A New Heart and a New Soul: Ezekiel, the Exile and the Torah (JSOT Supplement)

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT SUPPLEMENT SERIES 358 Editors David J.A. Clines Philip R. Davies Executive...

Author: Risa Levitt Kohn

199 downloads 1233 Views 7MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT SUPPLEMENT SERIES

358

Editors David J.A. Clines Philip R. Davies Executive Editor Andrew Mein Editorial Board Richard J. Coggins, Alan Cooper, J. Cheryl Exum, John Goldingay, Robert P. Gordon, Norman K. Gottwald, John Jarick, Andrew D.H. Mayes, Carol Meyers, Patrick D. Miller

Sheffield Academic Press A Continuum imprint

This page intentionally left blank

A New Heart and a

New Soul Ezekiel, the Exile and the Torah

Risa Levitt Kohn

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 358

ForYK,JLKandSHL

Copyright © 2002 Sheffield Academic Press A Continuum imprint Published by Sheffield Academic Press Ltd The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SE1 7NX 370 Lexington Avenue, New York NY 10017-6550 www.SheffieldAcademicPress.com www.continuumbooks.com All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Typeset by Sheffield Academic Press Printed on acid-free paper in Great Britain by Bookcraft Ltd, Midsomer Norton, Bath

ISBN

0-8264-6057-7

CONTENTS Acknowledgments Abbreviations

ix x

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

1

Chapter 2

THE STATE OF THE QUESTION A. Wellhausen 1. Place of Worship 2. Sacrifice 3. Sacred Feasts 4. Priests and Levites 5. Endowment of Clergy 6. Ezekiel and the Holiness Code 7. Priestly Language 8. Further Considerations B. Kaufrnann C. Between Wellhausen and Kaufrnann 1. Ezekiel and H 2. Ezekiel and P: the Vocabulary Lists D. Linguistic Studies E. Ezekiel, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History F. Summary

6 6 7 8 8 9 10 11 12 12 13 18 18 21 25 28 29

Chapter 3

EZEKIEL AND THE PRIESTLY SOURCE RECONSIDERED A. Data: Shared Terminology 1. Yahweh's Relationship to Israel 2. Covenant 3. The Land

30 31 31 35 37

vi

A New Heart and a New Soul 4. Social Structure 5. Law 6. Holy Days 7. Tabernacle/Temple and Priesthood 8. Ritual 9. Humans, Animals and Plants 10. Miscellaneous B. Analysis 1. Reversals 2. Legal Citations 3. The Exodus and the Restoration 4. Tabernacle to Temple? 5. Literal to Metaphorical Excursus: Re-evaluating Ezekiel and H

39 42 47 50 56 62 66 75 76 78 80 81 82 85

Chapter 4

EZEKIEL, DEUTERONOMY AND THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY A. Data: Shared Terminology B. Analysis 1. Reversals 2. Legal Citations 3. The Exodus and the Restoration C. Summary

86 86 93 94 94 94 94

Chapter 5

FUSING P AND D/DTR IN EZEKIEL A. P and D/Dtr in Ezekiel B. P and D/Dtr in Ezekiel 20 C. Summary

96 96 98 103

Chapter 6

CONCLUSION A. Ezekiel and the Exile B. Ezekiel and the Restoration: Moses and the 'Second Exodus' C. Conclusion: Ezekiel and the Torah Bibliography

105 105 107 110 119

Contents Index of References Index of Ezekiel and P: Shared Terminology Index of Additional Shared Terminology between Ezekiel and P Index of Ezekiel, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History: Shared Teminology Index of Authors

vii 126 139 143 145 147


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This book is a revision of my doctoral thesis, 'A New Heart and a New Soul: Ezekiel, the Exile and the Torah' (University of California, San Diego, 1997). I benefited tremendously from the collective knowledge, support and criticism of the members of my dissertation committee, William H.C. Propp, David Noel Freedman, Richard E. Friedman, David M. Goodblatt and Thomas E. Levy. I am most appreciative of their continued support of my work and their continued friendship. I also owe a great debt to Laurel Mannen. My colleagues in the Religious Studies Department at San Diego State University have been equally nurturing and supportive by providing me with release time and travel grants, facilitating the quick revision of this project. I would like to thank Irving Alan Sparks, Linda Holler, Willard Johnson, Rebecca Moore, the rest of the members of the Department and my student assistant, for creating a continued environment of collegiality and learning. The largest debt of gratitude by far must go to the members of my family, who saw me through the difficult, trying and time-consuming process of bringing this work from concept to fruition. Their ongoing patience and encouragement continues to sustain my work and teaching. Finally, thanks to Sheffield Academic Press for their faith in this project. While the breadth and depth of this work is a credit to the criticism and revisions suggested by those named and unnamed, the responsibility for any errors remains mine alone.


ABBREVIATIONS AB ABD BA BASOR BDB

BHS

Bib BibLeb BibOr BJRL BJS BR BWANT BZAW CahRB CMHE El ETL ExpTim HSM HTR HUCA IEJ IDBSup

Int JANES JAOS JBL JNES JQR

Anchor Bible David Noel Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992) Biblical Archaeologist Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Francis Brown, S.R. Driver and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old+estament+(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907) Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1983) Biblica Bibel und Leben Biblica et orientalia Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester Brown Judaic Studies Bible Review Beitrage zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament BeiheftezurZ4FF Cahiers de la Revue Biblique F.M. Cross,+Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epi+++ambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973) Eretz Israe+l Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses Expository Times Harvard Semitic Monographs Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual Israel Exploration Journal Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Supplementary Volume (ed. K. Crim; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1976) Interpretation+ Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Near Eastern Studies Jewish Quarterly Review

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

JSOT JSOTSup Les LXX OTG PEQ RB Sam SBLDS ThWAT

VT VTSup WMANT

WWTB 2AW ZTK

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series Leshonenu Septuagint, Greek Pentateuch Old Testament Guides Palestine Exploration Quarterly Revue Biblique Samaritan Torah Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series G.J. Botterweck and H. Ringren (eds.), Theologisches Worterbuch zum Alten Testament (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1970-) Vetus Testamentum Vetus Testamentum, Supplements Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament R.E. Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible? (New York: Harper & Row, 1987) Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift fur Theologie und Kirche

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION Ezekiel lived and prophesied during one of the most traumatic periods in Israelite history.1 As a prophet of the Exile, he delivered his message at a critical juncture when, in an attempt to comprehend the destruction of 587 BCE, all of Israel's previous history and theology were called into question. The great prophets of this epoch—Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Second Isaiah— heroically strove to create a new faith from the sherds of the old. This study will focus on Ezekiel, demonstrating in what manner he based his message on earlier thought, and in what manner he adumbrated the theology of Israel restored. Scholars have long grappled with the difficulty and complexity of Ezekiel's prophetic message, reaching varied conclusions regarding the unity and authorship of this material. In the early part of this century, much of the book was attributed to later editors; most recent studies, however, have reassigned the majority to the prophet himself.2 As for literary-theological 1. The book of Ezekiel situates the prophet in the first half of the sixth century BCE, with the earliest of his visions dated to the 'fifth year of the exile of King Jehoiachin' (Ezek. 1.2; usually dated 593 BCE) and the last dated to approximately 571 BCE. Ezekiel cannot be dated earlier than the sixth century BCE, nor have there been any persuasive attempts to view the book as a product of a much later period (see discussion of Torrey and Burrows in Chapter 2). On the various dates cited in Ezekiel see K. Freedy and D.B. Redford, 'The Dates in Ezekiel in Relation to Biblical, Babylonian and Egyptian Sources',++++++90 (1970), pp. 462-85; A. Malamat, 'Th Last Kings of Judah and the Fall of Jerusalem', IEJ 18 (1968), pp. 137-56 (151-52); D.B. Redford, Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992), pp. 430-69. 2. Contrast, for example, the findings of G. Holscher, Hesekiel: der Dichter und das Buck (BZAW, 39; Geissin: Alfred Topelmann, 1924); C.C. 1onQj,Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Original Prophecy+New Haven: Yale University Press, 1930); and J. Garscha, Studien zum Ezechielbuch: Eine redaktionkritische Untersuchung von Ez 1-39 (Europaische Hochulschriften, 23; Bern: Peter Lang, 1974), with those of L. Boadt, Ezekiel's

2

A New Heart and a New Soul

affinities, scholars agree that the language and content of Ezekiel bear strik ing resemblance to that of the Priestly Source (P) of the Tora+++ Because the book of Ezekiel is representative of Israelite theology at a crossroads—between pre-exilic and postexilic Israel—and since the dating of P remains controversial, the extent and direction of the relationship between the two sources remains an intriguing line of investigation. Some have sought to prove that both were written by the same author or authors.4 Others have tried to demonstrate that similarities between P and Ezekiel are the result of a common earlier source.5 It has also been argued that since P

Oracles against Egypt (BibOr, 37; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1980); B. Lang, Kein Auf stand in Jerusalem: Die Politik des Propheten Ezechiel (Stuttgart: Katholische Bibelwerk, 1981), and M. Greenberg, Ezekiel 1-20 (AB, 22; New York: Doubleday 1983), pp. 18-27++++++++hat Are Valid Criteria for Determining Inauthentic Matter in Ezekiel', in J. Lust (ed.), Ezekiel and his Book (Leuven: Leuven University Press 1986), pp. 123-35; T. Collins, The Mantle of Elijah: The Redactional Criticism of the Prophetical Books (Biblical Seminar, 20; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press 1993), pp. 91-93. See also W. Zimmerli, 'The Special Form- and Traditio-historica Character of Ezekiel's Prophecy',++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Clements; Hermenia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), pp. 68-73; and E.F. Davis Swallowing the Scroll: Textuality and the Dynamics of Discourse in Ezekiel's Prophecy (JSOTSup, 78; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989). For more general surveys see H.H. Rowley, 'The Book of Ezekiel in Modern Study', BJRL 36 (1953), pp. 146-90, and K. Pfisterer Darr, 'Ezekiel among the Critics', Currents in Research 2 (1994), pp. 9-24. 3. The Priestly Source (P) is the largest of the Pentateuchal sources. It is distinguished by its distinctive language and theological perspective. P is comprised of narrative, ethical and ritual material as well as a tremendous body of law encompassing nearly 30 chapters in the books of Exodus and Numbers and the entire book of Leviticus. Proposals regarding P's date of composition range from the pre-exilic to the Persian periods (see the discussion in Chapter 2). Similarly, there is some debate regarding the extent of the Priestly stratum; see P.M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (hereafter CMHE) (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), pp. 301-21; R.E. Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible? (hereafter WWTB) (New York: Harper & Row, 1987), pp. 220-21. Our analysis confirms that P is an independent and continuous source. On P's concepts and vocabulary see Friedman,1WWTB, pp. 188206; S.R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (Gloucester: Peter Smith, 1972), pp. 133-34. On P's style see M. Paran, Forms of the Priestly Style in the Pentateuch (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1989) (Hebrew); S. McEvenue, Narrative Style of the Priestly Writer (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1971). 4. See K.H. Graf, Die geschichtlichen Bucher des Alten Testaments (Leipzig: Weigel, 1866), pp. 81-83, and the discussion in Chapter 2. 5. See G. Fohrer, Die Hauptprobleme des Buches Ezechiel (BZAW, 72; Geissen: Alfred Topelmann, 1952), pp. 144-48, and the discussion in Chapter 2.

1. Introduction

3

emphasizes priestly matters and Ezekiel is reportedly a priest, their common language reflects nothing more than a shared heritage.6 Recently, a number of linguistic investigations have compared P and Ezekiel in an attempt to determine the chronological priority of one text over the other and the approximate dates of their composition.7 Yet, surprisingly, a systematic examination of the lexical and thematic similarities of these two works has never been attempted. It is less frequently noted that the book of Ezekiel contains language and concepts associated with the book of Deuteronomy (D) and the Deuteronomistic History (Dtr).8 The influence of D/Dtr on Ezekiel has never been 6. See M. Haran, 'The Law Code of Ezekiel XL-XLVIII and Its Relation to the Priestly School', HUCA 50 (1979), pp. 45-71; A. Hurvitz, A Linguistic Study of the Relationship between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel (CahRB, 20; Paris: Gabalda, 1982), p. 150, and the discussion in Chapter 2. 7. For linguistic studies on the dating of P see, for example, A. Hurvitz, 'The Use of m and fin in the Bible and Its Implication for the Date of P', HTR 60 (1967), pp. 117-21; idem, 'Linguistic Observations on the Biblical Usage of the Priestly Term mi?', Tarbiz 40 (1970-71), pp. 261-67; idem, 'The Evidence of Language in the Dating of the Priestly Code—A Linguistic Study in Technical Idioms and Terminology', RB 81 (1974), pp. 24-56; idem, 'The Language of the Priestly Source and Its Early Historical Setting—The Case for an Early Date', in Proceedings of the Eighth World Congress of Jewish Studies (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1983), pp. 90-93; idem, 'Dating the Priestly Source in Light of the Historical Study of Biblical Hebrew a Century after Wellhausen', ZAW 100 (1988), pp. 88-100; Y.M. Grintz, 'Archaic Terms in the Priestly Code', Leshonenu 39 (1974-75), pp. 5-32; G. Rendsburg, 'Late Biblical Hebrew and the Date of P', JANES 12 (1980), pp. 65-80; Z. Zevit, 'Converging Lines of Evidence Bearing on the Date of P', ZAW94 (1982), pp. 502509; idem, 'Philology, Archaeology and a Terminus a Quo for P's nÊDF! Legislation', in D.P. Wright, D.N. Freedman and A. Hurvitz (eds.), Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish and Near Eastern Ritual, Law and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995), pp. 29-38. For linguistic studies comparing P and Ezekiel, see Hurvitz, Linguistic Study; J. Milgrom, Studies in Levitical Terminology, I (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1970); idem, Cult and Conscience: The ASHAM and the Priestly Doctrine of Repentance (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1976); idem, 'Priestly Terminology and the Political and Social Structure of Pre-Monarchic Israel', yg/Z 69 (1978), pp. 65-81; R. Polzm, Late Biblical Hebrew: Toward a Historical Typology of Biblical Hebrew Prose (HSM, 12; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976); M.F. Rooker, Biblical Hebrew in Transition: The Language of the Book of Ezekiel (JSOTSup, 90; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990). See discussion in Chapter 2. 8. On D's concepts and vocabulary, see Friedman, WWTB, pp. 117-35; M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic School (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972);

4


fully investigated. That a Deuteronomistic School reworked and edited the book of Ezekiel remains the most common explanation, yet it is not entirely satisfactory.9 The simpler scenario, whereby the prophet relied directly upon Deuteronomistic literature, has received insufficient consideration.10 The following investigation attempts to explore and elucidate, to a greater extent than any previous study, the presence of Priestly and Deuteronomic language and concepts in the book of Ezekiel. I will consider several questions: (1) What is the nature of the relationship between Ezekiel and the Priestly Source? (2) What is the nature of the relationship between Ezekiel, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History? (3) Where does the book of Ezekiel stand in the evolution of Israelite history, theology and literature— specifically, what can Ezekiel teach us about the composition of the Torah? After reviewing in greater detail the scholarly debate (Chapter 2), we will examine 97 terms, expressions and idioms common to Ezekiel and P in an effort to determine the specific use, context and understanding of this vocabulary in both texts (Chapter 3). I will then examine 21 terms common to Ezekiel and D/Dtr (Chapter 4). I will also explore the manner in which P and D/Dtr language and concepts appear combined in the book of D.N. Freedman, 'The Deuteronomic History', IDBSup (1976), pp. 226-28. Since the work of M. Noth (Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien [Tubingen: Max Neiymar, 1957], pp. 1-110), scholars have recognized the editorial unity of the Deuteronomistic History, that is, the books of Deuteronomy-2 Kings. On the theory that Dtr was composed in two stages, see Cross, CMHE, pp. 274-90; R.E. Friedman, The Exile and Biblical Narrative (HSM, 22; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981), pp. 1-43; idem, WWTB, pp. 104-10;B. Halpern, The First Historians (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), pp. 109-18; R.D. Nelson, The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History (JSOTSup, 18; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981). 9. See G. Holscher, Hesekiel; S. Herrmann, Dieprophetischen Heilserwartungen im Alten Testament (BWANT, 85; Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1965); W. Thiel, 'Erwagungen zum Alter des Heiligkeitsgesetzes', ZAW 81 (1969), pp. 69-70; R. Liwak, 'Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Probleme des Ezechielbuches: eine Studie zu postezechielischen Interpretationen und Kompositionen' (PhD dissertation, Bochum, 1976), and the discussion in Chapter 2. 10. In recent years, the Documentary Hypothesis has come under scholarly attack for various reasons, some cogent, some not. However, the existence of at least two specific and different literary entities within the Torah, namely P and D, is still accepted by scholarly consensus. For recent discussions see the surveys in J. Van Seters, The Pentateuch: A Social Science Commentary (Trajectories, 1; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), and A. Rofe, Introduction to the Composition of the Pentateuch (Biblical Seminar, 58; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999). See also Friedman, WWTB, pp. 24-32.

1. Introduction

5

Ezekiel (Chapter 5). Finally, we will see how, by synthesizing P and D/Dtr, Ezekiel anticipated developments of the postexilic period, including the promulgation of the Torah (Chapter 6).

Chapter 2 THE STATE OF THE QUESTION

Any discussion that attempts to consider the relationship between the prophets and the legal materials of the Torah inevitably comes up against the impasse of chronological priority. Modem critical scholarship finds itself wedged between two pillars in this respect—Wellhausen, who concluded that the prophets precede the laws and Kaufmann, who observed that the laws of the Torah never refer to the prophets and that the prophets exercise minimal influence on the religious life of their own age let alone later generations. A. Wellhausen Wellhausen's Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (1878) reinforced and expanded upon the two most radical results of nineteenth-century Pentateuchal scholarship, namely the dating of Deuteronomy to the reign of king Josiah (seventh century BCE) and the dating of Priestly law to the postDeuteronomic period.1 Influenced by Hegel's dialectical philosophy of history, and using Deuteronomy as a benchmark, Wellhausen set out to determine which portions of the Hexateuch were composed before Deuteronomy and which were composed later. Paramount to Wellhausen's investigation

1. The Josianic dating of Deuteronomy is generally attributed to W.M.L. de Wette, 'Dissertatio critico-exegetica qua Deuteronomium a prioribus Pentateuchi Libris diversum' (PhD dissertation, Jena, 1805; reprinted in Opusucla theologica [Berlin, 1830]), and the subsequent dating of P as post-Deuteronomic is attributed variously to de Wette; K.H. Graf, Die geschichtlichen Bucher des Alien Testament and 'Die sogenannte Grundschrift des Pentateuch', Archivfur \vissenschaftliche Erforschung des Alien Testaments 1 (1869), pp. 466-77; E. Reuss, L 'histoire sainte el la lot (Paris: Sandoz et Fischbacher, 1879); J.F.L. George, Die alteren judischen Fesle, mil einer Kritik der Gesetzgebung des Pentateuch (Berlin: Schroeder, 1835); and W. Vatke, Die biblische Theologie wissenschaftlich dargestellt(Berlin: Bethge, 1835).

2. The State of the Question

1

was his overriding impression that the Priestly law was the product, not of Israelite antiquity, but rather of postexilic Judaism. The book of Ezekiel exemplifies for Wellhausen the Tendenz of the exilic period.2 To demonstrate that the Priestly Code was composed after JE and Deuteronomy, Wellhausen highlighted five religious institutions reflected in historical and prophetic texts of the HB: place of worship, sacrifice, sacred feasts, priests and Levites and the endowment of the clergy. The book of Ezekiel, for Wellhausen, is a liminal work between pre-exilic Israelite religion and postexilic Judaism. 1. Place of Worship For Wellhausen the centralization of the cult at the Jerusalem Temple was the turning point in the history of Israelite worship.3 With this event firmly dated to the seventh century BCE, he examined the biblical record for information indicating awareness or ignorance of centralized worship. He found no sign of exclusive worship at a single sanctuary prior to the first Temple. Evidence from JE, Judges and Samuel reflects rather Israel's earliest tendencies towards worship at a multiplicity of sanctuaries, altars, shrines and high places, a direct influence of her Canaanite heritage. The Patriarchs sacrifice anywhere and everywhere. Even during the early years of the Solomonic Temple there is no evidence suggesting to Wellhausen a concentrated effort to centralize all public worship at the Temple. Attacks against the high places voiced in prophetic texts like Amos and Hosea are directed against the cultus carried on at these locations and not at the sites themselves. Centralization of worship came about, according to Wellhausen, as an incidental result of the prophets' preference for the Jerusalem Temple. This tendency was eventually realized as policy in Deuteronomy, which clearly demands centralization.4 In P, Wellhausen did not find this same bid to centralize. He detected rather the assumption that worship had always been restricted to a single center. Both the legal and narrative materials relating to P's Tabernacle—a retro version of the Temple to the desert clime—imply that centralization was a long-established historical fact. Where Deuteronomy commands

2. J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (Berlin: Reimer, 5th edn, 1899). Henceforth cited as Wellhausen (1899). 3. J. Wellhausen, 'Pentateuch and Joshua', Encyclopaedia Britannica, XVIII (New York: Hall, 9th edn, 1885), pp. 505-14 (509). 4. Wellhausen (1899), pp. 2-3, 21, 23-24.

8


centralization, P already presupposes it.5 P must therefore have come later than Deuteronomy. 2. Sacrifice Wellhausen noted that only P ascribes the sacrificial system to Mosaic revelation.6 The prophets, in contrast, seem completely unaware of this connection, as if ignorant of P's sacrificial legislation.7 JE portrays sacrifice as spontaneous and related to daily life. Even Deuteronomy reflects this informal approach, although centralization has led to some regulation and has bound sacrifice to the Temple. In P, sacrifice is a somber, formalized event detached from the agricultural calendar. For Wellhausen, the movement from pre-exilic sacrificial practice to Priestly regimentation begins with Ezekiel. Ezekiel's concept of sacrifice responds to the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple. The end of Temple worship and the displacement of Temple personnel threatened the continuity of Israelite worship and compelled the prophet to formulate and formalize sacred practices and commit them to writing. Wellhausen found no literary evidence suggesting that Ezekiel used P as a point of departure. He reasoned that Ezekiel would have found no need to draft such a detailed sketch of Temple worship had P already existed. Wellhausen viewed Ezekiel as working alone in a furious effort to ensure that the reality of Exile would not lead to the permanent extinction of Temple practices.8 Wellhausen further observed that P's sacrificial rites are strict statutory regulations with a strong emphasis on sin and propitiation. This overwhelming air of atonement evinces for Wellhausen the Zeitgeist of postexilic Judaism.9 The private and joyful thanksgiving meal has given way to compulsory, formalized burnt offerings, of which God alone partakes.10 3. Sacred Feasts In JE and Deuteronomy, Wellhausen noted that festive observances are tied directly to pastoral life and agriculture.11 In each source three great 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Wellhausen (1899), p. 36. Wellhausen (1899), p. 54. Wellhausen (1899), p. 58. Wellhausen (1899), pp. 60-61. Wellhausen (1899), p. 81. Wellhausen (1899), pp. 72-73. Wellhausen (1899), p. 90.


9

festivals dominate: flliJQ, Tlip and ^DK. Rooted in the observance of these festivals is the supposition that the soil is the basis of life and religion. Each festival is the occasion for thanksgiving and joyous celebration. In P, Wellhausen detected an overwhelming tendency to denaturalize these feasts, a shift whose impetus he attributes to Ezekiel. In both P and Ezekiel, the observance of Passover is assigned to a fixed day of the month. Both contain prescriptions for joint burnt and sin offerings without any relation to first-fruits or other agricultural event; 'agriculture was no longer rather than not yet'.12 Wellhausen reasoned that Ezekiel would have had no motive for reproducing select elements of P's Passover observance while 'aimlessly' varying or contradicting others. At the same time, he noted that Ezekiel never contradicts the observance of Passover portrayed in Deuteronomy. Ezekiel, influenced by the writings of Deuteronomy, was therefore the forerunner of P. That Ezekiel's prince offers the Passover sacrifices on behalf of himself and the people reflects for Wellhausen the 'coloring of the bygone period of the monarchy'.13 By contrast, the antecedents of the congregation that performs these offerings in P could only be found in the second Temple.14 P's addition of the New Year festival and the Day of Atonement were similarly viewed as reflecting the Geist of the Exile. 4. Priests andLevites In earliest Israel, Wellhausen found no evidence that the priesthood was limited to any special class or family. In Deuteronomy, however, Levite priests are clearly an organized class, and all Levites function as priests (Deut. 18.1-8). Josiah's abolition of the sanctuaries and high places outside of Jerusalem led to the 'setting aside of the provincial priesthoods in favor of the sons of Zadok at the temple of Solomon'.15 In order to avoid potential difficulty, however, Deuteronomy concedes to all Levites equal right to sacrifice in Jerusalem. Wellhausen reasoned that the Zadokites must have been pleased at the prominence given to their Temple, but at the same time could not have been happy about sharing their inheritance with the rest of

12. J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel (trans. J.S. Black and A. Menzies; New York: Meridian, 1957 [1885]), p. 108 (Wellhausen [1899], p. 106). Henceforth cited as Wellhausen, Prolegomena. 13. Wellhausen, Prolegomena, p. 107 (Wellhausen [1899], p. 105). 14. Wellhausen (1899), p. 105. 15. Wellhausen, Prolegomena, p. 124 (Wellhausen [1899], p. 121).

10


the priesthood. Wellhausen cites 2 Kgs 23.916 as evidence that the displaced priesthood of the high places never actually shared in the dues received at the Jerusalem Temple.17 Ezekiel, a 'thorough Jerusalemite' and 'Zadokite chauvinist', sought a 'moral way' of articulating this blatant departure from the law.18 Ezekiel's demotion of all Levites save the Zadokites (Ezek. 44.6-16) signifies for Wellhausen the prophet's effort to 'drape the logic of facts with a mantle of morality': It is an extraordinary sort of justice when priests of the abolished Bamoth are punished simply for having been so, and conversely priests at the temple at Jerusalem rewarded for this; the fault of the former and the merit of the latter consists simply in their existence.19

For Wellhausen, it was logical to view Deuteronomy as the basis for Ezekiel's ordinances and impossible to imagine that Ezekiel's laws could have been based upon P.20 In P, the distinction between Aaronide priests and Levites is of Mosaic origin.21 That Ezekiel presents this distinction as an innovation can only indicate that the prophet was unaware of the Priestly Code. Ergo, P did not yet exist. 5. Endowment of Clergy Wellhausen detected three stages in the development of legislation concerning priestly dues. In JE, sacrificial gifts are presented to Yahweh without regulation as to the priests' share. Deuteronomy contains some stipulations regarding priestly dues, and it is clear that the priesthood live from their allotted sacrificial portions.22 In P, sacred dues are paid to the priests, including an increased share of sacrifices and tithes. In addition, P assigns the priests their own land in the form of Levitical cities—cities that Wellhausen noted do not appear in the historical accounts of Joshua or Judges.

16. 'The priests at the high places, however, did not come up to the altar of Yahweh in Jerusalem, but ate unleavened bread among their kindred.' 17. Wellhausen (1899), p. 121. 18. Wellhausen, Prolegomena, p. 124 (Wellhausen [1899], p. 121). 19. Wellhausen, Prolegomena, pp. 123-24 (Wellhausen [1899], p. 121). 20. Wellhausen (1899), p. 121. 21. Wellhausen also notes that the Priestly presentation of the Israelites as a highly developed heirocracy in the wilderness seems to 'disappear' once they settle in the Canaan depicted in Judges and other historical books (Wellhausen [1899], p. 124). 22. Wellhausen (1899), p. 153.


11

For Wellhausen, the inspiration for the Priestly concept of territorial donation to the Levites was Ezekiel 45. The prophet's description of the tribal surrender of land to the clergy and the location of the Temple in the center of this priestly domain reflect a conviction that 'everything starts from and has its explanation in, the temple'.23 Wellhausen was confident that the prophet fashioned his plan after the Solomonic Temple. In P, however, although the clergy have their own land, the origin or reason for this arrangement seem undetectable: Jerusalem and the Temple, which properly speaking, occasioned the whole arrangement, are buried in silence with a diligence which is in the highest degree surprising; and on the other hand, in remembrance of the priesthoods scattered everywhere among the high places of Israel in earlier days, fortyeight fresh Levitical cities are created, from which, however, their proper focus, a temple to wit, is withheld.24

6. Ezekiel and the Holiness Code Wellhausen was convinced any signs of the influence of Priestly legislation are completely undetectable in Ezekiel.25 At the same time, he was struck by the thematic and linguistic affinity between Ezekiel and the Holiness Code.26 The points of contact between the two were not numerous enough for him to conclude, with Graf, that Ezekiel penned H. If Ezekiel had indeed composed H, how could the numerous differences between them be explained? Wellhausen noted that Ezekiel never mentions Aaron or his sons, wine is not part of Ezekiel's sacrifices, and the prophet's descriptions of festival observances show marked differences from those in H.27 In addition, if Ezekiel had written H, Wellhausen expected that Ezekiel would have expanded upon the role of the Levites and of the prince in the cultus. H, according to Wellhausen, is a legislative 23. Wellhausen, Prolegomena, p. 163 (Wellhausen [1899], p. 161). 24. Wellhausen, Prolegomena, p. 164 (Wellhausen [ 1899], p. 162). 25. Wellhausen (1899), p. 371. 26. The designation 'Holiness Code' was applied to Lev. 17-26 by A. Klostermann, 'Beitrage zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Pentateuchs', Z7X"38 (1877), pp. 401-45. H is thought to contain an originally independent body of law that was later edited and incorporated into P. For a review of current scholarship on H see H.T. Sun, 'Holiness Code', ABD, III, pp. 254-57, and the survey in R.J. Thompson, Moses and the Law in a Century of Criticism (VTSup, 19; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1970). Both Graf and Wellhausen had isolated Lev. 17-26 as a separate unit prior to Klostermann. Not all scholars accept H as an independent block of material. However, see below Chapter 3, Excursus. 27. Wellhausen (1899), p. 386.

12


corpus that 'inclines from Ezekiel towards the Priestly Code', but which stands, in terms of its content, closer to Ezekiel.28 The author of H was inspired by Ezekiel, but his work was later revised to represent the views of P. Thus, the last edition of H 'proceeds from P'.29 7. Priestly Language The last piece of Wellhausen's puzzle in the dating and history of P concerns Priestly use of language, or what he referred to as P's 'isolated literary character'30 and 'great poverty of language'.31 Wellhausen contended that the language of all pre-exilic books of the HB is analogous to that of J.32 P, on the other hand, uses phrases and expressions whose influence on Israelite pre-exilic literature is undetectable but whose imprint is evident in postexilic texts.33 Wellhausen noted that P's linguistic affinities with Ezekiel extend beyond Leviticus 17-26: The Priestly Code enumerates colours, stuffs, goldsmiths' work and jewels, which nowhere occur in the older literature: along with the book of Ezekiel it is the principal quarry in the Old Testament for the history of art and this is less likely to be due to chance, as the geographical horizon of the two works is also the same.34

8. Further Considerations Several other issues led Wellhausen to conclude that Israelite religion as portrayed in P betrays an exilic date. The ideal form of government in JE and the early historical books is monarchy. Priests in this schema are simply royal appointees. In P, however, the 'government' is theocratic, centered around the Tabernacle and headed by the high priest Aaron. For Wellhausen, there was no evidence of the existence of such a theocracy prior to the Exile. Similarly, the history of Israel portrayed in the Former Prophets differs significantly from the presentation in post-exilic literature—for example, Chronicles. In Chronicles the cult and Temple are supremely important, as are the priests and Levites. P's laws are openly observed in Chronicles. The affinity between P and the book of Chronicles 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34.

Wellhausen, Prolegomena, p. 379 (Wellhausen [ 1899], pp. 386-87). Wellhausen (1899), pp. 386-87. Wellhausen, Prolegomena, p. 386 (Wellhausen [ 1899], pp. 393-94). Wellhausen, Prolegomena, p. 387 (Wellhausen [ 1899], p. 394). Wellhausen (1899), p. 393. Wellhausen (1899), p. 394. Wellhausen, Prolegomena, p. 391 (Wellhausen [1899], p. 399).


13

suggested to Wellhausen that the two must have been composed in the same period. Wellhausen's examination of the history of Israelite worship left him convinced that earliest Israel did not in fact record its laws or customs.35 The Jehovistic legislation in Exodus 20-24 represents to him the starting point of the literary form of Israelite religious practice. Deuteronomy advances the process, but it is not until the Exile that conduct of worship becomes written Torah. The prophet Ezekiel, concerned that Israelite traditions would be lost, was the first to take this step, and Ezekiel 40—48 comprises for Wellhausen the first thoroughgoing literary effort to record the ritual of the Jerusalem cult.36 Following Ezekiel's lead, others (including the author of H) joined the cause and formed what Wellhausen describes as a 'school of people who reduced to writing and to a system what they had formerly practised in the way of their calling'.37 Their efforts would continue well into the Second Temple period and would result in the document known as the Priestly Code.38 B. Kaufmann With the publication of his History of Israelite Religion: From the Ancient Times to the End of the Second Temple?9 Yehezkel Kaufmann sought to refine and correct what he perceived to be serious difficulties with Wellhausen's reconstruction of Israelite history. Kaufmann shared a similar approach with Wellhausen and his followers: he subscribed to the basic principles of the scientific method; he agreed with the division of the Pentateuch into three primary sources (JE, D, P); he accepted that Deuteronomy was promulgated in the reign of Josiah and that the Torah became canonical during the Restoration. His conclusions, however, were markedly different. Kaufmann rejected Wellhausen's extreme fragmentation of the biblical text as well as his evolutionary and dialectical approach to the

35. 36. 37. 38.

Wellhausen (1899), p. 401. Wellhausen (1899), p. 412. Wellhausen, Prolegomena, p. 404 (Wellhausen [1899], p. 412). Wellhausen (1899), pp. 412-13.

39. *:v n'3 ^1011? Dip ^Q rr'wiern miDun nnbin, in four volumes (Tel Aviv: Mossad Bialik-Dvir, 1937-56 [henceforth cited as Kaufmann, Toledot]).Translated and abridged by M. Greenberg as The Religion of Israel from its Beginning to the Babylonian Exile (New York: Schocken Books, 1972 [henceforth cited as Kaufmann, Religion]).

14


religion of Israel.40 He especially repudiated the exilic dating of P. For Kaufmann, the sources of the Pentateuch reflect alternative expressions of a basic and unified belief system and are the products of the earliest stage of Israelite religion. The religion of biblical Israel was not, as Wellhausen held, a primitive step on the road to the ethical sophistication of the early Church. Rather, it was fully developed from the very beginning, long before literary prophecy. Israelite society was formed and united by its distinctively monotheistic beliefs—its own original creation—from as early as the time of Moses.41 Wellhausen's dating of P to the exilic period meant that both Israelite law and monotheism were the products of classical prophecy. Kaufmann examined the relationship between the Torah and prophecy in an effort to determine whether indeed this was the case. His findings indicated quite the opposite. The prophets, according to Kaufmann, exercised minimal influence on the religious life of their own age, let alone later generations.42 The historical books, including Kings, by omitting the names of any of the 'great prophets' save Isaiah, obviously do not recognize the importance of literary prophecy, nor do they view prophets as interpreters or shapers of history.43 In addition, the books of the Torah do not emphasize morality to the extent that the prophetic texts do. Unlike the classical prophets, for the authors of the Torah 'the moral principle does not reach the level of a historically decisive factor. The writers do not draw consequences for national history from their moral principles' ,44 The Torah rather stresses cult and cultic misconduct over issues of social virtue, and so represents a stage earlier than prophecy.45 The Torah, moreover, provides credible historical background for its concept of covenant.46 In addition, it is only the post-Josianic (and therefore post-Deuteronomic) prophets who refer to the covenant. These prophets did not concoct the idea; rather they employed it in a context mirroring that of D. Similarly, the notion of a centralized, chosen place of worship is absent from all literary prophets preceding the promulgation of Deuteronomy 40. Kaufmann, Toledot, I, p. 19. 41. See Kaufmann, Toledot, I, Introduction. 42. He notes, for example, that Ezekiel's restoration program was never implemented or given any credence (Kaufmann, Toledot, III, p. 564). 43. Kaufmann, Tol'dot, I, pp. 23-24. 44. Kaufmann, Religion, p. 160 (Kaufmann, Toledot, I, pp. 33-34). 45. Kaufmann, Tol'dat, I, pp. 31-33. 46. Kaufmann, Toledot, I, p. 185.


15

under Josiah.47 Later prophets, influenced by D, subscribed to this concept; they did not invent it. The eschatological, universalistic vision of prophecy is not known in the Torah.48 The Torah therefore represents for Kaufmann a separate and independent source that evinces no resemblance to or influence from the literary prophets. It cannot be understood as the fruit of prophetic teaching. Kaufmann agreed with Wellhausen's identification of three ideologically distinct law codes within each of the sources.49 In fact, he found them to be so disparate that he dismissed the notion that the codes could have evolved one out of the other.50 The differences between P and JE are so numerous that it is impossible to conceive that P drew upon or revised the laws found in JE.51 P's laws are likewise entirely different in style and content from D's and as such cannot have been influenced by or derived from D.52 Kaufmann rather viewed JE, D and P as 'independent crystallizations' of Israel's moral beliefs.53 In addition, Kaufmann found no evidence suggesting a priestly redaction of the laws of JE or D.54 Kaufmann argued than none of the concepts important to D, particularly centralization of the cult, can be found in P.55 P's Tabernacle is by definition portable and, as such, is never confined to one specific location.56 Indeed, P's concept of three 'realms of worship' (the holy place of the Tabernacle and its courtyard, inside and outside of the camp, pure and impure places) illustrates for Kaufmann that cultic activity in P is never confined to a specific location. Sacred meals, in P, are eaten both inside and outside of the camp; nothing suggests that these meals may be eaten only at one chosen site.57 P's silence on the issue of centralization suggests to Kaufmann that it must have been composed before the reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah and therefore before Deuteronomy. Similarly, P's festival laws betray to Kaufmann a pre-Deuteronomic 47. Kaufmann, Toledot, I, pp. 35-36. 48. Kaufmann, Tol'dot, I, pp. 39-41. 49. Kaufmann, Tol'dot, I, p. 48. 50. For a detailed list of discrepancies see Kaufinann, Toledot, I, pp. 49-53. 51. Kaufmann, Toledot, I, p. 61. 52. Kaufmann, Toledot, I, p. 65. 53. Kaufmann, Religion, p. 170 (Kaufmann, Toledot, I, p. 65). 54. Kaufmann, Toledot, I, p. 65. 55. Kaufmann, Toledot, I, p. 114. 56. Kaufmann, Toledot, I, p. 115. P says nothing regarding the location of the Tabernacle upon entering the land. 57. Kaufmann, Toledot, I, pp. 117, 118.

16


point of view. In contrast to D, P has no pilgrimage laws. Worship and sacrifice are performed in the home (in contrast, D forbids worship 'in your gates'). This reflects for Kaufmann an ancient tradition (cf. Exod 21.12 [JE]).58 The rigidity in time of worship as well as the absence of natural spontaneity are not late innovations, but are characteristic of festivals in all known ancient civilizations.59 Kaufmann criticized Wellhausen for misinterpreting Leviticus 23, which for Kaufmann illustrates 'a natural as well as ceremonial side to festivals', providing 'the Israelite calendar with an agricultural festival missing from both JE and D—the celebration of the first sheaf .60 He also dismissed Wellhausen's theory that the Day of Atonement betrays an over-emphasis on sin as a result of the Exile. For Kaufmann this festival is simply an 'annual purification rite'.61 Kaufmann similarly discounted Wellhausen's views regarding the endowment of the clergy and the differentiation between priests and Levites. That P emphasizes gifts to the clergy is only natural, given the source's preoccupation with priestly matters.62 In addition, P cannot be viewed as expanding upon D's laws concerning priestly gifts, because P does not include any of D's legislation and, in fact, outlines an entirely different system. Similarly, Kaufmann questioned the view that the differentiation between priests and Levites implies a late date for P. He doubted that there is any textual evidence to suggest that rural priests were ever demoted after centralization and finds it difficult to believe that P would demote such priests and then turn around and provide them with tithes: Nothing can make plausible a theory that the priests who demoted their colleagues saw fit to endow them with the amplest clerical due, a theory the more improbable when the great number of priests and paucity of Levites at the Restoration is borne in mind.63

The presence of Levites in the exilic period suggests to Kaufmann that they existed as a class, not just before the Exile, but also before the reign of Josiah.64 Kaufmann listed numerous details in P suggesting its antiquity. For example: the use of 'bold anthropomorphisms'; the presupposition of the 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64.

Kaufmann, Toledot, I, pp. 122-23. Kaufmann, Toledot, I, p. 121. Kaufmann, Religion, p. 178 (Kaufmann, Toledot, I, pp. 121-22). Kaufmann, Religion, p. 178 (Kaufmann, Toledot, I, p. 120). Kaufmann, Toledot, I, p. 144. Kaufmann, Religion, p. 194 (Kaufmann, Toledot, I, p. 162). Kaufmann, Toledot, I, pp. 165-66.


17

existence of local altars; ancient tithes; the existence of thousands of Levites; the portrayal of prophets as civil and military leaders; the concept of the 13 as a free man; the non-mention, even indirectly, of Jerusalem; the prominence of Bethel (Gen. 35.14-15). All of these 'archaisms'65 convinced Kaufmann that 'P crystallizes a stage of religious evolution earlier than D. The tradition that placed P before D thus correctly reflects the historical development.'66 With respect to Ezekiel, Kaufmann noted the numerous contacts with the whole of P, not just the Holiness Code.67 He was convinced that in all cases Ezekiel is influenced by P and is borrowing Priestly language and content.68 This Priestly language exhibits for Kaufmann a 'natural context' in P, while the same language in Ezekiel seems to him 'artificial or fragmentary' and 'obviously adapted for a new purpose'.69 For example, the punishment of 40 years of desert wandering for the 40-day spy journey (Num. 13-14) becomes 40 years of exile (Ezek. 4.6) without a corresponding offense. In Ezekiel, Kaufmann sensed that the number 40 and the expression 'a day per year' are 'strained adaptations of the straightforward motif in P'.70 Similarly, he believed that the Levites in P have a natural function guarding and tending the Tabernacle. They enjoy a favored status that brings them closer to Yahweh. In contrast, by Ezekiel's time the Levites had 'retired from the stage of history'.71 As a result, Ezekiel's 're-created' Levites are idolatrous priests whose status is a punishment and a disgrace. This portrayal of priesthood is for Kaufmann 'grotesquely distorted'.72 With respect to the laws of Ezekiel 40-48, Kaufmann did not believe that they represent a program for action or a blueprint for exilic priests. They are, rather, a messianic vision.73 Kaufmann noted that several of the laws found within these chapters contradict P. He therefore found it difficult to accept that P would have borrowed the style and phraseology of Ezekiel while ignoring the actual laws. It is more likely that Ezekiel sought to

65. Kaufmann, Tol'dot, I, pp. 203-204. 66. Kaufmann, Religion, p. 206 (Kaufmann, Toledot, I, p. 206). 67. Kaufmann, Toledot, III, p. 533. He regarded Ezek. 40-48 as a 'miniature messianic P', or supplementary amendments to P (Toledot, III, pp. 534-37). 68. Kaufmann, Toledot, III, p. 535. 69. Kaufmann, Religion, p. 433 (Kaufmann, Toledot, III, p. 535). 70. Kaufmann, Religion, p. 433 (Kaufmann, Toledot, III, pp. 535-36). 71. Kaufmann, Religion, p. 433 (Kaufmann, Toledot, III, pp. 536-37). 72. Kaufmann, Tol'dot, III, pp. 536-37. 73. Kaufmann, Toledot, III, p. 564.

18


replace and update laws found in P that had become obsolete in his time.74 Kaufhiann also noted that Ezekiel's concepts appear to be influenced by those of D. The prophet condemns worship at high places, recognizing but one sacred sanctuary in the land. How then could P, which Kaufmann believed to be free of Deuteronomic influence, have been influenced by or derived from Ezekiel?75 Ezekiel, according to Kaufmann, was not the religious innovator envisioned by Wellhausen. He was rather a prophet heavily educated in and influenced by still-evolving Torah literature.76 That at times the prophet contradicts Priestly material suggests that P was not yet in its final form in the prophet's time.77 A beginning had been made of the Torah book (Deuteronomy), but the process was not yet complete. Ancient collections of priestly writings, marked by distinctive style, terminology, and ideas were in existence. Ezekiel's laws are part of this literature. He incorporated in his book an ancient priestly code which differs in detail from the Torah's P; this alone can account for the similarities and differences.78

C. Between Wellhausen and Kaufmann 1. Ezekiel and H Even before Wellhausen, Graf had concluded that the correspondences between Ezekiel and H could be explained only by viewing the prophet as the author of the Holiness Code.79 Grafs theory seemed plausible, given the numerous affinities between the two works, but it did not take into account or explain the differences. Accordingly, Horst sought to modify Grafs theory.80 Rather than viewing Ezekiel as the author of H, he instead suggested that the prophet collected and edited older legal material in H. After Wellhausen proposed his theories regarding the late date of the Priestly Source and its relationship to the book of Ezekiel, a flurry of scholarly research focused attention on Ezekiel and the body of laws found 74. Kaufmann, Toledot, III, p. 538. For a specific list of how Ezekiel updates P's laws see Kaufmann, Toledot, III, pp. 567-73. 75. Kaufmann, Toledot, III, p. 535. 76. Kaufmann, Toledot, III, pp. 533-34; "The idea that Ezekiel fathered the theocratic polity of later Judaism is absurd' (Kaufmann, Religion, p. 433). 77. Kaufmann, Toledot, III, p. 538. 78. Kaufmann, Religion, pp. 434-35 (Kaufmann, Toledot, HI, p. 538). 79. See Die geschichtlichen Bticher, pp. 81-83. 80. Horst, Leviticus xvii-xxvi und Hezekiel (Colmar: Earth, 1881), pp. 96-98.


19

in Leviticus 17-26 (the Holiness Code). Scholars began accumulating lists of expressions and terms found in both Ezekiel and H.81 Following Wellhausen's lead, several scholars ignored the authorship issue altogether and attempted instead to date H on the basis of its correspondences with Ezekiel. Wellhausen contended that H forms the bridge from Ezekiel to P. Similarly, Kuenen held that 'EzekiePs assumption of the legislator's office in xl sq. is best explained on the supposition that the priestly toroth had not been codified before his time. He thus appears to be the elder.'82 Cornill, like Wellhausen, asked why Ezekiel would have published his own law code if H had already existed.83 Kuenen, Cornill and other followers of Wellhausen also sought to illustrate that, logically, the legislation in H must be later than Ezekiel's because it is more developed and complex. For example, Ezekiel does not mention the office of the high priest, while H does. H's priesthood is therefore more evolved than Ezekiel's.84 In 1896, L.B. Paton published a lengthy article in the Presbyterian and Reformed Review, attempting to illustrate the difficulties inherent in the theories of Graf and his followers, including Wellhausen. Paton first set out to demonstrate that Ezekiel could not be responsible for either the composition or the editing of the Holiness Code. He contended that Ezekiel and H exhibit different 'editorial formulae'.85 If Ezekiel had indeed composed H, Paton reasoned, the vocabulary used to introduce the words of Yahweh in H and Ezekiel would be identical. Instead, Paton noted that Ezekiel uses formulae that are never found in H, for example, 'Thus says the Lord Yahweh' and 'Son of Man'. Furthermore, the 'hortatory' passages in H do not appear to correspond to what Paton believed to be Ezekiel's most frequent and characteristic phrases.86 Moreover, Paton noted that Ezekiel's exhortations and warnings are found in his prophecies but not in his legislation: 81. For lists see T. Noldeke, Untersuchungen zur Kritikdes Alien Testaments (Kiel: Schwers, 1869), p. 60; A. Klostermann, 'Beitrage zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Pentateuchs', p. 417; R. Smend, Der Prophet Ezechiel (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1880), p. xxiv; and summaries in L.B. Paton, 'The Holiness Code and Ezekiel', Presbyterian and Reformed Review (January 1896), pp. 98-115, and W. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1 (trans. R. Clements; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), p. 46. 82. Paton, 'The Holiness Code and Ezekiel', p. 106. 83. C.H. Cornill, DasBuch des Propheten Ezechiel (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1886), p. 78. 84. See Paton, 'The Holiness Code and Ezekiel', p. 107. 85. Paton, 'The Holiness Code and Ezekiel', pp. 102-105. 86. Paton, 'The Holiness Code and Ezekiel', pp. 104-105.

20

A New Heart and a New Soul How does it appear then, that this code in Lev xvii-xxvi, although it contains laws in regard to sacrifice and other matters which could not be obeyed in Ezekiel's day, is provided with terrible denunciations in case of disobedience?87

In comparing the legislation in Ezekiel with that in H, Paton found it remarkable that H is assigned to Moses while Ezekiel 'never puts his legislation into the mouth of another lawgiver'.88 Paton quoted Kuenen: We are not in a position to say that Ezekiel would have felt a scruple against ascribing legislation to Moses, but we can say that as far as we know he never made use of this form of expression, and that a priori we have no right whatever to expect it of him. In xl-xlvii he makes Yahweh himself announce the regulations of the restored theocracy. What could have induced him, a few years earlier or later, to relegate similar precepts to the Mosaic age?89

Paton is left to accept the only remaining hypothesis: that H is the older document and that Ezekiel used this document in formulating his own prophecies. In support of this view, he noted that Ezekiel is 'an habitual quoter',90 while H does not have much in common with the rest of the HB save perhaps Deuteronomy: If we suppose the author of H to be the quoter, we must assume that he intentionally ignores all the rest of the Hebrew literature except these two books [i.e. D and Ezekiel] and that, although he had before him the complete legislation of Deuteronomy, he preferred to cull the scattered precepts of Ezekiel and combine them into a law code.91

It is more probable that the moral and religious precepts in H would have taken on new value in the Exile. Paton believed that the prescriptions in H are such that they could be easily followed by a population in exile, and so it is not surprising that Ezekiel found this code useful and quoted from it frequently.92 The debate over the relationship between Ezekiel and H did not end with Paton. Additional theories were proposed well after the initial discussion 87. Paton, 'The Holiness Code and Ezekiel', p. 103. 88. Paton, 'The Holiness Code and Ezekiel', p. 105. 89. Paton, 'The Holiness Code and Ezekiel', p. 105. 90. Paton later refers to Ezekiel as 'perhaps the least original of all Old Testament writers' ('The Holiness Code and Ezekiel', p. 109). 91. Paton, 'The Holiness Code and Ezekiel', p. 109. 92. Here Paton agrees with Klostermann,' Beitrage zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Pentateuchs'.


21

had abated. In 1952, Fohrer introduced the hypothesis that H or the redactor of H and Ezekiel, independent of one another, shared a common source. This source, originally a collection of pre-exilic laws available in Jerusalem, had since been lost, but its essential contents were preserved in both H and Ezekiel.93 Zimmerli, in his two-volume commentary on Ezekiel, suggests that it is necessary to consider Ezekiel 40-48 independently from the rest of the book; similarly, H must be examined independently from the rest of P. He believes that these two bodies of legislation exercised reciprocal influence on one another. Ezekiel's legislation was influenced by the earliest (pre-P) form of H (specifically, Lev. 17, 18, 20), but at the same time Ezekiel's prophecies influenced the development of later parts of H, especially Leviticus 26.94 2. Ezekiel andP: the Vocabulary Lists The question of the literary relations of Ezekiel continued to provoke scholarly debate through the early part of the twentieth century. In 1891, S.R. Driver tackled the issue in An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament.95 Sharing the belief that Ezekiel was acquainted with H, Driver compiled detailed lists of their corresponding vocabulary.96 Driver believed that when Ezekiel set out to prescribe laws regulating the religious life of the restored community of exiles, he expressed himself in terms agreeing with the Laws of Holiness in such a manner as only to be reasonably explained by the supposition that it formed a body of precepts with which he was familiar, and which he regarded as an authoritative basis of moral religious life.97

But Driver's research moved beyond that of his immediate predecessors in that he, like Wellhausen, attempted to date the whole of P by comparing it with the book of Ezekiel. Again, he collected lists of shared termi-

93. Fohrer, Die Hauptprobleme, pp. 144-48; idem, Introduction to the Old Testament (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1968), p. 142. For similar theories see also L.E. Elliot-Binns, 'Some Problems of the Holiness Code', ZAW61 (1955), pp. 26-40; and H.G. Reventlow, Das Heiligkeitsgesetzformgeschichtlich untersucht (WMANT, 6; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1961), p. 30. 94. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, p. 52. 95. Reprinted by Peter Smith (Gloucester, 1972). 96. See especially Driver, Literature, pp. 49-50, 146-47. 97. Driver, Literature, p. 146.

22


nology.98 After examining these lists and contrasting P's vocabulary with the rest of the HB, Driver concluded that although elements of P may have originated in an earlier age, P itself represents the latest source of the Hexateuch." D, in Driver's view, shows no familiarity with the legislation or institutions of P. Similarly the 'tone of feeling' and the 'spirit' of the historical books have nothing in common with P; 'both the actors and the narrators in Judges and Samuel move in an atmosphere into which the spirit of P has not penetrated'.100 The 'spirit' of P was, according to Driver, more in line with that of Ezekiel. Even so, he concluded that P was, with the exception of the laws of H, later than Ezekiel. In reaching this conclusion, Driver concentrated on comparing Ezekiel 40-48 with P. He focused specifically on Ezek. 44.6-16, where Ezekiel rebukes the people for admitting foreigners to the inner court of the Temple. Here, Driver believed, in contrast with P, Ezekiel clearly implies that Levites previously enjoyed priestly rights.101 This would be incomprehensible if one assumed that Ezekiel was familiar with P: If Ezekiel, then, treats the Levites as generally qualified to act as priests, and degrades them to a menial rank, without so much as a hint that this degradation was but the restoration of a status quo fixed by immemorial Mosaic custom, could he have been acquainted with the legislation of P?102

Driver viewed this as the most noteworthy difference between Ezekiel and P. But he also noted other places where P's legislation so deviated from Ezekiel's that it was impossible to believe that Ezekiel could have been familiar with P. Driver believed that Ezekiel's legislation was 'simpler' than that of P.103 As such, it was logical to view P's legislative system as a development of Ezekiel's. Driver therefore concluded that, while Ezekiel was familiar with H, his book did not presuppose the completed Priestly Code. In 1925, M. Burrows published his doctoral dissertation, The Literary Relations of Ezekiel, written under the supervision of C.C. Torrey.104 Torrey, in his own work, had sought to prove that the Babylonian Exile and 98. Driver, Literature, pp. 130-35. 99. Driver, Literature, p. 136. 100. Driver, Literature, p. 137. 101. Driver, Literature, p. 139. 102. Driver, Literature, p. 140. 103. Driver, Literature, p. 140. 104. M. Burrows, The Literary Relations of Ezekiel (New York: Jewish Publication Society, 1925).


23

subsequent restoration were an invention of the Chronicler, writing in the Hellenistic period, to counter Samaritan claims over Jerusalem.105 Although the book of Ezekiel purports to be the prophecy of an exile addressed to the Jewish community of Babylon, Torrey believed the original prophecy was a pseudepigraph composed in the Seleucid period (c. 230 BCE). Following Torrey's direction, Burrows set out to determine what light Ezekiel's relationship to other writings in the HB might shed on the date of its composition. Burrows was quick to recognize the difficulties in method and interpretation inherent to a study addressing issues of literary priority and dependence. In response to the work of earlier scholars, he contended that features thought to be characteristics of literary dependence, including repetition, variation and elaboration, were seldom reliable in and of themselves. Dependence, he noted, may be indicated in one text by isolated use of a term characteristic of another writer; at the same time, variation or elaboration could represent either originality or dependence.106 Burrows therefore initially focused on Ezekiel's relation to material generally recognized to be pre-exilic. Literary contacts between Ezekiel and these texts would clearly suggest Ezekiel's dependence upon them. With that established, Burrows could examine the specific techniques employed by Ezekiel in quoting other material in order to establish the order of composition for debatable cases. Based on his collection of similar terms and phrases, Burrows concluded that Ezekiel was familiar with and quoted from JE, Amos, Hosea, portions of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Zephaniah. In fact, he believed that every conceivable criterion of dependence (even those he initially distrusted) could be found in Ezekiel. Particularly with respect to JE, Burrows noted the recurrence of several expressions used by Ezekiel that are found nowhere else in the HB.107 Burrows did not believe that Ezekiel had copies of these works before him. Rather, he viewed the prophet as 'saturated with the ideas and the language of writers who preceded him, and when he wrote he reproduced thoughts and expressions as they came to him'.108 Burrows then compared Ezekiel with writings he viewed as exilic or postexilic, including Deuteronomy, H and P. He found that Ezekiel 105. See C.C. Torrey, Pseudo-Ezekiel. For a more recent treatment questioning the concept of Exile, see L.L. Grabbe (ed.), Leading Captivity Captive: The Exile as History and Ideology (JSOTSup, 278; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998). 106. Burrows, Ezekiel, p. ix. 107. Burrows, Ezekiel, p. 14. 108. Burrows, Ezekiel, p. 14.

24


borrowed from this material using the same techniques as when quoting pre-exilic material. With respect to Deuteronomy, Burrows believed that his linguistic evidence (eight examples of common phraseology) indicated Ezekiel's direct dependence upon Deuteronomy, since the style of Deuteronomy is among the most distinctive in the HB, while Ezekiel's is, in his view, 'constantly reminiscent'.109 Burrows noted, moreover, that some passages where Ezekiel appears to be using Deuteronomic vocabulary are also closely connected with Leviticus, suggesting that Ezekiel combined Deuteronomy and Leviticus, or rather knew them already combined.110 Burrows found 40 expressions common to H and Ezekiel. He sided with Paton and Driver in viewing H as the earlier document and believed that Ezekiel used H exactly as he used the earlier writers: 'He never quotes long passages word for word, but he borrows phrases and makes them his own, he makes allusions, he divides and combines, repeats and varies.'111 Burrows recognized that determining the relationship between P and Ezekiel was crucial in his effort to present Ezekiel as a late pseudepigraphic text. If it could be shown that Ezekiel was earlier than P, his theory would crumble. In addition, he was mindful that most scholars attributed the similarities between the two works to their common roots in the priestly circles of Jerusalem.112 Burrows first listed 26 examples to illustrate how the two sources utilize similar vocabulary with differing meanings and contexts. He then delineated approximately 26 examples where he believed Ezekiel was dependent upon P. Here his reasoning was based on an 'overall impression'. For example, in discussing the phrase 'a day for a year' in Num. 14.34 and Ezek. 4.4-6, Burrows stated that 'if P was dependent upon Ezekiel, history was invented in imitation of a symbolic act, while if Ezekiel was dependent upon P, the analogy between the wilderness wandering and the Exile was 109. Burrows, Ezekiel, p. 21. 110. Burrows, Ezekiel, p. 21. 111. Burrows, Ezekiel, p. 35. 112. This view has most recently been proposed by M. Haran, 'Law Code of Ezekiel', pp. 45-71. Haran suggests that, despite their agreement on basic principles, Ezekiel and P do not depend directly on each other—Ezekiel did not read P and P did not quote Ezekiel. The relationship between the two law codes stems instead from the fact that both are the product of the same school of priestly thought. Haran, however, views P as the earlier source, a view he originally proposed in Temples and TempleService in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978), pp. 45-46, 72-76, 93-96, 102-11,125-28,193-94,296-98. See also idem, 'Behind the Scenes of History: Determining the Date of the Priestly Source', JBL 100 (1981), pp. 321-33; Hurvitz, Linguistic Study, p. 143; idem, 'Dating the Priestly Source', p. 92.


25

quite natural'.J13 Burrows commented that in considering all of the parallels between the two sources, he did not find even one instance where he could detect any 'considerable probability' that P depended upon Ezekiel.114 Burrows's findings indicated to him that Ezekiel exhibits the same type of literary dependence on exilic and even postexilic material as it does on pre-exilic material. He concluded that Ezekiel knew and quoted from all of the Pentateuchal sources, including the whole of P, and that he probably knew them combined, that is, as the Torah. Ergo, Ezekiel postdates the composition of the Pentateuch. D. Linguistic Studies Until the 1960s the scholarly debate regarding the relationship between P and Ezekiel and the dating of the two works focused on establishing that one was dependent upon the other. The evidence used to argue for priority in either direction consisted of stylistic similarities, but the actual determination of the 'earlier source' was often based on circumstantial assumptions or general impressions. With this in mind, A. Hurvitz sought to alter the focus of the debate from 'Higher Criticism' to 'Lower Criticism' by relying upon what he believed to be more concrete and less subjective methods of analysis.115 Hurvitz and others recognized that biblical Hebrew underwent grammatical and lexical change over time, such that the language in Chronicles, for example, is different from the language of J or Samuel. It was therefore possible to distinguish between the linguistic aspects of classical biblical Hebrew (CBH) and those of late biblical Hebrew (LBH). Hurvitz's early studies indicated that although P is often viewed as a product of the Exile, it does not show linguistic affinities with other late biblical texts, including Ecclesiastes, Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles and Daniel.116 In his fuller 1982 treatment, Hurvitz hoped to illustrate that issues of priority between P and Ezekiel as well as the date of P could be settled by comparing lexical and linguistic evidence in both texts. Hurvitz's examination of the linguistic traits of P and Ezekiel focused especially on those passages that seemed to correspond in content or context. He then compared these passages, looking for the following information: 113. Burrows, Ezekiel, p. 61. See also Kaufmann, Toledot, III, pp. 535-36. 114. Burrows, Ezekiel, p. 63. 115. Hurvitz, Linguistic Study, p. 146. 116. See, for example, Hurvitz, 'Use of 2JEJ and f"Q', pp. 117-21; idem, 'Linguistic Observations', pp. 261-67 (Hebrew); idem, 'Evidence of Language', pp. 24-56.

26

A New Heart and a New Soul 1. 2. 3.

Elements present in P for which no parallels exist in the corresponding passages of Ezekiel. Elements present in Ezekiel for which no parallels exist in the corresponding passages in P. Elements found in one of the two for which there are alternative elements in the corresponding passages of the other.117

Hurvitz clearly established that, even in passages traditionally viewed as parallel or similar, Ezekiel and P differ in grammar and vocabulary. In each of 37 cases he found that Ezekiel exhibits a word or a form present only in LBH or even Mishnaic Hebrew, while the corresponding form or word in P is attested elsewhere only in CBH.118 Moreover, Hurvitz determined that P exclusively features early linguistic elements while Ezekiel features both early and late linguistic elements. Ezekiel therefore represented for him a transitional stage between CBH and LBH.119 Hurvitz concluded that the presence of late linguistic elements in Ezekiel and early elements in P correspond directly to their literary background in successive phases of biblical Hebrew—Ezekiel was written during or after the Exile, while P was written before the Exile.120 Shared elements in the two texts stem from their common priestly inheritance.121 J. Milgrom similarly suggests that several terms found in P (for example, mQCJQ and nTOU) undergo changes of meaning in late biblical literature including the book of Ezekiel.122 According to Milgrom, these new meanings are so different from the original understandings that both could not have been used simultaneously. In contrast, B.A. Levine believes that select terminology linguistically and contextually betrays P's 'setting in life' in the postexilic period.123 117. Hurvitz, Linguistic Study, p. 23. 118. Hurvitz, Linguistic Study, pp. 149-51. 119. Hurvitz, Linguistic Study, p. 164. 120. For similar findings regarding the pre-exilic date of select terminology in P and Ezekiel, see Grintz, 'Archaic Terms', Les 39 (1974-75), pp. 5-32 (Hebrew); A.R. Guenther, 'A Diachronic Study of Biblical Hebrew Prose Syntax: An Analysis of the Verbal Clause in Jeremiah 37^45 and Esther 1-10' (PhD Dissertation, University of Toronto, 1977); Rendsburg, 'Late Biblical Hebrew', pp. 65-80; Zevit, 'Lines of Evidence', pp. 502-509; idem, 'Philology, Archaeology', pp. 29-38. 121. Hurvitz, Linguistic Study, p. 150. 122. J. Milgrom, Studies in Levitical Terminology, I. See also idem, Cult and Conscience; idem, 'Priestly Terminology', pp. 65-81; idem, Leviticus 1-16 (AB, 3; New York: Doubleday, 1991), pp. 3-12. 123. B.A. Levine, 'Research in the Priestly Source: The Linguistic Factor', El 16


27

Levine first examines the terms nnvfo and *?n, which he contends are Aramaic borrowings into biblical Hebrew.124 He then analyzes the Priestly term nTPIN and argues that the system of land tenure conveyed by this term in P is postexilic and reflects the situation of the returning exiles reclaiming territory in Israel.125 In all three cases, Levine suggests comparative evidence indicates that these terms were not part of Israel's pre-exilic vocabulary. Several additional works attempt to date P and Ezekiel using purely linguistic evidence. R. Polzin, writing before Hurvitz's findings were published, isolated 19 grammatical/syntactic features he believed to be characteristic of the postexilic language of Chronicles (LBH).126 Polzin then examined selections from JE (216 verses from Exodus and Numbers), the Court History and Deuteronomy, representing CBH. Here he did not find any of these features. Polzin then analyzed P, differentiating between P8 (the priestly narrative) and Ps (secondary additions). Polzin concluded that P8 was typologically later than CBH, while Ps was typologically later than Pg but somewhat earlier than the language of Chronicles.127 P was therefore the text that stood between CBH and LBH.128 M. Rooker conducted a similar study on the language of the book of Ezekiel.129 His analysis indicated that Ezekiel exhibits 37 grammatical and lexical features characteristic of LBH.130 Rooker found 15 of Polzin's LBH characteristics in Ezekiel. Based on his broader criteria, Rooker

(1982), pp. 124-31 (Hebrew); idem, 'Late Language in the Priestly Source: Some Literary and Historical Observations', in Proceedings of the Eighth World Congress of Jewish Studies (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1983), pp. 69-82. 124. Levine, 'Research in the Priestly Source', pp. 125-26,127-28. Levine's findings are subsequently rejected by Hurvitz, who suggests that both terms may have existed in Hebrew prior to the Exile; Hurvitz, 'Language of the Priestly Source', pp. 90-93. 125. Levine, 'Late Language', p. 81. For arguments to the contrary regarding this term, see Hurvitz, 'Dating the Priestly Source', pp. 91-96; Grintz, 'Archaic Terms', p. 16; M. Paran, Forms of the Priestly Style in the Pentateuch: Patterns, Linguistic Usages, Syntactic Structure (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1989), pp. 105, 303. 126. Polzin, Late Biblical Hebrew. 127. Polzin, Late Biblical Hebrew, p. 159. 128. Polzin's findings are refuted by Hurvitz, 'Language of the Priestly Source', pp. 88-90. 129. Rooker, Biblical Hebrew in Transition. 130. Rooker, Biblical Hebrew in Transition, p. 177. Rooker dismissed four of Polzin's 19 characteristic features as inconclusive and worked with the remaining 15, plus 23 of his own.

28


concluded that Ezekiel was a better example of the transition stage between CBH and LBH than either Pg or Ps. His findings are therefore in agreement with those of Hurvitz. E. Ezekiel, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History The relationship between Ezekiel and D/Dtr has received considerably less attention. While scholars have recognized the extensive relationship between the language of the prophet Jeremiah and the Deuteronomistic History,131 very few have made such connections with Ezekiel. Indeed, the distinctions between Ezekiel and the Deuteronomistic History are most often emphasized in order to underscore the prophet's alliance with P.132 Zimmerli, for example, in his massive two-volume commentary, devotes merely one paragraph to the matter. Noting the marked absence of such Deuteronomistic terms as miJQ and mm in Ezekiel, he concludes that 'overall the smallness of the contact of Ezekiel with the language and ideas of the well-defined world of Deuteronomy is striking'.133 Although linguistic and thematic similarities are not as numerous as in Jeremiah, there is considerable evidence of Deuteronomic influence on the book of Ezekiel. Several scholars attribute this influence to a Deuteronomistic redactor or school.134 S. Herrmann, for example, suggests that a Deuteronomistic school is responsible for material in both Ezekiel and Jeremiah that he considers as 'hopeful'.135 R. Liwak suggests that the book of Ezekiel exhibits the same Deuteronomic influences he finds throughout the HB, which he attributes to a priestly group active in the Exile.136 131. See, for example, Friedman, WWTB, pp. 126-27, 146; L.G. Perdue and B. Kovacs, A Prophet to the Nations: Essays in Jeremiah Studies (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1984); J. Bright, Jeremiah (AB, 21; Garden City: Doubleday, 1965), p. Iv; M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic School, Appendices. 132. See K.W. Carley, Ezekiel among the Prophets (London: SCM Press, 1975), pp. 57-62. 133. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, p. 46. In fact mifl occurs three times in Ezekiel (7.25; 22.26; 44.24). 134. SeeHolscher,Hesekiel; S. Herrmann, Dieprophetischen Heilserwartungen im Alien Testament, Thiel, 'Erwagungen zum Alter des Heiligkeitsgesetzes', pp. 69-70; Liwak, 'Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Probleme des Ezechielbuches'. 135. Herrmann, Heilserwartungen, p. 241. See also idem, A History of Israel in Old Testament Times (London: SCM Press, 1975), pp. 292, 297. 136. Liwak, Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Probleme des Ezechielbuches, pp. 19495,245-50.


29

Other scholars reject such notions. R.R. Wilson, for example, argues that Deuteronomistic features are integral to Ezekiel at all redactional levels; it is impossible to isolate a Deuteronomistic layer. He prefers to assume that Ezekiel was somehow influenced by the Deuteronomic reform movement.137 On a more general level, R.E. Friedman has called into question the existence of a school responsible for the addition of words and phrases into portions of biblical works in an attempt to incorporate Deuteronomistic ideals.138 F. Summary The presence of various biblical traditions in the book of Ezekiel has been noted long before Wellhausen reached his ultimate conclusions regarding their significance. B.S. Childs noted: one of the most important aspects of Ezekiel's message was its dependence upon the activity of interpretation within the Bible itself...the prophet's message shows many signs of being influenced by a study of Israel's sacred writings. The impact of a collection of authoritative writings is strong throughout the book.139

To date, scholarly investigations of the relationship between P and Ezekiel have been devoted to establishing the order of composition by analysis of context and language. While these are important questions, what is lacking from these discussions is a basic classification of what, indeed, P and Ezekiel have in common. Similarly, the nature and extent of the relationship between Ezekiel and D/Dtr have not been explored in any detail.140 These tasks will occupy the next two chapters.

137. R.R. Wilson, Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), p. 284. 138. R.E. Friedman, "The Deuteronomistic School', in A. Beck et al. (eds.), Fortunate the Eyes That See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of his Seventieth Birthday (Grand Rapids: Eisenbrauns, 1995), pp. 70-80. 139. B.S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), p. 364. 140. Our preoccupation with P and D/Dtr does not imply that these were Ezekiel's only sources.

Chapter 3 EZEKIEL AND THE PRIESTLY SOURCE RECONSIDERED

In the following chapter I will examine in detail 97 terms, expressions and idioms common to Ezekiel and P. Attention is paid to both the meaning and context; noting especially where P and Ezekiel use a single term differently. I also note where D/Dtr uses a different but synonymous expression. Where relevant, any occurrences of such vocabulary elsewhere in the HB are cited and examined. The vocabulary is divided into ten categories: Yahweh's Relationship to Israel, Covenant, Land, Social Structure, Law, Holy Days, Tabernacle/ Temple and Priesthood, Ritual, Humans, Animals and Plants and Miscellaneous. While the categorization is somewhat arbitrary, classification helps to illustrate that, in addition to common language, P and Ezekiel share many thematic concerns. It simultaneously highlights the numerous differences between the two works. Throughout the examination, I do not attempt to stratify either P or Ezekiel into earlier or later layers.1 That is not to say that either text is viewed as the authentic unified composition of a single author. However, my chief concern is to cast the net as wide as possible, to list and examine the largest possible corpus of common vocabulary in P and Ezekiel. I will investigate issues of textual stratigraphy only after analyzing the entire body of data in the conclusion of this chapter.

1. In the course of this analysis, I differentiate between the Priestly stratum of the Torah and those limited passages attributed to the priestly Redactor of the Torah. On the differentiation between P and R, see Friedman, Exile and Biblical Narrative, pp. 44-132, and WWTB, pp. 218-21,250,246-54. See also the discussion of R in Chapter 6, Conclusion. Cf. Chapter 6 n. 44 for the views of Cross, Rendtorff, Blum and Van Seters. A linguistic comparison of Ezekiel and R is beyond the scope of this present study.

3. Ezekiel and the Priestly Source Reconsidered

31

A. Data: Shared Terminology 1. Yahweh 's Relationship To Israel 1.1 T-n» TIKE)—I Raised My Arm 35 U mun-liJ—Until the Evening 59 mfen ^S Û—Over the Open Field 65 D1R DltU—Human Bone 63 ntn DVn nXV—This Very Day 72

s ^"US—Desecration 44 nKBrrb 1p3-]3 ~lS/n^Qnn IS —Bull/Bull of the Herd as a Purification Offering 59 n311 ma—Be Fruitful and Multiply 71 ^~1S—Locks (of Hair) 62 X HiTH—Fringe 59

5 HIT ^ Enp—Holy to Yahweh 32 D'QU "?ilp—Assembly of Nations 71 VG f p—An End is Coming 70 m~\ mp—Bald...Head 62 DÊhpn/Khp—Planks 58 ^HEJp—Hard Heart 72 ]]i:...nEJp—Rainbow 65 1 DD^-m—Enough!A"ou Have Gone Too Far! 68 "|"1SD mi—Ruling with Harshness 67 mm nn—Pleasing Odor 55 ton—Creep 63 ITp~l—Firmament 64 25

Dn ^-HQQ nnB^-Break Staff of Bread 68 ^nnDB— My Sabbaths 49 -pn3 ]DJS—Dwelling Among 33 SD-lUQeJ—Hear Now! 67 TOD 1Q2J—Observe...Keep 36 mOKta nQtD—Keepers of Duties 51 D^SID—Acts of Judgment 43 m—Fine Linen 57

141

142


n ITCTirWin— Fine Leather 56 B3B5n nnn—Under the Staff 67 paiffl n^DH—Blue and Purple 57 D^nn—Whole, Sound, without Blemish 56 D'tZhpn/EHpn naiin—Holy Elevation Offering 58

ADDITIONAL SHARED TERMINOLOGY BETWEEN EZEKIEL AND P

N nm«—Portion (Gen. 47.11; Lev. 14.34; 25.45, 46; Num. 27.4; 32.5, 22, 29; Deut. 32.49; Ezek. 44.28; 45.5, 8) 3 1NQ 1NQ3—Greatly (Gen. 17.2, 6, 20; Exod. 1.7; Deut. 6.5; Ezek. 9.9; 16.13)

Enn^ TlBHn—On the Tenth of the Month (Lev. 16.29; 23.37; 25.9; Num. 29.7; Josh. 4.19; 2 Kgs 25.1; Jer. 52.4, 12; Ezek. 20.1; 24.1; 40.1)

; B93 bin (Lev. 26.30, 43; Jer. 14.19; Ezek. 16.5)

n n-n nsn (Gen. 17.14; Lev. 26.15, 44; Deut. 31.16, 20; Isa. 33.8; Ezek. 16.59; 17.15, 16, 18; 2 Chron. 16.3) 1

p»n N bom—The Land Filled (Gen. 6.11; Exod. 1.7; 2 Kgs 3.20; Ezek. 9.9)

n D'TU TUB n»OT—Male Goat For Sin Offering (Num. 28.15; Ezek. 45.23)

n ma isn (Gen. 17.14; Lev. 26.15, 44; Deut. 31.16, 20; Isa. 33.8; Ezek. 16.59; 17.15, 16, 18; 2 Chron. 16.3) 1

pKH N bom—The Land Filled (Gen. 6.11; Exod. 1.7; 2 Kgs 3.20; Ezek. 9.9)

144


n D'TU TJ?E? HNlDn—Male Goat For Sin Offering (Num. 28.15; Ezek. 45.23) Hin iTF!—Dangerous Animals (Lev. 26.6; Ezek. 5.17; 14.15, 21; 34.25)

3 nO"!3 n "?D—Bronze Utensils (Exod. 27.3; Lev. 6.21; Josh. 6.19; 2 Sam. 8.10; Ezra 8.27; Ezek. 27.13)

ÎSD—Double (Gen. 41.32[?]; Exod. 26.9; 28.16; 39.9; Ezek. 21.19)

•? lira1?—Of Every Kind (Gen. 1.11,12, 21, 24, 25; 6.20; 7.14; Lev. 11.14, 15, 16, 19, 22, 29; Deut. 14.13, 14, 15, 18; Ezek. 47.10) D

D'31 D'D—Abundant Water (Num. 20.11; 24.7; 2 Sam. 22.17; Isa. 23.3; Jer. 41.12; 51.13, 55; Ezek. 1.24; 17.5, 8; 19.10; 27.26; 31.5, 7, 15; 32.13; 43.2; Hab. 3.15; Pss. 18.17; 29.3; 32.6; 77.20; 93.4; 107.23; 144.7; Song 8.7; 2 Chron. 32.4)

S mm fU— Tree of the Field (Exod. 9.25; Lev. 26.4; Deut. 20.19; Ezek. 17.24; 31.4, 5, 15, 27)

n miT b nann—Donation to Yahweh (Exod. 30.13; 35.5; Lev. 7.14; Num. 15.19; Ezek. 45.1)

EZEKIEL, DEUTERONOMY AND THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY: SHARED TERMINOLOGY

s nnn 'Wl NTH "?&—Do Not Fear or be Dismayed 86 2

nami «]«2—In Anger and Fury 92 ~irn—Yahweh as Electing Israel 90 n^lQJ JJTim npm T2—With a Mighty Hand and an Outstretched Arm 87 Dtf On-lK/nOB Jinn ie» n'i:n-bDn—To all the Nations Where He/I Have Driven You 88

1 naun/pl—Grain/Harvest 93

n D-Drn-taa f'Bn/trm f^Sn—Scattered Among the Nations 88

n I"!?...Din—Eye Spare 91 1

miT T—The Hand of Yahweh 90 D DUD/DÛDn—To Provoke Yahweh into Anger 87

b H1?—Heart 93 HIE}1? HQi:^—To Stand Before...To Minister 92 ] nb DQn/DQ]—To Melt the Heart 91

y D^'^n HDi:—My Servants the Prophets 91 mi nn/]H 121?—Pass a Son/Daughter Through Fire 89

146


•pm ffl-ta nnm nraa nrn:nn-"?D ^r—On Every Hill/Every Mountain Height and under Every Leafy Tree 89 p«l fU—Worshiping Wood and Stone 92 IZ)

nuin "fna DIE}—Turn from Way of Evil 92 mn11 HDO—Forget...Yahweh 92 D'HlpEJ/fpEJ—Detestable Things 89

n (DBI-ta n-D3n—Likeness of Any Creeping Thing 91

INDEX OF AUTHORS

Adler, E.J. 40 Aharoni, Y. 106 Albright, W.F. 115 Anderson, B. 108 Anderson, G. 60 Barstad, H.M. 105 Bertholet, A. 88 Blum, E. 30, 114 Boadt,L. 1,106 Bokser, B. 49 Braulik, G. 97 Briggs, CA. 56,59 Bright,! 28 Brown, F. 56,59 Burden,!. 98, 107 Burrows, M. 22-25, 86, 95, 117 Carley, K.W. 28, 86, 93, 95 Cassuto, U. 42 Childs, B.S. 29 Collins,!. 2 Coogan, M.D. 106 Cooke, S.L. 69 Cornill, C.H. 19, 111,112 Cross, P.M. 2, 30, 50, 56, 75, 88, 107, 112,114 Darr,K.P. 2 Davis, E.F. 2, 113 Day,J. 89 de Wette, W.M.L. 6 Douglas, G.C.M. 36, 110 Driver, S.R. 2, 21, 22, 24, 56, 59, 111, 112 Elliot-Binns, L.E. 21

Fishbane, M. 78-80, 84, 107 Fohrer, G. 2,21 Forshey, H. 38 Freedman, D.N. 4,69, 112, 113, 115, 1 Freedy, K. 1 Fretheim, I.E. 82 Friedman, R.E. 2-4, 28-31, 40, 48, 50, 58, 75, 77, 79, 85, 88, 96, 98, 103, 112, 114-16 Garscha, J. 1 George, J.F.L. 6 Graf,K.H. 2, 6, 11, 18 Graham, O. 108 Greenberg, M. 2, 13, 57, 69, 70, 84, 9698, 100,101 Grintz, Y.M. 3,26 Guenther, A.R. 26 Haag,H. 93 Halpern, B. 4 Haran, M. 3, 24, 84, 111 Hayes, J.H. 105 Heider,G.C. 89 Herrmann, S. 4, 28 Holscher, G. 1,4,28 Horst,F. 18 Hurvitz, A. 3, 24-27, 51, 56, 77, 103, 111 Japhet, S. 115 Jenson, P. 51 Joyce, P. 93 Kaminsky, J.S. 97 Kaufmann, Y. 6, 13-18, 25, 79, 109, 112, 115 Klein, R. 107, 115 Klostermann, A. 11, 19, 20

148


Knohl, I. 85 Kobayashi,Y. 106 Kovacs, B. 28 Lang, B. 2 Leiman, S. 112 Levenson, J.D. 88, 105, 109, 110 Levine, B.A. 26, 27, 45, 46, 50, 103 Liwak, R. 4,28 Lohfink,N. 88 Lust, J. 98 Malamat, A. 1 Margolioth, E. 36 Matties, G.H. 93,96 Mazar, A. 106 McEvenue, S. 2 McKeating,H. 109, 110 Milgrom, J. 3, 26, 44, 45, 51, 60, 66, 96, 103 Miller, J.M. 105 Miller, J.W. 86 Moshkovitz, Y. 41 Mowinckel, S. 115 Myers, J.M. 105,115,116 Nelson, R.D. 4 Noldeke, T. 19 Noth, M. 4, 61 Oded, B. 105 Paran, M. 2 Paton,L.B. 19,20,24 Perdue, L.G. 28 Polzin,R. 3,27, 103 Pons, J. 98 Procksch, 0. 110 Propp, W.H.C. 41, 48, 82, 90, 98, 99, 103,104,117 Redford,D.B. 1, 105 Rendsburg, G. 3, 26

Rendtorff,R. 30, 114 Reuss, E. 6 Reventlow, H.G. 21 Rofe, A. 4 Rooker,M.F. 3,27, 103 Rosenzweig, F. 118 Rowley, H.H. 2 Schoff,W.H. 58 Schwartz, B. 46, 85 Seeligmann, I.L. 116 Shaver,!. 115, 116 Ska, J.L. 99, 109 Smend, R. 19 Smith, M. 39 Smith, S. 58 Stern, E. 106 Sun,H.T. 11 Tadmor,H. 57, 105 Thiel,W. 4,28 Thompson, R.J. 11 Torrey,C.C. 1,22,23 VanSetersJ. 4,30,114 Vatke, W. 6 vonRad, G. 116 Weinberg, S.S. 106 Weinfeld, M. 3, 28, 36, 79, 89, 90, 96, 99 Wellhausen, J. 6-16, 18, 19,21, 85, 110, 111, 115 Williamson, H.G.M. 115-17 Wilson, R.R. 29, 95, 96, 102 Wold,D.J. 97 Wright, D.P. 44 Zadok,R. 106 Zevit, Z. 3,26 Zimmerli, W. 2, 19, 21, 28, 46, 48, 49, 53,54,56-58,60,61,63,73,95, 107, 110

A New Heart and a New Soul: Ezekiel, the Exile and the Torah (JSOT Supplement)

The Soul of A New Machine

The Soul Of A New Machine

Gender Reversal and Cosmic Chaos: A Study on the Book of Ezekiel (JSOT Supplement)

The Heart in Exile

The Nathan Narratives (JSOT Supplement)

THE NEW ATKINS FOR A NEW YOU

Understanding the Word (JSOT supplement)

THE NEW ATKINS FOR A NEW YOU

Ezekiel and the Ethics of Exile (Oxford Theological Monographs)

THE NEW ATKINS FOR A NEW YOU

Heart and Soul

Heart and Soul

Heart and Soul

Heart and Soul

Heart and Soul

Heart and Soul

Heart and Soul

Heart and Soul

Heart and Soul

Heart and Soul

Heart and Soul

Heart and Soul

Heart and Soul

Heart and Soul

Heart and Soul

Heart and Soul

Heart and Soul

Heart and Soul

Ezekiel and the Ethics of Exile (Oxford Theological Monographs)

Shiloh: A Biblical City in Tradition and History (JSOT Supplement)

A New Heart and a New Soul: Ezekiel, the Exile and the Torah (JSOT Supplement)

The Soul of A New Machine

The Soul Of A New Machine

Gender Reversal and Cosmic Chaos: A Study on the Book of Ezekiel (JSOT Supplement)

The Heart in Exile

The Nathan Narratives (JSOT Supplement)

THE NEW ATKINS FOR A NEW YOU

Understanding the Word (JSOT supplement)

THE NEW ATKINS FOR A NEW YOU

Ezekiel and the Ethics of Exile (Oxford Theological Monographs)

THE NEW ATKINS FOR A NEW YOU

Heart and Soul

Heart and Soul

Heart and Soul

Heart and Soul

Heart and Soul

Heart and Soul

Heart and Soul

Heart and Soul

Heart and Soul

Heart and Soul

Heart and Soul

Heart and Soul

Heart and Soul

Heart and Soul

Heart and Soul

Heart and Soul

Heart and Soul

Heart and Soul

Ezekiel and the Ethics of Exile (Oxford Theological Monographs)

Shiloh: A Biblical City in Tradition and History (JSOT Supplement)

Recommend Documents