israel’s leaders. The final part of the account of Ezek 7:23–27 reads “they will seek a vision from the prophet, but the law will be lost from the priest, and counsel of the elders. The king will mourn, the prince will be clothed with desolation … and by their judgment I will judge them” (vv. 26b–27). This is a reference to the failure of the leaders

67 68 69 70 71

Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 154; Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 267. Odell, Ezekiel, 95. Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 154; Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 267; Joyce, Ezekiel, 95. Odell, Ezekiel, 94–5. Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 268.

8.4 The Purpose of Interpolation of Secondary Expansions of Ezek 6–7

239

and the divine judgement upon them.72 In addition to the defilement of the land and the city by the bloodshed of judicial murder (v. 23) and by idolatry (v. 24), the polemic against Israel’s leaders is the main theme in Ezek 7:23–27. In contrast to Ezek 45:9–46:15, in which an ideal model of Israel’s leader – the prince – is depicted, Ezek 7:23–27 portrays the failure of Israel’s leaders. As a later development, Ezek 7:23–27 recalls the locutions from 45:9, in which the prince is asked to practise justice (i.e. purposeful textual reuse, cf. § 1.4.2.3 criteria 4 & 5b). Moreover, the sequence of imagery from Ezek 45:9–46:15 is picked up in Ezek 7:23–27. In short, the lexical and thematic parallels found in the law of the Temple and the secondary expansions of Ezek 6–7 are hardly a coincidence. As we have noted, many of the secondary expansions in Ezek 6–7 have drawn upon the law of the Temple. It would seem to be the case that the evoked texts of the restoration programme of Ezek 40–48 have been deliberately selected and are related to the motifs of defilement and the land. The motif of hope and restoration in Ezek 6–7 contains the elements regarding the defilement of cultic sites and the desolation of the land. It explains why the redactional material in Ezek 6–7 specifically alludes to the accusation of the Israelites’ iniquitous behaviour, and the accusation against the Levites who went astray after idols and allowed foreigners to profane the temple. It also explains why the redactional material in Ezek 7 specifically alludes to the prophetic critique of the princes’ greed within the context of the inheritance of the patrimonial land. By alluding to the law of the Temple, the redactors of Ezek 1–7 inserted the motifs of defilement and the land into Ezekiel’s oracles concerning his inaugural vision (Ezek 1–7), in order to create bridging structures, linking the four visions accounts in Ezekiel. To this topic we now turn.

8.4 The Purpose of Interpolation of Secondary Expansions of Ezek 6–7 By alluding to the law code in the restoration programme (Ezek 43–46), not only the elements of hope and restoration, but also the motifs of defilement and the land are highlighted in the secondary expansions of Ezek 6–7. The context of hope and restoration in Ezek 6–7 contains the defilement of cultic sites, the desolation of the land, and the motif of the divine presence. With reference to

72 Paul M. Joyce, “King and Messiah in Ezekiel,” in King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar, ed. J. Day (JSOTSup 270; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 323–337 (323).

240

8 The Relation between the Secondary Material and the Law of the Temple

the motifs of defilement and the land, this interpolation allows Ezekiel’s oracles concerning his inaugural vision (Ezek 1–7) and Ezekiel’s vision of the Temple (Ezek 40–48) to be drawn more tightly together, though the theme of divine presence has already linked the two vision accounts (Ezek 1–3 and 40–48). The divine presence is the central theme of three vision reports in Ezekiel: YHWH’s Glory in Babylon (Ezek 1–3), the departure of YHWH’s Glory and destruction of Jerusalem (Ezek 8–11), and the return of YHWH’s Glory to the restored temple (Ezek 40–48).73 The final scene in Ezekiel is also related to the theme of the divine presence. It is the announcement of the city name, ‫“( יהוה שמה‬YHWH is there”), indicating that YHWH dwells in the midst of his people. The name of the city is announced within the context of the restoration and the allotment of the land (Ezek 47–48). What this city shows is the fulfilment of a promise to the house of Israel mentioned in Ezek 43: ‫עתה ירחקו את־זנותם ופגרי מלכיהם‬ ‫“( ממני ושכנתי בתוכם לעולם‬Now they will put away their whoring and the corpses of their kings far from me; and I shall dwell in the midst of them forever,” 43:9). Here the cessation of the ritual defilement of the temple is associated with the return of the divine presence to the land, which will then be restored by the healing river flowing from the dwelling place of YHWH (47:1–12). In my judgement, both the motif of the land and that of the defilement of cultic places or the temple are significant for the structure of Ezekiel; such significance has not been fully appreciated in previous studies. In the following paragraphs, I shall work out the full significance of the recurring theme of the divine presence in the vision accounts and its relationship with the motifs of the land and of the defilement. With the remarkable exception of Ezek 1–3, the divine presence as depicted in another two vision accounts is associated with the motif of the defilement of cultic places or the temple. Ezek 8–11 involves an accusation of ritual defilement of the temple against the people of Jerusalem. In 8:1–18, YHWH shows Ezekiel ‫“( תועבות גדלות אשר בית־ישראל עשים‬the great abominations which the house of Israel is committing,” 8:6b) in the temple. Then in 9:3 Ezekiel sees the movement of the ‫ כבוד אלהי ישראל‬from above the cherubim to the threshold of the temple, and in 10:18–19 he sees the movement of ‫ כבוד־יהוה‬from the threshold of the temple to the eastern gate of the temple. Thus, the first templevision in Ezek 8–11 has been interpreted as a vision of YHWH’s departure from the temple, which the people of Jerusalem had defiled by committing cultic sins. Ezek 40–48 describes the temple’s architecture, the return of the divine

73 William A. Tooman, “Covenant and Presence in the Composition and Theology of Ezekiel,” in Divine Presence and Absence in Exilic and Post-Exilic Judaism, eds. Nathan Macdonald and Izaak J. de Hulster (FAT II/61; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 154.

8.4 The Purpose of Interpolation of Secondary Expansions of Ezek 6–7

241

presence, and the law of the Temple. In 43:1–9 the return of ‫כבוד אלהי ישראל‬ accomplishes the sanctification of the temple;74 YHWH declares that he will dwell among the sons of Israel forever, ‫ולא יטמאו עוד בית־ישראל שם קדשי‬ ‫“( המה ומלכיהם בזנותם ובפגרי מלכיהם במותם‬and the house of Israel will never again defile his holy name neither they nor their kings by their whoring and by the corpses of their kings in their high places,” 43:7b). The addition of the secondary expansions into Ezek 6–7 had four important functions relating to the theme of the divine presence in Ezekiel’s inaugural vision. First, in contrast to the association of the motif of defilement with the divine presence depicted in Ezek 8–11 and 40–43, Ezekiel’s inaugural vision (Ezek 1–3) lacks any motif of defilement. The redactional account of the living beings (Ezek 1:5–12) and the wheel redaction (Ezek 1:15–21) conveys the messages about the sovereignty of YHWH and the unlimited mobility of YHWH. These messages assert YHWH’s continued presence as a sanctuary in exile and that his presence has no boundaries (see § 2.2.1). As I have argued before, the redactors of Ezek 6–7 were concerned with the elements of defilement, which are embedded in the redactional motif of hope and restoration in Ezek 6:4b– 7a, 13–14 and 7:21–24. By combining the elements of defilement of Ezek 6–7 with the redactional vision account of the divine presence (1:4–28), the redactors of Ezek 1–7 created an extra bridge in the final form of Ezekiel’s oracles concerning his inaugural vision in which the theme of the divine presence and the motif of defilement were highlighted. This extra bridge links Ezek 1–7 to the accounts of the temple-vision in Ezek 8–11 and 40–43, which have already been drawn together by the complementary accounts of the first temple’s defilement and the sanctification of the restored temple.75 Second, the motif of defilement in the redactional material of Ezek 6–7 portends the departure of the ‫ כבוד־יהוה‬from the sacred precincts of the temple mentioned in Ezek 8–11. Together with the first temple-vision (Ezek 8–11), the motif of defilement of the secondary expansions answers a question that is implicit in Ezekiel’s inaugural vision: When Ezekiel saw the ‫ כבוד־יהוה‬in Babylon, what had happened in the Jerusalem temple? According to the priestly idea of the divine presence, YHWH reveals his Glory in the sacred precincts of the temple.76 Tooman has shown that the divine presence mentioned in P and Ezekiel “does not manifest itself in more than one place at a time.”77 Thus, through adding the motif of defilement, the redactors of Ezek 6–7 dropped a

74 75 76 77

Tuell, Ezekiel, 294. Tooman, “Covenant and Presence,” 156. Tuell, Ezekiel, 44. William A. Tooman, “Ezekiel’s Radical Challenge to Inviolability,” ZAW 121/4 (2009), 511.

242

8 The Relation between the Secondary Material and the Law of the Temple

hint that the presence of ‫ כבוד־יהוה‬in Babylon beside the Chebar River, which Ezekiel experienced in his inaugural vision, presupposes the absence of ‫ כבוד־יהוה‬from the Jerusalem temple. Third, the addition emphasises the relationship between the divine presence and the restoration of the cult in the Jerusalem temple, as well as to the restoration of the land. This relationship also occurs in Ezek 40–48. On the one hand, the termination of the ritual defilement of the temple is associated with the return of the divine presence to the land (43:9), which will finally be restored by the healing river flowing from the dwelling place of YHWH (47:1–12). On the other hand, the secondary expansion in Ezek 6:13–14 depicts the desolation of the land as being related to the abundance of idols, among which the dead corpses of the people will be scattered. Here a bridge is created between Ezek 1–7 and 40–48 by emphasising the relationship between the motif of divine presence and the motif of the land. Fourth and finally, by highlighting the correlation between the divine presence, the motif of defilement, and that of the land, the redactors also drew Ezek 37 into the visionary framework of Ezekiel.78 In section 5.2.2, I have shown that the cluster of terms ‫ זכר‬+ ‫ קוט‬+ ‫ ידע‬links the oracle of hope and restoration in Ezek 6:8–10 to the account of restoration of the house of Israel in Ezek 36:16– 38, which is juxtaposed with the vision account in 37:1–14. According to Tooman, the addition of Ezek 36:23–38 connected Ezek 37:1–14 with an oracle of hope (11:17–21) embedded within the account of the first temple-vision (Ezek 8–11).79 The oracle of hope and restoration in Ezek 6:8–10 was inserted into Ezekiel’s oracles concerning his inaugural vision (Ezek 1–7); this insertion increases the coherence of Ezekiel by creating overarching bridges between the vision accounts in Ezek 1–7, Ezek 8–11 and Ezek 37. Thus, three of these vision accounts are focused on the motif of hope and restoration. The account of the valley vision (Ezek 37:1–14) is slightly different from the other three vision accounts; it does not mention the ‫כבוד־יהוה‬.80 However, just like the other vision accounts, excluding Ezek 40–48, Ezek 37:1–14 is followed by a sign-act (vv. 15–23).81 The sign-act in Ezek 37 is concerned with the reunification of the tribes into one nation in the land, in which the people will be gathered from all around and brought back from the nations (vv. 21–22); the people will no longer be defiled by their idols (v. 23a). As a result, the divine presence will be upon the people because YHWH serves as their God and they will be YHWH’s people (v. 23b). In

78 79 80 81

For the lexical and thematic connections between 3:22–27 and 37:1–14, see § 3.3.1. Tooman, “Covenant and Presence,” 156–59. Tooman, “Covenant and Presence,” 158. Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, xxvi; Tooman, “Covenant and Presence,” 154. See § 1.3.3.1.

8.5 Conclusion

243

addition, YHWH will put his sanctuary among them forever (vv. 27–28). The valley vision (Ezek 37:1–14) and its associated sign-act (Ezek 37:15–23) contain the motif of divine presence, the motif of defilement, and that of the land. By the interpolation of secondary expansions into Ezek 6–7, the motifs of defilement and of the land are added adjacently to the theme of the divine presence in Ezekiel’s inaugural vision, just like the motifs of defilement and the land are closely related to the theme of the divine presence in Ezek 37. The addition of Ezek 7:23–24, which includes the sign-act denoting the judgement against Israel’s leaders,82 as well as the profanation of their illicit sacred sites, creates another thematic bridge and structural coherence between Ezek 1–7 and Ezek 37. Ezek 37 also contains a sign-act which symbolises the reunification of the nation that will never be defiled by the act of idolatry. For these four reasons, we have found that all four vision accounts in Ezekiel are interwoven together in the final redaction of the book by the correlation between the motif of divine presence, the motif of defilement, and the motif of the land.

8.5 Conclusion The redactional material in Ezek 6–7 alludes to the law of the Temple and its prologue (43:6–46:18). The motif of hope and restoration in the secondary material of Ezek 6 contains the elements regarding the defilement of cultic places by scattering the corpses (6:4b–7a), which alludes to the prologue of the law of the Temple (43:7b–9). The motifs of defilement and the land in the remaining parts of the redactional material in Ezek 6, namely the abundance of idols and illicit altars resulting in the judgement concerning the desolation and the destruction of the land (6:13–14), are influenced by the first part of the law code (43:13–27) which is concerned with the design of the altar and the rituals for its consecration. Moreover, the secondary expansions of Ezek 7, containing the motif of defilement (7:5b–7a*) and the imagery of the blossoming rod of wickedness (7:10– 14*), are related to the account of the hierarchical distinction between the Zadokites and the Levites (44:6–16; 45:1–6), and the laws concerning the responsibil-

82 Here I follow Odell, Ezekiel, 95, that the command “Make a chain!” in 7:23a is probably “understood as an order for Ezekiel to perform a symbolic act.” In addition, according to Friebel, Jeremiah’s and Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts, 387–88, Ezekiel’s clapping hands and stamping feet (6:11) are “conventional gestures of indignation,” representing “God’s attitude toward the people’s wickedness.” Friebel concedes that this non-verbal behaviour is termed “representational,” just as the sign-acts depicted in Ezek 4–5. Thus, Ezek 6–7 probably contains some elements of sign-act.

244

8 The Relation between the Secondary Material and the Law of the Temple

ities of the Zadokite priest (44:17–27). Finally, the images of foreign invasion and the failure of Israel’s leaders (7:23–27) in the remaining parts of the redactional material in Ezek 7 have drawn from the critique of the prince concerning the inheritance of the patrimonial land (45:7–8; 46:16–18) and the laws pertaining to the prince (Ezek 45:9–46:15). It is probably that the redactors of Ezek 6–7 have intentionally selected the evoked texts containing the motifs of defilement and of the land. The thematic parallels found in the secondary expansions of Ezek 6–7 and the law of the Temple at the same point in the plot make it unlikely that these similarities are coincidental. It is more logical to argue that the secondary material in Ezek 6–7 has drawn upon the law of the Temple. Or to put it in another way, the motif of hope and restoration in Ezek 6–7 has drawn upon the law code in the restoration programme of Ezek 40–48. The context of hope and restoration in Ezek 6–7 contains the defilement of the cultic sites, the desolation of the land, and the motif of the divine presence. Thus, by the addition of the motif of hope and restoration of Ezek 6–7, the redactors increased the weight and the significance of the elements of defilement and land in the oracles concerning Ezekiel’s inaugural vision. In this way, the addition of the motif of hope and restoration into the extant form of Ezek 6–7 creates additional bridges connecting the other three vision accounts (Ezek 8–11, 37, 40–48) in Ezekiel. Moreover, the addition alters the theological theme of the final redaction of the book by highlighting the sayings of defilement and the land within the context of the divine presence. In other words, the redactors of Ezek 1–7 increased the coherence of Ezekiel by connecting the motif of hope and restoration in Ezek 6–7 to the law code in the restoration programme of Ezek 40–48. The book of Ezekiel owes its theological and structural framework to the later additions in Ezek 6– 7. These additions link up the four vision accounts in Ezekiel and interweave them together in the final redaction of the book by the correlation between the motif of defilement, the motif of the land, and the motif of divine presence, which is the central theme of Ezekiel’s vision accounts.

9 Conclusion 9.1 Summary of Study One starting point for this study is from the statement made by Block:1 “[The] elements of ‘grace’ and ‘hope’ are not even limited to restoration texts that offer hope for the future, but the notion underlies the entire book.” After reading through the book, we may now agree with Block. In the introduction of my study (Chapter 1), I asked a question: “Although the earliest layer of the first half of Ezekiel indeed is devoid of the concept of restoration, is it possible that later editorial layers have supplemented the texts with material which convey restoration and hope for the future?” It is my hope that the first part of the book, Chapters Two to Six, offers answers to this question. In Chapters Two to Six, I identified the secondary expansions in Ezek 1–7 through textual and redaction criticism. As a result of my investigation, I located the following redactional material in Ezek 1–7: In chapter 2–3, Ezek 1:1–3*, 4–28*, and Ezek 3:16b–21, 22–27 form redactional expansions, in chapters 4–5, Ezek 4:4–8, 12–15, 16–17; 5:3–4, 11–13, 16–17 form redactional expansions, and in chapters 6–7, Ezek 6:4b–7a, 8–10, 13–14*, and Ezek 7:5b–7a*, 12b–14, 16, 19– 27* form redactional expansions. In addition to textual and redaction criticism, we can identify a text as redactional due to its interpretative character; redactional expansions contain inner-biblical interpretation. Thus in my study, innerbiblical interpretation also plays role in the course of the textual interpretations of Ezek 1–7. Looking at all the textual expansions, I demonstrated that almost all of them testify to the motif of hope and restoration. I therefore suggested that the redactors responsible for these expansions sought to convey restoration and hope for the future. Having identified the secondary expansions in Ezek 1–7, I shed light upon the interrelatedness of the redactional material within the literary unit Ezek 1– 7. I also highlighted the interrelationship between the redactional material of Ezek 1–7 and other biblical texts. Let us now return to the answers offered to the question that I mentioned above. I shall begin these concluding remarks by looking at the relationship between the redactional material in Ezek 1:1–3:15 and the motif of hope and restoration (Chapter 2). Although the original call narrative (Ezek 2:3–3:15*) is devoid of the notion of hope and restoration, the original call narrative was expanded by adding the vision of Glory (Ezek 1:4–28*) that contains the motif of hope and restoration,

1 Block, “The God Ezekiel Wants Us to Meet,” 167. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110711578-009

246

9 Conclusion

and by adding the redactional material that involves the motif of the reinstatement of Ezekiel as priest. The focus of the original call narrative is the legitimisation and recognition of Ezekiel as YHWH’s prophet; once Ezekiel had become an exile and no longer served in the temple, he lost his priestly role and his identity of priest. Ezekiel is thus portrayed only as a prophet in the original Ezek 2:3–3:15*. Later redactions modified this portrayal of Ezekiel. The later glosses in Ezek 1:2–3a not only provide the information that Ezekiel is explicitly regarded as a priest, but also clarify the ambiguous expression ‫“( שלשים שנה‬the thirtieth year,” 1:1aα) as Ezekiel’s age of full initiation to priesthood. With this expansion of the original call narrative through the glosses in Ezek 1:2–3a, a new text was created that implies restoration aspects of Ezekiel’s priestly role. Redactors strove to make the text relevant to the context of hope and restoration. I suggest that the redactional material that speaks about the reinstatement of priestly role was understood as hope and restoration by the exiles, as it implies that in the future, a restored priesthood would offer sacrifices in a restored temple. In other words, the exiles probably perceived that the temple would be restored once the restoration of the priestly function occurred. In Chapter Two, I further argued that the earliest layer of Ezekiel contains the message of divine judgement; in the original call narrative, YHWH is portrayed as a cruel God who ignores the responses of his rebellious people. In contrast, the redactional account of the Glory vision conveys the message of the sovereignty of YHWH and asserts YHWH’s continued presence and his presence as a sanctuary in exile. In this way, the expanded call narrative conveys a message of restoration and hope for the future; its imagery displays YHWH as a sovereign lord who is already among the exile by the river Chebar. The redactional material in Ezek 1:1–3:15, which contains the motif of hope and restoration, gives a clue that the elements of hope and restoration occur in the later additions of Ezek 1–7. The next section, Ezek 3:16b–21, is also of redactional origin. As I demonstrated in Chapter 3, this expansion is dependent on Ezek 18:24–30 and 33:7–9, 14–16. In contrast to the original call narrative, the account of Ezek 3:16b–21 emphasises the mitigration of the divine punishment that is expressed by the theme of YHWH’s call for repentance. The two hypothetical cases of the wicked man in 3:17–19 are dependent on 33:7–9; however, an additional phrase ‫[“( הרשעה לחיתו‬from his] wicked [way] that he may live”) interferes with the parallel text in 33:7–9. The hypothetical case of the repentance of the righteous man in Ezek 3:21 alludes to 33:14–16; here the redactors of Ezek 3:16b–21 used the phrase ‫“( חיו יחיה‬he will surely live,” v. 21 bα), taken from 33:15, to fit a new context regarding the repentance of the righteous man. The use of the word ‫ לחיתו‬in terms of preserving the life of the wicked person

9.1 Summary of Study

247

in Ezek 3:18 and the occurrence of the phrase ‫ חיו יחיה‬in 3:21bα together bring the underlying truth of YHWH’s redemptive will to the surface. In addition to the use of ‫ לחיתו‬and ‫חיו יחיה‬, the redactors borrowed the expression ‫מכשול‬ (“stumbling block,” Ezek 3:20) from Ezek 18:30–32. This reuse indicates that the redactors of Ezek 3:16b–21 inserted the element of hope in terms of the mitigation of the divine punishment into the context of judgement. In Ezek 18:24–32, the redactors used the expression ‫ מכשול‬to emphasise that a righteous man has the ability to turn away from injustice. By alluding to Ezek 18:30–32, the ‫מכשול‬ in 3:16b–21 thus stresses that a sinner has a chance to make a decision to withhold his hand from injustice. In sum, the redactors inserted Ezek 3:16b–21 into the expanded call narrative in order to highlight that the commission of Ezekiel as the watchman is an expression of the mitigation of the severity of the punishment. It is also a call to repentance. As I have argued in Chapter Three, the account of Ezekiel’s binding in Ezek 3:22–27 is another redactional matter that adds the motif of hope and restoration to the original text. It draws material from an earlier text, namely Ezek 37:1–14. The lexical connections and sequence of imagery in Ezek 3:25–27 and those in Ezek 37:1–14 share affinity. In Ezek 37:1–14, three stages of restoration are depicted: first in the stage of rejoining the dry bones, sinews, flesh, and skin, then in the stage of the incomplete fulfilment of the restoration because of the absence of breath in the bones, and finally in the complete restoration of dry bones to life. Likewise, the account of Ezekiel’s binding and the opening of his mouth in Ezek 3:25–27 portrays an account of different stages of restoration. First, in Ezek 3:25, the binding of Ezekiel with ropes (‫ )עבותים‬symbolises the captivity of the exiles on the one hand, and the reinstatement of Ezekiel’s priestly role on the other. In the priestly literature, the ropes (‫ )עבותים‬refer to the gold cords that bind the ephod and the breastplate of judgement on the high priest. Thus, the binding of Ezekiel with ropes demonstrates that Ezekiel shares the fate of the exilic community as a priest. Secondly, with regard to the promise of the reinstatement of Ezekiel’s priestly role in v. 25, there is an incomplete fulfilment of the promise in v. 26: Ezekiel is unable to speak; his priestly role as intercessor is disabled. Thirdly, in v. 27 the promise of opening (‫ )פתח‬Ezekiel’s mouth signifies that his priestly role as intercessor will be restored. The redactional material of Ezek 4–5 continues to exemplify the restoration aspect of Ezekiel’s priestly role . As I argued in Chapter Four, while the original sign-acts in Ezek 4–5 symbolise the siege of Jerusalem and the outcome of the siege, the later additions of Ezek 4–5 supplement the texts with elements of hope and restoration. The sign-act in Ezek 4:4–8 where Ezekiel bears iniquity is redactional material which recounts the action of Ezekiel’s priestly role of suffering for the Israelites. The subsequent redactional material in Ezek 4:12–15

248

9 Conclusion

recounts YHWH’s response to Ezekiel’s protest: Ezekiel protests to YHWH that he has never been defiled from his youth; he protests against the use of human excrement as fuel. Consequently, Ezekiel is granted the concession of not violating ritual purity. The sign-act of 4:12–15 not only reflects YHWH’s mitigation of the severity of the punishment but also the restoration of Ezekiel’s state of purity. In the case of Ezek 5, the redactional material in Ezek 5:3–4 tells of a few strands of hair placed in Ezekiel’s garment. It conveys the hope of protection and preservation and, in doing so, contradicts the depiction of the totality of judgement in the original sign-act of 5:1–2. The motif of hope and restoration in Ezek 5:3 is further emphasised by the thematic parallel with Lev 26:33–39. By alluding to Lev 26:33–39, the motif of hope and restoration in Ezek 5:3 is inserted after the oracle of judgement in Ezek 5:2. Ezek 5:13 is another piece of redactional material in Ezek 5. By alluding to Lev 26:31–33 and to Ezek 24:13b–14, Ezek 5:13 speaks of the venting of YHWH’s wrath and his intention to mitigate the severity of the punishment. As such is expressed by the juxtaposition of the expressions ‫כלה‬, ‫נוח‬, and ‫ נחם‬in the context of judgement. In Ezek 3–5, the redactional material mainly conveys messages concerning hope and restoration, in particular the motif of restoration expressed by the reinstatement of Ezekiel’s priestly role (Chapters Three and Four). Building on Chapters Three and Four, Chapter Seven explores the interrelatedness of the redactional material within Ezek 3–5 and the interrelationship between the redactional material of Ezek 3–5 and Zech 3. As I argued in Chapter Seven, the recurrent reference to the reinstatement of the priesthood is the point at which the redactional material of Ezek 3–5 connects with Zech 3, a text that also depicts the reinstitution of the priesthood. Zech 3:3 recounts that Joshua is dressed in filthy clothes and hence indicates that Joshua is in a state of uncleanness. Later on (Zech 3:4–5), Joshua is cleansed and thus made fit to serve as high priest. Joshua resumes his duty to intercede for the Israelites (Zech 3:7) and to bear their iniquity (Zech 3:9). Similarly, the redactional material in Ezek 3–5 recounts that Ezekiel’s priestly role is restored through the act of binding with ‫( עבותים‬Ezek 3:25); moreover, his ability to intercede for the Israelites (Ezek 3:27) and to bear their iniquity (Ezek 4:4–8), as well as his state of purity (Ezek 4:12–15), is restored. Indeed, Zech 3 and the redactional material of Ezek 3–5 display similarities in terms of their plot (see section 7.4). The redactional material in Ezek 3–5 not only reflects the textual material in Zech 3, but also the historical situation in Yehud. These similarities suggest that the redactional material of Ezek 3–5 is of an interrelated nature: in some way the redactors patterned the redactional material in Ezek 3–5, which is characterised by inner-textual allusions, on the similar plot structure of Zech 3. Apart from the allusion to Zech 3, the redactional material of Ezek 3–5 is also influenced by the concept of priesthood in Ezek 40–48.

9.1 Summary of Study

249

The interrelatedness of the redactional material within the literary unit, Ezek 1–7, is further demonstrated by the fact that Ezek 3:16–27 and 4:4–8 are bound together by cross-referencing. For example, there is cross-referencing to thematic resemblance regarding restoration aspect of Ezekiel’s priestly role between Ezek 3:16–27 and 4:4–8. The redactors inserted the restoration aspect of Ezekiel’s priestly role into Ezek 3–5 in order to reassert the legitimacy of the Zadokite priesthood in the early Persian period. Turning to the redactional material in Ezek 6–7 (Chapters Five and Six), the motif of hope and restoration in the redactional material of Ezek 6–7 includes the defilement of cultic sites, the desolation of the land, and the divine presence. The imagery of defilement in Ezek 6:4b–7a is reminiscent of the covenant curses against the idolatrous practice in Lev 26 and of the scenario of Josiah’s reform in 2 Kgs. The redactional addition of Ezek 6:4b–7a reveals that the redactors envisioned the defilement of the idols, the altars, and the high places as a prerequisite for restoration. The redactional oracle of salvation in Ezek 6:8–10 also reflects the motif of hope and restoration through the connection of the language of remembrance: the Israelites’ remembering of their past behaviour will eventually lead to the restoration of their knowledge of YHWH. Moreover, the locutions and themes in Ezek 6:4b–7a and 6:8–10 epitomize YHWH’s initiative. In Ezek 6:4b–7a it is YHWH who actively overthrows the practices of idolatry in advance of the restoration, while in Ezek 6:8–10 it is also YHWH who enables the occurrence of the remnants’ remembering and self-loathing before the restoration of their recognition of YHWH. The motif of YHWH’s action and his presence is found also in the redactional addition in Ezek 6:13aβ–14. In this text, the redactors connected the extent of the desolated land with the manifestation of YHWH’s presence and the vacuity of idols. The redactional material in Ezek 7 contains literary cross-references to the law code in Ezek 43:7b–46:18. The imagery of the blossoming rod in 7:10–11, 14, which is concerned with the reference to the priesthood, is influenced by the account of the accusation against the Levites and the responsibilities of the Zadokite priests (44:9–45:6); moreover, the account of the economic effect on the day of YHWH in 7:12–14 is influenced by the law regarding the land inheritance (45:7–8; 46:16–18). Building on Chapters Five and Six, Chapter Eight explores the interrelationship between the redactional material of Ezek 6–7 and the restoration programme of Ezek 40–48. As I argued in Chapter Eight, the redactional material of Ezek 6–7 contains the motif of hope and restoration, including the defilement of cultic sites, the desolation of the land, and the divine presence. The sequence of the motif of hope and restoration in the redactional material of Ezek 6–7 is aligned with the law of the Temple and its prologue (Ezek 43:7b–46:24*). The

250

9 Conclusion

prologue of the law of the Temple begins with the accusation of the Israelites’ iniquitous behaviour that includes the defilement of the Temple by the corpses (Ezek 43:7–9). Later on, Ezek 43:10–11 recounts that the Israelites’ recognition of the Temple design will lead to their self-loathing and shame. The following Ezek 43:13–27 begins the law of Temple and designates the measurements of the altar. Then follows regulations pertaining to the Levites’ access to the sacred space (44:4–14) and the hierarchical distinction between the Zadokite and the Levite priesthood (44:15–45:6). The law of the Temple concludes with the prohibition against the prince seizing lands (45:7–8, 46:16–18). Similarly, the redactional material in Ezek 6–7 begins with the reference to the defilement of the altars by corpses (Ezek 6:4b–7a), followed by the motif of self-loathing and shame (Ezek 6:8–10), and the description of the extent of the illegitimate altars (Ezek 6:13–14). Then follows the account of foreigners’ profanation of the Temple (Ezek 7:5b–7a*, 21–24) and the accusation against the Aaronite Priesthood (Ezek 7:10–14*). Subsequently Ezek 7:12–16* speaks of the dispossession of the patrimonial land. These parallels suggest the interrelatedness of the redactional material within Ezek 6–7. As mentioned above, the motif of hope and restoration in Ezek 6–7 includes the defilement of cultic sites, the desolation of the land, and the divine presence. Thus, by the addition of the motif of hope and restoration in Ezek 6–7, the redactors increased the weight and significance of the motifs of defilement and land in the literary unit Ezek 1–7. In this way, by inserting the motif of hope and restoration into the extant form of Ezek 1–7, the redactors created additional bridges connecting the other three vision accounts (Ezek 8– 11; 37; 40–48) in Ezekiel; and thus increased the coherence of the book. All four vision accounts in Ezekiel are interwoven together by the correlation between the motif of divine presence, the motif of defilement, and the motif of the land.

9.2 Suggestions for Further Studies This study has focused on the interrelatedness of the redactional material within the literary unit Ezek 1–7. First, the restoration aspect of Ezekiel’s priestly role runs through the redactional material in Ezek 3–5: Ezek 3:22–27 portrays the binding of Ezekiel with ‫ עבותים‬symbolising the reinstatement of his priestly role. Afterward, in 4:4–8, 12–15 Ezekiel’s ability to bear the iniquity of the people and his ritual purity are asserted, implying his legitimacy as the priest. In this way, the redactional material in Ezek 3–5 is characterised by inner-textual allusions. Moreover, this restoration aspect of Ezekiel’s priestly role in the redactional material of Ezek 3–5 is intentionally patterned on the similar plot structure of Zech 3, which depicts the reinstitution of the priesthood; these thematic parallels indicate that the redactional material of Ezek 3–5 is of an interrelated

9.2 Suggestions for Further Studies

251

nature. Second, the motif of hope and restoration in the redactional material of Ezek 6–7 and in the law of the Temple in Ezek 43–46 display similarities in terms of their plot; this alignment of the motif of hope and restoration in Ezek 6–7 indicates that also the redactional material of Ezek 6–7 is of an interrelated nature. In sum, I hope that my interpretation of the motif of hope and restoration in Ezek 1–7 will enrich our understanding of the interrelatedness of the redactional material within different literary units in Ezekiel, and of the ways in which this redactional material within different literary units works together to increase the coherence of Ezekiel. This study has sought to highlight that the later additions to the accounts of Ezekiel’s sign-acts can be aligned with the perspective and textual material of Zech 3. Scholars have made great efforts and provided tremendous insights into the integral character of Zech 3 in Zechariah’s vision report (Zech 1:8–6:8).2 Among them, Boda has shown that “Zechariah 1–8 was in largely the form we have it today shortly after the date provided in 7:1,”3 while according to Tiemeyer, Zech 3 is part of the original vision report and “Zech 3 only makes sense in Judah around 520 B.C.E., when the historical character of Joshua was active.”4 As mentioned before, there are conceptual as well as structural parallels between Zech 3 and the redactional material of Ezek 3–5. If Boda and Tiemeyer are right that Zech 3 was written around 520 B.C.E., it is probable that the secondary expansions of Ezek 3–5 have drawn upon the historical context of the Persian province of Yehud around 520 to 518 B.C.E. The relationship between the vision report in Zech 3 and the compositional history of the redactional material in Ezek 1–7 opens wide an area of further study, namely the relation between the vision report of Zech 1–6 and the redactional material in other vision accounts (i.e. the vision and its associated sign-act) of Ezekiel. No one would disregard the significance of the composition history of the redactional material in Ezekiel. As I mentioned above, the redactional material in Ezek 3–5 is dated to the post-exilic period, as demonstrated by its clear dependence upon Zech 3. The evoked text, Zech 3, not only reflects the historical situation of Yehud around 520 to 518 B.C.E., but also establishes a terminus ad quo for the redactional material in Ezek 1–7. I have also shown that the redactional material of Ezek 6–7 is a post-exilic text, and that the later redactional material has supplemented Ezek 6–7 with material which convey hope for the future, although the original texts of Ezek 6–7 is characterised by remarkably vehement declarations of judgment. The redactional material of Ezek 6–7 highlights the motif of hope and restoration expressed by remembering and self2 See Chapter 7 footnote 47. 3 Boda, Zechariah, 33. 4 Tiemeyer, Zechariah and His Vision, 133.

252

9 Conclusion

loathing. In this respect, after the interpolation of the redactional material, the reader is prompted to read Ezek 6–7 in reflection, remembrance, and shame in the light of the disasters and the exiles that had already come upon Israel.5 Thus, the composition of Ezek 6–7 cannot be too late; otherwise it is difficult to explain its relevance for its presumed readers, for whom its exilic focus and declarations of judgement are given. Moreover, as I have argued in Chapter Eight, there is thematic parallel between the redactional material of Ezek 6–7 and the law of the Temple (Ezek 43–46), a text that reflects “the reconstruction of the society and cult of Judean restoration”6 by the post-exilic community in the early Persian period. In my view, there is little reason for presuming the composition of the redactional material in Ezek 6–7 beyond the end of the sixth century B.C.E. In my view, the redactional material of the literary unit Ezek 1–7 was probably composed in the two decades before the end of the sixth century B.C.E. It is my hope that the outcome of my study will inspire scholars to find new approaches that can shed light upon the composition history of other redactional material within the entire book of Ezekiel. The allusions in the redactional material to Zech 3 and Ezek 43–46 reveal certain things about the redactors of Ezek 1–7. By alluding to Zech 3, the redactors of the account of Ezekiel’s sign-acts attempted to reassert Zadokite priesthood by inserting the references to the reinstatement of Ezekiel’s priestly role into the literary unit of Ezek 1–7. Thus, the redactors behind the later additions of symbolic acts in Ezek 3–5 are probably representatives of a Zadokite perspective during the post-exilic period. As I mentioned above, the redactional material of Ezek 6– 7 is a post-exilic text that alludes to the law of the Temple in Ezek 43–46. Here the law of the Temple including its prologue (Ezek 43–46) is considered as later additions of the second temple-vision, and is dated to the post-exilic period (see section 8.1). In other words, Ezek 43–46 may be an earlier or contemporaneous text in comparison to the redactional material of Ezek 6–7. Even though I have shown that the secondary expansions of Ezek 6–7 allude to those of Ezek 43–46, the secondary expansions of Ezek 6–7 are probably contemporary with those of Ezek 43–46; they are more likely the literary products of the same redactors who made redaction to the early layers of Ezekiel in the post-exilic period. The postexilic period, as such, is the period that the redactional material of Ezek 3–5 was added to the growing body of the book of Ezekiel. As Ezek 1–7 is the literary unit, it is reasonable to propose that the redactional layers of Ezek 1–7 were composed by the same redactors, who may have been the Zadokite priesthood living in Yehud by the end of the sixth century B.C.E.

5 Odell, Ezekiel, 83. 6 Tuell, Law of the Temple, 79.

Appendix A: The Relative Chronology of Ezek 3:22–27 and 37:1–14 A linguistic development has been observed in the language of the Hebrew Bible.1 It is possible to examine the chronological development regarding the language of the HB in Ezekiel and to conjecture the relative chronological order among the different chapters in the book.2

1 Most scholars concede that there is a clear development from Early Biblical Hebrew (EBH) to Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH) in the history of Biblical Hebrew (BH). See Robert Polzin, Late Biblical Hebrew: Toward an Historical Typology of Biblical Hebrew Prose (HSM 12; Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1976), 1–25; Avi Hurvitz, A Linguistic Study of the Relationship between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel: A New Approach to an Old Problem (CahRB 20; Paris: J. Gabalda, 1982), 7–21; Mark F. Rooker, Biblical Hebrew in Transition: The Language of the Book of Ezekiel (JSOTSup 90; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 55–64; Richard M. Wright, Linguistic Evidence for the Pre-exilic Date of the Yahwistic Source (LHBOTS 419; London: T&T Clark, 2005), 1–21. In recent years, the validity of the use of linguistic evidence in the dating of biblical texts has been challenged by Ian Young, Robert Rezetko, and Martin Ehrensvärd in Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts, 2. vols. (London: Equinox, 2008). They argue that the pre-exilic biblical books which attest EBH have LBH features; likewise, the post-exilic books which attest LBH have EBH features. Thus, they propose that EBH and LBH do not represent two chronological periods in the history of BH, but instead represent two co-existing “authorial/editorial/scribal approaches to language use” throughout the biblical period: conservative and non-conservative. See Young et al., Linguistic Dating, 111–41. However, Ziony Zevit provides convincing arguments against the idea of Young, Rezetko and Ehrensvärd in his article, namely “Not-So-Random Thoughts on Linguistic Dating and Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew,” in Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew, eds. Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé and Ziony Zevit (LSAWS 8; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012), 455–89. Zevit has shown that the sociolinguistic setting in the territories of Judah remained unchanged during the Neo-Babylonian or exilic period. In contrast, the Hebrew of the diaspora community began to change after they had settled in Babylonia; their “Hebrew had to accommodate itself to new social, political, and economic realities, for which local language had terminology,” and “[t]heir Hebrew was thus exposed to local dialects of two high-prestige languages: Aramaic and Akkadian.” As a result, “Mesopotamianised Hebrew” emerged in the diaspora community. By the time of return from exile, when speakers of these two forms of Hebrew contacted with each other, eventually a different type of Hebrew, namely LBH, emerged. I share his view that Ezekiel spoke to the exiles in Babylonia in an early form of “Mesopotamianised Hebrew” or a slightly evolved form of EBH. According to Hurvitz, Linguistic Study, 160–61, this early form of “Mesopotamianised Hebrew” is a kind of transitional form of language, which “no longer includes all the linguistic elements which typified the earlier period, at the same time it is still lacking some of the characteristic features of subsequent periods.” I follow Zevit’s argument that there is a linguistic history of Hebrew from Iron Age through the Persian period. 2 Rooker, Biblical Hebrew in Transition, 1, has shown that the chronological line of BH is divided by two successive language states: pre-exilic or EBH and post-exilic or LBH. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110711578-010

254

Appendix A: The Relative Chronology of Ezek 3:22–27 and 37:1–14

Rooker has shown that the grammatical features in Ezekiel are different from the conventional practice seen in early biblical Hebrew. The grammatical traits of Ezekiel appear to represent a transitional stage between Early Biblical Hebrew (EBH) and Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH).3 As noted by Rooker, “evidence of a LBH feature in Ezekiel does not necessarily imply that Ezekiel only employs the LBH phenomenon to the exclusion of the corresponding EBH feature.”4 Thus, we may examine the grammatical features of Ezekiel, and discover the extent to which Ezek 3:22–27 may be distinguished from Ezek 37:1–14. There is a scholarly consensus that Ezek 40–48 was written at a later date, namely the post-exilic period.5 Before considering the grammatical features of Ezek 3:22–27 and 37:1–14, we should also examine those that appear in Ezek 40– 48, so that we can check whether the proposed LBH features are consistent throughout Ezekiel. Several scholars have noted that there is a diminished tendency in the Persian period for the writers of LBH to employ the introductory formula ‫ויהי‬/‫והיה‬ before the infinitive construct with ‫ב‬/‫ כ‬in a temporal clause.6 It was more common in the later biblical period to express a temporal clause in an infinitival phrase beginning with a preposition ‫ ב‬or ‫כ‬.7 The following examples exemplify the LBH usage in Ezek 40–48:8 3 Rooker, Biblical Hebrew in Transition, 53. 4 Rooker, Biblical Hebrew in Transition, 66. 5 Tuell, The Law of the Temple, 14, proposes that the present form of chapters 40–48 was written all together in the Persian period. In his view, Ezek 43:7b–27, 44:3–46:24 and 47:13–48:29 are inserted into the original vision to highlight the shift of the vision of YHWH’s presence to the divine law. Konkel, Architektonik des Heiligen, 349–50, suggests that Ezek 40:1–43:10 is the original text. The remaining texts are expansions, which are either expanded after the defeat of Babylon or after the exile. Gese, Zimmerli and Cooke concede that chapters 40–48 contain many later-dated layers of redaction. See Gese, Der Verfassungsentwurf, 110–114; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 547–553; Cooke, Ezekiel, 426–27. 6 Arno Kropat, Die Syntax des Autors der Chronik verglichen mit der seiner Quellen: Ein Beitrag zur historischen Syntax des Hebräischen (BZAW 16; Giessen: A. Töpelmann,1909), 22–3, 73–5; Samuel R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (Cleveland: Meridian Books, 1956; reprint, Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith, 1972), 538; Polzin, Late Biblical Hebrew, 56–8; Hurvitz, A Linguistic Study, 165–67; Rooker, Biblical Hebrew in Transition, 103; Wright, Linguistic Evidence, 42–5, 126–27. 7 Contra the proposal that the absence of ‫ויהי‬/‫ והיה‬in 2 Chr 30:9 is an acceptable (E)BH, by Young et al. Linguistic Dating, vol. 1, 76–8. Their statement, “introductory ‫ והיה‬in discourse is used ten times in Samuel, eight times in Kings, but once in Chronicles, …, introductory ‫ והיה‬+ ‫ב‬/‫ כ‬+ infinitive construct in discourse is actually not very common in BH. We find it once in each of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Judges and Ezekiel; twice in each of Genesis, Samuel, Kings and Jeremiah; four times in Joshua; and seven times in Deuteronomy” fails to account for the conclusion that the absence of ‫ויהי‬/‫ והיה‬in 2 Chr 30:9 is an acceptable (E)BH. 8 See also Ezek 42:14; 43:3; 43:23; 44:7 and 47:3. The EBH feature with ‫ויהי‬/‫ והיה‬occurs in 44:17.

Appendix A: The Relative Chronology of Ezek 3:22–27 and 37:1–14

LBH feature in Ezek 40–48: the infinitive construct with ‫ב‬/‫ כ‬in a temporal clause (44:19aα) ‫החיצונה‬ (45:1aα) ‫בנחלה‬

‫ובצאתם אל־החצר‬

‫ובהפילכם את־הארץ‬

‫ובבוא עם־הארץ לפני יהוה‬

... ‫ובבוא הנשיא‬ (46:8–9aα) ‫במועדים‬

255

Translation9

When they go out toward the outer court, (44:19aα) When you allot the land for inheritance, (45:1aα) When the prince enters … but when the people of the land come before YHWH at the appointed feasts, (46:8–9aα)

When we compare the grammatical features between Ezek 3:22–27 and 37:1–14, we find that the EBH tendency to introduce the temporal clause with ‫ויהי‬/‫והיה‬ does occur in Ezek 37:7; however, Ezek 3:27 shares the LBH tendency, just as in Ezek 40–48, to omit ‫ויהי‬/‫ והיה‬before the infinitive construct with ‫ב‬/‫כ‬.10 The clear diachronic shift between the use of ‫ויהי‬/‫ והיה‬in the temporal clause in EBH, and the infinitive construct with ‫ב‬/‫ כ‬alone in the later texts can be illustrated by the following passages:

Ezek 3:27 (with LBH feature)

‫ובדברי אותך אפתח את־פיך‬ But when I speak with you, I shall open your mouth.

Ezek 37:7 (with EBH feature)

‫ויהי־קול כהנבאי והנה־רעש‬ When I prophesied, there was a noise, and behold, an earthquake.

The second grammatical trait to be discussed is the use of the preposition ‫ ל‬in LBH. It has long been noted that the employment of the preposition ‫ ל‬in lieu of the object marker ‫ את‬to introduce the direct object increased in the later period.11 GKC § 117n mentions that “[a]mong the solecisms of a later period is finally the introduction of the object by the preposition ‫ל‬, as sometimes in Ethiopic and very commonly in Aramaic.”12 This increased likelihood for the use of this expression in LBH is also visible in Ezek 40–48:

9 All translations are mine, although they owe much to the NRSV. 10 The object of temporal preposition ‫ב‬/‫ כ‬can be an infinitive, indicating the precise time at which something happens. 11 Kropat, Die Syntax, 35–8; Polzin, Late Biblical Hebrew, 64–6; Rooker, Biblical Hebrew in Transition, 97. 12 GKC § 117n. 366; BHRG § 39.1.3(ii)a, 39.11.I.5(ii).

256

Appendix A: The Relative Chronology of Ezek 3:22–27 and 37:1–14

LBH feature in Ezek 40–48:13 the introduction of the object by the preposition ‫ל‬ (44:25bβ) ‫לאיש‬

Translation

‫ולאחות אשר־לא־היתה‬

... ‫בצאתו וגבאיו ולא ירפאו למלח נתנו‬ ‫לחדשיו יבכר כי מימיו מן־המקדש המה יוצאים‬ (47:11–12a) (48:9a) ‫ליהוה‬

‫התרומה אשר תרימו‬

For a sister who has not had a husband (44:25bβ) Its swamps and marshes will not become fresh; they will be given to salt … it will bear every month because its water for them is flowing from the sanctuary (47:11–12a) The portion that you will exalt YHWH (48:9a)

As noted above, the introduction of the object by the preposition ‫ ל‬is presented to a certain degree elsewhere in Ezek 40–48. This tendency for the use of the preposition ‫ ל‬preceding the direct object is prominent in Aramaic literature, namely the Babylonian Talmud and in Syriac writings.14 The use of the preposition ‫ ל‬to introduce the direct object (‫“ איש‬man”) has been observed in Ezek 3:26. Its occurrence in 3:26 suggests a certain association of the language of Ezek 3:26 with LBH. In contrast, the use of the object marker ‫ את‬before the direct object (‫“ קברותיכם‬your graves” or ‫“ אתכם‬you”) can be seen in Ezek 37:12–14, in which the use of the preposition ‫ ל‬before the direct object cannot be observed:15

Ezek 3:26 (with LBH feature)

‫ולא־תהיה להם לאיש מוכיח‬ And you will not be to them a reprover who reproves a man.

Ezek 37:12–14 (with EBH feature)

‫הנה אני פתח את־קברותיכם‬ Behold! I am opening your graves (v. 12a)

‫בפתחי את־קברותיכם‬ When I have opened your graves (v. 13b)

‫והנחתי אתכם על־אדמתכם‬ And I will place you on your land (v. 14a)

13 See also 41:8, 24; 42:13; 43:11. 14 Rooker, Biblical Hebrew in Transition, 98–99. 15 As mentioned before, the occurrence of a LBH feature in Ezekiel does not indicate that Ezekiel only employs the LBH phenomenon to the exclusion of the corresponding EBH feature. Although in 3:26 the preposition ‫ ל‬is applied to introduce the direct object, the introduction of the direct object by the object marker ‫ את‬can still be observed in Ezek 3:22–27.

Appendix A: The Relative Chronology of Ezek 3:22–27 and 37:1–14

257

LBH is frequently employed in post exilic writing. The use of the preposition ‫ל‬ instead of the object marker ‫את‬, and the use of the infinitive construct with ‫ב‬/‫כ‬ but without ‫ויהי‬/‫ והיה‬in the temporal clause are two grammatical traits of LBH which are being used in this study to help establish the relative chronological order between Ezek 3:22–27 and 37:1–14. We observe that, on the one hand, the occurrence of the use of the preposition ‫ ל‬to introduce the direct object, and the occurrence of the temporal clause without ‫ויהי‬/‫ והיה‬illustrate a manner in which Ezek 3:22–27 resembles LBH. On the other hand, there was the EBH tendency among the writers of 37:1–14 to use ‫ויהי‬/‫ והיה‬in the temporal clause and to avoid using the preposition ‫ ל‬to introduce the direct object in 37:1–14. Thus, it is reasonable to proposed that 3:22–27 was probably written later than 37:1–14.

Bibliography Achenbach, R. “Das Versagen der Aaroniden. Erwägungen zum literarhistorischen Ort von Leviticus 10.” Pages 55–70 in “Basel und Bibel”: Collected Communications to the XVIIth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Basel 2001. Edited by M. Augustin and H. M. Niemann. BEATAJ 51. Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang, 2004. Achenbach, R. Die Vollendung der Tora: Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch. BZAR 3. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2003. Achtemeier, Elizabeth R. Nahum – Malachi. IBCTP. Atlanta: John Knox, 1986. Ackroyd, Peter R. Exile and Restoration: A Study of Hebrew Thought of the Sixth Century BC. London: SCM, 1968. Albertz, Rainer. A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period. Vol. 2: From the Exile to the Maccabees. OLT. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994. Albrektson, Bertil. History and the Gods: An Essay on the Idea of Historical Events as Divine Manifestations in the Ancient Near East. ConBOT 1. Lund: Gleerup, 1967. Allan, Nigel. “The Identity of the Jerusalem Priesthood during the Exile.” HeyJ 23 (1982): 259–69. Allen, Leslie C. Ezekiel 1–19. WBC 28. Dallas: Word, 1994. Allen, Leslie C. Ezekiel 20–48. WBC 29. Dallas: Word, 1990. Ashley, Timothy R. The Book of Numbers. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. Bailey, Lloyd R. Leviticus-Numbers. SHBC 3. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2005. Baldwin, J. G. Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi: An Introduction and Commentary. TOTC. Leicester: IVP, 1988. Barrick, W. B. The King & the Cemeteries Toward a New Understanding of Josiah’s Reform. VTSup 88. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Behrens, Achim. Prophetische Visionsschilderungen im Alten Testament: Sprachliche Eigenarten, Funktion und Geschichte einer Gattung. AOAT 292. Münster: Ugarit, 2002. Betts, Terry J. Ezekiel the Priest: A Custodian of Tôrâ. Studies in Biblical Literature 74. New York: Peter Lang, 2005. Biggs, Charles R. The Book of Ezekiel. Epworth Commentaries. London: Epworth Press, 1996. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Ezekiel. IBCTP. Louisville: J. Knox Press, 1990. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. “The Judaean Priesthood during the Neo-Babylonian and Achaemenid Periods: A Hypothetical Reconstruction.” CBQ 60 (1998): 25–43. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Sage, Priest, Prophet: Religious and Intellectual Leadership in Ancient Israel. LAI. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995. Block, Daniel I. The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24. NICOT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997. Block, Daniel I. The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48. NICOT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998. Block, Daniel I. “The God Ezekiel Wants Us to Meet: Theological Perspectives on the Book of Ezekiel.” Pages 162–192 in The God Ezekiel Creates. Edited by Paul M. Joyce and Dalit Rom-Shiloni. LHBOTS 607. London: Bloomsbury, 2015. Boccaccini, Gabriele. Roots of Rabbinic Judaism: An Intellectual History, from Ezekiel to Daniel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Boda, Mark J. The Book of Zechariah. NICOT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2016. Boda, Mark J. Haggai, Zechariah. NIVAC. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004. Boda, Mark J. Praying the Tradition: The Origin and Use of Tradition in Nehemiah 9. BZAW 277. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110711578-011

260

Bibliography

Bodi, Daniel. The Book of Ezekiel and the Poem of Erra. OBO 104. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1991. Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice. “Les deux rédactions conservées (LXX et TM) d’Ezéchiel 7.” Pages 21–47 in Ezekiel and His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and their Interrelation. Edited by Johan Lust. BETL 74. Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 1986. Brownlee, William H. Ezekiel 1–19. WBC 28. Waco, Texas: Word, 1986. Brueggemann, Walter. An Introduction to the Old Testament: The Canon and Christian Imagination. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003. Budd, Philip J. Numbers. WBC 5. Dallas: Word Books, 1984. Clements, Ronald E. “The Chronology of Redaction in Ezekiel 1–24.” Pages 283–294 in Ezekiel and His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and their Interrelation. Edited by Johan Lust. BETL 74. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1986. Clements, Ronald E. “The Ezekiel Tradition: Prophecy in a Time of Crisis.” Page 119–136 in Israel’s Prophetic Tradition: Essays in Honour of Peter R. Ackroyd. Edited by Richard Coggins, Anthony Phillips and Michael Knibb. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. Cody, Aelred. A History of Old Testament Priesthood. AnBib 35. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969. Cooke, G. A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel. ICC. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1936. Curtis, Edward M. “Idol, Idolatry.” ABD 3: 376–381. Dahmen, Ulrich. Leviten und Priester im Deuteronomium: Literarkritische und redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien. BBB 110. Bodenheim: Philo, 1996. Davis, Ellen F. Swallowing the Scroll: Textuality and the Dynamics of Discourse in Ezekiel’s Prophecy. JSOTSup 78. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989. Dijkstra, Meindert. “The Valley of Dry Bones: Coping with the Reality of the Exile in the Book of Ezekiel.” Pages 114–133 in The Crisis of Israelite Religion: Transformation of Religious Tradition in Exilic and Post-exilic Times. Edited by B. Becking and Marjo C. A. Korpel. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Douglas, Mary. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Population and Taboo. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1969. Driver, G. R. “Linguistic and Textual Problems: Ezekiel.” Bib 19 (1938): 60–69. Driver, Samuel R. An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament. Cleveland: Meridian Books, 1956. Reprint, Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith, 1972. Duguid, Iain M. Ezekiel and the Leaders of Israel. VTSup 56. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Duguid, Iain M. “Putting Priests in their Place: Ezekiel’s Contribution to the History of the Old Testament Priesthood.” Pages 43–59 in Ezekiel’s Hierarchical World Wrestling with a Tiered Reality. Edited by Stephen L. Cook and Corrine L. Patton. SBLSymS 31. Atlanta: SBL, 2004. Eichrodt, Walther. Ezekiel. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1970. Faur, José. “The Biblical Idea of Idolatry.” JQR 69 (1978): 1–15. Fechter, Friedrich. “Priesthood in Exile According to the Book of Ezekiel.” Pages 27–41 in Ezekiel’s Hierarchical World Wrestling with a Tiered Reality. Edited by Stephen L. Cook and Corrine L. Patton. SBLSymS 31. Atlanta: SBL, 2004. Finitsis, Antonios. Visions and Eschatology: A Socio-Historical Analysis of Zechariah 1–6. LSTS 79. London: T&T Clark, 2011. Fishbane, Michael A. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1985. Fishbane, Michael A. “Inner-Biblical Exegesis.” Pages 33–48 in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation. Vol. 1: From the Beginnings to the Middle Ages (until

Bibliography

261

1300), part 1, Antiquity. Edited by Magne Sæbø, Chris Brekelmans and Menahem Haran. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. Fishbane, Michael A. “Inner Biblical Exegesis: Types and Strategies of Interpretation in Ancient Israel.” Pages 19–37 in Midrash and Literature. Edited by Geoffrey H. Hartman and Sanford Budick. New Heaven: Yale University Press, 1986. Floss, Johannes P. “Form, Source, and Redaction Criticism.” Pages 591–614 in The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies. Edited by J. W. Rogerson and Judith M. Lieu. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Fowler, James W. Faithful Change: The Personal and Public Challenges of Postmodern Life. Nashville: Abingdon, 1996. Friebel, Kelvin G. Jeremiah’s and Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts. JSOTSup 283. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Fritz, Volkmar. A Continental Commentary: 1 & 2 Kings. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2003. Frymer-Kensky, Tikva. “Pollution, Purification, and Purgation in Biblical Israel.” Pages 399– 414 in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday. Edited by Carol L. Meyers, Michael P. O’Connor, and David N. Freedman. ASOR 1. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983. Gane, Roy. Leviticus, Numbers. NIVAC. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004. Ganzel, T., and Shalom E. Holtz. “Ezekiel’s Temple in Babylonian Context.” VT 64 (2014): 211–226. Gese, Hartmut. Der Verfassungsentwurf des Ezechiel (Kap 40–48): Traditionsgeschichtlich untersucht. BHT 25. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1957. Gile, Jason. “Ezekiel 16 and the Song of Moses: A Prophetic Transformation?” JBL 130 (2001): 87–108. Glazov, Gregory Y. The Bridling of the Tongue and the Opening of the Mouth in Biblical Prophecy. JSOTSup 311. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. Goettsberger, J. “Ez 7,1–16 textkritisch und exegetisch untersucht.” BZ 22 (1934): 195–223. Grabbe, Lester L. A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period. Vol.1. LSTS 47. New York: T. & T. Clark, 2004. Grabbe, Lester L. “Were the Pre-Maccabean High Priests ‘Zadokites’?” Pages 205–15 in Reading from Right to Left: Essays on the Hebrew Bible in Honour of David J. A. Clines. Edited by J. Cheryl Exum and H. G. M. Williamson. JSOTSup 373. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003. Greenberg, Moshe. “Anthropopathism in Ezekiel.” Pages 1–10 in Perspectives in Jewish Learning 1. Edited by Monford Harris. Chicago: College of Jewish Studies Press, 1965. Greenberg, Moshe. Ezekiel 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 22. New York: Doubleday, 1983. Gregory, B. R. Longing for God in An Age of Discouragement: The Gospel According to Zechariah. Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing Company, 2010. Hägglund, Fredrik. Isaiah 53 in the Light of Homecoming after Exile. FAT II/52. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Halperin, David J. “Merkabah Midrash in the Septuagint.” JBL 101 (1982): 351–363. Halperin, David J. Seeking Ezekiel: Text and Psychology. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1993. Hals, Ronald M. Ezekiel. FOTL 19. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989. Hanson, Paul D. The Dawn of Apocalyptic: The Historical and Sociological Roots of Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975. Hartley, John. Leviticus. WBC 4. Dallas: Word, 1992.

262

Bibliography

Herring, Stephen L. Divine Substitution: Humanity as the Manifestation of Deity in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East. FRLANT 247. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013. Herrmann, Johannes. Ezechiel, übersetzt und erklärt. KAT 11. Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1924. Hiebel, Janina M. Ezekiel’s Vision Accounts as Interrelated Narratives: A Redaction-Critical and Theological Study. BZAW 475. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2015. Hölscher, Gustav. Hesekiel, der Dichter und das Buch: Eine literarkritische Untersuchung. BZAW 39. Giessen: Töpelmann, 1924. Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar. Untersuchungen zu Komposition und Theologie des Ezechielbuches. Würzburg: Echter, 1977. Howie, Carl G. The Date and Composition of Ezekiel. JBLMS 4. Philadelphia: SBL, 1950. Hurowitz, Victor A. “The Mesopotamian God Image, from Womb to Tomb.” JAOS 123 (2003): 147–57. Hurvitz, Avi. A Linguistic Study of the Relationship between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel: A New Approach to an Old Problem. CahRB 20. Paris: J. Gabalda, 1982. Jacobsen, Thorkild. “The Graven Image.” Pages 15–32 in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross. Edited by Patrick D. Miller, Jr., Paul D. Hanson, and S. Dean McBride. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987. Joyce, Paul M. Divine Initiative and Human Response in Ezekiel. JSOTSup 51. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989. Joyce, Paul M. Ezekiel: A Commentary. New York: T & T Clark, 2007. Joyce, Paul M. “King and Messiah in Ezekiel.” Pages 323–37 in King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar. Edited by J. Day. JSOTSup 270. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Keel, Othmar. Jahwe-Visionen und Siegelkunst: Eine neue Deutung der Majestätsschilderungen in Jes 6, Ez 1 und 10 und Sach 4. SBS 84/85. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1977. Kennedy, James M. “Hebrew pitḥôn peh in the Book of Ezekiel.” VT 41 (1991): 233–35. Klein, Anja. “Ezek 6:1–7 and 36:1–5: The Idea of the Mountains in the Book of Ezekiel.” Pages 54–65 in Ezekiel: Current Debates and Future Directions. Edited by William A. Tooman and Penelope Barter. FAT 112. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017. Klein, Anja. “Prophecy Continued: Reflections on Innerbiblical Exegesis in the Book of Ezekiel.” VT 60 (2010): 571–582. Klein, Anja. “Resurrection as reward for the Righteous: The Vision of the Dry Bones in PseudoEzekiel as External Continuation of the Biblical Vision.” Pages 196–220 in “I Lift My Eyes and Saw” Reading Dream and Vision Reports in the Hebrew Bible. Edited by Elizabeth R. Hayes and Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer. LHBOTS 584. London: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2014. Klein, Anja. Schriftauslegung im Ezechielbuch: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Ez 34–39. BZAW 391. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008. Konkel, Michael. Architektonik des Heiligen: Studien zur zweiten Tempelvision Ezechiels (Ez 40–48). BBB 129. Berlin: Philo, 2001. Konkel, Michael. “The Vision of the Dry Bones (Ezek 37.1–14): Resurrection, Restoration or What?” Pages 107–19 in Ezekiel: Current Debates and Future Directions. Edited by William A. Tooman and Penelope Barter. FAT 112. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017. Kratz, Reinhard G. “Innerbiblische Exegese und Redaktionsgeschichte im Lichte empirischer Evidenz.” Pages 126–56 in Das Judentum im Zeitalter des Zweiten Tempels. FAT 42. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Kratz, Reinhard G. “Redaktionsgeschichte/Redaktionskritik: Altes Testament.” Pages 367–78 in TRE 28. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1997.

Bibliography

263

Kropat, Arno. Die Syntax des Autors der Chronik verglichen mit der seiner Quellen: Ein Beitrag zur historischen Syntax des Hebräischen. BZAW 16. Giessen: A. Töpelmann, 1909. Kutsko, John F. Between Heaven and Earth: Divine Presence and Absence in the Book of Ezekiel. BJSUC 7. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000. Kutsko, John F. “Ezekiel’s Anthropology and Its Ethical Implications.” Pages 119–41 in The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives. Edited by Margaret S. Odell and John T. Strong. SBLSymS 9. Atlanta: SBL, 2000. Lang, Bernhard. “Die erste und die letzte Vision des Propheten: Eine Überlegung zu Ezechiel 1–3.” Bib 64 (1983): 225–330. Lapsley, Jacqueline E. Can These Bones Lives? The Problem of the Moral Self in the Book of Ezekiel. BZAW 301. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000. Lapsley, Jacqueline E. “Shame and Self Knowledge: The Positive Role of Shame in Ezekiel’s View of the Moral Self.” Pages 143–73 in The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives. Edited by Margaret S. Odell and John T. Strong. SBLSymS 9. Atlanta: SBL, 2000. Lee, Suk Yee. An Intertextual Analysis of Zechariah 9–10: The Earlier Restoration Expectations of Second Zechariah. LHBOTS 599. London: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2015. Leonard, Jeffery M. “Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions: Psalm 78 as a Test Case.” JBL 127 (2008): 241–265. Levenson, Jon D. Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987. Levinson, Bernard M. “The Birth of the Lemma: The Restrictive Reinterpretation of the Covenant Code’s Manumission Law by the Holiness Code (Leviticus 25:44–46).” JBL 124 (2005): 617–39. Levinson, Bernard M. Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. Levinson, Bernard M. Legal Revision and Religious Renewal in Ancient Israel. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Lewis, M. Shame: The Exposed Self. New York: Free Press, 1995. Lust, Johan. “Ezekiel 36–40 in the Oldest Greek Manuscript.” CBQ 43 (1981): 517–33. Lust, Johan. “The Use of Textual Witnesses for the Establishment of the Text: The Shorter and Longer Texts of Ezekiel an Example Ez. 7.” Pages 7–20 in Ezekiel and His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and their Interrelation. Edited by J. Lust. BETL 74. Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 1986. Lust, J., K. Hauspie, and A. Ternier. “Ezekiel 4 and 5 in Hebrew and in Greek Numbers and Ciphers.” ETL 77 (2001): 132–52. Lust, J., K. Hauspie, and A. Ternier. “Notes to the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text Ezekiel 3.” ETL 75 (1999): 315–331. Lust, J., K. Hauspie, and A. Ternier. “Notes to the Septuagint Ezekiel 1–2.” ETL 75 (1999): 5–31. Lust, J., K. Hauspie, and A. Ternier. “Notes to the Septuagint Ezekiel 6.” ETL 76 (2000): 396–403. Lust, J., K. Hauspie, and A. Ternier. “Notes to the Septuagint Ezekiel 7.” ETL 77 (2001): 384–394. Lyons, Michael A. From Law to Prophecy Ezekiel’s Use of the Holiness Code. LHBOTS 507. New York: T&T Clark, 2009. Lyons, Michael A. An Introduction to the Study of Ezekiel. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015. Lyons, Michael A. “Review of Tyler D. Mayfield, Literary Structure and Setting in Ezekiel.” JSS 57 (2012): 419–22.

264

Bibliography

MacDonald, Nathan. Priestly Rule: Polemic and Biblical Interpretation in Ezekiel 44. BZAW 476. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2015. Mackie, Timothy P. Expanding Ezekiel: The Hermeneutics of Scribal Addition in the Ancient Text Witnesses of the Book of Ezekiel. FRLANT 257. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015. Mackie, Timothy P. “Transformation in Ezekiel’s Textual History: Ezekiel 7 in the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint.” Pages 249–78 in Transforming Visions: Transformations of Text, Tradition and Theology in Ezekiel. Edited by M. A. Lyons and W. A. Tooman. Cambridge: James Clarke & Co., 2010. Marzouk, Safwat. Egypt as a Monster in the Book of Ezekiel. FAT II/76. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Matthews, Isaac G. Ezekiel. Chicago: The American Baptist Publication Society, 1939. Matties, Gordon H. Ezekiel 18 and the Rhetoric of Moral Discourse. SBLDS 126. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990. Mayfield, Tyler D. Literary Structure and Setting in Ezekiel. FAT II/43. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. McConville, J. G. “Restoration in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic Literature.” Pages 11–40 in Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspective. Edited by J. M. Scott. Leiden: Brill, 2001. McKeating, Henry. Ezekiel. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. Mein, Andrew. Ezekiel and the Ethics of Exile. OTM. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Mein, Andrew. “Ezekiel as a Priest in Exile.” Pages 199–213 in The Elusive Prophet: The Prophet as a Historical Person, Literary Character, and Anonymous Artist. Edited by J. C. De Moor. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Meyers, Carol L., and Eric M. Meyers. Haggai, Zechariah 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 25B. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1987. Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 1–16. AB 3. New York: Doubleday, 1991. Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 17–22. AB 3A. New York: Doubleday, 2000. Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 23–27. AB 3B. New York: Doubleday, 2001. Milgrom Jacob, and Daniel Block. Ezekiel’s Hope: A Commentary on Ezekiel 38–48. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2012. Miller, Geoffrey D. “Intertextuality in Old Testament Research.” CBR 9 (2010): 283–309. Miller, James E. “The Thirtieth Year of Ezekiel 1:1.” RB 99 (1992): 499–503. Miner, Earl. “Allusion.” Pages 38–39 in The New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics. Edited by Alex Preminger and T. V. F. Brogan. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993. Nielsen, Kirsten. “Ezekiel’s Visionary Call as Prologue: From Complexity and Changeability to Order and Stability?” JSOT 33 (2008): 99–114. Nihan, Christophe L. “Ezekiel and the Holiness Legislation: A Plea for Nonlinear Models.” Pages 1015–1039 in The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America. Edited by Jan C. Gertz, Bernard M. Levinson, Dalit Rom-Shiloni, and Konrad Schmid. FAT 111. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. Nihan, Christophe L. From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch: A Study in the Composition of the Book of Leviticus. FAT II/25. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. North, Francis S. “Aaron’s Rise in Prestige.” ZAW 66 (1954): 191–99. Noth, M. A History of Pentateuchal Traditions. Translated by Bernhard W. Anderson. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1972. Nurmela, Risto. “The Growth of the Book of Isaiah.” Pages 245–59 in Bringing out the Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusion in Zechariah 9–14. Edited by Mark J. Boda and M. H. Floyd. JSOTSup 370. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003.

Bibliography

265

Nurmela, Risto. The Levites: Their Emergence as a Second-Class Priesthood. South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism 193. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998. Odell, Margaret S. Ezekiel. SHBC. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2005. Odell, Margaret S. “You are What You Eat: Ezekiel and the Scroll.” JBL 117 (1998): 229–48. Ohnesorge, Stefan. Jahwe gestaltet sein Volk neu: Zur Sicht der Zukunft Israels nach Ez 11,14–21; 20,1–44; 36,16–38; 37,1–15.15–28. FB 64. Würzburg: Echter, 1991. Parunak, H. van Dyke. “A Semantic Survey of nḥm.” Biblica 56 (1975): 512–32. Petersen, David L. Haggai and Zechariah 1–8: A Commentary. OLT. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster John Knox, 1984. Petersen, David L. “Zechariah’s Vision: A Theological Perspective.” VT 34 (1984): 195–206. Peterson, Brian N. Ezekiel in Context: Ezekiel’s Message Understood in Its Historical Setting of Covenant Curses and Ancient Near Eastern Mythological Motifs. PTMS 182. Eugene: Pickwick, 2012. Petterson, Anthony R. Haggai, Zechariah & Malachi. AOTC 25. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2015. Pohlmann, Karl-Friedrich. Das Buch des Prophten Hesekiel (Ezechiel): Kapitel 1–19. ATD 22/1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. Pohlmann, Karl-Friedrich. (mit einem Beitrag von T. A. Rudnig). Das Buch des Hesekiel (Ezechiel): Kapitel 20–48. ATD 22/2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001. Pohlmann, Karl-Friedrich. Ezechiel: Der Stand der theologischen Diskussion. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2008. Pohlmann, Karl-Friedrich. Ezechielstudien: Zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Buches und zur Frage nach den ältesten Texten. BZAW 202. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1992. Pola, Thomas. “Form and Meaning in Zechariah 3.” Pages 156–167 in Yahwism After the Exile: Perspectives on Israelite Religion in the Persian Era. Edited by Rainer Albertz and Bob Becking. STAR 5. Assen: Van Gorcum, 2003. Pola, Thomas. Das Priestertum bei Sacharja: Historische und traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur frühnachexilischen Herrschererwartung. FAT 35. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Polzin, Robert. Late Biblical Hebrew: Toward an Historical Typology of Biblical Hebrew Prose. HSM 12. Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1976. Preuss, H. “‫גלולים‬.” TDOT 3:1–5. Redditt, P. L. Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. NCBC. London: Harper Collins, 1995. Renz, Thomas. The Rhetorical Function of the Book of Ezekiel. VTSup 76. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Richter, Wolfgang. Exegese als Literaturwissenschaft: Entwurf einer alttestamentlichen Literaturtheorie und Methodologie. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971. Robson, James. Word and Spirit in Ezekiel. LHBOTS 447. New York: T&T Clark, 2006. Rochester, Kathleen M. Prophetic Ministry in Jeremiah and Ezekiel. CBET 65. Leuven: Peeters, 2012. Rom-Shiloni, Dalit. Exclusive Inclusivity Identity Conflicts between the Exiles and the People who Remained. LHBOTS 543. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013. Rom-Shiloni, Dalit. “Facing Destruction and Exile: Inner-Biblical Exegesis in Jeremiah and Ezekiel.” ZAW 117 (2005): 189–205. Rooke, Deborah W. Zadok’s Heir: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient Israel. OTM. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Rooker, Mark F. Biblical Hebrew in Transition: The Language of the Book of Ezekiel. JSOTSup 90. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990.

266

Bibliography

Rose, Wolter H. Zemah and Zerubbabel: Messianic Expectations in the Early Postexilic Period. JSOTSup 304. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. Rudnig, Thilo A. Heilig und Profan: Redaktionskritische Studien zu Ez 40–48. BZAW 287. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000. Samuel, Harald Von Priestern zum Patriarchen: Levi und die Leviten im alten Testament. BZAW 448. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014. Schaper, Joachim. “Divine Images, Iconophobia and Monotheism in Isaiah 40–66.” Pages 145–58 in Continuity and Discontinuity Chronological and Thematic Development in Isaiah 40–66. Edited by Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer and Hans M. Barstad. FRLANT 255. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014. Schaper, Joachim. Priester und Leviten im achämenidischen Juda: Studienzur Kult- und Sozialgeschichte Israels in persischer Zeit. FAT 31. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Schenker, A. “Saure Trauben ohne stumpfe Zähne. Bedeutung und Tragweite von Ez 18 und 33, 10–20 oder ein Kapitel alttestamentlicher Moraltheologie.” Pages 449–70 in Mélanges Dominique Barthélemy. Edited by P. Casetti, O. Keel and A. Schenker. OBO 38. Fribourg, Suisse: Editions Universitaires. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981. Schmid, K. “Innerbiblische Schriftauslegung: Aspekte der Forschungsgeschichte.” Pages 1–22 in Schriftauslegung in der Schrift. Festschrift Odil Hannes Steck. Edited by Reinhard G. Kratz, Thomas Krüger, Konrad Schmid. BZAW 300. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000. Schneider, Carl D. Shame, Exposure, and Privacy. Boston: Beacon, 1977. Schöpflin, Karin. Theologie als Biographie im Ezechielbuch. FAT 36. Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen, 2002. Schultz, Richard L. Search for Quotation: Verbal Parallels in the Prophets. JSOTSup 180. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Schwartz, Baruch J. “The Concentric Structure of Ezekiel 2:1–3:15.” Pages 107–114 in Proceedings of the tenth World Congress of Jewish Studies Division A: The Bible and Its World. Edited by David Assaf. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1990. Schwartz, Baruch J. “Ezekiel’s Dim View of Israel’s Restoration.” Pages 43–67 in The Book of Ezekiel Theological and Anthropological Perspectives. Edited by Margaret S. Odell and John T. Strong. SBLSymS 9. Atlanta: SBL, 2000. Schwartz, Baruch J. “The Ultimate Aim of Israel’s Restoration in Ezekiel.” Pages 305–19 in Birkat Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature, and Postbiblical Judaism Presented to Shalom M. Paul on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday. Edited by C. Cohen et al. Vol. 1. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008. Smith, R. L. Micah-Malachi. WBC 32. Dallas: Word Books, 1984. Sommer, Benjamin D. A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40–66. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998. Sonnet, Jean-Pierre. “God’s Repentance and ‘False Starts’ in Biblical History (Genesis 6–9; Exodus 32–34; 1 Samuel 15 and 2 Samuel 7).” Pages 469–494 in Congress Volume Ljubljana 2007. Edited by André Lemaire. VTSup 133. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Speiser, E. A. “Ancient Mesopotamia.” Pages 35–76 in The Idea of History in the Ancient Near East. Edited by Robert C. Dentan. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1955. Spieckermann, Hermann. Juda unter Assur in der Sargonidenzeit. FRLANT 129. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982. Stacey, David. Prophetic Drama in the Old Testament. Westminster: Epworth Press, 1990. Stead, Michael R. The Intertextuality of Zechariah 1–8. LHBOTS 506. London: T&T Clark, 2009. Steck, Odil Hannes. Old Testament Exegesis: A Guide to the Methodology. Translated by James D. Nogalski. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998.

Bibliography

267

Strine, C. A. “The Role of Repentance in the Book of Ezekiel: A Second Change for the Second Generation.” JTS 63.2 (2012): 467–91. Stromberg, Jake. “Observations on Inner-Scriptural Scribal Expansion in MT Ezekiel.” VT 58 (2008): 68–86. Sweeney, Marvin A. “Ezekiel: Zadokite Priest and Visionary Prophet of the Exile.” Pages 125– 143 in Form and Intertextuality in Prophetic and Apocalyptic Literature. FAT 45. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Sweeney, Marvin A. “Formation and Form in Prophetic Literature.” Pages 113–26 in Old Testament Interpretation: Past, Present, and Future. Edited by James L. Mays, David L. Petersen, Kent H. Richards. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995. Sweeney, Marvin A. Reading Ezekiel: A Literary and Theological Commentary. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2013. Sweeney, Marvin A. The Twelve Prophets. Berit Olam. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2000. Tidwell, N. L. A. “Wāʾōmar (Zech 3:5) and The Genre of Zechariah’s Fourth Vision.” JBL 94 (1975): 343–55. Tiemeyer, Lena-Sofia. “Ezekiel: A Compromised Prophet in Reduced Circumstances.” Pages 175–195 in Constructs of Prophecy in the Former and Latter Prophets and in Other Texts. Edited by Lester L. Grabbe and Martti Nissinen. SBLANEM 4. Atlanta: SBL, 2011. Tiemeyer, Lena-Sofia. “The Guilty Priesthood (Zech 3).” Pages 1–19 in The Book of Zechariah and its influence. Edited by C. M. Tuckett. Aldershot, England: Ashgate, 2003. Tiemeyer, Lena-Sofia. Priestly Rites and Prophetic Rage: Post-Exilic Prophetic Critique of the Priesthood. FAT II/19. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Tiemeyer, Lena-Sofia. “The Watchman Metaphor in Isaiah lvi–lxvi.” VT 55 (2005): 378–400. Tiemeyer, Lena-Sofia. Zechariah and His Visions: An Exegetical Study of Zechariah’s Vision Report. LHBOTS 605. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015. Tiemeyer, Lena-Sofia. Zechariah’s Vision Report and its Earliest Interpreters: A RedactionCritical Study of Zechariah 1–8. LHBOTS 626. London: Bloomsbury, 2016. Tollington, Janet E. Tradition and Innovation in Haggai and Zechariah 1–8. JSOTSup 150. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. Tooman, William A. “Covenant and Presence in the Composition and Theology of Ezekiel.” Pages 151–82 in Divine Presence and Absence in Exilic and Post-Exilic Judaism. Edited by Nathan Macdonald and Izaak J. de Hulster. FAT II/61. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Tooman, William A. “Ezekiel’s Radical Challenge to Inviolability.” ZAW 121/4 (2009): 498–514. Tooman, William A. Gog of Magog: Reuse of Scripture and Compositional Technique in Ezek 38–39. FAT II/52. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Tov, Emanuel. “Recensional Differences between the MT and LXX of Ezekiel.” ETL 62 (1986): 89–101. Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012. Tuell, Steven S. Ezekiel. UBC. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2012. Tuell, Steven S. The Law of the Temple in Ezekiel 40–48. HSM 49. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. VanderKam, James C. “Joshua the High Priest and the Interpretation of Zechariah 3.” CBQ 53 (1991): 553–70. Vanoni, Gottfried. Literarkritik und Grammatik: Untersuchung der Wiederholungen und Spannungen in 1 Kön 11–12. ATSAT 21. St. Ottilien: Verlag Eos, 1984. Vawter, Bruce and Leslie J. Hoppe. A New Heart: A Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel. ITC. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991. Watts, James W. “Review of Christophe Nihan, From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch: A Study in the Composition of the Book of Leviticus.” Biblica 91 (2010): 595–598.

268

Bibliography

Webb, Barry G. The Message of Zechariah. The Bible Speaks Today. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2003. Westermann, Claus. Prophetic Oracles of Salvation in the Old Testament. Translated by Keith Crim. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991. Wevers, John W. Ezekiel. NCB. London: Nelson, 1969. Wildberger, H. Isaiah 28–39. Translated by T. H. Trapp. CC. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002. Williams, Ronald J. William’s Hebrew Syntax. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007. Wolters, Al. Zechariah. Historical Commentary on the Old Testament. Leuven: Peeters, 2014. Wong, K. L. The Idea of Retribution in the Book of Ezekiel. VTSup 87. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Wright, Richard M. Linguistic Evidence for the Pre-exilic Date of the Yahwistic Source. LHBOTS 419. London: T&T Clark, 2005. York, Anthony D. “Ezekiel 1: Inaugural and Restoration Visions?” VT 27 (1977): 82–98. Young, I., R. Rezetko, and M. Ehrensvärd. Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts. 2 vols. London: Equinox, 2008. Zevit, Ziony. “Not-So-Random Thoughts on Linguistic Dating and Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew.” Pages 455–489 in Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew. Edited by Cynthia L. MillerNaudé and Ziony Zevit. LSAWS 8. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012. Zimmerli, Walther. Ezekiel 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel: Chapters 1– 24. Translated by Ronald E. Clements. Hermeneia. Vol. 1. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. Zimmerli, Walther. Ezekiel 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel: Chapters 25– 48. Translated by James D. Martin. Hermeneia. Vol. 2. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. Zimmerli, Walther. The Fiery Throne: The Prophets and Old Testament Theology. Edited by K. C. Hanson. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003. Zimmerli, Walther. I am Yahweh. Edited by W. Brueggemann. Atlanta: John Knox, 1982. Zimmerli, Walther. “The Special Form- and Traditio-Historical Character of Ezekiel’s Prophecy.” VT 15 (1965): 515–27.

Index of Scripture References Genesis 1:16 105 18:6 127 22:3 105 42:37 105 48:1 105 Exodus 12:39 127 14:15 96 21:2–6 32 28:9–12 207 28:14 94 28:22 94 28:22–28 207 28:24–25 94 28:36–38 207 28:38 95 32:11–14 96 32:30–34 96 39:15 94 39:17–18 94 Leviticus 8–9 57 8:30 120 10 31, 116, 139 10:1 118, 120, 122 10:1–5 122 10:1–20 36, 119 10:2 120 10:4 118 10:4–5 121, 122 10:16–17 209 10:16–20 121 10:17 95, 118, 121, 124 16 31, 116, 117, 139 16:1 119, 121 16:1–22 36, 119 16:2–28 120, 121 16:6 121 16:7 105 16:7–10 121 16:12–16 121 16:16 121 https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110711578-012

16:16–17 121 16:18–19 121 16:20 118, 121–123 16:20–22 123, 124, 209 16:21 118, 121 16:21–22 117 16:22 118, 122–124 16:23–28 123 18:24–30 231 21:5 132, 140 22:14–16 31 23:33–36 197 23:39–43 197 25 185, 226, 237 25:10 187, 236 25:23–38 186, 226 25:25–28 185–187, 193, 237 25:27 105 25:39–46 32 25:39–55 186, 226 26 15, 35, 36, 114, 115, 133–135, 152, 153, 156, 157, 166 26:3 134 26:15 134 26:22 133, 135 26:25 135 26:25–26 112, 133 26:26 35, 133, 135 26:29 134 26:30 135, 145, 151, 225 26:30–31 136, 152, 153, 156, 224, 225 26:30–33 36, 114, 136, 145, 151, 153–158, 167 26:31 134–136 26:31–33 138, 140, 148, 248 26:33 131, 134–136, 153, 154 26:33–35 131, 132 26:33–39 131, 248 26:34 131 26:34–35 152, 154–156 26:36 131 26:36–39 132 26:39 135 26:45 134

270

Index of Scripture References

Numbers 4:3 55 4:23 55 4:30 55 10:1–10 190 10:3–4 190 10:8 190 10:9 190 11:8 127 12:13 96 14 125 14:13–19 96 14:26–35 125 14:26–38 125 14:34 125 16:1–2 192 16:1–18:7 192 16:2–7 192 16:5–11 192 16:8–11 192 16:12–15 192 16:16–22 192 16:23–34 192 16:32 192 16:35 192 16:44–48 96 17 189 17–18 189 17:6–15 192 17:16–26 192 17:25 191 17:27–28 192 18:1–2 192 18:4–5 192 31:6 190 Deuteronomy 4:26 205 9:10–11 105 9:18–21 96 10:6 192 10:6–7 192 10:8–9 192 14:1 132 15:12–18 32 16:5–6 156 18:1–8 198 18:6–9 236

22:24 105 23:12–14 127, 235 30:19 205 31:28 205 32 114 32:23 133, 135 Joshua 2:4 105 6:9 190 6:13 190 Judges 8:12 105 15:13–14 94 16:11–12 94 16:29 105 1 Samuel 2:36 198 7:8–10 96 12:16–18 96 2 Samuel 21:8 105 1 Kings 2:26 198 7:15 105 9:10 105 17:12–13 127 2 Kings 1:14 105 4:1 105 17:24–28 197 21:13 158 23 31, 90, 156, 157, 166 23:4–20 156–158, 167 23:4–27 34, 35 23:5 35 23:9 35 23:11 35, 156 23:12 35 23:14 35, 156 23:15 158 23:15–17 35 23:15–20 156

Index of Scripture References

23:16 36, 153–157 23:19 35, 158 23:20 35, 155 23:21–22 156 23:21–23 155 23:22 156 23:24 34, 35 25:18 200 Isaiah 1:24 139 13:1–16 180 13:1–22 181 16:10 180 28:5 179 40:9–10 36 53:8 122 57:6 139 Jeremiah 1 57 1:4–19 48 1:5–10 48 1:9 57 1:11–14 48 1:15–19 48 2:3 31 6:17 78 6:21 78 15:16 57 23:5 214 25:8–11 180 25:11–12 21 29:10 21 31:16 36 32:36–37 163 32:36–41 164 32:40 146, 163, 164 32:40–41 163 33:15 214 41:1 197 41:5 197 48:33 180 Ezekiel 1 6, 16, 18, 47 1–3 2, 3, 6, 8, 18, 19, 74, 240, 241 1–5 57, 59

271

1–7 3–7, 10, 14, 15, 19, 21, 26, 242 1–24 1, 2 1–33 2 1:1 3, 4, 12, 16, 17, 40, 50, 51, 54–56, 65, 74, 246 1:1–3 8, 10, 51, 65, 245 1:1–28 53 1:1–2:2 18, 54, 74 1:1–3:15 6, 12–14, 17, 19, 25, 37, 39, 47, 48, 65, 73, 74, 86, 92, 246 1:1–5:17 57 1:2 4, 16, 40, 50, 51, 54, 55 1:2–3 3, 11, 14, 37, 50, 53, 55, 56, 65, 246 1:3 17, 40, 44, 45, 50, 51, 55, 56, 74 1:3–6 12 1:4 41, 47, 49 1:4–28 8, 12, 16, 17, 39, 45, 48, 50–52, 241, 245 1:4–2:2 17 1:4–2:8 51 1:5 41, 54 1:5–12 12, 49, 65, 241 1:5–14 52 1:5–26 49 1:6 12, 41, 45 1:6–11 12 1:7 41, 45, 46 1:7–11 49 1:8 41, 46 1:9 41 1:10 41 1:11 12, 41 1:11–13 12 1:12 42, 45, 47 1:13 42, 46 1:13–15 54 1:14 42, 46 1:15 42, 49 1:15–21 12, 17, 45, 49, 52, 53, 65, 241 1:16 42, 46 1:16–18 49 1:17 42, 46, 47 1:18 42 1:19 42, 47 1:19–21 49 1:19–22 54 1:20 42, 47 1:21 43, 47

272

Index of Scripture References

1:22 12, 43 1:22–27 52 1:23 43 1:24 43 1:25 43 1:26 43 1:26–28 12 1:27 44 1:28 44, 74 2–3 17 2:1 74 2:1–2 17 2:1–3 12 2:1–3:15 12 2:2 74 2:3 60, 86 2:3–5 59 2:3–7 8, 49, 56, 59, 63, 64 2:3–8 48, 58 2:3–3:11 17, 18, 25, 37, 39, 47, 48, 65, 73 2:3–3:15 39, 217, 245 2:4 60, 74, 85 2:4–3:12 12 2:5 61, 74, 97 2:5–6 63 2:6–7 59 2:7 64, 74 2:8 57, 61, 63, 64 2:8–10 8, 10 2:8–3:3 56, 58, 59, 63, 64 2:9–10 17 2:9–3:3 48 2:9–3:9 57 2:9–3:11 51 2:10 39, 59 3–5 203, 204, 214, 216, 248 3–7 11 3:1–3 8, 10 3:2 61, 63, 64 3:3 59 3:4 64 3:4–9 8, 49, 59 3:4–11 48, 56, 58–60 3:10–11 59 3:10–16 8, 10 3:11 65, 74, 88, 97 3:12 17 3:12–14 18, 54

3:12–15 50, 70 3:14 17, 74 3:14–15 12, 17, 18, 25 3:15 11, 51, 71, 74, 88 3:16 12, 13, 20, 39, 67, 70, 72 3:16–17 13, 76 3:16–21 8, 10, 12, 13, 37, 67, 70, 71, 73, 75, 76, 78, 80, 81, 85, 97, 126, 196, 203, 205, 206, 215, 218, 245–247 3:16–27 67, 70, 115, 125, 126, 249 3:16–5:17 19, 67, 195, 202, 212, 217, 218 3:17 68, 72 3:17–19 72, 75, 77, 80, 246 3:17–20 76 3:17–21 12, 88 3:18 68, 72, 77, 80, 81, 206, 247 3:18–19 71, 76, 79 3:18–20 81, 83, 85 3:19 68, 72, 76, 82, 205 3:20 68, 72, 76, 78–82, 162, 206, 247 3:20–21 11, 71–73, 76, 78, 82, 206 3:21 68, 70–72, 76, 81–85, 97, 205, 206, 246, 247 3:22 13, 69, 71, 74 3:22–23 86, 91 3:22–24 13, 74 3:22–27 6, 10, 18, 19, 31, 67, 70, 71, 74, 86– 89, 91–93, 95, 97, 129, 195, 196, 203, 208, 217, 242, 245, 247, 250, 254, 257 3:22–5:17 12–14, 37 3:23 19, 69, 74 3:24 69, 74, 91 3:24–26 126 3:25 69, 91, 93, 95, 97, 110, 125, 208, 218, 247, 248 3:25–27 13, 89, 92, 96, 247 3:26 10, 69, 74, 86, 95, 96, 208, 247, 256 3:27 70, 74, 89, 93, 96, 97, 126, 208, 218, 247, 248, 255 4–5 13, 19, 99, 133–135 4–6 15, 125 4–7 6, 9 4–24 2 4:1–2 13, 108, 112, 115, 116, 139 4:1–3 99, 110 4:1–4 10 4:1–5:2 13 4:1–5:17 67

Index of Scripture References

4:3 108, 110, 115 4:4 100, 104, 105, 109, 110, 116–118, 122 4:4–5 105, 122 4:4–6 109, 115, 117, 123, 124, 209, 215 4:4–8 31, 36, 99, 105, 106, 108–110, 114, 116, 117, 119, 125, 126, 129, 139, 195, 196, 203, 209–211, 216–218, 245, 247–250 4:4–9 105 4:5 100, 104, 105, 109, 117, 118, 122, 123, 209 4:5–6 109, 110 4:6 11, 99, 100, 104, 105, 109, 110, 117, 118, 123–125, 209 4:7 100, 110 4:7–8 109, 110 4:8 100, 110, 116, 125 4:9 99, 105, 108, 110 4:9–11 10, 13, 108–112, 115, 116, 126, 129, 139 4:9–17 99 4:10 110 4:10–11 108 4:12 101, 106, 110, 111, 126–128, 204, 210 4:12–13 128 4:12–14 128 4:12–15 11, 108, 110, 111, 114, 126, 127, 129, 140, 195, 196, 203, 210, 211, 216–218, 245, 247, 248, 250 4:13 10, 101, 106, 111, 127, 211 4:14 101, 127, 128, 216 4:14–15 106 4:15 101, 127, 128 4:16 35, 101, 133 4:16–17 35, 99, 108, 111, 112, 114, 115, 133, 135, 196, 245 4:17 101, 134 5 60 5:1–2 10, 13, 108, 112, 113, 116, 129, 135, 139, 212, 248 5:1–4 99, 106, 112, 129 5:2 102, 106, 112, 113, 130, 131, 134, 136, 248 5:2–4 131, 140 5:3 102, 112, 130–132, 140, 203, 213, 217, 218, 248 5:3–4 108, 112, 114, 129, 142, 149, 196, 212– 214, 245, 248 5:4 102, 112, 130–132 5:4–6 13

273

5:5–6 113 5:5–17 10, 13, 99, 107, 108, 113, 129, 133, 142, 149 5:6 113, 134 5:7 113 5:8 134 5:8–9 13, 113 5:8–12 113 5:10 134 5:11 103, 106, 113, 134–136, 138 5:11–12 99, 114, 129, 135, 136, 196 5:11–13 32, 108, 113, 114, 129, 138–140, 203, 245 5:12 35, 103, 106, 113, 134–136, 188 5:13 103, 107, 114, 129, 136–140, 196, 214, 217, 218, 248 5:13–17 113 5:14 135 5:14–15 13, 107, 113 5:15 114 5:16 35, 104, 107, 108, 133, 135 5:16–17 35, 99, 108, 113, 114, 129, 133, 196, 245 5:17 104, 107, 113, 114, 135 6 152, 159 6–7 3, 13, 60, 219, 223, 226, 228, 239, 241, 243, 244 6:1 20, 67, 141 6:1–3 10 6:1–4 147, 153 6:1–14 20, 37, 141, 142 6:1–7:27 14 6:2 141, 142 6:2–4 147, 151 6:2–5 13 6:2–7 142, 145, 147, 149, 151, 153, 158, 164 6:2–10 142, 150 6:3 142, 151, 230 6:3–5 152 6:4 142, 148, 151, 157 6:4–5 145, 148 6:4–6 31, 35, 152, 154 6:4–7 13, 141, 147, 148, 152, 153, 155, 157, 159, 166, 167, 224, 228–230, 241, 243, 245, 249, 250 6:5 143–145, 148, 151–155, 157–159, 225– 227 6:5–6 34, 35, 154–158

274

Index of Scripture References

6:5–7 149, 153, 223, 225 6:6 145, 149, 151, 152, 156–159 6:6–7 10, 143, 148 6:7 13, 142, 146, 149, 159 6:8 143, 145, 149, 159 6:8–10 10, 13, 141, 142, 147, 149, 157, 159, 161, 162, 164, 166, 224, 228, 230, 231, 242, 245, 249, 250 6:9 143, 146, 160–164, 231 6:9–10 159, 160 6:10 142, 144, 146, 160, 163 6:11 11, 141, 142, 243 6:11–12 35 6:11–13 13, 150 6:11–14 142, 151, 164 6:12 188 6:13 144, 147, 150, 165, 232 6:13–14 13, 141, 150, 164–167, 224, 228, 231–233, 241–243, 245, 249, 250 6:14 142, 144, 150, 165, 167, 232, 233 7 9, 25, 234, 239 7:1 20, 141 7:1–6 13 7:1–11 173 7:1–27 20, 37 7:2 168, 182 7:2–4 168, 177, 182 7:2–9 168, 181–183 7:2–12 173 7:3 168, 169 7:3–4 176, 181, 182 7:3–5 176 7:3–6 176 7:3–9 169, 176, 178 7:4 168, 170 7:5 168, 170, 173, 176, 179 7:5–6 168 7:5–7 173, 176–179, 181, 184, 193, 224, 227, 233, 234, 243, 245, 250 7:5–9 168, 177 7:5–10 14, 179 7:5–27 168 7:6 168, 170, 173, 176 7:6–7 10 7:7 168, 170, 173, 176, 179–183, 193 7:7–8 9 7:7–9 176 7:8 107, 170, 234

7:8–9 10, 176, 181–184, 193 7:9 168, 171, 179 7:10 13, 168, 173, 176, 177, 179, 180, 182, 189, 190, 193 7:10–11 177, 189, 191, 192, 234, 236, 249 7:10–12 168, 189 7:10–14 191, 224, 236, 243, 250 7:10–27 168, 177, 182 7:11 177, 190 7:12 168, 171, 174, 177, 180, 185 7:12–13 178, 185–187, 193, 224, 226, 236, 237 7:12–14 10, 169, 173, 174, 177–179, 184, 185, 187–189, 193, 245, 249 7:12–16 14, 187, 189, 193, 229, 250 7:13 9, 171, 174, 177, 185, 186 7:14 171, 174, 177, 180, 189–193, 234, 236, 249 7:15 35, 188 7:15–16 185, 188, 224, 237 7:15–18 169 7:16 171, 174, 178, 185, 187, 188, 193, 245 7:18 188 7:19 10, 79, 172, 174, 175, 178 7:19–20 11 7:19–24 169, 178, 193 7:19–26 14 7:19–27 245 7:20 172, 178 7:20–22 177 7:20–24 179 7:21 172, 175, 181, 182, 184, 234 7:21–22 184, 228 7:21–24 177–179, 182, 184, 193, 224–227, 233, 234, 241, 250 7:22 172, 182–184, 234 7:23 172, 182, 224, 238, 239, 243 7:23–24 182, 183, 237, 243 7:23–27 224, 238, 239, 244 7:24 10, 172, 175, 177, 178, 182, 224, 228, 234, 238, 239 7:25–27 169, 237 7:26 9 7:26–27 224, 227, 238 7:27 168, 173, 175–178 8–11 3, 6, 8, 9, 18, 19, 74, 240–242 8–14 4 8:1 3, 45, 50

Index of Scripture References

8:1–18 240 8:1–11:25 6, 14, 17, 18 8:3 16 8:4 86 8:6 109, 240 8:17 109 9:3 240 9:8 19 10 54 10:2 46 10:4 19 10:15 54 10:18 19 10:18–19 240 10:20 54 11:1–13 9 11:14–21 1 11:17–21 242 11:19 80 11:23 19 12:1–20 14 12:16 146 12:21 9 12:21–28 9, 14 12:22–24 9 12:23 9 12:27 9 13:13 107 13:22 77 14:1–11 79 14:1–20 9 14:10 215 14:13 35 14:21–23 1, 8 14:22–23 139 14:23 146 15–24 4 15:1–6 9 15:6–8 8 16 60, 63, 161 16:1–43 137 16:41–43 137 16:42 107, 137 16:52–63 1 16:54 139 16:59–62 162 16:59–63 1 16:63 61–64

17:1–18 9 17:19–24 8 17:22–24 1, 8 18 9, 13, 71, 73, 97 18:1–4 32 18:1–32 1 18:8 78 18:21–29 32 18:24 72, 78 18:24–30 72, 75, 76, 78, 80–82, 246 18:24–32 247 18:26 72, 78 18:28 82 18:30 72, 76, 78–80, 82 18:30–32 79, 247 18:31 79 19 9 20 9, 10, 60 20:5–24 9 20:33–44 162 20:34–44 1 20:39–44 159, 161, 164 20:40 159 20:40–41 161 20:40–44 1, 9 20:43 146, 160–162 20:43–44 159, 160 21:1–5 9 21:22 107 21:23–32 9 21:33 93 22:17–19 8 22:23–31 9 23 60, 109 23–26 9 23:4 109 23:23 181 23:25 8 23:46 181 24 9 24:1–5 138 24:9–10 138 24:13 107, 137–139 24:13–14 32, 138–140, 248 24:14 138, 139 24:21 183 24:24–27 8 24:25–27 8, 86

275

276

Index of Scripture References

25–32 2 25–48 2 25:8–9 93 26:1 50 26:5 181 26:7 181 26:12 181 29:19 181 29:21 61–64 31:16 139 32:17 50 32:31 139 33 13, 71, 97 33–39 2 33–48 1, 2, 5 33:1 72, 73 33:1–6 73 33:1–9 71 33:1–22 10 33:2–6 71 33:7 72 33:7–9 13, 71, 73, 75, 77, 78, 81, 246 33:8 72, 77 33:9 72 33:10 83 33:10–20 73, 82 33:12–16 83, 84 33:13 84 33:14–16 82–84, 246 33:15 72, 76, 84, 246 33:15–16 72, 75, 76, 81, 84 33:16 72, 76, 83, 84 33:21–22 10, 86 33:21–29 8 34–39 89 34–48 2 34:29 35 35:1–3 9 35:10 105 35:10–12 9 35:15 9 35:1–36:15 8 36 159 36–37 3, 64 36:1–15 9 36:16–21 231 36:16–38 159, 242 36:22–32 162

36:23–38 160, 242 36:26–27 80 36:29–30 35 36:31 160–162 36:31–32 159, 160 37 3, 8, 242, 243 37:1 45, 50 37:1–6 89, 90 37:1–10 8 37:1–14 6, 14, 31, 86–89, 91, 93, 96, 97, 242, 243, 247, 254, 257 37:2 90 37:4–6 95 37:6 94 37:7 255 37:7–8 95 37:7–10 90 37:8 95 37:10 87 37:11 92, 95, 122 37:11–14 8, 9, 89, 90, 95 37:12 92, 93, 96, 256 37:12–14 89, 92, 96, 256 37:13 256 37:13–14 96 37:14 256 37:15–23 242, 243 37:15–28 14 37:16 109 37:21–22 242 37:23 242 37:25–28 8 37:27–28 243 40–42 91, 219 40–48 2, 3, 6, 8, 16, 19, 38, 74, 204, 214, 217, 222, 237, 240, 254 40:1 45, 50, 54, 220 40:1–43:7 221 40:1–43:10 17, 18, 254 40:1–43:12 6 40:2 16, 220, 221 40:4 19, 220 40:5 221 40:17 220 40:28 220 40:38–43 221 40:46 220, 221 40:47–41:4 220

Index of Scripture References

41:5–15 220 41:8 256 41:15–20 220 41:24 256 42:1–14 221 42:13 256 42:13–14 221 42:14 254 42:15–20 220 43 6, 16, 17 43–46 6, 37, 219, 223, 226, 228 43:1–9 241 43:1–10 19, 222 43:1–11 220 43:1–12 222 43:3 221, 254 43:3–5 16 43:3–9 16 43:4–5 19 43:6 220 43:6–27 229 43:6–46:18 243 43:7 220, 223, 226, 227, 229, 241 43:7–8 222 43:7–9 221–225, 229, 230, 243, 250 43:7–11 219, 222, 229, 230 43:7–12 222 43:7–27 221, 254 43:7–46:18 249 43:7–46:24 249 43:8 223, 229 43:9 227, 229, 240, 242 43:10–11 222, 224, 230, 231, 250 43:10–12 221 43:10–46:24 220 43:11 229, 231, 256 43:11–27 221 43:12 229–231 43:12–46:24 222 43:13–14 231 43:13–17 232, 233 43:13–24 221 43:13–27 224, 231–233, 243, 250 43:13–46:24 229 43:15 231, 232 43:15–16 231 43:16 232 43:18 231

43:18–27 220, 232 43:19 220 43:23 254 44 214, 216, 227, 235 44:1–2 6, 221 44:1–3 220, 221 44:3 220 44:3–46:24 221, 254 44:4–5 6, 221 44:4–6 18, 19 44:4–14 234, 250 44:4–31 221 44:5 220 44:6–7 221 44:6–8 224, 234 44:6–9 227, 234 44:6–14 234, 236 44:6–16 220, 221, 243 44:6–31 220 44:6–46:18 219 44:7 225, 226, 254 44:7–46:20 19 44:9–14 235 44:9–31 229, 234, 235 44:9–45:6 224, 236, 249 44:10 215, 216 44:10–16 214, 215 44:12 215, 216, 235 44:13 215 44:15–16 215 44:15–31 216, 235 44:15–45:6 236, 250 44:17 254 44:17–19 216, 235 44:17–27 220, 235, 244 44:17–31 221 44:19 255 44:23 235 44:23–27 215 44:25 256 44:25–27 216, 235 44:28–30 220 44:31 216, 220 45:1 255 45:1–6 235, 243 45:1–8 220, 221 45:1–25 221 45:3–4 235

277

278

Index of Scripture References

45:4–5 235 45:7–8 224, 226, 229, 236, 237, 244, 249, 250 45:8 236 45:8–9 220, 221 45:9 224, 237–239 45:9–12 238 45:9–17 237 45:9–46:15 224, 237, 238, 244 45:10–12 238 45:13–17 238 45:15–16 221 45:17 220 45:17–20 221 45:18–20 220, 224, 238 45:18–25 238 45:20–25 220 45:21 220 45:21–25 238 45:21–46:12 220 45:21–46:15 224 45:22–25 220 46 185 46:1 93 46:1–3 221 46:1–10 220 46:1–15 238 46:2–3 227 46:4–7 220, 221 46:8–9 255 46:8–10 221, 227 46:8–11 221 46:11 221 46:12 220, 221 46:16–18 186–188, 193, 220, 221, 224, 226, 229, 236, 237, 244, 249, 250 46:16–24 221 46:18 186, 224, 236 46:19–24 221 47:1 220 47:1–12 6, 221, 240, 242 47:1–21 221 47:3 254 47:8 220 47:9 220 47:11–12 256 47:12 220 47:13 220, 221

47:13–48:29 221, 254 47:14–15 221 47:15–20 220 47:21 221 47:22–23 221 48:1–8 221 48:1–10 221 48:1–29 220 48:8–23 221 48:9 256 48:11 220 48:11–12 221 48:13–21 221 48:23–29 221 48:30–35 221 48:35 45, 220 Hosea 9:1 146 9:3 199 Joel 1:15 181 2:1–11 181 3:4 181 4:14 181 Amos 4:4–5 201 4:4–11 201, 209 4:11 212 5:18 181 5:18–20 181 5:20 181 7:17 199 Zephaniah 1:2–18 181 1:18 174, 178 Haggai 1:1 55 Zechariah 1–6 204 1–8 204 1:1 55, 204 1:8–6:8 251

Index of Scripture References

1:17 213 2:16 213 3 6, 37, 38, 195, 200, 202–204, 208, 211, 217, 248 3:1–2 205 3:1–5 200, 203, 205, 206 3:1–10 199, 217 3:2 201, 203, 212, 213, 217 3:3 201, 203, 217, 248 3:3–4 210 3:3–5 201, 206, 207, 211, 213 3:4 201, 204, 209 3:4–5 201, 203, 217, 248 3:5 201, 204 3:6 205 3:6–7 205–207 3:6–10 200, 205 3:7 205–207, 217, 248 3:8 214 3:9 203, 207–209, 213, 217, 248 3:10 203, 213, 214 6:11 200 7:1 204 7:1–3 197

Malachi 1:6–2:9 155 Psalms 88:6 122 99:6 96 105:16 35 Lamentations 3:54 122 Daniel 7–12 179 8:5–8 179 8:23 179 8:23–24 179 9:2 21, 31 9:12–14 179 1 Chronicles 5:40–41 200 2 Chronicles 30:9 254

279

Index of Authors Achenbach, R. 119 Achtemeier, E. R. 200 Ackroyd, P. R. 1 Albertz, R. 196 Albrektson, B. 165 Allan, N. 197–199 Allen, L. C. 2, 14, 15, 39, 45, 50, 52, 56, 57, 70, 71, 78, 81, 82, 84–88, 93, 105, 109, 111, 112, 114, 115, 117, 127, 128, 130–133, 136, 138, 141, 146, 148, 151, 153, 161, 174, 175, 182, 183, 187, 236, 242 Ashley, T. R. 191 Bailey, L. R. 120 Baldwin, J. G. 208 Barrick, W. B. 158 Behrens, A. 6, 48, 57 Betts, T. J. 51, 55 Biggs, C. R. 67 Blenkinsopp, J. 54, 149, 197–199, 211 Block, D. I. 1, 2, 35, 39, 50, 52, 54–59, 63–65, 78–83, 85, 95, 105, 109, 112, 113, 115, 117, 123, 125, 127, 128, 130–132, 136, 139, 141, 142, 145, 151, 158, 159, 162, 163, 168, 174, 180–182, 184, 185, 188–191, 205, 206, 211, 227, 229, 231, 234, 235, 238, 245 Boccaccini, G. 198, 199 Boda, M. J. 32, 33, 201, 202, 205, 207, 209, 210, 212–214, 251 Bodi, D. 141 Bogaert, P.-M. 24, 25, 169, 173, 176, 179 Brownlee, W. H. 17, 45, 46, 48, 57, 59, 70, 71, 105, 112, 116, 126, 127, 142, 149, 180, 183, 186, 237 Brueggemann, W. 2 Budd, P. J. 189 Clements, R. E. 15, 182, 204 Cody, A. 196 Cooke, G. A. 50, 54, 86, 88, 105, 107, 112, 130, 147–150, 175, 254 Curtis, E. M. 128 Dahmen, U. 191, 192 Davis, E. F. 2, 64 Dijkstra, M. 212 https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110711578-013

Douglas, M. 152 Driver, G. R. 174 Driver, S. R. 254 Duguid, I. M. 75, 155, 175, 215, 227 Ehrensvärd, M. 253 Eichrodt, W. 2, 49, 50, 112, 114, 148, 149, 182, 222 Faur, J. 62 Fechter, F. 215 Finitsis, A. 200 Fishbane, M. A. 26, 29–31, 34, 35, 232 Floss, J. P. 22–24 Fowler, J. W. 161 Friebel, K. G. 105, 109, 110, 115, 116, 123, 125– 128, 130, 131, 243 Fritz, V 157 Frymer-Kensky, T. 231 Gane, R. 120, 189, 209 Ganzel, T. 228 Garscha, J. 148 Gese, H. 219, 220, 222, 254 Gile, J. 36 Glazov, G. Y. 58 Goettsberger, J. 174 Grabbe, L. L. 196–199 Greenberg, M. 1, 11, 46, 49, 54, 64, 70, 71, 78, 80, 105, 115, 125, 127, 130, 139, 145, 146, 174, 180–182, 238 Gregory, B. R. 200 Hägglund, F. 116, 117 Halperin, D. J. 1, 46 Hals, R. M. 2, 56, 71, 73, 99, 109, 113, 137, 141, 145, 148–150, 168, 177, 205 Hanson, P. D. 202 Hartley, J. 36, 120, 121, 132, 136, 154 Hauspie, K. 24, 44, 71, 104, 141, 176 Herring, S. L. 62, 64 Herrmann, J. 54 Hiebel, J. M. 6, 16–19, 24, 25, 39, 45, 46, 48– 51, 54–56, 58, 74, 88 Hölscher, G. 7, 13, 108

282

Index of Authors

Holtz, S. E. 228 Hoppe, L. J. 4, 131 Hossfeld, F.-L. 88 Howie, C. G. 54 Hurowitz, V. A. 62 Hurvitz, A. 253, 254 Jacobsen, T. 62 Joyce, P. M. 1, 3, 7, 52–54, 57, 59–61, 71, 73– 75, 81, 82, 85, 88, 97–99, 109, 112, 114, 115–117, 123, 125, 127, 130, 141, 146, 160, 161, 180, 181, 183, 204, 235, 238, 239 Keel, O. 52 Kennedy, J. M. 62, 63 Klein, A. 89, 90, 145, 148, 204, 221 Konkel, M. 90, 91, 221, 222, 254 Kratz, R. G. 20–22 Kropat, A. 254, 255 Kutsko, J. F. 3, 53, 141, 165, 233 Lang, B. 54 Lapsley, J. E. 61, 160–163 Lee, S. Y. 30–33, 36 Leonard, J. M. 33, 34, 36, 37, 156, 157 Levenson, J. D. 232 Levinson, B. M. 32 Lewis, M. 161 Lust, J. 24, 44–47, 71, 74, 104–107, 109, 125, 141, 145–147, 159, 160, 164, 169, 172– 176, 179, 180, 182, 184–186, 188, 191 Lyons, M. A. 4, 27–29, 31, 33–35, 93, 108, 136, 139, 151, 152, 185, 225, 226, 237 MacDonald, N. 21, 22, 26, 197, 215 Mackie, T. P. 47, 106–108, 145–147, 150, 163, 164, 169, 175, 176, 179, 180, 183 Marzouk, S. 180 Matthews, I. G. 52, 53 Matties, G. H. 85 Mayfield, T. D. 3, 4, 6, 19, 20 McConville, J. G. 156 McKeating, H. 2 Mein, A. 126, 127, 141, 204, 216 Meyers, C. L. 202, 203, 212 Meyers, E. M. 202, 203, 212 Milgrom, J. 119–124, 131, 132, 152, 155, 185, 209, 210, 230–232, 235, 236

Miller, J. E. 54, 55 Miner, E. 36 Nielsen, K. 16 Nihan, C. L. 23, 36, 119, 120, 133, 145 North, F. S. 197, 198 Noth, M. 120 Nurmela, R. 32, 197, 198 Odell, M. S. 39, 50, 54, 55, 57–60, 78, 81, 83, 85, 86, 93–95, 109, 111, 115, 116, 123, 125, 127, 132, 133, 136, 141, 142, 149, 151, 161–164, 168, 180, 181, 183, 188, 227, 238, 243, 252 Ohnesorge, S. 88 Origen 54 Parunak, H. 107 Petersen, D. L. 200–205, 207, 208, 210, 212, 214 Peterson, B. N. 52, 53, 165 Petterson, A. R. 205, 212 Pohlmann, K.-F. 2, 7–10, 48–50, 89, 99, 108– 110, 112–114, 148–150, 178, 222 Pola, T. 204, 207, 209, 213 Polzin, R. 253–255 Preuss, H. 128 Redditt, P. L. 200 Renz, T. 125, 141, 184, 204 Rezetko, R. 253 Richter, W. 22, 24, 25 Ringgren, H. 158 Robson, J. 57–59, 85 Rochester, K. M. 57, 58, 67, 74, 93 Rom-Shiloni, D. 30, 130 Rooke, D. W. 207, 210 Rooker, M. F. 253–256 Rose, W. H. 204 Rudnig, T. A. 89, 220–223 Samuel, H. 191, 192 Schaper, J. 62, 191, 196–199, 202 Schenker, A. 82 Schmid, K. 20, 21, 26, 31 Schneider, C. D. 161 Schöpflin, K. 71–73, 99, 109–113, 148, 149, 159

Index of Authors

Schultz, R. L. 33, 34, 155 Schwartz, B. J. 1, 56, 59 Smith, R. L. 200 Sommer, B. D. 26, 29, 31, 32–34, 36 Sonnet, J.-P. 107 Speiser, E. A. 165 Spieckermann, H. 90 Stacey, D. 112 Stead, M. R. 201, 204, 205, 207, 209, 212, 213 Steck, O. H. 22–25 Strine, C. A. 215 Stromberg, J. 145, 146, 161, 164, 169, 174, 175, 178 Sweeney, M. A. 3, 5, 39, 52, 55, 57, 60, 61, 83, 86, 96, 99, 113, 126, 132, 152, 168, 183, 186, 187, 189, 191, 200, 211, 231, 236

VanderKam, J. C. 201, 207, 212, 213 Vanoni, G. 23, 24 Vawter, B. 4, 131

Ternier, A. 24, 44, 71, 104, 141, 176 Tidwell, N. L. A. 200 Tiemeyer, L.-S. 21, 26, 57, 77, 79, 111, 128, 200–202, 204, 205, 207–214, 251 Tollington, J. E. 96, 207 Tooman, W. A. 27–29, 182, 240–242 Tov, E. 25, 44, 161, 169, 173, 174 Tuell, S. 2, 39, 50, 52, 54, 55, 82, 109, 111, 133, 137, 140, 141, 175, 176, 181, 187–190, 204, 221–223, 228–232, 234, 236, 237, 241, 252, 254

York, A. D. 6, 16, 17, 19 Young, I. 253, 254

283

Watts, J. W. 120 Webb, B. G. 213 Westermann, C. 1 Wevers, J. W. 2, 49, 71, 73, 74, 99, 108, 110, 113, 114, 145–147, 149–151, 168, 169, 177, 222 Wildberger, H. 179 Williams, R. J. 77, 79 Wolters, Al. 213 Wong, K. L. 111, 127, 128, 133, 151–153 Wright, R. M. 253, 254

Zevit, Z. 253 Zimmerli, W. 2, 6, 12–15, 17, 23, 45, 49, 50, 57, 61, 70, 71, 73, 74, 77–79, 88, 97, 105, 107–114, 116, 117, 127–129, 137, 138, 141, 142, 145–151, 159–164, 168, 169, 172, 174, 175, 177, 178, 204, 206, 211, 219, 220, 222, 254