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 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

This page intentionally left blank

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.

This page intentionally left blank

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 n^EDF! 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

A New Heart and a New Soul

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

A New Heart and a New Soul

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.

2. The State of the Question

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

A New Heart and a New Soul

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.

2. The State of the Question

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

A New Heart and a New Soul

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).

2. The State of the Question

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

A New Heart and a New Soul

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.

2. The State of the Question

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

A New Heart and a New Soul

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.

2. The State of the Question

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

A New Heart and a New Soul

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.

2. The State of the Question

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'.

2. The State of the Question

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

A New Heart and a New Soul

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).

2. The State of the Question

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

A New Heart and a New Soul

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.

2. The State of the Question

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

2. The State of the Question

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

A New Heart and a New Soul

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.

2. The State of the Question

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 <']Dtita—My Tabernacle. This term, with the first person suffix, appears twice in P (Lev. 15.31; 26.11) and once in Ezekiel (37.27). Leviticus 15 deals with bodily discharges. At the conclusion, Yahweh warns that the Israelites must be separated from their uncleanliness so that they will not die by defiling 'my Tabernacle that is in their midst' (15.31). In Lev. 26.11, Yahweh states that he will place 'my Tabernacle in your midst' as a reward for the Israelites' observance of Yahweh's statutes and commandments. Ezekiel is the only prophet who directly refers to the Priestly concept of Yahweh's Tabernacle. In Ezek. 37.27, Yahweh promises the restoration and reunification of Israel and Judah, assuring that 'my Tabernacle will be with them'. This is part of the new covenant of peace which he establishes with the Israelites.2 The term p O2 with or without a suffix, occurs over two hundred times in P, three times in E and not at all in J or D.3 The Tabernacle appears in both the legal and narrative sections of P, along with detailed instructions concerning its construction and contents.4 pKJD reappears without the first person possessive suffix in Ezek. 25.4, referring generically to the tents of the Ammonites. This is the conventional use of pO2 in all other prophetic texts.5 1.2 nEHp DE? NQB/^n—Profane My Holy Name. This phrase occurs three times in P (Lev. 20.3; 22.2, 32) and seven times in Ezekiel (20.39; 36.20, 21, 22; 39.25; 43.7, 8); -ETTp Dtf alone appears in Ezek. 39.25. This expression is not found elsewhere in the HB. P warns against the profanation of 'Yahweh's holy name' with two direct prohibitions (Lev. 22.2,32) and the penalty for doing so (Lev. 20.3).

2. The verse concludes, 'I will be their God, and they will be my people', an expression found in both P and D. Notably, it follows 'my Tabernacle' in Lev. 26.11-12. 3. Friedman, WWTB, p. 163; see also R.E. Friedman, 'Tabernacle', ABD, VI, pp. 292-300. The term never occurs in E with the first person suffix. 4. Elsewhere in Ezekiel we find the concept of Yahweh's presence in the 'midst of the people' (Ezek. 37.26,28). Both verses refer to Yahweh's sanctuary in the midst of the Israelites and not his Tabernacle per se. See also Ezek. 43.7. 5. Isa. 32.18; 54.2; Jer. 9.18; 30.18; 51.30; Hab. 1.6.

32

A New Heart and a New Soul

Profaning the name of Yahweh refers to actions that in some way contaminate the Sanctuary. In Ezekiel, profaning (^n) Yahweh's holy name is an action portrayed as one which the Israelites have committed continuously throughout their history (Ezek. 36.20-22). As in P, profanation seems to involve both idolatry and contaminated donations or offerings. Unlike P, however, Ezekiel focuses less on the act itself and more on the fact that 'profanation' is continually being committed in foreign lands (D'H^Q), where the Gentiles take notice. Restoration, rather than a reward that the Israelites have earned on their own merit, is portrayed as a step that Yahweh takes in order to avoid further embarrassment in the foreign lands: 'It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the foreign nations to which you came' (36.22). In 39.25 the term is used in connection with Yahweh's jealousy: 'I will be jealous for my holy name.' Ezek. 43.7 and 8 use the quasi-synonymous term 'defile' (NQt3) in place of'profane'(^FT). 1.3 miT1? Vhp—Holy to Yahweh. This expression occurs 13 times in P (Exod. 28.36; 30.37; 31.15; 39.30; Lev. 23.20; 27.14; 27.21, 22, 23, 30, 32,33; Num. 6.8) and once in Ezekiel (48.14). It is not found elsewhere in the HB. In P, niiT b CTIp is engraved upon the headpiece of the priest's turban (Exod. 28.36). It designates parts of the Tabernacle (Exod. 30.37; 39.30), the Sabbath (Exod. 31.15), offerings and donations given to the priests for Yahweh (Lev. 23.20; 27.14; Num. 6.8) and the Jubilee (Lev. 27.21,22,23, 30,32,33). miT *? Enp thus denotes objects or, in the case of the Sabbath, days that are set apart as belonging to or holy to Yahweh. In Ezekiel the expression occurs in reference to the boundaries and division of Israel as outlined in Ezekiel's restoration plan (Ezek. 40-48). The Levites' land allotment cannot be sold, exchanged or transferred because it is 'a choice portion, holy to Yahweh'. It is interesting that P never uses this expression with respect to the land, even though the subject of land allotment is discussed.6 Conversely, Ezekiel never uses miT ^ 2hp with reference to the Sabbath or offerings, again subjects that he considers.

6. Num. 32.1-42; 33.50-56; 34.1-29; 35.1-34; 36.1-13. In contrast to Ezekiel's Levites, the Levites in P are not allotted any land.

3. Ezekiel and the Priestly Source Reconsidered

33

1.4 "H'-flN HE]—Stretch out My Arm. This expression occurs four times in P, once in reference to Yahweh (Exod. 7.5) and three times in Yahweh's instructions to Moses concerning the Plagues and the parting of the sea (Exod. 7.19; 14.16,26). It occurs five times in Ezekiel, always in the first person with Yahweh as the speaker (Ezek. 6.14; 14.9,13; 25.13; 35.3). It is also found in Jer. 6.12. In Exod. 7.5, Yahweh declares that the Egyptians will know that he is Yahweh when he 'stretches out' his arm against Egypt and brings the Israelites out from among them. This verse precedes the Plagues, where Yahweh reveals himself to the Egyptians through a series of acts against the land, its agriculture and, finally, its people. In Ezekiel, similarly, each time Yahweh stretches out his arm there is a negative result, be it the desolation of the land (Ezek. 6.14; 35.3) or depleting the land of animals or people (Ezek. 6.14; 14.9, 13; 25.13). In Ezek. 6.14, Yahweh's purpose echoes Exod. 7.5: '...so they will know that I am Yahweh.'7 1.5 "pro pttf —Dwelling Among. This concept is found six times in P (Exod. 25.8; 29.45, 46; Lev. 15.31; Num. 5.3; 35.34) and four times in Ezekiel (37.26, 28; 43.7, 9). It does not occur elsewhere in the HB. P portrays Yahweh as dwelling among the Israelites in the Tent, in the Israelites' camp, and in the land itself. In addition, the term 'among you' is also used once with reference to the pEJD (Lev. 15.31). This portrait of Yahweh's presence is exclusive to P and Ezekiel. In Ezekiel, 'among you' on its own refers to the location of Yahweh's Sanctuary (Ezek. 37.26, 28). The entire phrase refers to Yahweh's presence as 'dwelling among [flfQ p£?] the Israelites' eternally (Ezek. 43.7, 9). Yahweh is portrayed as returning to the Temple only in Ezekiel's Utopian vision (40—48). His presence is notably absent from Jerusalem and Israel as portrayed in the rest of the book. 1.6 DDT31 TD—Between Me (Yahweh) and You (Israel). This expression is found once in P (Exod. 31.13) and three times in Ezekiel (20.12, 20; 43.8).8 It is also found in Josh. 22.25, 27, 28, verses that many scholars assign to P. 7. See also Ezek. 25.14 where the purpose of Yahweh's stretching out his hand against Edom is 'so they will know my vengeance...' 8. Cf. Deut. 5.5 where the covenant is described as existing 'between Yahweh and

you'.DDTDi mn"~]-n.

34

A New Heart and a New Soul

In P, the Sabbath is a sign 'between me and you throughout your generations so that you may know that I Yahweh sanctify you' (Exod. 31.13). This verse is mirrored in Ezek. 20.12, where the Sabbath is again described as 'a sign between you and me so that you may know that I Yahweh sanctify you', and in order that they will know that 'I am Yahweh your God'.9 In Ezek. 43.8, DDT HI TD is used somewhat differently to depict a wall separating Yahweh and the people as a result of their choosing idolatry over the worship of Yahweh. The expression DDTD1 TD is not used anywhere else in the HB to portray the relationship between Yahweh and the Israelites.10 In Joshua 22.25, 27, 28, the trans-Jordanian tribes call the Jordan river a boundary 'between me and you'. 1.7 DEnpD/dDehpB miT 'D»—/ Yahweh Sanctify You/Them. This phrase occurs four times in P. It refers to the Sabbath (Exod. 31.13), the observance of Yahweh's laws (Lev. 20.8), bread offerings to Yahweh (Lev. 21.8), and the prohibition against profaning Yahweh's holy name (Lev. 22.32). In Ezek. 20.12, the phrase refers to the Sabbath in a verse that echoes Exod. 31.13.11 It is not found elsewhere in the HB. 1.8 DD^H ^ mm n ]K—IAm Yahweh Your God. This expression occurs 22 times in P (Exod. 6.7; 20.2; Lev. 11.44; 18.2,4; 19.2, 3,4,10, 25, 31,34; 20.7, 24; 23.22; 24.22; 25.38; 25.55; 26.1, 13; Num. 10.10; 15.41) and 4 times in Ezekiel (20.5,7,19,20). It is also found in Deut. 29.5; Judg. 6.10; Joel 2.27 and Zech. 10.6. In P, the phrase is used in a variety of contexts. It becomes, especially in Leviticus, a refrain reminding the Israelites of Yahweh's constant presence in all aspects of their lives and of his role in rescuing them from Egypt. In Ezekiel, the phrase is found exclusively in ch. 20, where Yahweh summarizes the rise and fall of Israel. Again, it is a refrain. Similarly, v. 7, where Yahweh commands the Israelites to cast away their idols and detestable things, parallels the P usage noted above. Verses 19 and 20 are especially close to Lev. 18.4 and 19.3 respectively. 9. This concept of the Sabbath as a sign of the power and presence of Yahweh is exclusive to P and Ezekiel. 10. Contrast Deut. 5.2, 3-5 where the preposition DU describes the relationship of God and Israel. 11. See section 1.6, pp. 33-34.

3. Ezekiel and the Priestly Source Reconsidered

35

l^Drpn^ mrp n]« ^ W^—They Will Know That I Am Yahweh Their God. This expression is found once in P (Exod. 29.46) and once in Ezekiel (39.28), although a similar phrase in the second person is found more frequently in both sources.12 Both authors employ this phrase in terms of Yahweh returning the Israelites to their land. In P, Yahweh will make himself known through his rescue of the Israelites out of the land of Egypt in order to dwell in their midst. In Ezekiel, Yahweh will be known when he sends the people into exile and then gathers them back into their own land, leaving no one behind.13 1.10 s"P-nN TINEE—I Raised My Arm. This expression occurs twice in P (Exod. 6.8; Num. 14.30) and nine times in Ezekiel (20.5,6,15,23,28,42; 36.7; 44.12; 47.14). Both P and Ezekiel use this expression of Yahweh lifting his arm to swear oaths to the Israelites. The use of the expression in Ezekiel 20 directly recalls that of Exod. 6.8. The only other cases of Yahweh lifting his arm to swear are Deut. 32.40 (where he lifts his arm to the heavens) and Neh. 9.15. 2. Covenant 2.1 rP"O "IDT—Remember the Covenant. This expression occurs four times in P (Gen. 9.15, 16; Lev. 26.42,45) and once in Ezekiel (16.60). It also occurs in Amos 1.9; Ps. 105.8; 1 Chron. 16.15.14 In P, Yahweh 'remembers' his covenant with all living beings at the conclusion of the Flood, when he vows never again to deluge the earth. The rainbow is to serve as a reminder of this vow. In Leviticus 26, Yahweh 'remembers' his covenant with the Patriarchs and with the Israelites whom he brought out of Egypt. In Ezek. 16.60, Yahweh 'remembers' his covenant with the metaphorical bride Jerusalem. In both P and Ezekiel, Yahweh's recollection of a pre-existing covenant leads to a modification of his intended actions,

12. See in P 'You will know that I am Yahweh your god' and in Ezekiel 'You will know that I am Yahweh' (cf. Ezek. 16.62; Exod. 6.7; 7.5; Lev. 11.44, 45; 20.7 etc.). 13. Contrast Deut. 4.35, 39; 7.9; Josh. 2.11; 1 Kgs 8.60 for Deuteronomistic formulation of a similar concept. 14. With the exception of Ps. 105.8, these passages use the expression differently from P and Ezekiel. In Amos, the expression refers to DTTN tT~O. In 1 Chron. 16.15, it is David who is commanded to remember the covenant.

36

A New Heart and a New Soul

whether it be refraining from destruction or just promising to go easy on a sinner.15 2.2 JT~O D'pn—Establish a Covenant. This expression is found eight times in P (Gen. 6.18; 9.9, 11,17; 17.7, 19, 21; Lev. 26.9) and twice in Ezekiel (16.60, 62). It also occurs in Deut. 8.18 and 2 Kgs 23.3.16 In P, Yahweh 'establishes a covenant' with Noah, Abraham and Isaac. In Gen. 17.19, the covenant is specifically referred to as eternal (rV"O D^ltf). In Ezek. 16.60, Yahweh 'remembers' his covenant with the metaphorical bride Jerusalem and (re)establishes an eternal covenant (D^IU rP"Q) with her. In Ezek. 16.62, this concept is repeated and the result of this new covenant is stated: 'and you will know that I am Yahweh'.17 2.3 Dl^CJ rr~O—Covenant of Peace. This expression is found once in P (Num. 25.12) and twice in Ezekiel (34.25; 37.26). It is also found in Isa. 54.10. In P, Yahweh grants the covenant of peace to Phineas son of Eleazar, son of Aaron, after the incident at Peor. It is a covenant guaranteeing perpetual priesthood to the Aaronide line through Phineas. This covenant is never referred to again in P. In Ezekiel 34, the vision of restoration, Yahweh grants an eternal covenant of peace to all the people. Similarly, in Isa. 54.10, the covenant of peace mentioned is an everlasting covenant granted to the people as a whole. The democratization of earlier exclusivist claims, whether of the monarchy or of the priesthood, is characteristic of Exilic literature.18 2.4 ntotf.. ."1D2J—Observe...Keep. These terms appear together twice in P (Lev. 25.18; 26.3) and three times in Ezekiel (18.19, 21; 36.27). In P, the Israelites are commanded to observe and keep Yahweh's statutes (TlpPI) and ordinances ('DStfD). In Ezekiel, the concept of'observing and keeping' 15. The equivalent expression in D is ma "IDC (Deut. 7.9,12; 1 Kgs 3.6; 8.23). See M. Weinfeld, 'Covenant Terminology in the Ancient Near East and Its Influence on the West', JAOS 93 (1973), pp. 190-99. 16. Deut. 8.18 uses this expression to describe Yahweh's covenant with the Israelites' ancestors. In 2 Kgs 23.3, Josiah attempts to 'establish' the words of the covenant written in the book of the law. 17. See section 1.9, p. 35, regarding this expression in P and Ezekiel. 18. See G. Douglas, 'Ezekiel's Temple', ExpTim 9 (1897-98), p. 420; E. Margolioth, 'The Laws of the Priests and of the Sacrifices in Ezekiel', Tarbiz 22 (1950), pp. 21-27 (Hebrew); Cross, CMHE, pp. 346-46.

3. Ezekiel and the Priestly Source Reconsidered

37

appears similarly in connection with the observance of Yahweh's statutes (TIpPI) and ordinances (''DSCJD). In contrast, the verbs "1DCD and T\W appear together ten times in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History, but always as infinitives construct m&U1? IDE?1? and always paired with either mi£D or mm.19 2.5 ID'Tl npn/CPprn—Follow Statutes. This expression occurs twice in P (Lev. 20.23; 26.3) and twice in Ezekiel (20.18; 36.27). It is not found elsewhere in the HB. In P, the Israelites are commanded to follow Yahweh's statutes and are warned against following those of foreign nations. In Ezekiel 20, the children of the Exodus generation are warned against following the statutes of their own 'parents' who rejected Yahweh's statutes while still in the Wilderness. In Ezek. 36.27, the people are commanded to follow Yahweh's statutes.20 3. The Land 3.1 nEDn *? DfDiZF—You Dwelt Securely. This expression is found once in P (Lev. 26.5) and three times in Ezekiel (28.26; 34.28; 39.6). It is also found in Jer. 49.31; Isa. 47.8 and Prov. 3.29. In P, the Israelites are promised security as a result of their obedience to the commandments of Yahweh. The land in question is Israel and the security is accompanied with favorable weather and agricultural abundance. Ezekiel uses the phrase similarly, although the context is the ingathering of the people from foreign lands. Security in Israel will come as a byproduct of Yahweh's manifest holiness and will be accompanied by agricultural prosperity. The only exception is Ezek. 39.6, where the land in question is Magog. Similarly, in Jer. 49.31, FIED1? 3&J1 generically refers to Nebuchadnezzar's advance against Kedar and Hazor. In Isa. 47.8, the phrase refers to Babylon's sense of security. In Prov. 3.29, one is warned against harming a neighbor who lives with security (trust; nCD^^ DET) beside you.

19. Deut. 13.19; 15.5; 24.8; 28.1, 13, 15; 32.46; Josh. 1.7; 22.5; 23.6. 20. The equivalent expression in Dtr is 'to walk in the ways of Yahweh' (V3"rn mhh) or 'to walk by the law of Yahweh' (HIIT HHinn HD'?'?). See Deut. 5.30; 8.6; 10.12; 11.22; 19.9; 26.17; 28.9; 30.16; Judg. 2.22; 1 Kgs 2.3; 3.14; 11.33, 38; 2 Kgs 10.31; Jer. 9.13; 26.4; 32.23; 44.10, 23.

38

A New Heart and a New Soul

3.2 ncrnQ—Possession. This term occurs once in P (Exod. 6.8) and seven times in Ezekiel (11.15; 25.4, 10; 33.24; 36.2, 3, 5). It is also found in Deut. 33.4. In P, mZTllQ describes the land of Canaan that Yahweh swore to give to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The promise is directly related to Yahweh's revealing himself to Moses and the people. In Ezekiel, the word is used in oracles against Ammon, Moab and Edom (Ezek. 25.4, 10; 36.2, 3).21 It also describes Canaan in the context of Yahweh's promise to Abraham (Ezek. 33.24). In Deut. 33.4 (Blessing of Moses), HETTID refers to the Torah, not a land or its population. 3.3 rain—Desolation. This term occurs twice in P (Lev. 26.31, 33) and seven times in Ezekiel (5.14; 12.20; 25.13; 29.12; 30.7,12; 35.4). It is also found eight times in Jeremiah (7.34; 22.5; 25.11, 18; 27.17; 44.2, 6, 22) andinlsa. 64.10. In P, rQ"in refers to the devastation that Yahweh will bring upon the cities of Israel should they disobey his ordinances. In Ezekiel, the term also refers to destruction caused by Yahweh: four times in reference to cities (Ezek. 12.20; 29.12; 30.7; 35.4) and once in reference to waterways (Ezek. 30.12). It also refers to the devastated people themselves (Ezek. 5.14; 25.13). In Jeremiah, rn"in refers to the land, the police, the king and his officials, Jerusalem and various cities and towns. 3.4 n^DK (pN)—(A Land) That Devours. This image is found once in P (Num. 13.32) and once in Ezekiel (36.13), both times referring to Canaan. This verb is not used elsewhere in the HB in this manner. In P (Num. 13.32), the spies who were sent to scout out the land of Canaan report to Moses, 'The land that we have gone through as spies is a land that devours its inhabitants.' In Ezekiel, Yahweh addresses the mountains of Israel: 'Because they say to you, "You devour people and bereave your nation of children," therefore you shall no longer devour people and no longer bereave your nation of children.' 21. Here the term seems to refer to the inhabitants and not the land itself; cf. H bn3. See H. Forshey, 'The Construct Chain Nahalat Yahwh/Elohim', BASOR 220 (1975), pp. 51-53. Forshey uses four texts in Samuel to illuminate the shift in meaning for n^fl] from a designation of landed property to a designation of the covenant community.

3. Ezekiel and the Priestly Source Reconsidered

39

3.5 inin/DniO DEW Tirol—Provision of Rain in its Season. This expression occurs once in P (Lev. 26.4) and once in Ezekiel (34.26). It is not found elsewhere in the HB. In Lev. 26.4, one of the rewards for obedience to Yahweh is his provision of seasonal rain. Rain in and of itself is crucial for agricultural prosperity, but rain at the proper times of the year is equally essential. P probably has in mind the two seasonal rains, Cfip ^Ql mv (Deut. 11.14).22 In Ezekiel, as an element of Yahweh's new 'covenant of peace' with the people, he will send down seasonable 'rains of blessing' (i"D"Q ^EXÛÎ). 3.6 DiTTUU )HK—The Land of their Sojourn. This expression occurs five times in P (Gen. 17.8; 28.4; 36.7; 37.1; Exod. 6.4) and once in Ezekiel (20.38). It is not found elsewhere in the HB. In P, DrPTUD f"")N refers solely to the land of Canaan as it was promised to Abraham and his offspring, who sojourned there. In Ezekiel, DiTTUÛ JHN refers to the lands to which the people were scattered and from which they will be gathered and returned to the land of Israel. Here, the land of the covenant and the land of the people's sojourn are two separate, antithetical and distinct entities. In P, they are one and the same. 4. Social Structure 4.1 DDDlfQ Tin IJn—The Stranger Residing among You. This expression is found four times in P (Exod. 12.49; Lev. 16.29; 17.12; 18.26) and once in Ezekiel (47.22).23 It is also found in Num. 15.29 (R). It is not found elsewhere in the HB. In P, 11 is a person/man living with the Israelites, but not technically a citizen—the equivalent of a resident alien in the United States.24 These resident aliens are required to abide by many of the laws that apply to the citizens (Exod. 12.49; Lev. 18.26). They must observe the same holy days (Exod. 12.19; Lev. 16.29) and fundamental dietary laws25 (Lev. 17.12), thus the injunction that there be 'one Torah for the citizen and for the

22. See also Jer. 5.24. 23. Compare Ezek. 22.7. 24. The biblical resident alien, however, could never become a 'naturalized' citizen. See M. Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament (New York: Columbia University Press, 1971), p. 178. 25. He is specifically prohibited from ingesting blood.

40

A New Heart and a New Soul

stranger residing among you' (Exod. 12.49). P does not suggest, however, that the "0 was allowed to own land. Ezekiel's use of "13 shows that a comparable group existed in Israelite society during his time.26 However, according to Ezekiel's vision of a restored Israel, and contrary to P and D, the Dn"l3 are now permitted to own land (Ezek. 47.22-23). The stipulation probably reflects the prophet's attempt to clarify a new situation specific to the envisioned restoration. As in the Exodus and Conquest, there were likely those who joined the Israelite communities of Babylon and of Egypt. By stipulating that resident aliens might receive a share in the land, this potentially sticky issue would be resolved. 4.2 in-nttfK—Neighbor's Wife.This term is found three times in P (Exod. 20.17;Lev. 18.20; 20.10) and five times in Ezekiel (18.6, 11, 15; 22.11; 33.26). It also appears in Deut. 5.18; 22.24; Jer. 5.8; Prov. 6.29. Some commentators argue that in refers to all inhabitants of the land of Israel, while others understand the term to refer solely to 'fellow Israelites'. The latter seems more appropriate, especially given the separate treatment of the resident alien noted above. In Lev. 18.20 and 20.10, 'neighbor's wife' appears in the context of adultery: the wife of a fellow Israelite is off limits. P's Decalogue (Exod. 20.17) similarly forbids 'coveting' the wife of a fellow Israelite, as a precaution against adultery.27 In Ezekiel, the prohibition against adultery with a neighbor's wife is presented alongside the prohibition of 'worship at the high places' as a prime example of Israel's apostasy (Ezek. 18.6, 11, 15). Ezekiel is not alone among the prophets in his portrayal of, and polemic against, adultery. He is, however, by far the closest to P in his terminology and the formulation of his own law.28 4.3 "O]-p—Outsider/Foreigner. This term appears four times in P (Gen. 17.12, 27; Exod. 12.43; Lev. 22.25) and twice in Ezekiel (44.7, 9). It is also found in Isa. 56.3, 6; 60.10; 61.5; 62.8 andNeh. 9.2. 26. Compare Ezekiel's use of the term "IT to denote foreigners who are always portrayed as bringing about calamity (Ezek. 7.21; 16.32; 28.7,10; 30.12; 31.12). The "13, in contrast, is to be cared for and protected. 27. See Friedman, WWTB, p. 258, on assigning this text to P. 28. See examples of adultery portrayed in Amos 2.7; Hos. 4.2; 7.4; Jer. 5.7-8; 7.9; 9.1 ; etc. See E. J. Adler, 'The Background for the Metaphor of Covenant as Marriage in the Hebrew Bible' (PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1990).

3. Ezekiel and the Priestly Source Reconsidered

41

In Gen. 17.12, P defines "G3-p as one who 'is not from your seed'.29 These foreigners, according to P, should be circumcised, may not eat of the Pesah (Exod. 12.43),30 and may not provide imperfect animals to be offered to Yahweh.31 A ID]-]3 is thus a foreign 'non-believer'32 living or conducting business in Israel. If foreigners are connected to an Israelite household, they are likely to be slaves and hence circumcised. Otherwise they are understood to be of a different seed and uncircumcised. Ezekiel castigates the Israelites for admitting "IDD-^D into Yahweh's Sanctuary (Ezek. 44.7). No foreigners will be permitted to enter the restored Temple (44.9). Ezekiel further defines the 'foreigner' as uncircumcised in heart33 and flesh.34 Ezekiel understands the distinctions among the nonIsraelite population in the same way as P. For Ezekiel, the foreigner is not part of the Israelite community, defined by the sign of circumcision in body or in mind. He is not of sufficient ritual purity to enter the Sanctuary. Ezekiel's concept of the foreigner stands in direct contrast to that of Second Isaiah, who describes foreigners as 'joining themselves to Yahweh' through worship (Isa. 56.6). In Second Isaiah, the offerings of these foreigners are welcomed and accepted (Isa. 56.7). 4.4 mm—Native. This term occurs 14 times in P (Exod. 12.19, 48, 49; Lev. 16.29; 17.15; 18.26; 19.34; 23.42; 24.16, 22; Num. 9.14; 15.13,29, 30) and once in Ezekiel (47.22). It is also found in Josh. 8.33 and Ps. 37.35.35 29. This might appear to include workers born in Israelite houses or purchased, but Exod. 12.43-44 treats the categories of foreigner and servant separately. 30. On the difficulty of reconciling Gen. 17.12 (the foreign slave must be circumcised), Exod. 12.44 (all slaves must be circumcised and not partake of the Passover) and Exod. 12.43,45 (foreigners and servants may not partake of the Passover); see W.H.C. Propp, Exodus 1-18 (AB, 2; New York: Doubleday, 1999), discussion of Exod. 12.43-45. 31. Not as their own offerings to Yahweh. Rather, they may not provide animals to be purchased by Israelites and then offered on the Israelites' behalf to Yahweh. 32. Contrast the "13 who belongs to the Israelite community of believers in worshiping Yahweh. 33. The expression D ^ ^~1I7, like ] ÏN "7"lU (cf. ) TN ^D), likely connotes an inability to perceive the divine word. 34. Others suggest that 'foreigner' here refers to the Lévites who brought foreign practices into the Temple and who are therefore now to be prevented from working within the sanctuary. See, for example, Y. Moshkovitz, The Book of Ezekiel (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1985), p. 361 (Hebrew). This understanding seems unlikely. 35. In Ps. 37.35 (MT) the term appears to denote some type of tree. But the text may be corrupt. See Propp, Exodus 1-18,discussion to Exod. 12.19.

42

A New Heart and a New Soul

In P, n~lTN denotes an individual member of the people and is often contrasted with the ~U. mTN has the same meaning in Ezek. 47.22, where the "13 is to be allotted land as though he were 'like a native Israelite'

(^iizr n nn mîio).

4.5 D^n TU1?—In the Eyes of the (Foreign) Nations. This expression occurs once in P (Lev. 26.45) and nine times in Ezekiel (5.8; 20.9,14,22, 41; 28.25; 36.23; 38.23; 39.27). It is also found in Isa. 52.10; Ps. 98.2 and 2 Chron. 32.23. In P, Yahweh's deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt is depicted as having occurred 'in the sight of the foreign nations' (D*1^!! TU'?). It is also in the sight of the D"^ that Yahweh establishes his formal relationship with Israel. Ezekiel's use of this expression directly recalls Lev. 26.45. Throughout Ezekiel 20, Yahweh's deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt (20.14), as well as his revelation to the Israelites (20.9), is depicted as taking place DTI TI?1?.36 Yahweh's benevolent actions toward the sinful Israelites are motivated for the sake of maintaining his name in the sight of foreign nations. This expression is also used in passages describing the future restoration of Israel (Ezek. 28.25; 36.23; 38.23; 39.27): Yahweh's relationship with Israel will be re-established DTI TJ71?. 5. Law 5.1 imi? m ^—Uncover Nakedness. This expression occurs 17 times in P (Lev. 18.6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19; 20.19,20,21) and five times in Ezekiel (16.37; 22.10; 23.10; 23.18, 29). It is also found in Exod. 20.23 (E) and Isa. 47.3. rrniJ m^ occurs in P exclusively in connection with laws relating to sexual behavior. It is unclear whether the expression serves as a euphemism for sexual intercourse or whether it literally refers to the removal of clothing, resulting in the exposure of genitalia; the latter is suggested by the crime of Ham against his father in Gen. 9.22 (J).37 The prohibition against seizing a man's genitals (Deut. 25.11-12), and the custom of taking an oath by holding the genitals (Gen. 24.2-30), may suggest that the genitals were

36. Cf. Exod. 15.13-15. 37. See, for example, U. Cassuto, From Noah to Abraham (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1964), pp. 148-49.

3. Ezekiel and the Priestly Source Reconsidered

43

considered sacrosanct; unauthorized exposure was considered tasteless (cf. 2 Sam. 6.20), if not sinful.38 Ezekiel uses ni"ll? m*?3 in several different contexts. In 16.37, Yahweh declares that he will uncover the harlot Jerusalem's nakedness for all to see. Here, the expression connotes an act of public degradation. In Ezek. 22.10, uncovering a father's nakedness is associated with sexual violation of the father's wife, mirroring the understanding in Leviticus 18. In Ezek. 23.10, m "117 m*?3 again refers to the violation of a woman, in this case the metaphorical figure of Oholibah. Here, however, it is Oholibah who flaunts her own nakedness. But in Ezek. 23.29, Oholibah is punished when the 'nakedness of your [her] whorings will be uncovered'. Literal, mil? m^ is, in short, the punishment for figurative mil? m ^1 The only use of the expression in Ezekiel that seems to follow P's understanding is 22.10. This verse too is the only one where Ezekiel refers to an actual crime committed in every day life. When Ezekiel writes poetic metaphor he uses the expression in a different manner. As we have seen in Ezek. 16.37 and 23.10, the expression is used in connection with prostitution and public humiliation. In these cases it literally signifies an actual act of exposure. When this type of metaphorical exposure occurs in Ezekiel, the act is either committed by Yahweh or by the metaphorical harlot herself and never by a human male.39 5.2 Q^Eattf—Acts of Judgment. This term is found three times in P (Exod. 6.6; 7.4; 12.12) and eight times in Ezekiel (5.10, 15; 11.9; 16.41; 28.22, 38. In Lev. 18 it is forbidden for one to 'uncover the nakedness' of the following list of people: mother, father's wife, sister, father's or mother's daughter, son's daughter or daughter's daughter, father's wife's daughter, father's sister or mother's sister, aunt, daughter-in-law, brother's wife, a woman and (with?) her daughter, her son's or daughter's daughter. Within this list of women relations it is also forbidden to uncover the nakedness of one's father, father's brother or the nakedness of one's brother. In each of these cases the uncovering of male nakedness is not understood literally, but instead is explained as the uncovering of the nakedness of the male's closest related female, that is, 'the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother' (Lev. 18.7) or 'the nakedness of your brother's wife; it is your brother's nakedness' (Lev. 18.16). The fact that there is no direct prohibition against the uncovering of male nakedness in P may indicate that the expression refers to intercourse after all rather than to exposure. 39. The metaphor of public exposure is also found in Isa. 47.3: Yahweh removes the clothing of the virgin daughter Babylon until her nakedness is uncovered and her 'shame shall be seen'. In Exod. 20.23 (E-Covenant Code), uncovering nakedness is discussed in connection with cultic regulations regarding the Israelite altar. The construction of steps at an altar is forbidden so that 'nakedness may not be uncovered on it'.

44

A New Heart and a New Soul

26; 30.14,19). It is also found in Num. 33.4 (R); Prov. 19.29 and 2 Chron. 24.24. In P, the Plagues of Egypt are called Dn bll D^UBEJ, worked against the Egyptians and their gods.40 In Ezekiel, Yahweh executes D^tDSEJ on both his own people and foreign nations, who fall by the sword, pestilence and bloodshed.41 These judgments are a manifestation of Yahweh's holiness (Ezek. 28.22) and power (Ezek. 30.19). Only P and Ezekiel use this term to portray Yahweh as acting in this manner.42 5.3 17US—Desecration. This term is found twice in P (Lev. 7.18; 19.7) and once in Ezekiel (4.14). It is also found (in the plural) in Isa. 65.4. In P, 'TUS refers to the meat or flesh of the Well-Being Offering (D^X) remaining beyond three days.43 In Lev. 7.18, this meat, if it is eaten on the third day, is desecrated. The one who consumes it shall 'bear his sin', that is, be punished. In Lev. 19.7-8, eating this meat is described as ETTp

^n mrr. In Ezekiel too 'TUB also describes meat that should not be eaten. When Yahweh instructs the prophet to prepare his food on human excrement, Ezekiel responds that he has never defiled himself through the consumption of nta], nsncD or "TUB -ifen.44 5.4 D "711? npn—Eternal Rule. This expression occurs 27 times in P (Exod. 12.14, 17; 27.21; 28.43; 29.9, 28; 30.21; Lev. 3.17; 7.36; 10.9; 16.29, 31, 34; 17.7; 23.14,21,31,41; 24.3; Num. 10.8; 15.15; 18.8,11,19,23; 19.10, 21) and once in Ezekiel (46.14). It is not found elsewhere in the HB. P uses this expression to designate various practices as perpetual and invariable: the Passover (Exod. 12.14, 17), the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16.29, 31, 34; 24.3), the offering of First Fruits (Lev. 23.14, 21, 31), the lighting of the Tabernacle menorah (Exod. 27.21), the priestly vestments (Exod. 28.43; 29.9), the wash basin (Exod. 30.21), the sounding of trumpets (Num. 10.8) and the service of the Lévites (Lev. 10.9; Num. 18.23). It also 40. Sam has D'CDSrà'laws'. 41. Against Israel: 5.10, 15; 11.9; 16.41; 28.22; against her neighbors: 28.26; against Thebes, Pathros and Zoan: 30.14; against Egypt: 30.19. 42. In 2 Chron. 24.24 describes the army of Aram as executing judgment on Joash. 43. That is, although formerly holy, this meat becomes desecrated on the third day. See Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p. 422, and D.P. Wright, The Disposal of Impurity (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), p. 140. 44. Similarly, Isa. 65.4 describes the consumption of pig along with D"1 "713S (soup).

3. Ezekiel and the Priestly Source Reconsidered

45

describes the red heifer ceremony (Num. 19.10,21 ), various sacrifices (Lev. 7.36; 17.7) and the daily offerings made to Yahweh (Exod. 29.28). Although Ezekiel mentions many of these same practices, only one is called D "nu Ppn, the daily offerings of the Prince (Ezek. 46.14).45 5.5 nsntD/n ^D]—Carcass. These terms are found together three times in P (Lev. 7.24; 17.15; 22.8) and twice in Ezekiel (4.14; 44.31). They are not found together elsewhere in the HB.46 In P, H ^33 and Î1531C3 describe two types of forbidden animal carcasses. A H1?!!], from ^33, 'to fade', is the corpse of an animal that has died a natural death. A nSTlCD, from Sift, 'to tear', is the corpse of an animal that has been mauled by wild animals.47 Likewise in Ezekiel, H ^33 and HS1CD describe animals forbidden for consumption. In Ezek. 4.14, the prophet himself proclaims that he has never eaten these two types of meat. In Ezek. 44.31, these carcasses, whether they be beast or bird, are forbidden to priests. In both P and Ezekiel, these terms always refer to animals; they never describe human corpses. This usage contrasts with the rest of the HB. 5.6 ni3n nNUB/ni3—Impurity. These terms are found eight times in P (Lev. 12.2; 15.26; 18.19; 20.21; Num. 19.9, 13, 20, 21) and five times in Ezekiel (7.19,20; 18.6; 22.10; 36.17). The term HI] is also found inZech. 13.1; Lam. 1.17; Ezra 9.11 and 2 Chron. 29.5. In P, these terms appear to have several meanings. The most common is associated with menstrual impurity (Lev. 12.2; 15.26).48 The root 113, 'to cast off, expel', here would seem to refer either to the discharge of menstrual blood or, metaphorically, to the woman herself in this state of impurity.49 45. 1er. 5.22 calls the limitation of the primordial sea D ^11? Dpi"!. Thus the term has cosmogonie overtones, in contrast to the cultic usage of P and Ezekiel. 46. nSlCD stands alone in Gen. 31.39 (E) and Nah. 2.13.1 "?D3 often occurs alone (e.g. Deut. 21.23; 28.26; Josh. 8.29; 1 Kgs 13.22, 24, 25, 28,29, 30; 2 Kgs 9.37; Jer. 26.23; 36.30). All these are in reference to human corpses. P and Ezekiel, however, never use this term in reference to humans, but rather both employ 132. Other than P and Ezekiel, only Deut. 14.8 and 21 use 1 ^33 in reference to an animal body. 47. See Gen. 37.33; 44.28; 49.27; Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p. 427. 48. P suggests that the man who lies with a menstruating woman shares in her impurity, although he does not incur punishment. This directive is then clarified to prohibit approaching a woman during menstruation to 'uncover her nakedness'. 49. See Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p. 745; 'niddah', Th WAT; B.A. Levine, Numbers 1-20 (AB, 4A; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1993), p. 464.

46

A New Heart and a New Soul

The term also appears in the expression mi ''ft, often translated 'water for lustration' or 'sprinkling water' (Num. 19).50 In Ezek. 22.10, the inhabitants of Jerusalem are accused of having sinned doubly, violating menstruating women. Likewise in 18.6, approaching a menstruating woman is likened to idolatry or adultery. And in Ezek. 7.1920, the people's silver and gold is HI] "?. The evil ways of the Israelites are described as m3 in 36.17. Overall, Ezekiel's use of the term is closer to 2 Chron. 29.5 and Ezra 9.11, where it describes the uncleanness of religious objects and practices. 5.7 |1U K2J]—To Bear Guilt. This expression is found 16 times in P (Exod. 28.38; Lev. 5.1, 17; 10.17; 16.22; 17.16; 19.8; 20.17; 22.16; Num. 5.31; 9.13; 14.18, 34; 18.1, 23; 30.16) and 8 times in Ezekiel (4.4, 5, 6; 14.10; 18.19,20; 44.10,12). It is not found elsewhere in the HB with a human as the subject.51 In P, to 'bear guilt' basically means bearing the weight of one's evil doings.52 Zimmerli specifies three ways in which P uses this expression: (1) in the sphere of sacral law to establish a condition of guilt; (2) bearing direct responsibility (e.g. Num. 18.1); (3) vicariously bearing guilt (e.g. the scapegoats in Lev. 16.22).53 Ezekiel features all three usages. The Israelites are described as bearing their own punishment (18.20), as are false prophets (Ezek. 14.10) and the Lévites (Ezek. 44.10, 12). In Ezek. 4.4-5, Ezekiel, like the goats of Lev. 16, is instructed to bear the guilt of the Israelites. It is significant that in both P and Ezekiel the subject of this expression is always human. 5.8 *?I?Q ^'UQ. This expression is found five times in P (Lev. 5.15, 21; Num. 5.6,27; 31.16) and five times in Ezekiel (14.13; 15.8; 17.20; 18.24; 20.27). It is also found in 2 Chron. 36.14.54 The exact meaning of *?i?Q VUQ is unclear. In P it appears to describe wrongdoing that can be expiated through the guilt offering (Lev. 5.15,21). It also describes the actions of the wife suspected of adultery (sotah) in 50. See Levine, Numbers 1-20, p. 464. 51. It is used elsewhere with Yahweh as the subject to connote pardon. See, for example, Gen. 4.13; Exod. 34.7 etc. 52. See B. Schwartz, 'The Prohibition Concerning the Eating of Blood in Leviticus 17', in G.A. Anderson and S.M. Olyan (eds.), Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel (JSOTSup, 125; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), p. 38 n. 4. 53. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, pp. 164, 305. 54. The verb bUQ alone is found in 2 Chron. 28.22 and Neh. 13.27.

3. Ezekiel and the Priestly Source Reconsidered

47

Num. 5.27, a capital offense. In Ezekiel, the expression similarly describes sin. However, it also metaphorically describes the state of the land (Ezek. 14.13; 15.8). In addition, in Ezekiel the recipient of this action is always Yahweh; the action itself is an affront to him. P does not make this distinction, although the expression seems to have the same meaning. 5.9 13 IQl/nn DiTUl—His/their Blood upon Him/Them. This idiom occurs five times in P (Lev. 20.9, 11, 12, 13, 16) and twice in Ezekiel (18.13; 33.5). It is not found elsewhere in the HB. Leviticus 20 is exclusively devoted to bloodguilt and the violation of holiness, in 1Q1/CD DÎTQ1 is associated with the capital offenses of cursing one's parents (Lev. 20.9), adultery (Lev. 20.11, 12), male homosexual relations (Lev. 20.13) and bestiality (Lev. 20.16). For these crimes, since no actual murder has been committed, exactly whose blood is upon the sinner is unclear. The point appears to be that these acts are tantamount to murder, and so members of the community who carry out the death sentence will not incur bloodguilt. Rather, the blood of the criminal remains with him.55 In Ezekiel, the idiom appears in two different contexts. In 18.13, the death penalty is pronounced against those who lend money with interest and thus profit from the poor. As in P, the term is used of a capital crime that does not involve murder.56 In Ezekiel 33, the idiom appears in connection with the task of the watchman, who must warn the inhabitants of the land of impending danger. If the watchman does his job, but the inhabitants do not heed his warning and consequently die, their blood shall be 'upon their own heads.. .their blood shall be upon themselves'. The watchman cannot incur bloodguilt, because he has fulfilled his duty. Conversely, the negligent watchman bears bloodguilt. This is the only case in P or Ezekiel where the idiom appears in connection with actual homicide.57 6. Holy Days 6.1 ehn1? DP n&U nm"l«n ]ieara—On the First (month), on the Fourteenth Day of the Month (Passover). This formula, dating the celebration of RDS and of miJD, is found three times in P (Exod. 12.18; Lev. 23.5; 55. In Josh. 2.19; 1 Kgs 2.37; Ezek. 33.4, the similar 1t»m 101 appears in the context of murder. 56. Note the presence of the legal sentence HOT1 H1Q here, too. 57. Even here, however, the watchman is really a metaphor for the prophet-priest, threatened with a most severe punishment should he fail to warn the people.

48

A New Heart and a New Soul

Num. 9.5) and once in Ezekiel (45.21).58 This formula for recording the date of these observances does not appear elsewhere in the HB. This method of referring to months by ordinal numbers alone is exclusive to P, Ezekiel, and the postexilic prophets.59 J (Exod. 23.15) and E (Exod. 34.18) command the celebration of the festival of niHQ 'at the appointed time in the month of Abib' (TDKn Ehn finD1?), while the Deuteronomist simply commands its observance 'in the month of Abib' (Deut. 16.1).60 In P, the date formula accompanies the commandment of eating unleavened bread for seven days (Exod. 12.18). Here, the celebration of PIDS and of mHD appear combined as part of the narration of the tenth plague in Egypt. In Leviticus 23, however, the two festivals appear as separate celebrations; the Passover offering is to take place in the first month on the fourteenth day 'between the two evenings', while the Festival of Unleavened Bread is to begin on the fifteenth day of the month. Num. 9.5 discusses only the Passover offering, made on the fourteenth at twilight.61 Ezek. 45.21 commands the observance of FIDS, a 'festival [3!"1] of seven days62 when unleavened bread shall be eaten'.63 On the same day, that is, the fourteenth, the Prince is instructed to present an animal as a 'sin offering', and he must continue to do so with both a ram and a bull every day of the seven-day festival. It is unclear whether Ezek. 45.25 commands the observance of a second feast (with Lev. 23.5), to begin on the fifteenth 58. mUQ refers either to unleavened bread or to the Feast of Unleavened Bread. The term PIDS3 denotes the offering and the sacrificial feast or the festival of the Passover. In the HB these two terms appear to refer to two different celebrations in commemoration of the Exodus from Egypt, which often appear combined in the text (combined in Exod. 12 and Deut. 16.1-8; separate in Lev. 23.5 and Num. 9.5). In Ezek. 45.21 -25 it is more difficult to discern whether the two celebrations are separate or part of the same festival (see below). 59. Gen. 7.11; 8.4, 5, 13, 14; Exod. 12.18; Num. 9.5; Ezek. 1.1; 8.1; 20.1; 29.17; 30.20; 31.1; 45.18,21, 25; Hag. 1.15; 2.1, 10, 18; Zech. 7.5. 60. Num. 28.16-25 and 33.3 are close to this formula. Both are assigned to R by Friedman (WWTB, p. 254). Josh. 5.10-15 records the observance 'in the evening of the fourteenth day of the month', and 2 Chron. 30.3 records its observance on the fourteenth day of the second month, as a result of Hezekiah's one-month delay. 61. See Propp, Exodus 1-18, discussion of Exod. 12.18. 62. Reading HU32J with LXX and Targum. 63. The use of the term 3FI in connection with FIDS appears only in J (Exod. 34.25), P (Exod. 12.14) (contra Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, p. 48, and discussion in Propp, Exodus 118} and Ezekiel. E (Exod. 23.15) refers only to mUQ 3FI. D refers only to the sacrifice itself (Deut. 16.2).

3. Ezekiel and the Priestly Source Reconsidered

49

day of the month, or whether the commandment refers to different elements of the same celebration.64 6.2 nrrrm TU m*—A Sign between Me and You (Sabbath). The Sabbath is described as a sign (PIN) between Yahweh and the Israelites twice in P (Exod. 31.13,17) and twice in Ezekiel (20.12,20). This occurs nowhere elsewhere in the HB. In Exodus 31, just before Yahweh gives Moses the two tablets of the covenant, he commands observance of the Sabbath. The Sabbath is to be a sign between Yahweh and the Israelites, as both a means of recognizing Yahweh's power to sanctify and a reminder that Yahweh created the heaven and the earth in six days and rested on the seventh.65 In Ezekiel 20, Israel's résumé of rebellion, the Sabbath is again described as a sign between Yahweh and the Israelites and given to them in the wilderness immediately following the Exodus (Ezek. 20.10). Several elements from Exodus 31 reappear here, including the Sabbath as a sign between me and them (D3TD1 TD PIN); the function of the Sabbath as a means of Yahweh's revelation (ÛCHpÛ miT S 3N '3 Pin1?); the institution of the Sabbath in the Wilderness period; and the reference to 'my Sabbaths' (TPDEJ). Three of these elements are repeated in Ezek. 20.20: after the people have greatly profaned the Sabbath, they are again commanded to hallow Yahweh's Sabbaths (Tiroc?), which are a sign between Yahweh and the people (D3TD1 T3 PIN) and signify the people's special relationship with him

(Drrn^mir ^N^pin 1 ?).

6.3 ""PPDtà—My Sabbaths. This expression occurs four times in P (Exod. 31.13; Lev. 19.3, 30; 26.2) and nine times in Ezekiel (20.12, 13, 16, 20, 24; 22.8, 26; 23.38; 44.24). It does not occur elsewhere in the HB. P requires that 'my [Yahweh's] Sabbaths' be observed and sanctified.66 Ezekiel repeatedly accuses Israel of profaning Yahweh's Sabbaths (see especially Ezek. 20.13, 16, 24; 22.8; 23.38). Profaning the Sabbath is presented alongside rejection of Yahweh's statutes and ordinances as a

64. Zimmerli (Ezekiel 1, p. 483) and B. Bokser ('Unleavened Bread and Passover, Feast of, ABD, VI, pp. 755-57) see two separate feasts in Ezekiel. 65. The connection between the Sabbath and Creation is exclusive to P and directly contrasts the association in Deut. 5.15 between the Sabbath and the slavery in Egypt (see Friedman, WWTB, p. 229;. 66. D never uses the plural in reference to the Sabbath.

50

A New Heart and a New Soul

regular occurrence, from the Wilderness period to Ezekiel's time. Even the priests are accused of disregarding Yahweh's Sabbaths (Ezek. 22.26). 7. Tabernacle/Temple and Priesthood 7.1 Dmtà1? mun ^S1? IDSb—Stand before the Congregation to Serve Them. This expression is found once in P (Num. 16.9) and once in Ezekiel (44.11). It is not found elsewhere in the HB.67 In P, we find the expression in Moses' rebuke of Korah and his assembly of Lévites. Moses describes their function as to 'perform the duties of Yahweh's Tabernacle and to stand before the congregation to serve them'. The image of'standing before' the people implies waiting upon or attending the people. The Lévites therefore served their community by attending to the functions necessary for the operation of the cult.68 According to Ezek. 44.11, the Lévites will no longer serve Yahweh as priests, nor will they approach anything most sacred to Yahweh. Instead, they will maintain the Sanctuary at the gates of the Temple and slaughter the burnt offerings of the people. Again, their function is to attend to the community, acting as liaisons between the people and the Zadokites.69 The demotion of the Lévites to Temple servants in Ezekiel is a consequence of their abominations (Ezek. 44.10). The distinction between the Zadokites and the Lévites in Ezekiel mirrors the distinction between the Aaronides and the Lévites in Num. 18.5-8. Thus, according to both P and Ezekiel, the Lévites lost their place inside the sanctity of the cult through sinfulness.70 All of their duties are to be performed on the outside, where their primary function is to serve the people's cultic needs. 7.2 *?nn |^m cnpn }^ *T-nn—Separate between the Holy and the Profane. This expression occurs once in P (Lev. 10.10) and three times in Ezekiel (22.26; 42.20; 44.23).71 It does not occur elsewhere in the HB.

67. For Deuteronomic variants see Deut. 10.8; 17.12; 18.5. 68. Levine, Numbers 1-20, p. 413. Moses implies that the Lévites should be satisfied with such an important task. In Num. 18, their exclusion from the inner priestly circle will be seen as a punishment. On the history of the Lévites as clergy and the competition among the priestly houses of ancient Israel, see, among others, Cross, CMHE, pp. 195-216; Friedman, WWTB, pp. 47-48, 71-73, 120-23. 69. Contrast the role of the Zadokites in Ezek. 44.15,'IS1? TIQJJ, 'stand before me' versus the Lévites in Ezek. 44.11, DiTDS1? HUIT, 'stand before them'. 70. Contrast the function of the Lévites in D/Dtr. 71. This expression changes from]^l ] n n inBH (Lev. 10.10; Ezek. 22.26; 44.23)

3. Ezekiel and the Priestly Source Reconsidered

51

P presents making separations or distinctions as the quintessential Priestly duty, in imitation of Yahweh's actions at Creation. The theme is found throughout P, beginning with the Creation account of Genesis 1 and extending through the distinction between clean and unclean animals, distinguishing between clean and unclean persons, days of work and the Sabbath, the Tabernacle and the camps, the various sections of the Tent, Israel and the other nations, between the Lévites and the rest of the Israelite tribes, and the Aaronides and the other Lévites.72 Ezekiel castigates his priestly contemporaries for failing to fulfill the task of distinction and separation (Ezek. 22.26). As Milgrom notes, Ezekiel's delineation of priestly duties seems to be drawn from Lev. 10.10-II.73 In Ezek. 44.21-23, after forbidding the drinking of wine and restricting priestly marriage to Israelite virgins, the prophet assigns the priests the role of teaching the people to distinguish 'between the sacred and the profane and between the clean and the unclean'.74 Ezekiel also mentions distinguishing between the holy and the profane in connection with the construction of the future Temple. According to 42.20, a wall is to be constructed around the interior of the temple area to serve as a 'separation between the holy and the profane'. The antithesis of sacred versus common space is also evident in P's description of the construction of the Tabernacle (Exod. 26.33).75 7.3 n"lQÔ2 "Hûtà—Keepers of Duties. This expression occurs seven times in P (Num. 3.28,32; 18.3,4,5; 31.30,47) and six times in Ezekiel (40.45, 46; 44.8, 15, 16; 48.11). It is not found elsewhere in the HB. Numbers 3 delineates the Tabernacle duties of the Lévites, where they are called Ehpn mDtôD nOK? 'attending to the duties of the holy'. Similarly, Numbers 18 describes the entire tribe of Levi as attending to the ^n^n-^3 mQEJO 'duties of all the Tent'. The Lévites in Numbers 18 are excluded, however, from attending to the utensils of the Sanctuary and the to b )"3 in LBH as evidenced first in Ezekiel (42.20) and in later Mishnaic material. See Hurvitz, Linguistic Study, pp. 113-14. 72. See Lev. 1.17; 5.8; 20.24-26; Num. 8.14. 73. Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p. 615. 74. Note, however, that while P assigns this task to Aaron and his sons, that is, all of the Aaronides, Ezekiel presents this obligation as a job belonging specifically and exclusively to the descendants of Zadok. 75. For more on the concept of distinction and separation in P, see P. Jenson, Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World (JSOTSup, 106; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992).

52

A New Heart and a New Soul

altar, access to which is limited to Aaron and his sons, who are in charge of EhpH muCJD 'the duties of the holy' and TOTûn niUEJD 'the duties of the altar' (Num. 18.5).76 Numbers 31 again describes the duties of all the Lévites, called mrP ptfD mûeJÛ "Hutf 'keepers of the duties of the Tabernacle of Yahweh'. Ezekiel employs this expression in a number of different ways, but always describing the duties of the priests. The first two occurrences relate to Ezekiel's Temple plan. In Ezek. 40.45-46 the prophet is shown two chambers. The first, he is told, houses priests in charge of the duties of the house—rron mûCJD "HDtô—although a specific familial identification is not mentioned. The second chamber is for priests in charge of the duties of the altar—rDTOn mDCJD. These are priests specified as the descendants of Zadok, who alone 'among the descendants of Levi may approach Yahweh to serve him' (Ezek. 40.46). Ezek. 44.15-16 once more delineates the specific duties of the Zadokites, this time with the expression rnuEJQ "'BTfpD 'the duties of my Sanctuary' and TTIDIZJU 'my duties'. Ezek. 44.8 charges all Israel with failure to fulfill 'Chpo mûEfa and ^"lp muBJD, because they allowed foreigners to enter into the Sanctuary.77 mu2JD refers, in P and Ezekiel, to the duties of the priests. In both texts these involve all aspects of the maintenance of the Tent and the Temple. Originally the responsibility of the entire priesthood, these responsibilities are later limited in both texts due to Levitical insubordination. The result is that the Lévites, in P and in Ezekiel, are restricted to the maintenance of the Tent or the Temple from the outside (^HKH mûtôû or mûCD mrp ptfD in P; rvon mûCJD in Ezekiel). Only a select group of Lévites, the Aaronides in P and the Zadokites in Ezekiel, is permitted to attend to the inner workings of the cult (ehpn rnoda and mion maco in P; mooa ••ehpo and raTOn nineta in Ezekiel). 7.4 "* b ]HD *?—To Serve Me as Priest. This expression occurs five times in P (Exod. 28.4; 29.1,44; 30.30; cf. Exod. 28.1, 3, 4) and once in Ezeki (44.13). It does not occur elsewhere in the HB.78 76. This apparent demotion of a portion of the Lévites by denying them access to the duties that were initially assigned to them (Num. 3) is presented by P as a result of the actions of Korah. It is significant, therefore, that the tasks given to the Kohathites, Korah's family, in Num. 3.31 (maintenance of the ark, table, menorah, altars a vessels) are those that are now assigned exclusively to the Aaronides, who were also Kohathites. 77. Reading Dlûïïni here. 78. The expression ^ ^ jro1? occurs in Judg 17.13; 1 Sam. 2.14.

3. Ezekiel and the Priestly Source Reconsidered

53

In P, the expression 'to serve me as priest' entails all the varied aspects of priestly service. It refers exclusively, however, to the service of Aaron and his sons; it never describes the service of any lower Levitic clergy.79 Ezekiel uses the expression to describe the service of the Lévites in general in an indictment against them. They are told, in Ezek. 44.13, that because of their abominations they will not be permitted to 'approach me [Yahweh] to serve me as priest and to approach all my holy things and the holy of holies'. This honor is reserved for the descendants of Zadok, although ^ ]rab never describes the Zadokites' duties. 7.5 "IT]—To Separate. This verb is found five times in P (Num. 6.2,3,5,6, 8) and once in Ezekiel (14.7). It is not found elsewhere in the HB.80 Numbers 6 contains the laws concerning Nazirites. As described in P and elsewhere, Nazirites are holy people who have taken a vow to separate themselves to Yahweh (miT "? Tin1?).81 This vow includes abstinence from fermented drink and even the grape, a restriction against the shaving of the head and a restriction against contact with corpses, even accidentally. Whereas P uses "IT] with the understanding of separating oneself from various practices (and implicitly from the rest of the population) and to Yahweh, in Ezekiel the verb describes separating oneself (i.e. the house of Israel and resident aliens) from Yahweh through idolatry and to the practices and beliefs of the other nations. 7.6 n^IîQ'TÛ—From Above. This term is found eight times in P (Exod. 25.21; 26.14; 36.19; 39.31; 40.19, 20; Num. 4.6, 25) and once in Ezekiel (1.11). It also occurs in 1 Kgs 7.11, 25; 8.7. In P, nblfà^Û describe the location of the mSQ on top of the Ark, and the coverings of leather and other fine fabrics placed over the Tent of Meeting. In Ezekiel, n^UQ^U refers to the faces and wings of the cherubim. Various commentators note the similarity between the description in Ezek. 1.11 of creatures with 'wings spread out from above' (niTIS DÎTS3D1 nbtfD'TD) and that of the cherubim in Exod. 25.20.82 79. The infinitive ] !"O ^ without "* b occurs six additional times in P (Exod. 31.10; 35.19; 39.41; Lev. 7.35; 16.32; Num. 3.3) only in connection with Aaronide priests. 80. The verb also occurs in Lev. 22.2 (usually translated 'deal carefully' or 'be scrupulous') and in Hos. 9.10, where the meaning does not seem to be associated with separation. 81. SeeJudg. 13.4-7; 1 Sam. 1.11; Amos 2.11-12. The verb'to separate'does not occur in any of these passages. 82. See Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, p. 127.

54

A New Heart and a New Soul

In 1 Kings, il^Q^Q is used three times: twice in connection with Solomon's palace (1 Kgs 7.11,25) and once in connection with the Ark. 1 Kgs 8.7, a verse recalling Exod. 25.20, describes the cherubim as 'spreading out their wings over the place of the ark so that the cherubim covered the ark and its poles from above [nbUU^Q]'. 7.7 PPD&Q—Carved Image. This term occurs twice in P (Lev. 26.1; Num. 33.52) and once in Ezekiel (8.12). In this sense, it is not found elsewhere intheHB.83 rPD&Q is a cultic term usually understood as a carved idol.84 In Lev. 26.1 and Num. 33.52, JTDtoQ pfc is associated with high places as well as D'T *?N, *?DS and rQHQ. Similarly, in Num. 33.52 the term appears alongside graven images and high places in a list of Canaanite practices that must be removed from the land, along with their devotees, once the Israelites return from the wilderness. In Ezekiel, the prophet is transported to Jerusalem, where he sees the elders of Israel in a room full of wall carvings of creeping things, animals and 'all the idols of the house of Israel' (Ezek. 8.10). This room is then described as rrafoD Tin (Ezek. 8.12). 7.8 nSD—Span/Hand's-Breadth. This term occurs twice in P (Exod. 25.25; 37.12) and three times in Ezekiel (40.5,43; 43.13). It does not occur elsewhere in the HB.85 In P, PISC3 appears twice in the descriptions of the table of the Tabernacle, whose frame is a hand's-breadth wide (TDD PlSb maDID). Ezekiel's measurement of the restored Temple also uses the unit PISCD. Ezekiel explains twice that the cubit used in his measurement consists of an ordinary cubit plus a hand's-breadth (HSCDl HUN).86 As in P, the nSD measures the tables of the Temple (Ezek. 40.43).

83. In Ps. 73.7; Prov. 18.11 ; 25.11 the term occurs with a different meaning. 84. See LXX; Targ. Onq.\ Targ. Ps.-J. 85. Cf. 1 Kgs 7.26//2 Chron. 4.5 (OSCD) of the thickness of the molten sea; the plural mnSCD occurs in 1 Kgs 7.9; Ps. 39.6. 86. Zimmerli suggests, based on this information and the expression rt"TÛ!l DIQN n]1t£JN"in (2 Chron. 3.3), that there were two cubits in the ancient Near East, and that Ezekiel is concerned here with clarifying the particular standard that he is employing. See Ezekiel 2 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), p. 349.

3. Ezekiel and the Priestly Source Reconsidered

55

7.9 ''tiTTpQ—My Sanctuary. This expression occurs 3 times in P (Lev. 19.30; 20.3; 26.2) and 15 times in Ezekiel (5.11; 8.6; 9.6; 23.38,39; 24.21; 25.3; 37.26, 28; 44.7, 8, 9, 11, 15, 16). It is also found in Isa. 60.13. In P, ''lETIpQ refers to the sacred precincts within the Tabernacle designated as belonging to Yahweh. The expression 'my Sanctuary' appears in two contexts. In Lev. 19.30 and 26.2, reverence for Yahweh's Sanctuary is commanded alongside observance of the Sabbath. And in Lev. 20.3 the Israelites are warned against the Molech sacrifice, by which they defile (NQCD) Yahweh's Sanctuary and profane his holy name. Ezekiel repeatedly accuses Israel of defiling Yahweh's Sanctuary. In Ezek. 23.38, the people are castigated for defiling Yahweh's Sanctuary Cenpu) on the very same day that they desecrated the Sabbath (TTiratti).87 In addition, there are seven occurrences of "'ETTpQ alongside terms connoting ritual uncleanliness (^n, rTDUin, 17QÛ). The prophet also mentions Yahweh's Sanctuary in more favorable contexts. It shall be 'eternally in the midst of the people' (Ezek. 37.26, 28), a product of Yahweh's Covenant of Peace with Israel and a sign to the foreign nations of Israel's holiness.88 In Ezek. 44.9 foreigners are denied access to Yahweh's Sanctuary, and in Ezek. 44.15-16 the Zadokites are described as performing the duties of 'my Sanctuary'.89 7.10 niPP] IT")—Pleasing Odor. This expression occurs 33 times in P (Exod. 29.18, 25, 41; Lev. 1.9, 13, 17; 2.2, 9, 12; 3.5, 16; 4.31; 6.8, 14; 8.21, 28; 17.6; 23.13, 18; Num. 15.7, 10, 13, 14; 18.17; 28.6, 8, 24, 27; 29.2, 6, 8,13, 36) and4 times in Ezekiel (6.13; 16.19; 20.28,41). It is also found in Gen. 8.20-21 (J).90 P calls various sacrifices mrn IT"1: the burnt offering the offering of well-being, the grain offering, the libation offering and the purification offering. Apparently, the Priestly Writer conceived of sacrificial offerings as literally sniffed by Yahweh, much as we find in other ancient literature. In Ezekiel, the expression is confined, with one exception, to descriptions of pagan practices. In Ezek. 6.13, those who turned away from 87. The expression 'my Sabbaths' (TTirQEJ) also occurs in Lev. 19.30. See section 6.3, p. 49, for further discussion of this expression. 88. For a discussion of this expression see section 2.3, p. 36. 89. For a discussion of this expression see section 7.9, p. 55. 90. Here niT]n iT~l. For the image of Yahweh 'smelling' the odor of sacrifices see Deut. 33.10; 1 Sam. 26.19; Amos 5.21. See, for example, the Babylonian Flood Story and Noah in Gen. 8.20-21 (J). Also Homer, Iliad 1.66-67.

56

A New Heart and a New Soul

Yahweh are described as 'offering pleasing odor to all their idols' (!T""1 DÎT bl^ ^Db mm).91 Similarly in Ezek. 16.19, Jerusalem, the faithless bride, is described as offering choice flour, oil and honey to male images as a 'pleasing odor'. In Ezek. 20.28, the worship of other gods by offering 'pleasing odors' is described as a practice initiated by Israel's ancestors immediately upon their occupation of the land.92 Ezekiel's sole use of this expression associated with worship of Yahweh is 20.41. Here, the future redemption of Israel is described metaphorically as Yahweh's acceptance of a 'pleasing odor' (DDHN iliPN I"!IT] !T"Q).93 8. Ritual 8.1 D^OP—Whole, Sound, without Blemish. This term is found four times in P (Exod. 29.1; Lev. 9.2, 3; 23.18) and four times in Ezekiel (43.25; 45.23; 46.4,6). It is also found in R (Num. 28.3,9,11,19,31; 29.2, 8,13, 17, 20,23, 26, 29, 32, 36), Ps. 37.18 and Prov. 1.12; 2.21; 28.10. In P, Ezekiel and R, the plural D^QH describes sacrificial animals. In Psalms and Proverbs, however, it never describes the ritual state of animals, but rather the moral state of humans.94 In Prov. 1.12, the association of this term with the action of swallowing suggests it is understood as 'whole' or 'complete'. 8.2 D^nn/Oin—Fine Leather. This term occurs eleven times in P (Exod. 25.5; 26.14; 35.23; 36.19; 39.34; Num. 4.6, 8,10,12,14,25) and once in Ezekiel (16.10). It does not occur elsewhere in the HB. The term O1H may be related to Assyrian tahsu and Egyptian ths, both denoting a kind of leather or skin and perhaps the animal itself.95 91. The altars used for these offering are described in the same verse, using the Deuteronomistic formula concerning worship at high places 'under every green tree and under every leafy oak'. Cf. Deut. 12.2; 1 Kgs 14.23; 2 Kgs 16.4; 17.10; Jer. 2.20; 3.6, 13. 92. Note again in this verse the allusion to this practice as taking place on 'any high hill or any leafy tree'. 93. Hurvitz notes that this image differs notably from the literal cultic meaning elsewhere in Ezekiel and in P (Linguistic Study, p. 57). 94. Cf. the description of Noah in Gen. 6.9 and Yahweh's instructions to Abram in Gen. 17.1 (both P). Here, P's notion of the blameless or righteous individual is conveyed with the singular adjective D^QH. 95. See BOB, p. 1065 and Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, p. 341; P.M. Cross, 'The Tabernacle: A Study from an Archaeological and Historical Approach', BA 10 (1947), pp. 45-68 (62).

3. Ezekiel and the Priestly Source Reconsidered

57

Greenberg, however, cites H. Tadmor's suggestion that Ô1H is cognate to Akkadian dusu/duhsu, a color corresponding to the dusu-stone, a gem.96 In P, this term appears, usually with 'skin' (IIU), to describe a type of leather used to cover the Tent, the Ark, the table, the menorah and various holy utensils. In Ezekiel 16, D^nn/Ôin describes the sandals with which Yahweh shoes his bride, Jerusalem.97 8.3 №№—Fine Linen. This term is found 27 times in P (Exod. 26.31, 36; 27.9,16,18; 28.5,6,8,15,39; 35.6,23,25,35; 36.8,16,35; 38.9,16,18; 39.2,3,5,8,27,28,29) and 3 times in Ezekiel (16.10,13 [Qere]; 27.7). It is also found in Gen. 41.42 (E) and Prov. 31.22. Vft} appears frequently and exclusively in the Priestly description of the fabrics used for the Tent and the priests' clothing. The fabric may indeed have been imported from Egypt.98 Zimmerli suggests that it is related to Egyptian ss," a linen used for clothing and for binding mummies.100 Ezekiel 16 twice mentions №№ as one of the items with which Yahweh clothes his bride Jerusalem. As noted above, several of these items are also found in P's description of the Tabernacle.101 The fabric is mentioned once more in Ezek. 27.7 as the material used for the sails of the ship Tyre.102 8.4 ]Q;nK1 n^n—Blue and Purple. These two colors appear together 20 times inP (Exod. 25.4; 26.1,31,36; 27.16; 28.6,8,15,33; 35.6,23; 36.8, 35, 37; 38.18; 39.2, 5, 8, 24, 29) and once in Ezekiel (27.7). They also appear together in Jer. 10.9 and 2 Chron. 3.14. P lists blue, purple and crimson yarns exclusively as materials used for the Tabernacle: specifically, the curtain surrounding the Ark, the screen 96. See M. Greenberg, Ezekiel 1-20 (AB, 22; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983), p. 278. 97. Cf. the "III? mira with which Yahweh clothes Adam and Eve in Gen. 3.21 (J). 98. Cf. Ezek. 27.7. 99. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, p. 341 ; Ezekiel 2, p. 57. 100. The synonym in LBH is p3. Hurvitz notes here that P uses the term V№ exclusively. The fact that the later term pD is nowhere to be found in P but predominates in all biblical and non-biblical post-classical sources suggests to him that P can be dated to the classical period ('Use of IDE? and p3', pp. 117-21). 101. It is possible that both texts list these items to suggest that only the best materials were used. 102. In Gen. 41.42, this term describes the material of Joseph's coat. In Prov. 31.22, it describes fine purple clothing of women.

58

A New Heart and a New Soul

for the entrance of the tent, the priest's ephod and breastpiece, and the curtains of the Tabernacle. In Ezekiel, the colors blue and purple (without P's crimson) are found only in ch. 27, which describes the ship Tyre. The coverings or awnings of the ship's cabins are said to be made from 'blue and purple from the coast ofElisha'.103 8.5 D^tiTlpn/Ehp—Planks. This term occurs over fifty times in P104 and once in Ezekiel (27.6). It does not occur elsewhere in the HB.105 P uses D^Ehp exclusively to describe the long wooden acacia planks or frames with which the Tabernacle was constructed.106 In Ezekiel, Chp appears to connote some type of plank or deck on the Tyrian ship. It is possible that the prophet intends an explicit comparison between Tyre and the Tabernacle. But it is more likely that he is simply indicating that the metaphorical ship was constructed of the very best materials.107 As in Ezekiel 16, the prophet chooses to describe 'the best of everything' in terms of components of P's Tabernacle. 8.6 D^ETTpn/Enpn HQlin—Holy Elevation Offering. This expression is found once in P (Num. 18.19) and five times in Ezekiel (45.6,7; 48.18,20, 21). It is not found elsewhere in the HB. In P, this expression exclusively describes the portion of the Israelites' offerings reserved for the priests and their families. According to Num. 18.18-19, while the blood of an animal offering is thrown onto the altar and its fat burned there, the flesh of the offering may be eaten by the priests and their families. Since according to P, the tribe of Levi receives no land inheritance, they are supported by the offerings brought to the Tabernacle.108 103. See Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, p. 58, for information regarding the construction of the ship and identification of the term 'Elisha'. See also W.H. Schoff, The Ship 'Tyre '; a Symbol of the Fate of Conquerors as Prophesied by Isaiah, Ezekiel and John and Fulfilled at Nineveh, Babylon and Rome; A Study in the Commerce of the Bible (New York: Longmans, 1920); S. Smith, 'The Ship Tyre',P££> 85 (1953), pp. 97-110. 104. See especially Exod. 26; 36; 39.33; 40.18; Num. 3.36; 4.31. 105. In Ugaritic, qrs describes El's tent, presumably by metonymy. 106. See Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, p. 57; Friedman, 'Tabernacle', ABD, VI, p. 295. 107. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, p. 57. 108. Elsewhere it is evident that the priests and their families are permitted to eat of the elevation offerings (Lev. 7.28-36), offerings of first fruits (Num. 15.17-21) and items that have been offered as food of devotion (Lev. 27.26-27).

3. Ezekiel and the Priestly Source Reconsidered

59

In Ezekiel, the ETFpn PuTin is the portion of land set aside as a consecrated sector in Ezekiel's restoration plan. This district is to house the Sanctuary, the priests who attend to its maintenance and the rest of the Lévites. 8.7 D"lI?n-"TI7—Until the Evening. This expression occurs 26 times in P (Lev. 11.31,32,39,40; 14.46; 15.5,6, 7, 8,10,11,16,17,18,19,21,22, 23,27; 17.15; 22.6; Num. 19.7, 8, 10,21,22) and once in Ezekiel (46.2). It also occurs in Exod. 18.13, 14 (E); Josh. 10.26; Judg. 20.26; 2 Sam. 1.12; Ruth 2.17 and 2 Chron. 18.34. In P, mun-II? denotes the period of time between contamination and purification for an Israelite who has come into contact with something deemed to be impure or an abomination. The arrival of the evening signifies the conclusion of impurity. In Ezekiel, 3"li?n-li7 refers to the period of time when the gate of the inner court of Ezekiel's temple will remain open: on the Sabbath and on the day of the new moon so that the Prince and the people can worship before Yahweh. 8.8 PiTiS—Fringe. This term occurs twice in P (Num. 15.38,39) and once in Ezekiel (8.3). It is not found elsewhere in the HB. In P, the Israelites are commanded by Yahweh to make a PiTU on the corners of their garments and to put a blue cord on the fringe of each corner. These tassels are to serve as visual reminders of Yahweh's commandments. It is unclear whether this is simply a reinterpretation of an earlier practice of wearing fringes or whether the custom was initiated by P. In Ezekiel 8, a being appears to the prophet and transports him to Jerusalem to view the state of the city. In order to do this the being grabs the prophet ntàn PiTiC 'by the fringes of my head'.109 PITH in this context refers to a lock of the prophet's hair and not to an article of his clothing. S^PRun 1 ? "pn-p "!S/PKBnn IS—Bull/Bull oj'the Herd as a Purification Offering. This expression occurs ten times in P (Exod. 29.36; Lev. 4.8,14, 20; 8.2,14; 16.3, 6,11,27) and three times in Ezekiel (43.19,21; 45.22). It is not found elsewhere in the HB.

109. Note Arabic cognate 'hair on forehead' (BDB, p. 851).

60

A New Heart and a New Soul

The n^DPI is a purificatory offering of an ox ("153) performed by an individual after incurring severe physical impurity or after having inadvertently committed a sin. It is also performed to purify the Sanctuary on Yom Kippur (Exod. 29.36), by Nazirites in completion of their vows (Num. 6) and at the installation of a new altar (Lev. 8).110 The traditional rendering as a 'sin offering' is somewhat misleading, since it is often performed where no sin has been committed. In Ezekiel 43, the prophet, like Moses in P, receives instructions from Yahweh regarding the altar of the future Temple. The dedication of this altar is performed, as in P, with the purification offering of a "IS.111 While some of the rituals correspond to P, there are also several differences.112 However, in both sources the ceremony is concluded with the burning of the animal, r^PID1? pno ^ 'outside of the camp' in P (Lev. 4.12, 21; 8.17; 9.11; 16.27) and tfhpQ1? finu 'outside the Sanctuary' in Ezekiel (43.21). The nNDn IS is mentioned again in Ezek. 45.22 in connection with the Passover. On the first day of the festival the Prince is to perform this offering on behalf of 'all the people of the land'. This ceremony corresponds to Ezekiel's altar initiation purification offering. The association of the HNBnn "IS and the Passover festival is a concept foreign to P. 8.10 p-ra n]nK/rQ/nSW]TNQ—Honest Scale, Weights, Ephah. These expressions are found once in P (Lev. 19.36) and once in Ezekiel (45.10). They do not occur elsewhere in the HB. Both P and Ezekiel require a fair and correct system of measurement. The falsification of balances and weights on the part of merchants is condemned in several biblical texts113 and must have been a prevalent practice in the marketplace. 8.11 rano—Griddle, rnno is found three times in P (Lev. 2.5; 6.14; 7.9) and once in Ezekiel (4.3). It is also found in 1 Chron. 23.29. 110. For a detailed discussion of the DNttn offering, see G. Anderson, 'Sacrifice and Sacrificial Offering (Old Testament)', ABD, V, pp. 870-86; Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, pp. 253-91. 111. For altar dedications in P, see Exod. 29.36-37; Lev. 8; 16.18-33. 112. For a detailed comparison, see Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, pp. 433-34; Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, pp. 282. 113. SeeDeut. 25.13-16; Amos 8.5; Hos. 12.8; Mic. 6.10-11; Prov. 11.1; 16.11; 20.10.

3. Ezekiel and the Priestly Source Reconsidered

61

The rnriD, a pan or griddle, is a flat cooking utensil mentioned in P's description of cereal offerings. In Ezek. 4.3, the prophet is instructed to sketch the city of Jerusalem into a clay brick. He is then instructed to lay symbolic siege to the city by placing an 'iron griddle' ("?T"U rnriQ) between himself and the inscribed brick. The PQriQ described in 1 Chron. 23.29 is used, as in P, in connection with cereal offerings. 8.12 HS]liQ—Turban. flSHQ occurs eight times in P (Exod. 28.4, 37, 39; 29.6; 39.28,31; Lev. 8.9; 16.4) and once in Ezekiel (21.31). It is not found elsewhere in the HB. In P, the P2]i£Q is a part of the priestly vestments to be worn by Aaron and his sons. The headpiece consisted of a rosette of pure gold with an engraving, niPP1? KTIp 'Holy to Yahweh', fastened to the HSDiîQ with a blue cord. The turban itself was to be made of fine linen.114 In Ezekiel, the PSD HE is mentioned as an article of clothing belonging to the Prince of Israel. Its removal is commanded by Yahweh in the face of the arrival of the Babylonian king. Thus it symbolizes the prince's royal power.115 8.13 m-^m—Coals of Fire, m-^m occurs once in P (Lev. 16.12) and once in Ezekiel (10.2). It is also found in 2 Sam. 22.13 and Ps. 18.13, 14> ii6 In P, Aaron is instructed to take a pan full of fiery coals from the altar as a part of the ritual of the purification offering on Yom Kippur. In Ezek. 10.2, the prophet is instructed to take a handful of coals from 'under the cherubim'117 and scatter them over the city of Jerusalem, symbolically sealing the fate of the city.118 The hymn of praise found in 2 Sam. 22//Ps. 18 describes EJK-"1 *TD flaming brightly in the darkness surrounding Yahweh. 114. See Isa. 3.23; Zech. 3.5 for description of a ^Dli, a similar type of headdress. 115. M. Noth, who puts P after Ezekiel, suggests that the turban was originally a royal adornment that was later incorporated into the vestment of the high priest ('Office and Vocation in the Old Testament', in idem, The Laws in the Pentateuch and Other Studies [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967], pp. 235-36). 116. Ps. 18.14 CJK-' bm does not occur in LXX or 2 Sam. 22. 117. Zimmerli suggests that this refers to the burning coals located between the creatures of the throne vision in Ezek. 1.13 (Ezekiel 1, p. 250). 118. Cf. Gen. 19.24 (Sodom and Gomorrah).

62

A New Heart and a New Soul

8.14 D3S in~)N—Four Corners (of the Altar). This expression is found twice in P (Exod. 27.2; 38.2) and once in Ezekiel (45.19). It is also found in 1 Kgs 7.34. In P, the Tabernacle altar for the burnt offering is described as having horns (ft13"lp) projecting from each of its four corners (ÏTOB ID"1R). Ezekiel's temple restoration plan contains a description of offerings to be made by the Prince on specific festivals. 'In the first month on the first of the month' the Sanctuary is to be cleansed. The blood of an unblemished bull is to be taken by the priest and spread on the doorposts of the temple and the four corners of the ledge of the altar (m3S m"lK mtu1? mTITl). This act of ritual cleansing parallels Leviticus 1 and 3, where the priest throws blood around the altar (TDD rDTQil-1^) before performing the burnt offering or the offering of well-being. In both texts, it is the priest who throws blood on the altar, although in P the exact destination of this blood is not specified. In Ezekiel, no offering takes place after the blood is thrown. In 1 Kgs 7.34, HIDS in~lN is mentioned in connection with the construction of Solomon's palace. It does not describe the corners of an altar. 9. Humans, Animals and Plants 9.1 ins—Locks (of Hair), ms occurs three times in P (Lev. 10.6; 13.45; Num. 6.5) and once in Ezekiel (44.20). It is also found with a different meaning in Deut. 32.42 and Judg. 5.2. P mentions in S in connection with the Nazirite laws (Num. 6). As a part of the restrictions placed upon Nazirites, they are forbidden to cut their hair and are required to let the locks of hair on their head grow (ins *?i: ICfcn -|I7C?). ins is also used as a verb associated with mourning practices in Lev. 10.6, where Moses prevents Aaron and his sons from mourning for Nadab and Abihu. They are told not to tear their clothing or dishevel (?) their heads (linsn *?N DD1^"!). The verb ins occurs again in the laws concerning leprosy, where a leprous individual is instructed to seclude himself, wear torn clothes and dishevel his head as long as he has the disease (Lev. 13.45). In Lev. 21.10, the high priest is not permitted to dishevel his head(inST K^ltôTI). In Ezekiel, Zadokite priests are not permitted to shave their heads or to let their hair fall loosely (in ^2T N ^ msi). Rather, their hair must be trimmed. 9.2 2JK"!.. .nip—Bald...Head. These two terms appear together twice in P (Lev. 13.40; 21.5) and twice in Ezekiel (7.18; 29.18). They do not appear together elsewhere in the HB.

3. Ezekiel and the Priestly Source Reconsidered

63

As a result of their special status, priests in P are prevented from ritually defiling themselves through contact with corpses, save for immediate family members. They are also prevented from shaving their heads (nmp'1-N1? D2JR"n nmp) and from mutilating their bodies, both common mourning practices in antiquity.119 Naturally occurring baldness, however, is not, in and of itself, a sign of disease or defilement (Lev. 13.40).120 In Ezek. 7.18, shaving one's head bald is associated with dressing in sackcloth during mourning. In Ezek. 29.18, the Babylonian siege of Tyre is described as having the following effect on the city's inhabitants: 'every head has been shaved bald' (mpQ t^l-^D).121 9.3 DIN U^y—Human Bone. This expression is found once in P (Num. 19.16) and once in Ezekiel (39.15). It is not found elsewhere in the HB. In Num. 19.16, accidental contact with human bones is considered to be as defiling as contact with a corpse or a grave and requires a seven-day ceremonial cleansing period. In Ezekiel, DTK DHI? describes the remains of the defeated armies of Gog, whose collection and burial will take seven months for the Israelites to complete. 9.4 Q"TN tEti—Person. DIN EJB3 occurs seven times in P (Lev. 24.17; Num. 9.6, 7; 19.11; 31.35,40,46) and once in Ezekiel (27.13). It is found elsewhere only in 1 Chron. 5.21. In P, D"TN I25S33 refers to a person either living (Num. 31.35, 40, 46) or dead (Num. 9.6,7; 19.11). In Ezekiel, the expression is used in connection with the Tyrian ship. DIN 2JS3, a collective often translated 'slaves',122 is mentioned alongside 'bronze vessels' as a commodity traded in exchange for Tyrian merchandise. Similarly, in 1 Chron. 5.21 DIN 2JBD describes human prisoners captured by the Transjordanian tribes while fighting against their neighbors. 9.5 ED"!—Creep. ton occurs 16 times in P (Gen. 1.24, 25, 26[x2]; 6.7, 20; 7.8, 14[x2], 21, 23; 8.17[x2], 19; 9.3; Lev. 11.44) and 3 times in

119. SeeDeut. 14.1; Isa. 22.12; Jer. 16.6; Amos 8.10; Mic. 1.16. 120. See 2 Kgs 2.23, however, where baldness is associated with ridicule. 121. Elsewhere in Ezekiel HCDT1Û is used in connection with the polishing of a sword (Ezek. 21.14-16). However, the relationship between cranial baldness and bare or bruised shoulders is unclear in this context. 122. For example, Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, p. 47.

64

A New Heart and a New Soul

Ezekiel (8.10; 38.20[x2]). It is also found in Deut. 4.18; 1 Kgs 5.13; Hos. 2.20; Hab. 1.14; Ps. 69.35; 148.10; cf. 104.20. toi and E0"l in P respectively denote the action of creeping and the group of animals (insects and reptiles) who move in this manner. Creeping things are always differentiated in P from other animals (Hum) and birds (*]№). In Lev. 11.44, the Israelites are warned against defiling themselves with 'any swarming creature that creeps on the earth' (fHRn-1?!? &D~in

pan-tan). Here, the action of creeping is associated with pttf, a term used frequently in P to describe fish, flying insects and creeping insects.123 In Ezekiel, £O~1 is also used as both a verb and a noun and appears to denote the same category of creeping creatures. In Ezek. 38.20, they are listed alongside D^n n n, 124 D n QOl *]1U125 and men !Tn126 as creatures that will quake at the presence of Yahweh. In Ezek. 8.10, after the prophet has been transported in a vision to Jerusalem, he is brought to the inner courtyard of the Temple, where he sees a wall etched with 'creeping things and loathsome animals and all the idols of the House of Israel' (HQrQl O3"l 'Jtrifcr rra '^a-tal fpra). Like P, Ezekiel differentiates between ton and nûrQ, and associates (Oui with j*ptt).127 Conceptually, however, this verse is much closer to Deut. 4.18, where Moses prohibits the Israelites from worshiping HDl^H O2"l-ta rT]2n 'images of all creeping things on the ground'.128 9.6 ITp")—Firmament. This term occurs six times in P (Gen. 1.6,7, 8,14, 15,17) and five times in Ezekiel (1.22,23,25,26; 10.1). It is also found in Ps. 19.2; 150.1 and Dan. 12.3. iTp"), from J)p~l 'to stamp' or 'beat', is used in P to describe the expanse of sky that separates the heaven from the earth, created by Yahweh on the second day of Creation. The term is not used in P outside of Genesis 1. In Ezekiel, JPp"l describes the expanse located over the heads of the living creatures seen by the prophet in his inaugural vision (Ezek. 1). This 123. Elsewhere found only in Deut. 14.19 (regarding birds) and Ps. 105.30. 124. Found elsewhere in Gen. 9.2; Num. 11.22; Hos. 4.3; Hab. 1.14; Zeph. 1.3; Ps. 8.9; Job 12.8.

125. Found elsewhere in Deut. 28.26; 1 Sam. 17.44,46; 2 Sam. 21.10; 1 Kgs 14.11; 16.4; 21.24; Jer. 4.25; 7.33; 9.9; 15.3; 16.4; 19.7; 34.20; Ezek. 29.5; 31.6, 13; 32.4; Hos. 2.20; 4.3; 7.12; Zeph. 1.3, but not used in 126. Found 29 times throughout the HB, but used by P only in Lev. 26.22. 127. See Lev. 11; Ezek. 5.11; 7.20. 128. See Chapter 4, section 14, p. 91.

3. Ezekiel and the Priestly Source Reconsidered

65

ITp-] shines like crystal (ice?) (mpn j'ID irpl). Later in this vision the prophet sees Yahweh enthroned above the ITp"). 9.7 mcn ''DS br—Over #ze Open F/e&/. This expression occurs four times in P (Lev. 14.7, 53; 17.5; Num. 19.16) and five times in Ezekiel (16.5; 29.5; 32.4; 33.27; 39.5). It is also found in 1 Sam. 14.25; 2 Sam. 11.11; 2 Kgs 9.37 and 1er. 9.21. In P, rnton ''DS- ^tf is used in connection with various cleansing rites and describes an uninhabited area beyond the Israelite camp. It is to such a place that a living bird is released during purification rites for a leper and his household, symbolically carrying away impurity (Lev. 14.7, 53). The expression is also used where the tradition of local sacrifice is modified to require that all sacrifices be brought to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. One may no longer sacrifice in the open field, an act tantamount to demonworship and to incurring ritual impurity (Lev. 17.5; Num. 19.16). In Ezekiel, mfon "^B- *?I? symbolically describes Yahweh's abandonment of various characters, including the allegorical wife Jerusalem, Pharaoh and the leaders of Magog. In each incident these individuals are thrown to the open field to fend for themselves against Yahweh's wrath. As with P, mton ^S-^U seems to describe a location outside of inhabited areas. 9.8 ]]r...n2)p—Rainbow. This expression occurs three times in P (Gen. 9.13, 14, 16) and once in Ezekiel (1.28). It is not found elsewhere in the HB. pin H£p is used in P when Yahweh places 'a bow in the clouds' at the conclusion of the Flood narrative. P explains this natural phenomenon after a rain as the sign of the 'eternal covenant' (D^li? JT""Q) between Yahweh and all the living creatures of the earth. Ezekiel describes the appearance of splendid light 'like the bow in a cloud on a rainy day' (DCÉin DVD j]in H2pn !"[N"1UD), which he associates with the glory of Yahweh (HIPP-TOD).129 All other references to DEJp in the HB refer to a warrior's weapon. 9.9 !"[iM3—Feather/Plumage.This term is found once in P (Lev. 1.16) and twice in Ezekiel (17.3, 7). It appears also in Job 39.13. In P, the HiJ13 of a turtledove or pigeon is removed in preparation for burnt offering.130 Ezekiel describes the allegorical eagles as having 129. Ezekiel is familiar with Noah (14.14). 130. The instruction that the priest remove the bird's 'crop with its feathers' (nnH33

66

A New Heart and a New Soul

'plumage of many colors' (!"IQp~in l'vntDK HiJIDn) and 'much plumage' (HiTID-in) respectively. 9.10 HT! C3B3 ^3/ÎTTl tDBD—Living Beings. This expression occurs ten times in P (Gen. 1.20, 21, 24, 30; 9.10, 12, 15, 16; Lev. 11.10, 46) and once in Ezekiel (47.9). It also occurs in Gen. 2.7, 19. rpn 2®3 is used by P in two different ways. In Gen. 1.30, after various kinds of animals are fed and named, they are collectively described as 'everything that has the breath of life' (HTI CJBD "Q-10N). Everywhere else in P, however, iTTl ÎZJS3 describes the living beings themselves, whether animals (Gen. 9.10, 12, 15; Lev. 11.10, 46) or animals and humans together (Gen. 9.16).131 Thus rrn C3B3 can describe both living beings (human and animal) as well as the force that gives them life (synecdoche). Ezekiel uses PIT! EJS3 in a similar context when he describes the sacred river flowing from his Temple (47.9). Wherever the river flows 'all living beings that swarm' (pET ~\m rrn tàSU-^D) will live.132 9.11 spD-^D TlSiJ ^73—Every Bird, Every Winged Creature. This expression occurs once in P (Gen. 7.14) and once in Ezekiel (17.23). It does not occur elsewhere in the HB. frpD-^D ~nsi£ ^D is used in a detailed list of all the animals who ente Noah's ark in P's flood narrative.133 This particular expression is absent, however, in the two additional lists of animals found in this narrative (Gen. 7.21; 8.19). In Ezekiel's allegory of the cedar this same expression describes the birds who will nest in the shady branches of the tree. 10. Miscellaneous 10.1 pW/TlpW—Groan. This term is found twice in P (Exod. 2.24; 6.5) and once in Ezekiel (30.24). It is also found in Judg. 2.18 and Job 24.12. In both occurrences in P DN3 describes the sound the Israelites utter to

inNIU-nN TOIT!) is difficult to understand. The hapax nK"IQ is variously understoo as 'crop', 'tail' or 'crissum'. Similarly there is some confusion regarding Hi£13, which is rendered as either 'feathers' (from Akkadian nasu) or 'excrement' (from Hebrew nKU in Isa. 4.4). See Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, pp. 169-71. 131. J uses the expression of humans in Gen. 2.7 and of animals in Gen. 2.19. 132. Puses rrn BSD with pe) in Gen. 1.20, 21; Lev. 11.10,46. 133. The expression is missing in the LXX.

3. Ezekiel and the Priestly Source Reconsidered

67

express their pain while in bondage in Egypt. Yahweh hears their cry and remembers his covenant with the Patriarchs. In Ezekiel, the situation is reversed. Pharaoh of Egypt groans under the weight of the king of Babylon.134 10.2 "pSD mi—Ruling with Harshness. The phrase 'to rule with harshness' is found three times in P (Lev. 25.43, 46, 53) and once in Ezekiel (34.4). It is not found elsewhere in the HB. In P, all three references concern the mistreatment of fellow Israelites whose circumstances lead them into slavery. In Ezekiel, Yahweh charges that, among their other sins, the Israelites have ruled over the underprivileged with harshness. 10.3 ND-IUQtf}—Hear Now! This expression is found twice in P (Num. 16.8; 20.10) and once in Ezekiel (18.25). It is not found elsewhere in the HB. Both occurrences in P are in stories of rebellion. In Num. 16.8, Moses rebukes Korah and his company after they have accused Moses and Aaron of exalting themselves above the rest of the people: 'Hear now, you Lévites! Is it too little for you that the God of Israel has separated you from the congregation of Israel, to allow you to approach him to perform the duties of Yahweh's Tabernacle, and to stand before the congregation to serve them?' In Num. 20.10, Moses castigates the people at Meribah: 'Hear now, you rebels, shall we bring water for you out of this rock?' Both of these statements are followed by a rhetorical question. In Ezek. 18.25, Yahweh addresses the people: 'Yet you say, "The way of Yahweh is unfair". Hear now, O House of Israel: Is my way unfair? Is it not your ways that are unfair?' Again, the expression precedes a rhetorical question. 10.4 CDHltOT nnn—Under the Staff. This expression is found once in P (Lev. 27.32) and once in Ezekiel (20.37). It is not found elsewhere in the HB. In Lev. 27.32, the tithe of livestock dedicated to Yahweh 'pass under the staff to be counted.135 In Ezek. 20.37, the Israelites will be made to 'pass 134. In Judg. 2.18, the term is used in reference to the Israelites. As in P, Yahweh is moved to designate a savior for the pained people. 135. Jer. 33.13 similarly states of the restoration, 'flocks shall again pass under the hands of the one who counts them' (!"[]1Q "H"-1?!? ]NiJrT n]~QUn). Jeremiah seems to refer to the same procedure but does not utilize the Priestly terminology.

68

A New Heart and a New Soul

under the staff in order to enter into a new covenant with Yahweh. Some will be accepted while others will be rejected.136 10.5 into1?—Until Satisfied.This term is found twice in P (Exod. 16.3; Lev. 26.26) and twice in Ezekiel (39.19,20). It is also found in Hos. 4.10; Amos 4.6-8 and Mie. 6.14.137 In P, into1? refers to satiation with bread. In Exod. 16.3, the Israelites recall their slavery in Egypt as a time when they could eat their fill. In the second occurrence, as one of the penalties for disobedience to Yahweh, the Israelites will consume bread, but will never be filled or satisfied (Lev. 26.26). In Ezekiel, after Gog's defeat, birds and wild animals are invited to a sacrificial feast on the mountains of Israel. There they will eat flesh and drink blood until they are filled. 10.6 DPI ^-HIDD "Qto—Break Staff of Bread. This metaphor is found once in P (Lev. 26.26) and three times in Ezekiel (4.16; 5.16; 14.13). It also appears in Isa. 3.1 and Ps. 105.16. In both Lev. 26.26 and Ezekiel, breaking 'your staff of bread' appears to connote a food shortage. In both texts, Yahweh reacts to the people's disobedience. In Psalm 105, which recounts the momentous events surrounding the creation of Israel, Yahweh is described as summoning famine to Israel in the days of Joseph by breaking 'every staff of bread'. 10.7 "?pO2D Dn *?—Bread by Weight. This expression occurs once in P (Lev. 26.26) and once in Ezekiel (4.16). It is not found elsewhere in the HB. In both P and Ezekiel, the action of eating bread by weight (*?ptoQ3) seems to depict a situation of careful rationing due to shortage, as opposed to the normal methods of purchasing and consuming a cheap commodity. 10.8 DD^-m—Enoughl/You Have Gone Too Far! This idiom is found twice in P (Num. 16.3,7) and twice in Ezekiel (44.6; 45.9). It also appears inDeut. 1.6; 2.3 and 3.19. In P, both occurrences are found in the story of Korah. Korah charges Moses and Aaron D3^-3"l (Num. 16.3), and Moses responds with the same expression (16.7). 136. The parallel with P suggests a ratio of 1 : 10 of righteous to sinners. 137. See also Sefire 1, A: 21-24.

3. Ezekiel and the Priestly Source Reconsidered

69

Similarly in Ezekiel, DD ^-HH is associated with rebellion. It is uttered by Yahweh against the 'rebellious House of Israel' (44.6) and, later, against the former princes of Israel (45.9).138 The connection between P and Ezek. 44.6 is particularly striking, for here Ezekiel associates with past rebellious acts his announcement of new Temple ordinances. Both P and Ezekiel describe the profanation of the Sanctuary and then limit access to legitimate priests. In Num. 18.5, in response to Korah's behavior, it is required that only Aaronides attend to the Sanctuary and altar. Similarly, Ezek. 44.7-14 describes the exclusion of foreigners from serving in the Temple and the demotion of the Lévites from priests to Temple servants.139 10.9 PEC?1? DV nDÎD^ DV—A Day for a Year. This expression is found once in P (Num. 14.34) and once in Ezekiel (4.6). It is not found elsewhere in the HB. In P, as punishment for the complaints voiced in the beginning of Numbers 14, Yahweh adds 40 years to Israel's wanderings in the wilderness, a year for each day that the spies spent scouting out Canaan. In Ezekiel 4, the prophet is commanded by Yahweh to lie on his left side for 390 days, symbolizing the years of Israel's punishment.140 He is then instructed to lie on his right side and bear the punishment of Judah 'forty days, a day for a year, a day for a year'. Both texts calculate the term of punishment by the same formula. The punishment in P is 40 years, one for each day of spying. The punishment in Ezekiel is 40 years of exile. 138. Cf. S. L. Cooke, 'Innerbiblical Interpretation in Ezekiel 44', JBL 114 (1995), pp. 193-208. Cooke points out several linguistic similarities between Ezek. 44 and the conflict stories of Num. 16-18 and suggests that Ezek. 44 is in fact an 'interpretation' of the Numbers stories. 139. In Deut. 1.6 and 2.3, Yahweh decides that the Israelites have spent enough time (DD^-3"!) in Horeb and the hill country of Seir respectively, and instructs them to move onward. In Deut. 3.19, the phrase is used to refer to a large quantity of livestock. The context in P and Ezekiel is strikingly different. 140. The significance of 390 is unknown; LXX reads '190'. See Greenberg, Ezekiel 1-20 (AB, 22; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983), p. 106. Greenberg cites D.N. Freedman's observation that figures in the LXX bear a 'curious relationship' to the numbers in the Flood story: 40 days of rain and 150 days when the water 'prevailed over' the land. While this observation succeeds in accounting for the symbolism of both numbers, it does not explain the connection between the number 40 and the phrase in question in Num. 14.34.

70

A New Heart and a New Soul

10.10 ND j"p—An End Is Coming. This expression occurs once in P (Gen. 6.13) and twice in Ezekiel (7.2, 6). It is also found in Amos 8.2 and Lam. 4.18. In P, Yahweh speaks these words to Noah after deciding to bring on the Flood. He will put an 'end' to all flesh as a result of the violence that fills the earth. In Ezekiel, the expression is used twice in a vision describing the end of the world and its inhabitants. As in P, the end of the earth is to be brought about by Yahweh as a result of the lawlessness and wickedness of the people who inhabit it.141 10.11 rns HCDQ—Staff as Blooming. This image occurs twice in P (Num. 17.20, 23 [English 17.5, 8]) and once in Ezekiel (7.10). It is not found elsewhere in the HB. In Num. 17.20, 23, Aaron's rod sprouts almond buds, symbolizing the special status of the tribe of Levi, of which he is the leader. In Ezek. 7.10, however, the staff 'sprouts' pride and lawlessness. As Greenberg states, 'The use of these terms here appears as a grim parody of election.'142 Whether the wicked staff in Ezekiel symbolizes the tribe of Levi is questionable, but the irony is difficult to overlook. 10.12 |1U rTQÎÛ/TDTÛ—Reminder of Guilt. This concept appears once in P (Num. 5.15) and once in Ezekiel (29.16). It is not found elsewhere in the HB. In P, the husband of a woman suspected of adultery (sotah) presents an offering described as ]1I? n"OTQ. It is also called an 'offering of jealousy'. In Ezek. 29.16, the concept of guilt as remembrance appears in connection with Israel's foolish reliance upon the Egyptians for security: 'The Egyptians shall never again be the reliance of the house of Israel; they will recall their iniquity, when they turned to them for aid... '143 In an ironic twist, it is after the Egyptians have spent 40 years scattered among the

141. In Amos 8.3, the expression describes the 'end' of the people Israel OQ# "?N"IEr) specifically and not of the whole earth. In Lam. 4.18, the phrase occurs in first person plural and is spoken by the people concerning an event that seems already to have occurred. 142. Ezekiel 1-20, p. 149. 143. Cf. Ezek. 21.29 (English 21.23), which uses a similar expression in connection with the king of Babylon (DDIDTH in place of TDTÛ).

3. Ezekiel and the Priestly Source Reconsidered

11

foreign nations that they will no longer serve as a reminder of Israel's foolhardy reliance upon them for aid. 10.13 D" OU *7np—Assembly of Nations. This expression occurs three times in P (Gen. 28.3; 35.11; 48.4) and twice in Ezekiel (23.24; 32.3). It is not found elsewhere in the HB. In P, all occurrences relate to blessings and promises. In Gen. 28.3, Isaac wishes Jacob numerous offspring so that he may become an 'assembly of nations'. Likewise in Gen. 35.11, Yahweh appears to Jacob, changes his name to Israel, and blesses him, saying 'be fruitful and multiply; a nation and an assembly of nations shall come from you and kings shall spring from you'. The blessing concludes with a restatement of the promise of land to Abraham. In Gen. 48.4, Jacob, from his deathbed, blesses Joseph's sons Ephraim and Manasseh. He recounts how Yahweh appeared to him, quoting Gen. 35.9. In all three cases, the 'assembly of nations' refers to the blessed future offspring of Jacob. In Ezekiel, D^QU "Tip is not used in reference to Israel or her offspring. In both occurrences, the phrase instead describes a host of foreign nations, enemies of Israel, who will assist in her demise.144 10.14 rn""l1 mS—Be Fruitful and Multiply.This expression appears sixteen times in P (Gen. 1.22,28; 8.17; 9.1, 7; 17.6,7,20; 26.4,24; 28.3; 35.11; 47.27b; 48.4; Exod. 1.7; Lev. 26.9) and once in Ezekiel (36.11). It is also found in Jer. 3.16 and 23.3. In P, all appearances of this expression relate to Yahweh's blessing, first the creatures of the earth and then Jacob and his descendants, with fecundity. In the Creation story it is directed towards the fish and birds and then to all of humanity. It is repeated at the conclusion of the Flood, in Yahweh's covenant with Abraham, in the promises to Ishmael and Isaac, in Isaac's blessing of Jacob, in Yahweh's blessing of Jacob, and in references to these blessings. P's story of Israel's slavery in Egypt (Exod. 1.7) begins by stating that the offspring of Israel fulfilled this blessing: 'And the Israelites were fruitful, and increased abundantly and multiplied and grew exceedingly mighty; and the land was filled with them.' In Lev. 26.9, Yahweh restates this blessing to Israel as one of the rewards for obedience. Here, the promise

144. The different use of the term here seems to hinge upon a different understanding of the term DU in Ezekiel. In P, DU means 'relation, kin' as well as 'people'. Ezekiel uses DU only in the latter sense, and D'OU are the nations.

72

A New Heart and a New Soul

of proliferation is clearly associated with the notion of a covenant between Yahweh and Israel. In Ezek. 36.10, 11, in connection with the promise of Israel's renewal and restoration, Yahweh vows to revive Israel's population, human and animal, to its productivity in 'former times' (DDTIlUlpD), an allusion perhaps to P or P's tradition. !~Q"n ms here is both a promise of future productivity and a recollection of the productivity of the past. The only occurrence in P where this expression refers to an actual condition rather than to the promise of one is in Exod. 1.7. In Jeremiah, both occurrences of Him ms appear in connection with a desired future situation and not one that necessarily existed in the past. In Jer. 3.16, the expression is introduced with the word S D and describes a time when the people will no longer refer to the ark of the covenant. In Jer. 23.3, a verse describing future restoration, Yahweh states that his flock will be returned to their fold where they will 'be fruitful and multiply'. Although both of these passages refer to the future, neither mentions blessing or promise. 10.15 3 ^ HEJp—Hard Heart. This idiom occurs once in P (Exod. 7.3) and once in Ezekiel (3.7). It is also found in Ps. 95.8 and Prov. 28.14. In P, the idiom describes Yahweh's strengthening Pharaoh's resolve in the face of the Plagues. Ezekiel, however, describes the Israelites as incorrigibly resistant to Yahweh's word without any indication that God himself has hardened their hearts. In 3.7,145 the idiom is paired with the expression nHD-^pTFI, commonly understood as stubborn or brazen. Israel is portrayed as refusing to listen to Ezekiel with the same resolve that Pharaoh displays in P.146 Ps. 95.8 portrays the Israelites as behaving with hardened hearts as they did at Meribah and Massah in the wilderness (Exod. 17.1-7; Num. 20.113). In Prov. 28.14, the expression generically refers to the calamity associated with an individual who exhibits excessive resolve. 10.16 PITH DITIDHU—This Very Day. This expression occurs nine times in P (Gen. 7.13; Exod. 12.17,41,51; Lev. 23.14,21,28,29,30) and twice in Ezekiel (2.3; 24.2). It is not found elsewhere in the HB. 145. After describing the people as being of obscure speech and difficult language' (Ezek. 3.5). Cf. Exod. 4.10. 146. Israel has a long history of stubbornness, especially in Deuteronomy, but the term D1? TTOp is not used; see Deut. 9.6-13; 31.27; Judg. 2.19.

3. Ezekiel and the Priestly Source Reconsidered

73

P consistently employs this expression for events occurring on a specific day: the Flood, the Exodus, the observance of the Passover, and the Sabbath, all momentous and theologically meaningful in P's history. Similarly, Ezekiel employs this expression for significant events occurring on specific days: Ezekiel's commission (Ezek. 2.3) and the day that the king of Babylon laid siege to Jerusalem (Ezek. 24.2). 10.17 DT"lI7/!TnU HOD—Cover Nakedness. This image is found once in P (Exod. 28.42) and twice in Ezekiel (18.7,16). It is not found elsewhere in the HB. Exodus 25-31 presents the specifications for the construction of the Tabernacle and priestly attire. The linen clothing to be worn by Aaron and his sons is to extend from the 'loins to the thighs' in order to 'cover their naked flesh' (Exod. 28.42). In Ezekiel, covering nakedness with clothing (TO-HDID D1"ll?) is portrayed as an act of righteousness.147 10.18 nnnfc-^N nîi^ n~Dn—Joined Each to the Other. This expression is found once in P (Exod. 26.3) and three times in Ezekiel (1.9,23; 3.13). It is not found elsewhere in the HB. In Exod. 26.3, nnnN-^N HCJN fl"On describes the manner in which the Tabernacle curtains are to be joined. In Ezekiel's inaugural vision, the phrase describes the contact among the wings of each of the four creatures.148 10.19 n "?3N "?—For Food/Sustenance. This expression occurs seven times in P (Gen. 1.29, 30; 6.21; 9.3; Exod. 16.15; Lev. 11.39; 25.6) and ten times in Ezekiel (15.4, 6; 21.37; 23.37; 29.5; 34.5, 8, 10; 35.12; 39.4). It also occurs in Jer. 12.9. In P, H ^DK *? describes the allotment of food in the Creation account, in the Flood narrative, in the provision of manna in the wilderness, and in the dietary restrictions of Leviticus. In each case Yahweh is the provider and determines the manner and matter of these provisions. In Ezekiel, H^D^b is always used metaphorically. It describes fuel 147. See Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, p. 380. Of all the righteous acts listed in Ezek. 18.6-8, only this and the act of giving food to the hungry are not commanded in the Book of the Covenant, the Holiness Code or in Deuteronomy. 148. Contrast 1 Kgs 6.27, where the wings of the cherubs in the Temple touch one another (^pD-^N *}]D nWD). "pD may also connote the extremity of a garment, perhaps even a tent flap (cf. 1 Sam. 15.27; 24.5, 6).

74

A New Heart and a New Soul

feeding fire (Ezek. 15.4, 6; 21.37), children offered in sacrifice (23.37), Pharaoh offered to wild animals (29.5), Israel as sheep devoured by wild animals (34.8,10), Edom (35.12) and Gog (39.4). n^DN'? never describes the provision of actual sustenance. In Jer. 12.9, the term also metaphorically describes the ravaging of Judah. 10.20 DT *?Iî inn №3n—To Bring a Sword against You. This expression appears once in P (Lev. 26.25) and four times in Ezekiel (5.17; 6.3; 11.8; 14.17). It is not found elsewhere in the HB. In Lev. 26.25, as a penalty for Israelite disobedience, Yahweh threatens to execute vengeance for his covenant by 'bringing a sword' against the people. In Ezekiel, Yahweh makes this same threat against Jerusalem (5.17), the 'mountains of Israel' (6.3), the wicked counselors Jaazaniah and Pelatiah (11.8), and against the land in general (14.17). In each instance, Yahweh's bringing of the sword will result in devastation and destruction. 10.21 mn DDnnN p^n—Unsheathe the Sword against You. This expression occurs once in P (Lev. 26.33) and three times in Ezekiel (5.2, 12; 12.14). This particular expression is not found elsewhere in the HB.149 In P, Yahweh promises vengeance for covenant violation by threatening to 'unsheathe the sword' against the Israelites after he has exiled them to foreign lands. In Ezekiel 5, this threat is voiced by Yahweh against Jerusalem and its inhabitants. In both Ezek. 5.12 and 12.14 as in P, the expression appears alongside the threat of exile. 10.22p«n -nun mn—A Sword Passing through the Land. This expression occurs once in P (Lev. 26.6) and once in Ezekiel (14.17). It is not found elsewhere in the HB. In P, Yahweh vows that 'no sword will pass through' the land if the Israelites remain obedient to their covenant. In Ezek. 14.17, conversely, Yahweh warns that he will let a 'sword pass through the land' if Israel is faithless. 10.23 DD1ID pDD—Languish because of their Iniquities. This expression occurs once in P (Lev. 26.39) and twice in Ezekiel (4.17; 24.23). It is not found elsewhere in the HB.150 149. For the idiom 3in |T"1H see Exod. 15.9; Ezek. 28.7; 30.11. 150. DÛ3 occurs alone in Isa. 34.4; Ezek. 33.10 and Ps. 38.6.

3. Ezekiel and the Priestly Source Reconsidered

75

In Lev. 26.39, those Israelites who survive Yahweh's wrath will be forced into exile, where they will suffer because of their own iniquities as well as those of their ancestors. Ezek. 4.17 identically describes the suffering following the siege of Jerusalem. And in Ezekiel 24 the prophet interprets the death of his wife as a sign of impending destruction in Judah. Therefore, just as he was commanded to refrain from mourning, so the inhabitants of Judah will have to 'languish over their iniquities' in silence. In both P and Ezekiel, those who survive Yahweh's destruction are portrayed as having to endure their fate in painful contemplation of their past sins. 10.24 ~1QK pb—Therefore Say. This expression occurs twice in P (Exod. 6.6; Num. 25.12) and eight times in Ezekiel (11.16, 17; 12.23, 28; 14.6; 20.30; 33.25; 36.22). It is not found elsewhere in the HB. In both P and Ezekiel, "1ÛN p ^ introduces God's message to the people, to be conveyed by a prophet, be it Moses or Ezekiel. B. Analysis P and Ezekiel share over 100 terms, expressions and idioms, of which 54 are not found anywhere else in the Hebrew Bible. In fact, only 4 of the 48 chapters in the book of Ezekiel do not share language with the Priestly Source.151 And there are only two episodes in P that do not share language with Ezekiel: Abraham's purchase of the burial cave at Machpelah (Gen. 23), and the Joseph story.152 Thus, scholarly efforts to establish literary strata within P or Ezekiel are not supported by this study, but neither are they disproved. The preceding pages contain a detailed examination of individual expressions common to P and Ezekiel. However, it is equally useful to examine the aggregate data. Fewer than half of the items are used with the

151. Ezek. 13 (the prophet's condemnation of false prophets), Ezek. 19 (two poems), Ezek. 26 (an oracle against Tyre) and Ezek. 41 (measurements of the future temple). The list is rather surprising since P also gives precise measurements of sacred space (i.e. Exod. 25-29). 152. Gen. 37.1; 41.45b-46a; 46.6-27; 47.27b, 28; 48.3-6; 49.29-33; 50.12-13. In addition, Ezekiel does not share language with any of the Toledot lists or the 'Wilderness Stations'. Cf. Cross, CMHE, pp. 301-17; Friedman, Exile and Biblical Narrative, p. 77.

76

A New Heart and a New Soul

same meaning or connotation in both texts.153 The remainder fall into the following categories: 1. Reversals There are ten examples of terms or expressions used with a specific meaning in P which appear antithetically in Ezekiel. (1) In P, DÎVTUQ ]HK 'the land of their sojourning' refers solely to the land of Canaan promised by Yahweh to Abraham and his offspring. In Ezekiel 20, the prophet forecasts a 'Second Exodus', where the lands to which the people are scattered in exile and from which they will be gathered are called D!"P~nHU )HN. Here, the land of the covenant and the land of the people's sojourn are two distinct and antithetical entities. In P, they are one and the same.154 (2) In P DDT m TD describes Yahweh's special relationship with the Israelites. In Ezek. 43.8, it describes a wall that separates Yahweh from the people.155 (3) In P, the Israelite slaves in Egypt cry or groan (pW) under their burden. Yahweh, hearing their cry, remembers his covenant with them and is spurred into action. In Ezek. 30.24, it is the king of Egypt who cries out (ptW) under the weight of Babylonian domination.156 (4) In P, the verb IT] is used in the context of a Nazirite 'separating' himself or herself from various acts (the consumption of fermented drink, contact with corpses, haircuts). Through abstinence a special relationship with Yahweh is achieved, thus the expression miT1? TTH1? 'to separate to Yahweh'. In Ezek. 14.7, the verb describes Israel's separation from Yahweh as a result of idolatry.157 (5) In P, D^QU *?np 'assembly of nations' describes the fecundity Yahweh promises to the Patriarchs. Their offspring will become an 'assembly of nations'. In Ezekiel, D^QU "?np describes Israel's enemies, a host of foreign nations who will assist in her demise.158 (6) In P, miT] m 'a pleasing odor' is the result of various types of sacrifice offered to Yahweh. In Ezekiel the expression describes pagan

153. 154. 155. 156. 157. 158.

Approximately 43 of the 97 terms studied. See section 3.6, p. 39. See section 1.6, pp. 33-34. See section 10.1, pp. 66-67. See section 7.5, p. 53. See section 10.13, p. 71.

3. Ezekiel and the Priestly Source Reconsidered

77

practices.159 The Priestly Torah appears to be the standard by which Ezekiel evaluates Israel's successes and failures.160 As a result, Ezekiel's indictments of the people are based precisely and directly on the words of the P text. That the Priestly Writer could have formulated law on the sole basis of Ezekiel's portrait of Israelite disobedience is difficult to imagine. One would more logically expect to find a prophet quoting Torah than the reverse.161 (7) In P, it is the Israelites who spend 40 years wandering in Exile. In Ezekiel, it is the Egyptians.162 (8) In P, Pharaoh's heart is 'hardened' pb HIZJp), an idiom describing a strong resolve. As a result, he refuses to respond to Moses' pleas to release the people. In Ezekiel, it is Israel whose heart is hardened so that they cannot listen to the words of Yahweh.163 (9) In P, the expression "TRD "TND3 'greatly' refers to Israel's fruitful ness, the fulfillment of Yahweh's covenant with Abraham. In Ezekiel, this expression refers to the enormity of Israel's sins.164 (10) In P, Aaron's rod sprouts (ms HED) almond buds, symbolizing the special status of the tribe of Levi, of which he is the leader. In Ezekiel, a staff'sprouts' pride and lawlessness (ms Î1ÊDQ).165 In each of these examples, the direction of influence apparently moves from P to Ezekiel. A term or expression with a positive connotation in P takes on a negative overtone in Ezekiel: the special relationship between Yahweh and Israel (DDT31 TD), a Nazirite's sacred separation to Yahweh becomes Israel's idolatrous separation away from Yahweh. Ezekiel parodies P language by using terms antithetically. It is virtually impossible to imagine that the Priestly Writer would have composed Israelite history 159. See Exod. 29.18,25,41; Lev. 1.9,13,17; 2.2,9,12; 3.5,16; 4.31; 6.8,14; 8.21, 28; 17.6; 23.13,18; Num. 15.7,10,13,14; 18.17; 28.6, 8,24,27; 29.2,6, 8,13; Ezek. 6.13,19; 20.28,41. See also Gen. 8.20-21. Hurvitz (Linguistic Study, pp. 53-58), notes that the anthropomorphic use of this expression in P is not present in Ezekiel. 160. Ezekiel on several other occasions refers back to min. See Ezek. 7.26; 22.26; 43.11 ; 44.5,23 (Friedman, Exile and Biblical Narrative, p. 64). Ezekiel also evaluates Israel's behavior in accordance with the laws of D especially with respect to idolatry. 161. See section 7.10, pp. 55-56. Hurvitz (Linguistic Study, pp. 53-58), notes that the anthropomorphic use of this expression in P is not present in Ezekiel. 162. Ezek. 29.12,13. Cf. also Ezek. 4.6, where Ezekiel seems to suggest 40 years of Judah's exile. 163. See section 10.15, p. 72. 164. Cf. Gen. 17.2, 6, 20; Exod. 1.7 to Ezek. 9.9. 165. See section 10.11, p. 70.

78

A New Heart and a New Soul

by transforming images of Israel's apostasy and subsequent downfall from Ezekiel into images conveying the exceptional covenant and unique relationship between Israel and Yahweh. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine that the Priestly Writer could have turned Ezekiel's land of exile QHR DiT"TlJU) into Israel's land of the promise, Israel's enemies (D^DU "Tip) into a sign of her fecundity, or Israel's abundant sin ("ÏNQ "1NÛ3) into a sign of Yahweh's covenant. It is, however, plausible that Ezekiel, writing in exile, re-evaluated P's portrayal of Israel's uniqueness, cynically inverting these images so that what was once a 'pleasing odor to Yahweh' now symbolizes impiety and irreverence, or Pharaoh's recalcitrance now characterizes that of Israel. 2. Legal Citations There are numerous examples in Ezekiel where the prophet makes explicit reference to P laws in order to illustrate how these laws have been disregarded by the community of exiles. (1) In Lev. 19.30, the Israelites are commanded to observe the Sabbath and revere Yahweh's sanctuary. Ezek. 23.38 decries the people's failure to follow either direction.166 (2) In Lev. 18.20; 20.10, Israelite males are prohibited from having relations with their 'neighbor's wife' (#"1 nE?N). Similarly, in P's Decalogue Israelites are warned against coveting the wife of a fellow Israelite. In Ezekiel, the prophet indicts the 'princes of Israel' for defiling their neighbors' wives.167 (3) In P, it is the duty of the Priests to separate and distinguish between the holy and the profane (^nn 1*01 KTIpn "pD ^"OH "?). Ezekiel castigates his priestly contemporaries for failing to fulfill this task.168 (4) P commands reverence for Yahweh's sanctuary ("'CTTpQ). Ezekiel repeatedly lambasts Israel for defiling Yahweh's sanctuary ("'ETIpQ).169 (5) Num. 33.52 lists various Canaanite practices that must be discontinued once the Israelites return to inhabit Israel. Among the list is the

166. See section 6.3, pp. 49-50. 167. See section 4.2, p. 40. Ezekiel's references, like those in Lev. 20.10-15, are formulated in the third person singular and are thus lexically and grammatically similar. See M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985), p. 293. 168. See section 7.2, pp. 50-51. 169. See section 7.9, p. 55.

3. Ezekiel and the Priestly Source Reconsidered

79

worship of 'carved images' (rPDÈÛ pK). Ezekiel finds the elders of Jerusalem worshiping in a ITSCD "nil.170 (6) In Leviticus, dietary restrictions are placed upon the Israelites. They are forbidden to consume the flesh of animals who have died natural deaths, animals that have been torn or gored and sacrificial meat that has remained over three days ("TUS, nsnco, n ^3]). In Ezekiel 4, the prophet is commanded by Yahweh to consume barley cakes baked on human dung. Ezekiel tries to excuse himself by stating that he has never defiled himself and that from his youth he has never eaten H ^HD, HSItD or ^US.171 (7) P prohibits the mistreatment of one's fellow Israelite with the terms mi and "["IS.172 In Ezek. 34.4, Yahweh charges that the Israelites have oppressed the underprivileged using identical terminology. (8) P warns the Israelites against the profanation of Yahweh's 'holy name' CETTp DE?).173 According to Ezekiel, the Israelites are guilty of having profaned Yahweh's 'holy name' continuously throughout their history.174 The Priestly Torah is the standard by which Ezekiel evaluates Israel's successes and failures.175 As a result, Ezekiel's indictments of the people appear to be based precisely and directly on the words of the P text. That the Priestly Writer could have formulated law on the sole basis of Ezekiel's portrait of Israelite disobedience is difficult to imagine. One would more logically expect to find a prophet quoting Torah than the reverse. Indeed, the laws of the Pentateuch never refer to the prophets.176 170. See section 7.7, p. 54. 171. See sections 5.3, 5.5, pp. 44, 45. 172. See section 10.2, p. 67. Cf. Exod. 1.13. 173. See section 1.2, pp. 31-32. 174. Ezek. 20.39; 36.20, 21, 22; 39.7, 25; 43.7, 8. 175. Ezekiel on several other occasions refers back to rmn. See Ezek. 7.26; 22.26; 43.11 ; 44.5,23 (Friedman, Exile and Biblical Narrative, p. 64). Ezekiel also evaluates Israel's behavior in accordance with the laws of D, especially with respect to idolatry. See Chapter 4, p. 94. 176. First suggested by Kaufmann, Religion, p. 158. See also, Friedman, Exile and Biblical Narrative, p. 63 ; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, p. 183. For additional examples see Friedman, Exile and Biblical Narrative, pp. 61-64. Noting that one would expect a contract litigation to be based on a contract rather than the reverse, Friedman suggests that the covenant lawsuit of Ezek. 5 and 6 is based upon the contract in P (Lev. 26). See also Friedman, WWTB, pp. 168-71. Similarly, M. Fishbane illustrates that the rhetorical questions posed by Ezekiel to the people concerning the consumption of blood, the worship of false gods and the pouring of blood libations (Ezek. 33.25-26) recall the prohibitions of such behavior in Lev. 17.4, 9. Ezekiel's questions are followed by a series of divine punishments (33.27-29) that similarly echo the punishments

80

A New Heart and a New Soul

3. The Exodus and the Restoration P employs various terms and expressions to describe the Israelites' experiences during the Exodus and Wilderness periods. In Ezekiel, the same terminology is applied to Israel's future restoration. (1) In P, after the incident at Peor, Yahweh grants a 'covenant of peace' (DI^EJ rr~Q) to Aaron's grandson, Phineas. This covenant guarantees perpetual priesthood to the Aaronide line through Phineas. In Ezek. 34.25, Yahweh grants a Dl *"№ JTH3 to all Israel in the future restoration.177 (2) In P, Yahweh reveals himself through his rescue of the Israelites from Egyptian bondage (diTn'jK iTIiT ^K '3 1I7T1). In Ezekiel, Yahweh will reveal himself when, after sending the people into exile, he gathers them back to Israel leaving no one behind.178 (3) In P, the Israelites are assured of security in the land of the covenant in return for their obedience to the commandments of Yahweh (ntD3^ DrQtiT). In Ezekiel, this same security will be achieved after Yahweh's restoration of Israel from exile.179 (4) In P, Yahweh's deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt occurs 'in the sight of the foreign nations' (tTian TI?1?). In Ezekiel, the future restoration of Israel is described in an identical manner.180 (5) While the Israelites trek through the wilderness, P portrays Yahweh as 'dwelling among them' (DDIPH pCJ). He is present in the Sanctuary, the Tent and the Israelites' camp, and he will one day abide in Canaan itself. Throughout much of Ezekiel, Yahweh is portrayed as having abandoned Jerusalem and Israel. However, in Ezek. 43.7,9 the prophet foretells Yahweh's return to the Temple where he will once again dwell among his 181 people (D3irn ptf). (6) In P, the presence of Yahweh's Tabernacle ('^tfD) is a reward for the Israelites' observance of his statutes and commandments. In Ezek. 31.21, Yahweh promises the reunification of Israel by assuring the people 182 that his Tabernacle, that is, his presence, will be with them.

for disobedience to the covenant in Lev. 26.19, 25, 30-33 (Biblical Interpretation, p. 294). 177. See section 2.3, p. 36. 178. See section 1.9, p. 35. 179. See section 3.1, p. 37. 180. See section 4.5, p. 42. 181. See section 1.5, p. 33. 182. See section 1.1, p. 31.

3. Ezekiel and the Priestly Source Reconsidered

81

Ezekiel, like Jeremiah and Second Isaiah, envisions the future restoration of Israel as a Second Exodus where Yahweh, through various miracles and wondrous feats, will once again rescue the Israelites from oppression in exile.183 Thus, terms and concepts found in reference to the first Exodus experience and Yahweh's original covenant with Israel are reused in prophetic visions of the future. One of Ezekiel's sources for the Exodus /Wilderness event is P.184 The prophet's recollection of these events and his subsequent hope for a 'Second Exodus' must be based upon P's initial telling of the story. The reverse scenario, that P's account of the Israelite Exodus from Egypt is modeled solely on Ezekiel's prophecies of restoration, is implausible. 4. Tabernacle to Temple? Surprisingly, of all P's terminology for the construction and contents of the Tabernacle, Ezekiel uses only one lexeme in his vision of the restored temple.185 Ezekiel is the only prophet to envisage vividly a restored Jerusalem Temple, yet virtually none of the materials or specifications of P's Tabernacle appear in Ezekiel's blueprint. The bulk of P's Tabernacle vocabulary appears in Ezekiel in contexts far removed from that of Tabernacle or Temple. (1) In P, 'coals of fire' (CJN-''lTn) are to be used as a part of the purification offering on Yom Kippur. In Ezek. 10.2, these coals are found 'under the cherubim', perhaps referring to the throne vision of Ezekiel 1, and are to be scattered about Jerusalem.186 (2) In Exod. 26.3, nnnN-^N ntàN nnnn 'joined woman to her sister' describes the manner in which the Tabernacle curtains are to be joined. The wings of each of the four creatures in the vision of Ezekiel 1 are described in the same manner.187 (3) In P, mnQ, a 'pan' or 'griddle', is used for cereal offerings. Ezekiel symbolically lays siege to Jerusalem by placing a mnQ between himself and an incised brick.188 183. See Chapter 4. 184. See especially the analysis of Ezek. 20 in Chapter 5, pp. 98-103. 185. The term PIS3C3, 'span' or 'hand's-breadth', appears as a unit of measurement in connection with both P's Tabernacle and Ezekiel's temple (Exod. 25.25; 37.12; Ezek. 40.5, 43; 43.13). 186. See section 8.13, p. 61. 187. See section 10.18, p. 73. 188. See section 8.11, pp. 60-61.

82

A New Heart and a New Soul

(4) In P, n b#D ^Q 'from above' describes the location of the coverings to be placed on the Ark and Tent. In Ezek. 1.11, the term describes the faces and wings of the cherubim.189 (5) In P, the priestly headpiece is called a 'turban' (nSWiSD). In Ezekiel the turban is to be worn by the Prince of Israel.190 (6) P's Tabernacle is constructed using long wooden D'tZTIp 'planks'. In Ezek. 27.6 these 'planks' are on the Tyrian ship.191 (7) Fine linen (2)10) is a fabric that appears frequently and exclusively in P in connection with the Tent and the priests' clothing. In Ezekiel, Yahweh clothes his bride Jerusalem with this fabric. It is also the material from which the sails of the Tyrian ship are constructed.192 (8) In P, 'fine leather' (Itfnn) covers the Tent, the Ark, the table, the menorah and various other Tabernacle utensils. In Ezekiel, Yahweh shoes his bride Jerusalem with sandals of 'fine leather'.193 (9) P lists blue and purple (jQ^nKI n^3H) as colors used exclusively in the materials of the Tabernacle. In Ezekiel, these colors appear exclusively in the materials on the Tyrian ship.194 Ezekiel appears to be familiar with the Priestly concept of the Tabernacle and its accouterments. Yet the prophet appropriates P's Tabernacle terminology, situating it in various new and different contexts. In a sense, Ezekiel 'disassembles' P's Tent, choosing instead to build his own unique model for restoration. Had P been influenced by and written after Ezekiel, one would be forced to assume the reverse scenario, namely that the Priestly Writer culled assorted technical terms from throughout Ezekiel. This sequence of events seems at best unlikely, at worst absurd.195 5. Literal to Metaphorical P is comprised of narrative prose as well as a tremendous body of legal material. Several terms and expressions found in P's narrative and laws appear in Ezekiel's poetry. 189. See section 7.6, pp. 53-54. 190. See section 8.12, p. 61. 191. See section 8.5, p. 58. 192. See section 8.3, p. 57. 193. See section 8.2, pp. 56-57. 194. See section 8.4, pp. 57-58. 195. Propp (in conversation) suggests Ezekiel has a specific polemic against P's Tent as a model for restoration. Cf. Fretheim's argument that P has a vendetta against Solomon's Temple (I.E. Fretheim, 'The Priestly Document: Anti-Temple?', VT 18 [1968], pp. 313-29).

3. Ezekiel and the Priestly Source Reconsidered

83

(1) In P, the idiom U2 nîTQl 'their blood upon them' is associated with various capital offenses. In Ezekiel 33, this idiom appears in connection with the task of Israel's watchman, who must warn the people of impending danger. The watchman is a metaphor for the prophet who is threatened with the bloodguilt of the people should he fail to fulfill his job.196 (2) In P, Yahweh 'remembers' his covenant rV~Q "IDT. In Ezekiel 16.60, Yahweh 'remembers' his covenant with his metaphorical bride, Jerusalem.197 (3) "pD-^D "I1S3U "?D 'every bird, every winged creature' appears in P's list of the animals who entered Noah's Ark. In Ezekiel's allegory of the cedar, this same expression describes the birds who will nest in the branches of the tree.198 (4) In P, H^N1? 'for food' describes Yahweh's provision of food on various occasions. In Ezekiel, n'o*'? never describes the provision of actual sustenance, but is used allegorically to describe fuel feeding a fire; children offered in sacrifice; Pharaoh offered to wild animals; and Israel, Edom and Magog destroyed.199 (5) The act of 'uncovering nakedness' (rmu m L^L?) appears in P laws relating to sexual behavior. In Ezek. 16.37, Yahweh threatens to uncover Jerusalem's nakedness for all to see. The expression is also used of the metaphorical figure Oholibah in Ezek. 23.10, 29.200 (6) In P, btfQ ^E describes various sinful acts that can be expiated through the guilt offering. In Ezek. 14.13; 15.8, the expression describes the state of the land.201 (7) rnfen ^DS-br 'over the open field' appears in P's purification rites as an uninhabited area beyond the Israelite camp. In Ezekiel, Jerusalem, Pharaoh and Gog, king of Magog, are symbolically thrown 'over the open field' to fend for themselves in the face of Yahweh's wrath and abandonment.202 In each case P uses plain sense, while Ezekiel utilizes a metaphorical connotation. This is inherent in the difference between law and poetry, but may still have bearing on the question of literary priority. 196. 197. 198. 199. 200. 201. 202.

See section 5.9, p. 47. See section 2.1, pp. 35-36. See section 9.11, p. 66. See section 10.19, pp. 73-74. See section 5.1, pp. 42-43. See section 5.8, pp. 46-47. See section 9.7, p. 65.

84

A New Heart and a New Soul

M. Greenberg describes the Torah as 'idealized law—what should be, or more precisely, what God intended'.203 By contrast, the second section of the Hebrew Bible—the Prophets—recounts 'reality'. The Latter Prophets in particular 'expound a consistent interpretation of the events that befell Israel from the viewpoint of God, with warnings and consolations related to this interpretation'.204 As a result, Israel as reflected in its written sources is torn between the ideal and the real.205 The exposition of this 'gap' is, in his view, one of the chief functions of biblical prophecy. The conflict between the ideal and the real, between the Torah and the Prophets, could only be reconciled through 'creative interpretation of the legislation, applying the old ideal to changed circumstances'.206 It would seem that the sort of 'reconciliation', described by Greenberg is clearly evidenced in Ezekiel. The contacts between P and Ezekiel are undeniable. Perhaps the simplest explanation for these connections, that their common language reflects nothing more than a shared priestly heritage, might be appealing had the two sources simply echoed each other's use and understanding of a given term or expression.207 However, close analysis of the examples cited above suggests at least some level of literary dependency. Without the benefit of additional information or clues to guide us, determining the literary dependence of one text upon another remains difficult. Notwithstanding, the preponderance of our evidence calls into question the scholarly contention that P is literarily dependent upon Ezekiel. Our analysis suggests that Ezekiel is familiar with the Priestly Source, but, clearly, his writing is more than just a product of its influence or tradition.208 The prophet appropriates P's terminology but feels comfortable situating it in new, different and even contradictory contexts. P language is not simply imitated in Ezekiel. It is twisted, poeticized, disarticulated and reconstituted. Ezekiel knows P, quotes P, but also modifies it at will, adding and

203. M. Greenberg, 'Establishing a Moral Order', BR1 (1991), pp. 42-45 (42). Also published as 'Biblical Attitudes towards Power', in E. Firmage, B. Weiss, J. Welch (eds.), Religion and Law: Biblical-Judaic and Islamic Perspectives (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), pp. 101-12. 204. Greenberg, 'Establishing a Moral Order', pp. 42-45 (42). 205. Greenberg, 'Establishing a Moral Order', p. 44. 206. Greenberg, 'Establishing a Moral Order', p. 44. 207. Contra Haran, 'Law Code of Ezekiel XL-XLVIII'. 208. See also Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, pp. 138-40, 293-94.

3. Ezekiel and the Priestly Source Reconsidered

85

deleting material as suits his personal agenda and the current circumstances of his audience. Excursus: Re-evaluating Ezekiel and H The legal corpus of Leviticus 17-26 has customarily been distinguished from the rest of P due to its peculiar content and terminology.209 Wellhausen mapped the differences between H and P onto his schema of the evolution of Israelite worship. H, according to Wellhausen, 'inclines from Ezekiel towards the Priestly Code'. The author of H was inspired by Ezekiel, but his work was later revised to represent the views of P.210 Most recently, I. Knohl has reasserted the independence of H, but his H extends beyond Leviticus 17-26 into material traditionally attributed to P.211 The 'Priestly Torah' (PT) and the 'Holiness School' (HS) represent for Knohl the work of two independent priestly schools. Knohl's HS is also responsible for the redaction of the entire Torah. Our analysis indicates that Ezekiel's linguistic correspondence to PT is as pervasive as its correspondence to the HS, if not more. In other words, the affinity between Ezekiel and Knohl's HS is identical to that between Ezekiel and the whole of the PT. Ezekiel quotes, reverses, allegorizes and ignores HS language in the same manner he does PT language. There is similarly no evidence to suggest that Ezekiel influenced the author of 'HS'. If we can indeed subdivide P into two separate entities, Ezekiel utilizes both without particular differentiation.212

209. See Chapter 2 n. 26. 210. Wellhausen, Prolegomena, p. 379 (Wellhausen [1899], pp. 386-87). 211. I. Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1995). See also B. Schwartz, 'Selected Chapters of the Holiness Code: A Literary Study of Leviticus 17-19' (PhD dissertation, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1987). 212. Another scholar to partition P is Friedman (Exile and Biblical Narrative, pp. 44-132), who distinguishes between P1, the Priestly source proper and P2, the redactional stratum of limited extent (R). In WWTB, Friedman calls P2 simply R (for Redactor). There is a clear affinity between R and Ezekiel, but it is ideological, not linguistic.

Chapter 4 EZEKIEL, DEUTERONOMY AND THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY In the following chapter I examine in detail 21 terms, expressions and idioms common to Ezekiel and D/Dtr. Again, both meaning and context are considered, noting especially where Ezekiel and D/Dtr use a single term differently. I also note where P employs a different, synonymous term. Where relevant, any occurrences of such vocabulary elsewhere in the HB are cited and examined. Because much of the vocabulary common to Ezekiel and D/Dtr is also shared by Jeremiah, one might infer that Jeremiah was Ezekiel's proximate source. However, the wholesale pattern of shared lexemes, including several found exclusively in Ezekiel and D/Dtr, creates a strong presumption that, in the majority of cases, Ezekiel was directly familiar with D/Dtr.1 Deuteronomy, the Deuteronomistic History, Jeremiah and Ezekiel share the following terms and expressions.2 A. Data: Shared Terminology 1. nnn ^l KTH "?&—Do Not Fear or be Dismayed (Deut. 1.21; Josh. 8.1; Jer. 30.10; 46.27; Ezek 2.6; 3.9; 1 Chron. 22.13; 28.20) In Deuteronomy, Moses tells the people that Yahweh has given them the land of Israel as a possession in accordance with his promise to their ancestors. As a result, they should not be afraid or dismayed at the prospect of entering the land. Similarly in Josh. 8.1, Yahweh calms Joshua with bfc nnn ^l NTH, assuring him that the king of Ai, along with his nation, city and land, will be delivered into his hands.

1. On the connection between Ezekiel and Jeremiah see Burrows, Literary Relations, p. 15; Carley, Ezekiel among the Prophets, pp. 51 -57; J.W. Miller, Dos Verhàltnis Jeremias und Hesekiels sprachlich und theologisch untersucht (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1955). Much of the vocabulary common to Jeremiah and Ezekiel is Deuteronomistic. 2. Items exclusively common to Jeremiah and Ezekiel will not be included.

4. Ezekiel, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History

87

In Ezekiel, Yahweh uses these words to comfort the prophet, urging him not to be frightened or overwhelmed by the words or actions of the people.3 2. DI?3/triOT—To Provoke Yahweh into Anger (Deut. 4.25 [Dtr2]; 9.18; 31.29[Dtr2]; Judg2.J2; 1 Kgs 14.9; 16.2, 7,13, 26, 33; 2Kgs 17.11,17; 21.6; 22.17; 23.19; Jer. 7.18; 11.17; 25.6, 7; 32.29, 30, 32; 44.3,8; Ezek. 8.17; 16.26; 2 Chron. 33.6) The hiphil of DID is used throughout Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History to describe Yahweh's anger as provoked by the Israelites through their idolatrous acts. It appears in outbursts against the Israelites in the Wilderness, against Jeroboam, Baasha and Hoshea. In particular, the expression D'IDiT^ or ^D^DH^ describes Yahweh's anger in the utterances of various prophets, including Moses, Ahijah and Huldah. In Ezekiel, the hiphil of DID is used when Yahweh transports Ezekiel to the Jerusalem Temple to view its abominations. The verb is also used when the prophet condemns the metaphorical bride Jerusalem for playing the harlot with Egypt. There is a direct connection between the use of this verb and the concept of idolatry in Ezekiel and D/Dtr.4 3. m CM imm npm TD—With a Mighty Hand and an Outstretched Arm (Deut. 4.34; 5.15; 26.8; Jer. 32.21; Ezek. 20.33, 34; Ps. 136.12) Deuteronomy uses this expression to describe Yahweh's wondrous deliverance of the Israelites from slavery in Egypt.5 In Ezekiel 20, mtM imm ilpm T3 refers to the power Yahweh will exercise in his future deliverance of Israel. After scattering the Israelites among foreign nations, Yahweh will once again rule over them mtM I?T"im npîn TD and will use this force to gather them from the lands to which they have been dispersed. Although Ezekiel has just finished recounting Israel's history using several classic Deuteronomic and Priestly terms, he does not, surprisingly, apply this expression to the Exodus from Egypt. For Ezekiel, the coming redemption, the 'Second Exodus', overshadows its ancient prototype as the ultimate manifestation of Yahweh's might.6 3. In Jeremiah, Hfin "?N1 NTH ^ is used twice in poetic passages where Yahweh assures Israel and Judah of future restoration. In both instances the expression is split and used as parallel lines of poetry: ^lÈT nnST^Nl //DpIT "DI? KTfl b». 4. In Jeremiah the verb is used in much the same way. 5. Both J and E use the expression npTFI T by itself when describing Yahweh's dealings with Pharaoh during the Exodus (Exod. 3.19; 6.1 ; 13.3,9; 32.11 ; Num. 20.20). 6. See below, Chapter 6, Conclusion.

88

A New Heart and a New Soul

4. D^DUn-to fBil/tnn f Sn—Scattered among theNations (Deut. 4.27 [Dtr2]; 28.64 [Dtr2]; 30.3 [Dtr2]; Jer. 9.15; Ezek. 11.17; 12.15; 20.23, 34, 41; 22.15; 29.12; 30.23, 26; 36.19) Deuteronomy foretells Israel's future apostasy, which will lead to a national exile and then to eventual restoration. Such passages have long been regarded as Exilic additions to Deuteronomy.7 More recently they have been attributed to a second redaction and updating of Deuteronomy2 Kings (Dtr2).8 All of these predictions of future dispersion contain the verb fSH along withD^Qi? or D1^ (see Deut. 4.27; 28.64). This expression is also used by Dtr2 to declare the possibility of restoration if the Israelites return to Yahweh (Deut. 30.3). Ezekiel uses this expression ten times, always in connection with Yahweh's dispersion of Israel. Ezek. 20.23, recounting Israel's wilderness wanderings following the Exodus from Egypt, reports that Yahweh swore to the Israelites in the wilderness that he would 'scatter them among the nations and disperse them through the countries'. This directly recalls Deut. 4.27, 'Yahweh will scatter you among the peoples [DDHN miT fsm D^Din], only a few of you will be left among the foreign nations where Yahweh will lead you.' Ezekiel utilizes this expression later in the same chapter to predict the restoration of Israel (Ezek. 20.34,41). The Priestly equivalent D^IIÛ mTN (Lev. 26.33) does not occur in Ezekiel. 5. DeJ Drvm/fiutf imn -)Cto D^n-te—To all the Nations Where He/I Have Driven You (Deut. 30.1 [Dtr2]; Ezek. 4.13) Deut. 30.1 belongs to a larger passage attributed to Dtr2.9 The text presupposes Israel's exile and anticipates a time when Yahweh will restore the people, gathering them from all the nations where they have been driven. Ezekiel, in a passage symbolically predicting the coming siege of Jerusalem, uses the expression to describe Yahweh's future driving of Israel out of her land to reside in exile. 7. See, for example, A. Bertholet, Deuteronomium (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1899), pp. 13-15; N. Lohfink, 'Auslegung deuteronomischer Texte, IV,BibLeb 5 (1964), pp. 250-53; J.D. Levenson, 'Who Inserted the Book of the Torah?', HTR 68 (1975), pp. 203-33. 8. See Cross, CMHE, pp. 274-325 ; Friedman, Exile and Biblical Narrative, pp. 1 43; idem, 'From Egypt to Egypt: Dtr1 and Dtr2', in B. Halpern and J.D. Levenson (eds.), Traditions in Transformation: Turning Points in Biblical Faith (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1981), pp. 167-92. 9. See Friedman, 'From Egypt to Egypt', p. 183.

4. Ezekiel, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History

89

6. ]]in p-^D nnm nnn: rrmmn-ta ^—On Every Hill/Every Mountain Height and under Every Leafy Tree (Deut. 12.2; 1 Kgs 14.23; 2 Kgs 16.4; 17.10; Jer. 2.20; 3.6; 17.2; Ezek. 6.13) Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History condemn worship at high places. Deut. 12,2 demands centralized worship at a single sanctuary chosen by Yahweh. All other places of worship are to be destroyed. In Kings, the idolatrous behavior of Rehoboam, Ahaz and the people of Israel under the rule of Hoshea is described in terms of worship at these locations. Ezekiel appears to combine the language of several sources in formulating his condemnation of Israel's idolatry: And you will know that I am Yahweh, when their slain lie among their idols around their altars, on every high hill [ilD~l nin^-^D "?N], on all the mountain heights [D-inn 'e»ri te], under every leafy tree flJITI flT^D nnm], and under every leafy terebinth [nnHU n^N'^D nnm], wherever they offered pleasing odor [Tin*1] HH] to all their idols.

Here, Dnnn 'tftO and nnDI? n ^ are very similar to Hos. 4.13, while the rest of the verse reflects Deuteronomic phraseology as well as the stock P expression ni"P] FT").10 7. tWC rn/p -ar—Pass a Son/Daughter Through Fire (Deut. 18.10; 2 Kgs 16.3; 17.17; 21.6; 23.10; Ezek. 20.31) Deut. 18.10 prohibits passing one' s children through fire. The meaning of this practice is uncertain. It may be a test of devotion to Molech, the god of Ammon (cf. Deut. 12.31), a rite mentioned frequently in the HB.11 P uses its own phraseology in Lev. 18.21: 'From your seed you shall not pass over to Molech...' (f to1? Tarn1? jnn-K 1 ? f^lTQl).12 Ezekiel follows D's terminology over P's in a passage that compares Israel's current idolatrous activity to that of her ancestors. 8. D'lflptf/Fptf—Detestable Things (Deut. 29.16; 1 Kgs 11.5, 7; 2 Kgs 23.13, 24; Jer. 4.1; 7.30; 13.27; 16.18; 32.34; Ezek. 5.11; 7.20; 11.18, 21; 20.7, 8, 30; 37.23; Hos. 9.10;Dan. 9.27; 11.31; 12.11; 2 Chron. 15.8) 10. Also noted by Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, p. 366. 11. For the view that Molech is a god, see G.C. Heider, The Cult ofMolek: A Reassessment QSOTSup, 43; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985); J. Day, Molech: A God of Human Sacrifice in the Old Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989). The majority view Molech as a technical term for a type of sacrifice. See discussion in G.C. Heider, 'Molech', ABD, IV, pp. 895-98. 12. Jer. 32.35 follows P's terminology.

90

A New Heart and a New Soul

In Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History D^lpltf/fpC? always refers to idolatry. In P, however, fpttf describes various creatures unfit for human consumption, but it is never used in connection with idolatry.13 Ezekiel adopts the Deuteronomic usage in connection with idolatry in the sanctuary. On two occasions Ezekiel pairs the Deuteronomic understanding of yptf with the Priestly term rminn (Ezek. 11.18, 21). 9. mrr T—The Hand of Yahweh (Deut. 2.15; Judg. 2.15; 1 Sam. 5.6; 7.13 12.15; 1 Kgs 18.46; 2 Kgs 3.15; Ezek. 1.3; 3.14; 3.22; 33.22; 37.1; 40.1 The Deuteronomist mentions miT T, understood as being upon someone, in various contexts. The hand of Yahweh can have a negative effect resulting in death, as it does for those Israelites who rebel after the spy episode (Deut. 2.15), for the Israelites who transgress in Judg. 2.15, and for the Philistines during Samuel's lifetime (1 Sam. 7.13). It may also be seen a having a positive effect, especially when IT1T T is upon a prophet such as Elijah (1 Kgs 18.46) or Elisha (2 Kgs 3.15). The only other prophet in the HB who is described as touched by T ni!T upon him is Ezekiel. 10. "im—Yahweh as Electing Israel (Deut. 4.37; 7.6, 7; 10.15; 14.2; 1 Kgs 3.8; Isa. 41.8, 9; 43.10; 44.1, 2; 49.7; Ezek. 20.5) Throughout Deuteronomy the Israelites are reminded that Yahweh chose them from among all the nations of the world to enter into a special relationship with him. Israel's obedience to Yahweh should therefore be motivated in response to divine election.14 In Ezek. 20, Yahweh's choice of Israel is portrayed as having occurred on a specific day when Yahweh made himself known to them (DH *? imNI) in the land of Egypt. Here, Ezekiel combines the Deuteronomic concept of Yahweh's election of Israel with recollections of the Exodus tradition originating in P.15 P never speaks of God's election of Israel, only of Aaron (Num 16.5, 7; 17.20). 13. Lev. 7.21; 11.10, 11, 12, 13,20,23,41,42. 14. See Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, pp. 42-43. P speaks only of the election of Aaron (Num. 16.5, 7; 17.20). 15. Compare Ezek. 20.5,9 ('I made myself known') with Exod. 6.2 ('I was known'); the use of the verb tntin in Ezek. 20.6,9,10 and Exod. 6.6,7; the expression'T KfaNI in Ezek. 20.5,6 and Exod. 6.8; the announcement DTH ^N miV "^K in Ezek. 20.5 and in Exod. 6.7. See W.H.C. Propp, 'The Priestly Source Recovered Intact?', FT 46 (1997), pp. 458-78, and below Chapter 5, pp. 98-103.

4. Ezekiel, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History

91

11. a1? DDH/DD]—To Melt the Heart (Deut. 1.28; 20.8; Josh. 2.11; 5.1; 14.8; Ezek.21.12) The image of melting hearts is found twice in Deuteronomy; once regarding the people's response to the news of the spies and once regarding the rules of holy war. In Joshua the expression denotes loss of courage in battle. In Ezek. 21.12, the sword that is about to cut down Judah has the same effect upon the people. 12. ]*V...U\r\—Eye Spare (Gen 45.20 [JJ; Deut. 7.16; 13.9; 19.13, 21; 25.12; Isa. 13.18; Ezek. 5.11; 7.4, 9; 8.18; 9.10; 20.17) The expression ]"0 Din is used in D exclusively with reference to the Israelites, who are continually commanded to show no pity in the face of their internal or external enemies. In Ezekiel this expression refers exclusively to Yahweh, who is repeatedly portrayed as showing no pity towards the backsliding people. 13. D'&ran "iai?—My Servants the Prophets (2 Kgs 9.7; 17.13, 23; 21.10; 24.2; Jer. 7.25; 25.4; 26.5; 29.19; 35.15; 44.4; Ezek. 38.17) In the Deuteronomistic History and Jeremiah, prophets are described as Yahweh's servants, whose task is to urge the people to mend their ways and turn from evil. Ezek. 38.17, too, calls the prophets servants of Yahweh. In P, Yahweh's servants are the priests. Prophecy as an institution scarcely appears in P (only obliquely in Exod 7.1). 14. frDT^a mnn—Likeness of Any Creeping Thing (Deut. 4.18; Ezek. 8.10) Deut. 4.15-18 warns the Israelites against worshiping any form or figure (Tnan) of any creature. Because Yahweh spoke to them at Horeb without shape (HDIDP), they are not to construct or worship any idols or images. In Ezekiel 8, the prophet is transported to the Jerusalem Temple in a vision. There he witnesses various forms of pagan worship, including engravings of creeping animals on the walls. The presence of ~^D n^an O3~l at the Temple is thus in direct defiance of Deut. 4.18. In Ezek. 8.10, this Deuteronomistic expression is found alongside j*ptfj 'detestation', a term found only in P.16 When IT]an appears in P, it refers to the plan of the Tabernacle.17 16. See discussion above in section 8, pp. 89-90. 17. Exod. 25.9, 40.

92

A New Heart and a New Soul

15. norm «]«n—In Anger and Fury (Deut. 9.19; 29.27 [Dtr2J; Jer. 7.20; 21.5; 32.31; 33.5; 36.7; 42.18; 44.6; Ezek. 5.13,15; 7.8; 13.13; 20.8, 21; 22.20; 23.25; 25.14; 38.18) The terms *|K and HDP! describe Yahweh's wrath in D, Jeremiah and Ezekiel. In P, Yahweh's anger is never described in this manner. 16. pNl p—Worshiping Wood and Stone (Deut. 4.28 [Dtr2]; 28.36, 64 [Dtr2]; 29.17; 2 Kgs 19.18; Isa. 37.19; Ezek. 20.32) The idolatrous practice of worshiping 'wood and stone' appears predominantly in Deuteronomic passages that foretell Israel's future exile (Deut. 4.28; 28.36, 64). The people are thus portrayed as worshiping in this manner in foreign nations. The expression also describes the idolatrous practices witnessed by Israel in Egypt (Deut. 29.17). In Ezek. 20.32, the pagan practices of foreign nations are similarly likened to serving 'wood and stone'. 17. Hinn -[-no niti—Turn from Way of Evil (1 Kgs 13.33; 2 Kgs 17.13; Jer. 15.7; 18.11; 25.5; 26.3; 35.15; 36.3, 7; Ezek. 13.22; 33.9, 11) In the Deuteronomistic History this expression describes the wicked actions of Jeroboam and of all Israel. According to 2 Kgs 17.13, every prophet and seer in all of Israel and Judah urged the people to return from their evil ways. Similarly, when Ezekiel is appointed by Yahweh to be the 'sentinel' for the house of Israel, his responsibility is to urge the people to 'return from their evil ways'. 18. mn\..n^—Forget...Yahweh (Deut. 8.11, 14, 19; Jer. 3.21; Ezek. 22.12; 23.35) Throughout Deuteronomy, the Israelites are warned of the dangers they will face should they 'forget' Yahweh and follow other gods.18 In Ezekiel, the people are castigated because they have 'forgotten' Yahweh. 19. rntti'?...Tiau'?—To Stand Before...to Minister (Deut. 10.8; 17.12; 18.5, 7; Ezek. 44.15) In Ezek. 44.15, the priests are permitted to 'stand before' Yahweh 'to minister' to him. The verbs 1DU andmtfj are used together elsewhere only in Deuteronomic description of priestly functions.19 18. In addition to the verses listed above, cf. Deut. 4.19,23,31; 9.7; 25.19; 32.18. 19. Note that the P equivalent '2HpQ rnQBD-TIK 1~IDCD, appears alongside the D expression in Ezek. 44.15.

4. Ezekiel, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History

93

20. mun/in—Grain/Harvest (Deut. 16.13; 11.14; 12.17; 14.23; 18.4; 28.51; 32.13; 33.28; Judg. 9.11; 2 Kgs 18.32; Ezek. 36.29, 30) The word 'grain' (|H) appears often in D, but only twice in P, as part of the priestly offerings (Num. 18.12, 27).20 Haag notes the linguistic parallels between the descriptions of the land in Ezek. 36.29-30 and in D.21 Similarly, 'famine' pin) is threatened in Deut. 28.48, but not P, while raiDD occurs elsewhere in the HB only in Deut. 32.13.22 Both Ezekiel and Deuteronomy link fruitfulness to Israel's faithful response.23 21. n1?—Heart (Deut. 6.4-6; 30.2, 14; Josh. 24.23; 1 Kgs 8.48; 2 Kgs 23.25; Ezek. 11.19-20; 18.31; 36.26) Ezekiel's use of the motif of the 'heart' as the place of human moral response to Yahweh parallels D/Dtr.24 In Deut. 6.4-5, Israel is commanded to love Yahweh "|Cfe» tel "pa^-tan 'with all your heart and with all your soul'. The 'heart' often appears in Deuteronomy in connection with obedience to Yahweh and as the place in the human body where one makes principled decisions (Deut. 6.6; 30.2,14; Josh. 24.23; 1 Kgs 8.48; 2 Kgs 23.2S).25 The new heart promised to the exiles in Ezek. 11.19-20; 36.26-27 recalls Deut. 30.6, where Yahweh promises to circumcise the heart of Israel so that she will' love Yahweh your God with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live'.26 In both texts, the gift of a new heart enables the people to correctly observe Yahweh's statutes and ordinances. B. Analysis Several of the techniques used by Ezekiel when quoting P are evident in his use of Deuteronomic terms and expressions.

20. See Deut. 7.13; 11.14; 12.17; 14.23; 18.4; 28.51; 33.28. 21. H. Haag, Was lehrt die literarische Untersuchung des Ezechiel-Textes? (Freiburg: Paulusdruckerei, 1943), pp. 48-49. See also P. Joyce, Divine Initiative and Human Response in Ezekiel (JSOTSup, 51; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), p. 119. 22. Carley, Ezekiel among the Prophets, p. 59. 23. G.H. Matties, Ezekiel 18 and the Rhetoric of Moral Discourse (SBLDS, 126; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), p. 14. 24. Joyce, Divine Initiative, p. 119. 25. Joyce, Divine Initiative, p. 119. 26. Joyce, Divine Initiative, p. 121.

94

A New Heart and a New Soul

1. Reversals (1) In D, Moses allays the Israelites' apprehensions upon entering their promised land with the words nnn *?K1 NTH *?N (section A.I). InEzekiel, Yahweh assuages Ezekiel's fears regarding the 'rebellious house' of Israel with the same words. (2) In D, the Israelites are continuously commanded to show no pity in the face of their enemies (pIJ Din). In Ezekiel, Yahweh shows no pity towards the backsliding Israelites. 2. Legal Citations In Ezekiel, the Israelites are portrayed as having violated several prohibitions that appear exclusively in Deuteronomy. They worshipfoD")rrnn (cf. Deut. 4.18) and D'mptf (cf. Deut. 29.16), they pass their children through fire (cf. Deut. 18.10), and they worship on 'every mountain height and under every leafy tree' (cf. Deut. 12.2). 3. The Exodus and the Restoration In D/Dtr Yahweh's deliverance of the Israelites from Egyptian bondage occurs 'with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm' (JnDJ mm npTPI TH). Yahweh will exercise this same power in his future deliverance of Israel (Ezek. 20.33). C. Summary Despite his affinities with P, Ezekiel was also influenced by the language and concepts of D. Much of D, however, would have been anathema to the Priestly writer: non-exclusive Levite priesthood; the importance of the king and of the prophet; the tradition of Aaron as sinner. Yet Ezekiel, who draws heavily upon P, is not shy about deriving terminology and ideas from D. Sometimes Ezekiel draws upon D terminology where no equivalent expression or concept exists in P—for example, the power or office of the prophet (sections A.9 and 13) and the idea of repentance (A. 17), and specific forms of idolatry (sections A.6, 8,14,16). On several occasions however, the prophet chooses D/Dtr phraseology over P—when he describes the Exile (sections A.4 and 5), child sacrifice (section A.7), and that which is detestable (section A. 8). The parallels between D and Ezekiel go beyond the level of shared vocabulary. In Ezekiel 18, a chapter noted for its affinity to P, one law

4. Ezekiel, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History

95

(Ezek. 18.6) parallels Deut. 12.1-4.27 Ezekiel forbids eating 'upon the mountains', which Carley associates with partaking of sacrificial meals at local sanctuaries.28 Moreover, Ezekiel 16 and 23 describe Israelite idolatry in terms of harlotry. The punishment is death by stoning (Ezek. 16.40) and death by the sword (Ezek. 23.47). Punishment by stoning is prescribed for the adulteress in Deut. 22.21, and for those who lead others to serve foreign gods in Deut. 13.10.29 Throughout, Ezekiel places great stress on the 'word of Yahweh' as the means by which prophetic revelations are given.30 He is also portrayed as a prophet to whom the people come to inquire of Yahweh.31 Both of these characteristics parallel D's portrayal of Moses. Ezekiel recognizes only one legal sanctuary of Yahweh and seems familiar with D's idea of a single sacred site in the entire land. As is the case with P, however, Ezekiel adopts aspects of D's history while ignoring or even contradicting others.

27. Carley, Ezekiel among the Prophets, p. 58. 28. That Ezekiel views the cult at local sanctuaries as sinful is clear; cf. Ezek. 6.34,13; 16.16; 20.27-28. The latter passages include the phrase 'under every leafy tree' prevalent in D (see section 6, p. 89). 29. Carley, Ezekiel among the Prophets, p. 58. Also noted by Burrows, Literary Relations, p. 19, and Fohrer, Die Hauptprobleme, p. 144. 30. The Deuteronomistic expression 'the word of Yahweh came to me' occurs 45 times in Ezekiel (noted by Wilson, Prophecy and Society, p. 283). See also W. Zimmerli, 'The Special Form- and Traditio-historical Character of Ezekiel's Prophecy', FT 15 (1965), pp. 515-16. 31. See Ezek. 14.3; 20.1 where the Israelite elders come to Ezekiel to seek (CTH) Yahweh (Wilson, Prophecy and Society, p. 283).

Chapter 5 FUSING P AND D/DTR IN EZEKIEL A. P andD/Dtr in Ezekiel The most illuminating aspect of Ezekiel's use of P and D is the way in which he combines these sources. Taken alone, P and D each embody a complex and consistent theology. They differ from each other in their concepts of religion, their interpretation of Israelite history and their language. Essentially, they propose two distinct ideologies.1 Yet Ezekiel fuses P and D material to create a unique synthesis.2 For example, P (Lev. 10.10-11) describes the priest as one who 'separates between the holy and the profane and between the clean and the unclean' ("lintDn j'm NQtsn pm "Tin j^l Enpn ]*1 ^inn^l). Deuteronomy, in contrast, assigns the priest judicial functions; the priest is one who makes decisions in cases of dispute and assault (Deut. 17.8,9; 21.5). Ezek. 44.23-25 describes the role of priests as follows: 'They shall teach my people the difference between the holy and the profane and show them how to distinguish between the unclean and the clean. In a dispute they shall act to judge it according to my judgments...' Ezekiel's job description combines elements and language of both sources.3 Regarding individual responsibility, Deut. 24.16 states that 'fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; each man for his own sin shall be put to death'. P's notion of karet, the extirpation of a lineage group, articulates quite the opposite view.4 In Ezekiel 18.20, the content is clearly influenced by D. The three 1. For a thorough comparison of the two ideologies see Friedman, WWTB, pp. 117-35, 188-206, and Weinfeld, Deuteronomy. 2. See, provisionally, Wilson, Prophecy and Society, p. 284; Matties, Ezekiel 18, pp. 17-18; Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p. 615; Greenberg, Ezekiel 1-20, pp. 116-17. 3. Also noted by Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p. 615. 4. Cf. Exod 12.15,19; 30.33,38; 31.14;Num. 9.13; 18.3; 19.13-20; Lev. 7.18,2021,25, 27; 17.4, 9, 10, 14; 18.27-29; 19.8; 20.2-5, 6; 23.29, 30; 24.15. See Milgrom,

5. Fusing P and D/Dtr in Ezekiel

97

essential elements of Deut. 24.16—fathers shall not be put to death for their sons; sons shall not be put to death for their fathers; each will die for his own sins—appear reversed in Ezekiel.5 Yet the language of Ezek. 18.20 is derived from P: 'The soul that sins [PNBnn CJB3n], it shall die. A son shall not bear the iniquity [pin NfeT] of the father, nor shall a father bear the iniquity [pin KKT] of the son'. In Ezek. 34.4, the prophet condemns the 'shepherds of Israel' for vari ous negligent actions, including failing to restore stray sheep to the flock (drntfn N1? nrnan-rwi), directly commanded in Deut. 22.1. In the same verse, the shepherds are accused of ruling over their flocks with harshness ("psm DDK DfPTI), an expression used elsewhere exclusively by P describing the Egyptian oppression of the Israelites.6 In Ezek. 5.15-16, Greenberg notes Ezekiel's variations on classical threats of doom from both Deuteronomy and P.7 He cites the following: the 'deadly arrows of famine' (D'mn ninn ^R) in Ezek. 5.16 recall the 'wasting famine' pin STD), the first of Yahweh's 'arrows' in Deut. 32.23, 24. Ezekiel's use of "p1* recalls Lev. 26.21 (P), where Yahweh threatens 'I will inflict on you more blows' (rDQ DIT bs TISD^I). At the same time, Ezekiel's D!T ^17 *pfc Din evokes by paronomasia Deuteronomy's mm IIT by H20N 'I will sweep evils upon them'. Again, the verb n b\D in Ezek. 5.16 and 17 echoes Lev. 26.25b (P), and the expression 'breaking the staff of bread' (Dn^-HtDQ DD^ 'rmtfl) is found in Lev. 26.26 (P). Moreover, Ezekiel's use of the phrase HTFtDD^ Til parallels P's language in the plague against the firstborn Egyptians (Exod. 12.13). Finally, the language of Ezek. 5.17 recalls both Deuteronomy 32 and Leviticus 26—specifically, Deut. 32.24, 'Let loose...beasts...the sword bereaves'; Lev. 26.22, 'le loose among you wild beasts who will bereave you'; and Lev. 26.25, 'I will bring a sword upon you.. .a plague.'

Leviticus 1-16, pp. 457-60; D.J. Wold, 'The Biblical Penalty of Kareth' (PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1978). 5. Noted by Greenberg, Ezekiel 1-20, p. 333. Greenberg believes that such strict inversion provides clear evidence of Ezekiel's dependence on Deuteronomy. See also J.S. Kaminsky, Corporate Responsibility in the Hebrew Bible (JSOTSup, 196; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1995), pp. 165-68. See also the challenge to Greenberg's position in G. Braulik, Bundesdokument und Gesetz: Studien zum Deuteronium (Freiberg: Herder, 1995). 6. See section 10.2, p. 67. 7. Greenberg, Ezekiel 1-20, pp. 116-17.

98

A New Heart and a New Soul

B. P andD/Dtr in Ezekiel 20 One of the most striking examples of the fusion of Priestly and Deuteronomic language and theology is Ezek. 20.1-44, which recounts Israel's history from the Egyptian Exodus to the prophet's day. Ultimately, however, the prophet's account does not directly parallel either Pentateuchal source. In the following translation, Priestly terminology appears in boldface, Deuteronomistic language in italics.8 1. In the seventh year in the fifth month on the tenth day of the month, some elders of Israel came to me to consult Yahweh9 and sat down before me. 2. And the word ofYahweh came to me.w 3. Son of Man, speak to the elders of Israel and say to them: Thus says my Lord Yahweh: Have you come to consult meln As I live, says Yahweh, I will not be consulted by you—word of my Lord Yahweh. 4. Will you judge them, Son of Man, will you judge them? Let them know the abominations of their ancestors. 5. And say to them, thus says my Lord Yahweh: On the day of my choosing Israel,12 I raised my arm13 to the seed of Jacob s14 house and made myself known to them15 in the land of Egypt; I raised my arm to them, saying, 'I am

8. For detailed discussion of Ezekiel 20, see Greenberg, Ezekiel 1-20, pp. 360-88; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, pp. 399-418; T. Burden, TheKerygma of the Wilderness Traditions in the Hebrew Bible (New York: Peter Lang, 1994), pp. 167-77; J. Pons, 'Le vocabulaire d'Ezechiel 20: le prophete s'oppose a la vision deuteronomiste de 1'histoire', in J. Lust (ed.), Ezekiel and his Book (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1986), pp. 214-33; J. Lust, 'Ez XX, 4-26: une parodie de 1'histoire religieuse d'lsrael', ETL 20 (1967), pp. 488-527. See also Friedman, Exile and Biblical Narrative, p. 63. 9. The concept of consulting (ETll1?) Yahweh is exclusively found in Deuteronomy (cf. Deut. 12.5,30), describing the functions of prophets in the tradition of Moses. 10. See Chapter 4 n. 30, p. 95. 11. See n. 9 above. 12. Yahweh's election ("1113) of Israel is a concept predominantly found in D. See section 10, p. 90. 13. The image ofYahweh raising his arm (swearing) is used in P (Exod. 6.8; Num. 14.30) to describe his promise of land. That Ezekiel was familiar with this use of the expression is apparent in Ezek. 20.28, which directly recalls Exod. 6.8. See Propp, 'Priestly Source', pp. 472-73. In D, Yahweh's promise of the land is described with the term ID03 (Deut. 1.8). 14. The expression 'seed of Jacob' is found in Exod. 33.1 (E); Deut. 1.8; 34.4. In Deuteronomy this expression is used in connection with Yahweh's promise of land to the Patriarchs. 15. The theme of Yahweh making himself known either by reputation or by name

5. Fusing P and D/Dtr in Ezekiel

99

Yahweh your god'.16 6. On that day I raised my arm to them, to take them out from the land of Egypt17 to a land I scouted for them,^ flowing •with milk and honey,19 the most beautiful of all lands. 7. I said to them, 'Each of you cast away the abominations of his eyes, and do not pollute yourselves with the detestable things20 of Egypt. I am Yahweh your god'. 8. But they rebelled against me and would not heed me. Each man did not cast away the abominations of his eyes, and they did not abandon the detestable things of Egypt. So I resolved to pour out my wrath upon them, spending my anger 21 against them within the land of Egypt. 9. But I acted for the sake of my name,22 lest it be profaned in the eyes of the nations23 in whose midst they were, to whom I had revealed myself in their eyes, by taking them out of the land of Egypt. 10. So I led them out of the land of Egypt and brought them into the wilderness. 11.1 gave them my statutes and showed them my ordinances24 by whose observance everyone shall

is found exclusively in P (Exod. 2.25 *LXX Vorlage; 6.2). For discussion of this expression in P and Ezekiel 20, see Propp, 'Priestly Source', p. 473. Propp suggests that the similarities between Ezek. 20.5 and the two passages in P may indicate that the prophet knew P as an independent narrative source. 16. This expression occurs 24 times in P and 4 times in Ezekiel (see section 1.8, p. 34). In P, the phrase serves as a refrain reminding the Israelites of Yahweh's constant presence in all aspects of their life as well as his role in rescuing them from Egypt. 17. See Exod. 6.6, 7; 12.42. For detailed discussion of the similarities between Ezek. 20.5-9 and Exod. 6.2-9, see J.L. Ska, 'La place d'Ex 6,2-8 dans la narration de 1'Exode', ZA W94 (1982), pp. 530-48 (539); Propp, 'Priestly Source', pp. 472-73. The use of the verb tTiJin is particularly noteworthy. 18. In both P (Num. 13) and D, "IID describes the advance scouting of land. However, the notion that Yahweh himself did the reconnoitering is exclusive to D (Deut. 1.33) and Ezekiel. LXX reads TIP], perhaps confusing THD with earlier TlNfcE. 19. This expression is prevalent in all the Pentateuchal sources except P, where it appears only in Lev. 20.24 (see, for example, Exod. 3.8 [J], 17 [E]; Num. 13.27 [J]; 16.14 [J]; Deut. 6.3; 11.9; 26.9, 15; 27.3; 31.20; Josh. 5.6). 20. See section 8, pp. 89-90. 21. The description of Yahweh's anger with the terms ^N and HOn is found in Deut. 9.19; 29.27 and Jer. 7.20; 21.5; 32.31; 33.5; 36.7; 42.18; 44.6 and nine times in Ezekiel (5.13, 15; 7.8; 13.13; 20.8, 21; 22.20; 23.25; 25.14; 38.18). See section 15, p. 92. 22. In Exod. 32.11 (E), it is Moses who urges Yahweh to refrain from killing the Israelites for the sake of what the Egyptians might say. This appeal is recounted in Deut. 9. Yahweh also shows concern for the preservation of his holy name in Lev. 22.32 (P). 23. See section 4.5, p. 42. 24. The expression D^CDSEJOl D^pfl is found exclusively in D (Deut. 4.1, 5, 8, 14; 5.1; 11.32; 12.1) whereas P prefers the expression DnC3STOl mpn (Lev. 18.4, 5, 26; 19.37; 20.22; 25.18; 26.15,43), contra Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, p. 337.

100

A New Heart and a New Soul live.2512. Moreover, I gave them my Sabbaths,26 to be a sign between me and them,27 so that they might know that I, Yahweh, sanctify them.28 13. But the house of Israel rebelled against me in the wilderness; they did not follow my statutes but rejected my ordinances, by whose observance everyone shall live; and my Sabbaths they greatly profaned. Then I resolved to pour out my wrath upon them in the wilderness, to make an end of them. 14. But I acted for the sake of my name, so that it should not be profaned in the eyes of the nations, in whose sight I had brought them out. 15. Moreover, I raised my arm to them in the wilderness that I would not bring them into the land I had given them,flowing with milk and honey, the most glorious of all lands, 16. because they rejected my ordinances and did not follow my statutes and profaned my Sabbaths, for their heart29 went after their idols. 17. Nevertheless my eye spared them,30 from destruction, and I did not make an end of them in the wilderness. 18. I said to their children in the wilderness, 'Do not follow the statutes31 of your parents, nor observe their ordinances, nor defile yourselves with their idols, 19.1 am Yahweh your god; follow my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances, 20. and hallow my Sabbaths that they may be a sign between me and you, so that you may know that I Yahweh am your God'. 21. But the children rebelled against me; they did not follow my statutes, and were not careful to observe my ordinances, by whose observance everyone shall live; they profaned my Sabbaths. Then I resolved to pour out my wrath upon them and spend my anger against them in the wilderness. 22. But I withheld my hand, and acted for the sake of my name, so that it should not be profaned in the eyes of the nations, in whose sight I brought them out. 23. Moreover, I raised my arm to them in the wilderness that I would scatter them among the nations 32and disperse them through the countries, 24. because they had not executed my ordinances, but had

25. Greenberg notes that the combination of observance and life is a Deuteronomic concept (Ezekiel 1-20, p. 366). See Deut. 6.24-25; 30.15, 19 (cf. Ezek. 18.5; 33.15). The concept of living by Yahweh's statutes and ordinances also recalls Lev. 18.5. 26. This expression occurs exclusively in P and Ezekiel (see section 6.3, pp. 49-50). 27. The Sabbath is described as a sign between Yahweh and the Israelites exclusively in P (Exod. 31.13, 17) and Ezekiel (20.12, 20). See section 6.2, p. 49. 28. This expression occurs only in P (Exod. 31.13 re: Sabbath; Lev. 20.8; 21.8; 22.32) and Ezek. 20.12. See section 1.7, p. 34. 29. See section 21, p. 93. 30. See section 12, p. 91. 31. The expression ID^Pl s prn occurs exclusively in P and Ezekiel (Lev. 20.23; 26.3; Ezek. 20.18; 36.27). See section 2.5, p. 37. 32. This verse seems to recall Deut. 4.27 directly, contra Greenberg, who states that 'the Pentateuchal sources are silent about this remarkable oath, taken by God even before they entered the land' (Ezekiel 1-20, p. 368).

5. Fusing P and D/Dtr in Ezekiel

101

rejected my statutes and profaned my Sabbaths, and their eyes were set on their ancestors' idols. 25. Moreover, I gave them statutes that were no good and ordinances by which they could not live. 26. I defiled them through their very gifts, in their offering up every firstborn,33 in order that I might horrify them, so that they might know that I am Yahweh. 27. Therefore, Son of Man, speak to the house of Israel and say to them, thus says my Lord Yahweh: In this again your ancestors insulted me by dealing treacherously with me.34 28. For when I had brought them into the land that I raised my arm to give them, then, wherever they saw any high hill or any leafy tree,35 there they offered their sacrifices and presented the provocation of their offering; there they sent up their pleasing odors,36 and there they poured out their drink offerings. 29.1 said to them, 'What is the high place to which you go?' So it is called Bamah to this day.31 30. Therefore, say38 to the house of Israel, thus says my Lord Yahweh: will you defile yourselves after the manner of your ancestors and go after their detestable things? 31. When you offer your gifts and make your children pass through fire39 you defile yourselves with all your idols to this day. And shall I be consulted by you, house of Israel? As I live, says Yahweh, I will not be consulted by you. 32. What arises in your mind will never happen, when you say 'Let us be like the nations,40 like the families of the countries and serve wood and stone'.4[ 33. As I live, says my Lord Yahweh, with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm42 and with wrath poured out I will rule you. 34.1 will bring you out from the peoples and gather you from the lands in which you have been scattered with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm and with wrath poured out; 35. and I will bring you into the wilderness of the peoples, and there I will enter into

33. Dm "105 occurs three times in P (Exod. 13.2; Num. 3.12; 18.15). It is also found in Exod. 13.12, 15 (E?); 34.19 (J). 34. See section 5.8, pp. 46-47. 35. See section 6, p. 89. 36. See section 7.10, pp. 55-56. 37. The expression HTH DVH IS occurs in Gen. 26.33 (J); 32.33 (E); 47.26 (J); 48.15 (E); Exod. 10.6 (J); Num. 22.30 (E), 55 times in D/Dtr and 9 times in Jeremiah. 38. See section 10.24, p. 75. 39. See section 7, p. 89. 40. The wish of the people 'to be like other nations' (D^D IT!"!]) recalls 1 Sam. 8.20. On both occasions the people's defiant wish leads to Yahweh's anger. See Greenberg, Ezekiel 1-20, p. 94. 41. The idolatrous practice of worshiping 'wood and stone' is mentioned four times in D (4.28; 28.36,64; 29.16), once inDtr(2 Kgs 19.18) andlsa. 37.19. See section 16, p. 92. 42. See section 3, p. 87.

102

A New Heart and a New Soul judgment with you, face to face.43 36. As I entered into judgment with your ancestors in the wilderness of the land of Egypt, so I will enter into judgment with you, says my Lord Yahweh. 37.1 will make you pass under the staff44 and will bring you within the bond of the covenant. 38.1 will purge out the rebels among you and those who sin against me; I will bring them out of the land of their sojourn,45 but they will not enter the land of Israel. Then you will know that I am Yahweh. 39. As for you, house of Israel, thus says my Lord Yahweh: Go serve your idols, each of you, and after, if you will not listen to me, you shall no more profane my holy name46 with your gifts and your idols. 40. But on my holy mountain, the mountain height of Israel, word of my Lord God, there all the house of Israel, all of them, shall serve me in the land; there I will receive them, and there I will require your contributions and the choicest of your gifts, with all your sacred things. 41. As a pleasing odor I will accept you, when I bring you out of the peoples and gather you out of the countries where you have been scattered; and I will manifest my holiness among you in the eyes of the nations. 42. You will know that I am Yahweh, when I bring you into the land of Israel, the country that I raised my arm to give to your ancestors. 43. There you shall remember your ways and all your deeds by which you have polluted yourselves, and you will despise yourselves for all the evils you have committed. 44. And you shall know that I am Yahweh, when I deal with you for my name's sake, not according to your evil ways or corrupt deeds, house of Israel, says my Lord Yahweh.

Ezekiel recounts Israel's past through a synthesis of Priestly and Deuteronomic traditions. The notion that Israel is being punished for past sin echoes D. However, the role of the law recalls more P. That Israel's laws are construed as part of Yahweh's castigation of Israelite sin is an odd mixing of the two theologies.47 Ultimately, some laws are deemed as 'no good' (d'niB K1?), that no one can live by them (Dm VFP «*?), a cynical reversal of Lev. 18.5 and the Deuteronomic notion that laws provide life. There are, however, several conspicuous differences between Ezek. 20.1-44, on the one hand, and P and D, on the other. Ezekiel does not mention the role of either Moses or Aaron. The book does not recount the plagues, Passover observance or the miracle at the sea. Ezekiel does not 43. The expression D^B-^N D^B recalls Yahweh's relationship with Moses in Deut. 34.10 and Exod. 33.11 (E). 44. See section 10.4, pp. 67-68. 45. See section 3.6, p. 39. 46. See section 1.2, pp. 31 -32. 47. Also noted by Wilson, Prophecy and Society, p. 284.

5. Fusing P and D/Dtr in Ezekiel

103

explicitly mention Yahweh's covenant with the Patriarchs.48 There is no reference to specific incidents of rebellion, such as the golden calf or the spies. And, unlike Ezek. 20.7, neither P nor D record instances of idolatry or punishment in Egypt.49 The divine appeal in the Wilderness (w. 18-20) is likewise absent from Priestly and Deuteronomic traditions. Ezekiel's portrayal of Yahweh's nature exhibits a similar synthesis of P and D. In P, the altar and the priests function as the people's only channel to Yahweh; there is no room for a prophet like Ezekiel. P makes no reference to the Israelite God as merciful. In fact, the words mercy, grace, faithfulness and repentance plti},lDn, |3n, Dm) never appear in P.50 Ezekiel portrays Yahweh as jealous, but also merciful as in D (Ezek. 39.25).51 He is angry, but also forgiving (Ezek. 5.13; 16.42). According to the prophet, faith in Yahweh could still be rewarded. Repentance, a Deuteronomic concept, remains an option.52 C. Summary The establishment of the priority of one text over another has always been a methodologically difficult task.53 Indeed, the plethora of recent linguistic studies seeking to track the evolution of biblical Hebrew in P and in Ezekiel is, in part, a reaction to the inadequacies apparent in attempts to date these texts using purely literary criteria.54 Nonetheless, my analysis of 48. Ezek. 20.5 has often been understood to suggest that Yahweh's first covenant was with the Israelites of the Exodus. However, Propp notes that Ezek. 33.24, which refers to Abraham's inheritance of the land, and Ezek. 28.25 and 37.25, which mention 'my servant Jacob', illustrate that the prophet was likely aware of a patriarchal covenant. See Propp, 'Priestly Code', p. 475. 49. The punishment of the gods of Egypt is mentioned in Exod. 12.12 and Josh. 24.14. 50. Friedman, WWTB, pp. 238-39. 51. 'Now I will restore [T 2JN] the fortunes of Jacob, and have mercy [TIQFm ] on the whole house of Israel; and I will be jealous [TINlpI] for my holy name.' For additional portrayals of Yahweh as jealous, see Exod. 20.5; 34.14; Num. 25.11, 13; Deut. 4.24; 5.9; 6.15; Ezek. 5.13; 16.38,42; 36.5, 6; 38.19; cf. Ezek. 8.3, 5. 52. The concept of repentance is found throughout Ezekiel. See, for example, Ezek. 3.20; 13.22; 18.23, 24, 26, 27; 33.9, 11, 12, 18, 19. 53. See, for example, the comments in Hurvitz, Linguistic Study, pp. 13-18, and the observations in Chapter 1. 54. There exists no scholarly consensus regarding the date and priority of P or Ezekiel even based on purely linguistic evidence, as the works of Hurvitz, Polzin, Rooker, Levine and Milgrom indicate. The fact remains that all biblical sources have

104

A New Heart and a New Soul

similar language in the book of Ezekiel, P and D suggests that identical terms used by different sources in disparate, antithetical or even unrelated contexts can help to answer questions of priority. It is my contention that Ezekiel knew and quoted the language and concepts of both P and D. The resemblances detected specifically between Ezekiel and P are not the result of common heritage or the use of contemporary language.55 At the same time, the contention that the direction of influence moves from Ezekiel to P is no longer tenable.

undergone a complex process of composition, compilation, editing and copying. As a result, they are linguistically stratified. Isolated late language does not necessarily indicate the intrinsic 'lateness' of a text, no more than a Coke bottle found atop an Iron Age mound calls into question the identification or dating of that archaeological site (Propp, in conversation). 55. Nor can we assume that the writers had no choice in the matter; witness instances where Ezekiel chooses alternate phraseology or where the option was clearly available. See, for example, sections 7, p. 89; 8, pp. 89-90; 19, p. 92.

Chapter 6 CONCLUSION

A. Ezekiel and the Exile The Babylonian destruction of Judah and Jerusalem and the subsequent exile of the country's population is often described as a watershed in Israelite history.1 There is, however, no unified account of this period. Historical reconstruction is based upon meager information in 2 Kings and evidence scattered throughout the prophecies of Jeremiah and Ezekiel. The destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the monarchy may have radically altered any beliefs the people would have held regarding the eternity of the house of David and the invulnerability of the Jerusalem Temple.2 The Judean leadership, the wealthy and the professionals were all forced into exile, while a large part of the poorer population remained.3 Those who stayed behind likely suffered economic poverty and national inactivity. Archaeological

1. The true extent of the destruction and the exact situation in which the Judaeans found themselves after the fall are still matters of debate. For surveys of current scholarship see B. Oded, 'Judah and the Exile', in J.H. Hayes and J.M. Miller (eds.), Israelite andJudaean History (London: SCM Press, 1977), pp. 476-86; H. Tadmor, 'The Period of the First Temple, the Babylonian Exile and the Restoration', in H. Ben-Sasson (ed.), A History of the Jewish People (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1976), pp. 15964; J.H. Hayes and J.M. Miller, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986), pp. 412-20; D.B. Redford, Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times, pp. 467-68. It is agreed that a sizable group of Judeans were exiled to Babylonia in several separate deportations. 2. See, for example, Pss. 46; 48; 65; 89; 95-99; 132. See also J.D. Levenson, 'Zion Traditions', ABD, VI, pp. 1098-1102; J.H. Hayes, 'The Traditions of Zion's Inviolability', JBL 82 (1963), pp. 419-26. 3. See J.M. Myers, 'Edom and Judah in the Sixth-Fifth Centuries BC', Near Eastern Studies (1971), pp. 377-92; H.M. Barstad, The Myth of the Empty Land: A Study in the History and Archaeology of Judah during the 'Exilic' Period (Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1996).

106

A New Heart and a New Soul

excavations bear witness to the dimensions of the destruction wrought by the Babylonians and to the sudden decline of a previously thriving culture.4 The exact number of Israelites deported to Mesopotamia is unknown. The scant information available about the areas they inhabited and their lives in exile comes from several biblical references and various Mesopotamian inscriptions.5 The prophet Ezekiel resided in a large Jewish center in southern Babylonia at Tel-Abib, where he began preaching to his expatriated contemporaries (Ezek. 3.15).6 The traumatic events of the Exile provide the key to Ezekiel's prophetic message. Ezekiel was the first known Israelite prophet to function exclusively in the diaspora; he was the first to see visions of Yahweh outside of Israel.7 Ezekiel had the difficult task of speaking for a God who seemed to have forsaken his people. Classical prophecy and the book of Deuteronomy had taught that one's fate was determined through loyalty or disloyalty to Yahweh's covenant. Ezekiel addressed the obvious difficulties arising from this ideology, arguing that the disaster of 587 BCE was part of

4. See Y. Aharoni, The Land of the Bible (London: Burns & Gates, 1979), pp. 406 11; A. Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1990), pp. 458-60; S.S. Weinberg, 'Post Exilic Palestine, an Archaeological Report', Proceeding of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities 4 (1971), pp. 78-97; E. Stern, The Material Culture of the Land of the Bible in the Persian Period, 538-332 B.C. (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute; Israel Exploration Society, 1973); idem, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible. II. The Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian Periods (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 2001), pp. 303-59. For alternative views on the Judean exile see the collection of essays in Grabbe (ed.), Leading Captivity Captive. 5. 2Kgs 17.6; 18.11;Ezek. 1.3;3.15;Ps. 137. For Mesopotamian sources see M.D Coogan, 'Life in the Diaspora: Jews at Nippur in the Fifth Century BC', BA 37 (1974) pp. 6-12; idem, West Semitic Personal Names in the Murasu Documents (HSM, 7; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976); R. Zadok, The Jews in Babylonia during the Chaldean and Achaemenian Periods According to the Babylonian Sources (Haifa: University of Haifa Press, 1979); idem, On West Semites in Babylonia during the Chaldean and Achaemenian Periods (Jerusalem: H.J. and Z. Wanaarta, 1977); idem, Sources for the History of the Jews in Babylonia during the Chaldean and Achaemenian Periods (Jerusalem: Akademun, 1980). 6. Tel-Abib was located in the vicinity of the Chebar, the river canal that flowed through the ancient site of Nippur. The site of Tel-Abib has not yet been identified. See Y. Kobayashi, 'Tel-Abib', ABD, VI, p. 344. 7. For views arguing that the prophet was first or solely active in Judah, see the summary in L. Boadt, 'Ezekiel, Book of, ABD, II, pp. 714-15. These theories have won little support. Jeremiah receives divine messages in Egypt at about the same time or a little later.

6. Conclusion

107

Yahweh's plan for Israel and that the Exile did not delegitimize his rule; it was in fact further proof of God's power. Ezekiel's concern was to make the people learn from the apostasy in Israel's past and to look forward to future redemption and the restoration of the community. Like Jeremiah's, his message was a mixture of stern judgments and elaborate visions of hope and restoration. As a prophet of the Exile, Ezekiel was forced to confront, analyze and interpret Israel's past. In doing so, he looked back to Israel's written sources. Our examination of the prophet's use of language in his visions, symbolic actions and legislation sheds light on both the Exilic matrix of the book of Ezekiel and the prophet's relationship with Israel's law and history as recorded in the sources known to modem scholars as P and D. B. Ezekiel and the Restoration: Moses and the 'Second Exodus' Ezekiel's visions concerning the redemption and future restoration of Israel fuse Priestly and Deuteronomic concepts with many of the prophet's own ideas. The people will be redeemed by Yahweh who, 'with an outstretched arm', will bring them to the land that was sworn to their forefathers (Ezek. 20.33-42). These visions of Judah restored amount to nothing less than a 'Second Exodus', this time not from Egypt but from Babylonia. The motif of a 'Second Exodus' is not unique to Ezekiel.8 Perhaps the earliest occurrence is in the book of Hosea, where, in the context of future restoration, the bride Israel will 'be refreshed as in the time of her youth, when she came up from the land of Egypt' (Hos. 2.17). Micah, in the face of the Assyrian crisis in the late eighth century BCE, foresees Yahweh's future redemption of Israel as a repeat of past miracles (Mic. 7.14-15). Isaiah anticipates Yahweh setting his hand a 'second time' (tT]CJ) to recover his people from Egypt and Assyria (Isa. 11.11). Jeremiah looks to the return of Israel's northern tribes with the reformulation of a traditional oath formula: 'The days are coming, says Yahweh, when it shall no longer be said, "As Yahweh lives who brought the people of Israel up out of the land of Egypt", 8. For scholarly discussion of the motif see M. Fishbane, Text and Texture (New York: Schocken Books, 1979), pp. 121-40; Cross, CMHE,pp. 345-46; R. Klein, Israel in Exile (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), pp. 81 -82,111; W. Zimmerli, 'Le nouvel "Exode" dans le message des deux grands prophetes de 1'exil', in La branche d'amandier: hommagea Wilhelm Vischer(Montpellier: Castelnau, 1960),pp. 216-27; Burden, Kerygma, pp. 157-88.

108

A New Heart and a New Soul but "As Yahweh lives who brought the people of Israel up out of the land of the north and out of all the lands where he has driven them"' (Jer. 16.14-15).

This image would be further explored by Second Isaiah, Ezekiel's younger contemporary.9 Second Isaiah refers to the Exodus as a 'former thing' to which the new 'Second Exodus' will directly correspond: 'Do not recall the former things or consider the things of old. I am about to do a new thing; now it springs forth, do you not perceive it? I will make a way in the wilderness and rivers in the desert' (Isa. 43.18-19).

This time, the departure will be peaceful and calm, the people 'will not leave in haste, or go in flight' (Isa. 52.11-12; contrast Exod. 12.11; Deut 16.3). According to Second Isaiah, Yahweh would repeat many of the miracles of the first Exodus, including the provision of food and water (Isa. 41.17-18; 43.19,20; 48.21; 49.10) and personally shepherding the people through the desert. The journey is to end in a march to Zion, where the prophet envisions a lavish rebuilding of the city (Isa. 44.28; 54.11-12).10 Even before Second Isaiah, Ezekiel envisioned the return from Babylonia as a new Exodus. According to Ezek. 20.34-40, while the wicked would be prevented from re-entering the land, the righteous remainder would worship Yahweh at his holy mountain, where he would accept their offerings. These future divine actions will be motivated, like Yahweh's salvation during the Egyptian Exodus, 'for the sake of his name'. Ezekiel also foresees a new covenant assuring the people's future well-being and security.'l While

9. In addition to those noted above see B. Anderson, 'Exodus Typology in Second Isaiah', in B. Anderson and W. Harrelson (eds.), Israel's Prophetic Heritage (New York: Harper, 1962), pp. 177-95. Anderson lists the following passages in Isaiah where the 'Second Exodus' is directly mentioned: Isa. 40.3-5 (the highway in the wilderness); 41.17-20 (the transformation of the wilderness); 42.14-16 (Yahweh leads his people in a way they know not); 43.1-3 (passing through the waters and the fire); 43.14-21 (a way in the wilderness); 48.20-21 (exodus from Babylon); 49.8-12 (the new entry into the Promised Land); 51.9-10 (the new victory at the sea); 52.11-12 (the new exodus); 55.12-13 (Israel will go out in joy and in peace). See Anderson, 'Exodus Typology in Second Isaiah', pp. 81-82. 10. It has even been suggested that Second Isaiah saw Cyrus as a 'new Moses'. O. Graham contends Second Isaiah, in constructing the Cyrus Song (Isa. 44.24-45.13), explicitly drew upon the Priestly account of Moses in Exod. 6-8. He lists several points of specific dependence: the title 'Redeemer' (Isa. 44.24); the return to Canaan (Isa. 44.26); that Cyrus may know Yahweh (Isa. 45.3). See O. Graham, 'Moses and Cyrus', FT 28 (1978), pp. 195-203. 11. See Ezek. 16.59-63; 20.38; 37.26.

6. Conclusion

109

ignoring Moses of old, Ezekiel in fact portrays himself as a new Moses.12 This depiction is a confluence of Priestly and Deuteronomic traditions. Moses functions as a priest in P, while in D he is primarily a prophet.13 In both sources, he is above all a legislator. Ezekiel functions as prophet, priest and legislator; he is a prophet by calling, a priest by birthright. And Ezekiel 40—48 is the only body of legislation in the HB not placed in the mouth of Moses.14 Like Moses in P, Ezekiel is warned by Yahweh before he sets out that his mission will fail due to the strong resolves and hardened hearts of others.15 D foretells the coming of a prophet like Moses, who will be raised up 'from among the Israelites' and in whose mouth Yahweh will place his words (Deut. 18.18). Ezekiel's mission, regardless of its success or failure, will signify to Israel that there was 'a prophet among them' (Ezek. 2.5). Then Ezekiel eats a scroll containing Yahweh's words; that is, the divine message is literally placed in his mouth (Ezek. 2.10-3.1). Moses receives a design of the Tabernacle in P; Ezekiel similarly receives a detailed vision of the new Temple.16 Before Ezekiel sees this vision, he is transported to a high mountain (Ezek. 40.2) and shown the plan in a manner closely resembling Moses seeing the land of Israel from Mount Nebo (Deut. 32.49-52).17 Both Moses and Ezekiel receive laws relating to festivals and sacrifices.18 Ezekiel hears Yahweh speaking

12. H. McKeating, Ezekiel (OTG; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), p. 102; J.D. Levenson, Theology of the Program of Restoration of Ezekiel 40-48 (HSM, 10; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976), pp. 38-39. 13. In P, Aaron is to serve as Moses' prophet, while Moses is to be 'like God to Pharaoh' (Exod. 7.1). 14. Levenson, Theology, p. 39. Thus, Ezekiel, unlike P, does not attempt to legitimize laws by locating them in a sacred past. 15. Compare Ezek. 2.4 and Exod. 7.3; see J.L. Ska, 'La sortie d'Egypte (Ex 7-14) dans le recit sacerdotal (Pg) et la tradition prophetique', Bib 60 (1979), pp. 191-215 (203-204). Ska notes the similarities between Ezekiel's call (Ezek. 2.1-3.11) and the commissioning of Moses in Exod. 7.1-5, where the roots pTFI and Httfp are found in conjunction with H^. 16. Kaufrnann believes the Temple vision in Ezekiel is based upon Exod. 29.9,40 (Religion,?. 524). Both the Targum and Vulgate read m DP for man in Ezek. 43.10. 17. Levenson, Theology, pp. 42-43. 18. H. McKeating, 'Ezekiel the "Prophet Like Moses"?', JSOT61 (1994), pp. 97109 (101). Levenson (Theology, p. 43) adds that much of the P material in Num. 27-36 bears striking similarity to Ezek. 40-48, discussing the liturgical calendar and rules of sacrifice (Num. 28; 29; Ezek. 45.18-25; 46.1-15), the allocation of land (Num. 32; 33.50-56; Ezek. 47.13^8.29), boundaries of the land (Num. 34.1 -15; Ezek. 47.13-20),

110

A New Heart and a New Soul

directly to him from the restored Temple, just as God speaks to Moses inside the Tabernacle in P (Num. 7.89).19 Ezekiel consecrates the new altar, instructs the priests and oversees the cult, like Moses in P (Exod. 29.36-44; Lev. 8.1, 14-23; 9.1-5).20 Ezekiel may only see in visions the land about which he has preached. Like Moses in P, he is not permitted to settle there (Num. 27.12-13; cf. Deut. 32.49-52).21 C. Conclusion: Ezekiel and the Tor ah Wellhausen was convinced that what distinguished ancient Israel from Judaism was the written Torah.22 The transition from the one to the other was, in his opinion, effected by Ezekiel in the Exile. With the Temple lying in ruins and its personnel displaced, Ezekiel, the 'priest in prophet's mantle', began furiously to commit to writing everything he could remember regarding the Israelite cultus. The Exile, according to Wellhausen, triggered a sudden concern with the theoretical side of Israelite worship, something nobody bothered with while the Temple stood and worship was still present and active. Suddenly it became clear that these 'oral' traditions were in danger of oblivion.23 Ezekiel's program for the future restoration of the Israelite theocracy (Ezek. 40^8), the fruit of his solicitude, would subsequently serve as a paradigm for the Priestly Code.24 Ezekiel was thus the original spiritual architect of Judaism; P was a somewhat later and more developed blueprint. Jeremiah was the last of the true prophets, while Ezekiel initiated the process that would transform 'the people of the word' into 'the people of the book'.25 In concluding that the book of Ezekiel antedated P, Wellhausen's reasoning was pragmatic. What need for Ezekiel to go to such lengths if P were already a known document? Had P existed, the temporary cessation special land arrangements for the Levites (Num. 35; Ezek. 45.1-6; 48.13-14), and inheritance laws (Num. 36; Ezek. 46.16-18). 19. Douglas, 'Ezekiel's Temple', p. 421. 20. Levenson, Theology, p. 38; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, p. 1106; O. Procksch, Tiirst und Priester bei Hesekiel', ZAW5S (1941), pp. 99-133 (125). 21. McKeating takes this even further, observing that Ezekiel, like Moses in Deut. 34, is not reported as descending the mountain after his final vision ('Ezekiel the "Prophet Like Moses"?', p. 103). 22. Wellhausen (1899), p. 416. 23. Wellhausen (1899), p. 60. 24. Wellhausen (1899), pp. 60-61. 25. Wellhausen (1899), pp. 411, 415.

6. Conclusion

111

of practice during the Exile need not have been cause for worry; the cultus would not have been in danger of extinction.26 Admittedly, P sometimes diverges from Ezekiel. But Wellhausen found these contradictions unintentional, 'casual and insignificant'.27 While Wellhausen recognized the lexical and thematic similarities between Ezekiel and P and was even aware of the similarities between Ezekiel and Deuteronomy,28 he failed, as did many of his followers, to examine fully the complex nature of these similarities.29 He did not document them, nor did he analyze them in any detail. Our findings illustrate, pace Wellhausen, that Ezekiel is familiar with Israelite history and law as presented in both P and D/Dtr. Ezekiel is not, however, working furiously to preserve these traditions for posterity. He convolutes the past, turning history on its head and converting law into allegory: the land of promise becomes the land of exile (Ezek. 20.38); Israel's assured fecundity now represents the strength of her enemies (Ezek. 23.24; 32.3); a pleasing odor offered to Yahweh becomes the classic expression of pagan practice (Ezek. 6.13; 16.19; 20.28).30 To argue the opposite, with Wellhausen and others, is to assume that Israelite history and Israelite law were fashioned in imitation of symbolic prophetic language and actions. On the contrary, Ezekiel is not safeguarding Israelite tradition from extinction. As a prophet, and specifically a prophet of the Exile, he questions these traditions, comments upon them and, ultimately, reformulates them. It has also been suggested that Ezekiel's affinity to P is dictated by the fact that both works are literary products of a circle of priests sharing similar concerns.31 As such, Ezekiel and P are seen as agreeing with one another in principle, but are not directly dependent one upon the other. The relationship between the two is thought to be the result of a common spiritual ideology—priests thinking priestly thoughts, speaking priestly language and articulating priestly philosophy. Any apparent differences between Ezekiel and P, according to this view, illustrate a lack of primary contact; the two works merely emanate from a common heritage.

26. Wellhausen (1899), p. 61. 27. Wellhausen (1899), p. 61. 28. Wellhausen (1899), pp. 104-105. 29. The same can be said regarding Kuenen, Cornill and Driver. 30. For additional examples see 'Reversals' in Chapters 3 and 4. 31. See Hurvitz, 'Dating the Priestly Source', p. 92; idem, Linguistic Study, p. 150; Haran, 'Law Code of Ezekiel XL-XLVIIF, pp. 62-63.

112

A New Heart and a New Soul

This approach, too, neglects to account for what appear to be direct literary allusions to P throughout Ezekiel: for example, the cry of the Israelite slaves under the weight of the Egyptians becomes the cry of the Pharaoh under the weight of the Babylonians (Ezek. 30.24); Pharaoh's strong resolve becomes Israel's 'hardened' heart (Ezek. 3.7); the Israelites' 40-year desert wandering becomes the Egyptians' 40-year desert wandering (Ezek. 29.12, 13). It also overlooks Ezekiel's apparent knowledge and acceptance of D/Dtr. Would an ardent Zadokite priest cite the laws of Deuteronomy and assess the successes and failures of his people using a Deuteronomic standard? Would he recount Israel's past history with Deuteronomy in mind?32 In fact, much of Ezekiel differs markedly from both P and D.33 Ezekiel makes no mention of the great historical personalities or locations central to P's or D's histories. There is no Moses, Aaron or Sinai. Indeed, the laws and regulations presented in Ezekiel 40-48 are among the few in the HB not based upon the Sinai event. Moreover, these chapters contain laws that contradict those of P and D. For example, according to Ezekiel's land allotment plan, the Levites are given a tribal territory; in P they own no land. Ezekiel's design for the new temple contains none of the accouterments of P's Tabernacle: no ark, no cherubim. His description of sacrifices does not follow P or D. Ezekiel portrays Yahweh appearing alongside various supernatural beings, while P has no angels, seraphim or cherubim, except as decorative motifs.34 Scholars attempting to determine the relationship between Ezekiel and P continually wrestle with the fact that Ezekiel neither wholeheartedly adopts nor rejects P's language or content.35 Most find it impossible to imagine that Ezekiel could have disregarded any part of P had the source existed in his day.36 But this approach fails to appreciate the impact of the 32. On P and D as the literary products of rival priestly houses, see Friedman, WWTB, pp. 120-24, 188-92; Cross, CMHE,pp. 195-216. 33. Indeed, these contradictions were so striking that scholars of the rabbinic period are said to have questioned the book's canonical value (b. Men. 45a; b. Sab. 13b). See S. Leiman, The Canonization of the Hebrew Scripture: The Talmudic and Midrashic Evidence (Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, 47; Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1976), pp. 72-73. 34. For additional divergencies between Ezekiel and P, see Kaufmann, Religion, pp. 429,432-35. 35. So Kuenen, Cornill, Driver and others. 36. An exception is D.N. Freedman who argues that the literary connection between major prophetic books and the Torah, that Jeremiah and D, Ezekiel and P, may indicate that each of these prophets 'was claimed by the related group as authority

6. Conclusion

113

Exile upon Ezekiel's mission and visions.37 What motivation would there have been to record or replicate a system of worship that had failed the test of time? Ezekiel evaluates the people's past behavior using the legal standards of both P and D.38 The punishment of Exile was, in his analysis, the direct result of Israel's failure to practice the legal precepts found in both Priestly and Deuteronomic traditions. The people profaned the Sabbath (Ezek. 23.38), polluted Yahweh's sanctuary (23.38), defiled their neighbors' wives (22.11), mistreated their fellow Israelites (34.4), introduced various idolatrous practices (5.11; 7.20; 8.10, 12; 11.18, 21 etc.), passed their children through fire (20.31), and made offerings on 'every mountain height and under every leafy tree' (6.13). Even the priests failed to fulfill their task of distinguishing between the holy and the profane (22.26). Essentially, Ezekiel's contemporaries did not follow the precepts of either Torah. The disaster of 587 BCE was Yahweh's just punishment for the absolute corruption of Ezekiel's generation. At the same time, Ezekiel declares that the people can and should turn from their evil ways.39 The prophet's beliefs regarding the repercussions of human sin recall P, while his subsequent emphasis on individual responsibility and future redemption through repentance is more characteristic of Deuteronomy.40 Ezekiel expected his contemporaries to live by laws in both P and D that were still relevant. When it came to formulating a plan for the future, however, neither P nor D provided the ideal. The exclusivity evinced by each school was appraised by Ezekiel and deemed an unrealistic goal. The Exile had called into question the unique vision of either school and in fact all of Israel's history. The prophet instead envisioned Yahweh providing a and spokesman for that group and its literature'. In essence, then, the group responsible for the production and promulgation of P, whom Freedman believes to be the exiled high priestly family in Babylon, enlisted Ezekiel to assist them in their efforts. See D.N. Freedman, The Unity of the Hebrew Bible (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1991), pp. 46-48. 37. See E.F. Davis, 'Swallowing Hard: Reflections on Ezekiel's Dumbness', in J. Exum (ed.), Signs and Wonders: Biblical Texts in Literary Focus (Semeia Studies; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), pp. 217-37. Davis highlights the way in which the Exile heightened the need on the part of Ezekiel to interpret present events in the context of Israel's sacred traditions (p. 217). For a similar view see also D.N. Freedman, 'Son of Man, Can These Bones Live?', Int 29 (1975), pp. 171-86. 38. As the 'Legal Citations' sections in Chapters 3 and 4 illustrate. 39. The concept of repentance is found throughout Ezekiel. See Chapter 5 n. 52. 40. See, for example, Ezek. 18.20.

114

A New Heart and a New Soul

restored Israel with 'a new heart and a new soul' (THZTin mil CTin D1?) with which they would face the future.41 Ezekiel traces Israel's history of sin back to the pre-Exodus generation, fusing images and expressions from the independent traditions of P and D.42 Yet the prophet's retelling of Israelite history does not mechanically follow either account.43 The prophet interprets Israel's sinfulness in his own day as a relapse to the disregard of Yahweh characterizing the Exodus-Wilderness period in both P and D. The prophet's portrayal of Yahweh's hand in Israelite history is an odd combination of the God of the Priestly tradition and that of the Deuteronomic tradition. Where else in the Exilic period do we find a synthesis of older tradition with a strong Priestly bias? Although traditional scholarship generally highlights Ezekiel's affinity to P, it is truly the Redactor of the Torah (R) he most resembles. Specifically, he represents a transition from P to R. The circumstances that led to the assembly of the Torah—the combination of JE, D and P—remain murky. Inasmuch as the Priestly source dominates the redacted Torah and appears to serve as its framework, most assume that the editor or editors were in some way connected to the circle of Aaronide priests who produced P.44 References in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah to 'the Torah of Moses which Yahweh God of Israel gave' (Ezra 7.6;cf.Neh. 8.1; 13.1), 'Yahweh's Torah' (Ezra 7.10) and the 'lawofyour God' (Ezra 7.14) have led to a scholarly consensus that the Aaronide priest41. Ezek. 36.26. 42. As seen, for example, in the analysis of Ezek. 20. 43. Israelite slavery in Egypt, as presented in the redacted Torah, is not brought about by the sinfulness of the people, as Ezekiel seems to suggest. Similarly, the prophet's portrayal of the Exodus as an expression of Yahweh's wrath contrasts with the vision of the redacted Torah, where it is an act of divine grace intended to fulfill Yahweh's promise to the Patriarchs. 44. Friedman cites the following evidence: the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers all begin with P texts; the Book of Generations (Toledoth), a P document, serves as the framework for Genesis; P structures the first 15 chapters of Exodus and Numbers with the priestly itinerary document found in Num. 33 (WWTB, pp. 218-20). Cross finds P so dominant in the redacted Torah, he concludes P and R are one and the same. That is, the Redactor(s) literally wrote the Priestly portions of the Torah into JE (CMHE, pp. 306-20). See also R. Rendtorff, Das iiberlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch (BZAW, 17; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1977); E. Blum, Studien zurKomposition des Pentateuch (BZAW, 189; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1990), pp. 221-85; J. Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975), pp. 279-95.

6. Conclusion

115

scribe Ezra returned to Judah with the full Torah, which he may in fact have redacted.45 The most telling evidence in support of such contentions are apparent allusions to laws belonging to both P and D in Ezra and Nehemiah.46 For example, society is centered around the Temple in proper Deuteronomic fashion (Deut. 12.5). However, the Temple is presided over by a select group of Levites, a distinction unknown in Deuteronomy but evident throughout P. The tithe law in Nehemiah (10.32-33) appears to be a combination of D and P regulations, whereby the Deuteronomic provision for the release of debts (Deut. 15.12) has been added to P's seven-year sabbatical (Exod. 23.11; Lev. 25.4-7). Nehemiah's renunciation of foreign marriages is based on Deut. 23.3-6, while the idea that the land was defiled by foreigners recalls Lev. 18.24; 20.22.47 Similarly, Chronicles, another postexilic work,48 depends upon both Priestly and Deuteronomic legislation.49 For example, the sacrificial legislation in 2 Chron. 2.3; 8.12-13; 31.3 depends on Num. 28-29 and Lev. 24.1-9, while the list of feasts when such offerings are to be made

45. For a summary of such views see R. Klein, 'Ezra-Neherniah, Books of,ABD, II, p. 737. See also Wellhausen, Prolegomena, p. 496; Kaufmann, Religion, p. 209; W.F. Albright, The Biblical Period from Abraham to Ezra (New York: Harper & Row, 1963), pp. 94-96; S. Mowinckel, Studien zu dem Buche Ezra-Nehemiah, III (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1965), pp. 124-41; J.M. Myers, Ezra Nehemiah (AB, 14; New York: Doubleday, 1965), p. lix; H.G.M. Williamson, Ezra and Nehemiah (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987), p. 91. See also D.N. Freedman, 'The Formation of the Canon of the Old Testament', in E. Firmage, B. Weiss and J. Welch (eds.), Religion and Law (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), pp. 315-33; Friedman, WWTB, pp. 223-24. Friedman notes even Jerome, in the fourth century CE, identifies Ezra as the author of the Pentateuch, in agreement with some rabbinic traditions (WWTB, p. 225). For views to the contrary, see summary in Klein, 'Ezra-Nehemiah', p. 737. 46. See Klein, 'Ezra-Nehemiah', pp. 737-38; Kaufmann, Religion, p. 209; Myers, Ezra Nehemiah, pp. lix-lxii; Friedman, WWTB, pp. 221-23; Williamson, Ezra and Nehemiah, p. 91. 47. See Kaufmann, Religion, p. 209; Myers, Ezra Nehemiah, pp. lix-lxii; J. Shaver, Torah and the Chronicler's History Work(B3S, 196; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), pp. 87-90, for further parallels. 48. Some consider Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah a single work or the product of a common author. See Williamson, Ezra and Nehemiah, p. 37; Shaver, History Work, pp. 44-65; J.M. Myers, I Chronicles (AB, 12; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965), pp. xviii; S. Japhet, I and II Chronicles (OTL; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993), pp. 3-7. 49. See Shaver, History Work, p. 87.

116

A New Heart and a New Soul

(2 Chron. 8.13) follows Deut. 16.1-16.50 The Chronicler's description of the celebration of Sukkoth merges Priestly and Deuteronomic traditions: the feast is kept in Jerusalem for seven days (following Deut. 16.13-15), while on the eighth day, instead of being sent back home (see 1 Kgs 8), the people hold a solemn assembly in accordance with P (Lev. 23.36, 39; Num. 29.35).51 The description of the celebration of Passover follows a similar pattern: during Josiah's Passover, the Chronicler reports that the victim is 'boiled in the fire' (CJK3 nOSH
50. See Shaver, History Work, p. 98. 51. See Shaver, History Work, p. 99. 52. 2 Chron. 35.13. Suggested by J.M. Myers, II Chronicles (AB, 13; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965), p. 211. See also H.G.M. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), p. 407; I.L. Seeligmann, 'Die Auffassung von der Prophetic in der deuteronomistischen und chronistischen Geschichtsschreibung', in Congress Volume Gottingen (VTSup, 29; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1977), pp. 254-84. Von Rad is the first to suggest that the Chronicler's Passover was influenced by both P and D. See G. von Rad, Das Geschichtsbild des Chronistischen Werkes (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1930), pp. 38-63. For additional examples see Shaver, History Work, pp. 104-17. 53. See Shaver, History Work, p. 128. 54. See Freedman, Unity of the Hebrew Bible, p. 48. 55. See Friedman, Exile and Biblical Narrative, p. 20. 56. Friedman, Exile and Biblical Narrative, pp. 123-24. See also idem, 'Sacred History and Theology: The Redaction of the Torah', in Friedman (ed.), The Creation of Sacred Literature (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981), pp. 25-28; idem, WWTB, pp. 239-40.

6. Conclusion

111

My analysis suggests that the roots of this process are to be found early in the Exile. Ezekiel, in particular, saw himself as a 'new Moses'. He assembled traditions and beliefs about the Mosaic age as if he believed that each contained some truth about God and Israel. Though partial to P, Ezekiel nonetheless endeavored to create a new theology that was neither independent of its sources nor a simple composite of them. In many ways, his work strikingly resembles the composite, Priestly-oriented Torah.57 Ezekiel's god is jealous but also merciful (Ezek. 39.25); angry and forgiving at the same time (Ezek. 5.13; 16.42). In short, Ezekiel is a precursor to the Redactor(s), who, some years later, would boldly combine these contradictory theologies by ingeniously merging four opposing sources. The comparison between Ezekiel and the composite Torah is not new. Burrows suggested that Ezekiel was familiar with and quoted from the entire redacted Torah.58 But, as a result, he was driven to his teacher Torrey's implausible thesis: that the book of Ezekiel was not composed until long after the Exile. Not surprisingly, his conclusions have received little support since they deprive the book of Ezekiel of a credible social context and contradict the linguistic indicators.59 But Burrow's more general point, that Ezekiel depends on earlier Israelite literature, has not received due appreciation. Our analysis strongly suggests that Ezekiel does not know the entire Torah. Rather, Ezekiel anticipates the Torah's production. Ezekiel does not, as Wellhausen originally posited, serve as paradigm for P. But Wellhausen was correct to regard the prophet as a liminal figure. The efforts of Ezekiel and of the later Pentateuchal Redactor, like the author(s) of the Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah literature, indicate that the priests in Exile, with their Temple destroyed and their ideology discredited, came to accept what were rival streams of thought in pre-exilic Israel. In the Restoration, radical exclusivity may have been rendered passe.60

57. We may also compare Second Isaiah, who no less than Ezekiel synthesizes and reworks older traditions, yet completely lacks Ezekiel's Zadokite bias. 58. Burrows, Ezekiel, p. v. 59. For a critique of Burrows's specific evidence see Propp, 'Priestly Source', pp. 477-78. 60. Or rather lines were redrawn. Jews became more concerned with democratizing Israel proper and less with establishing the grades of privilege within the community. At the same time, the distinction between Jew and Gentile was sharpened. See H.G.M. Williamson, Israel in the Books of Chronicles (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977).

118

A New Heart and a New Soul

Ezekiel's dream of a unified national theology would attain ultimate realization with the promulgation of the Torah. As we have seen, Ezekiel modeled himself on the ancient lawgiver Moses, issuing laws in anticipation of the 'Second Exodus' and resettlement of the land. The anonymous Pentateuchal Redactor, no less than his precursor Ezekiel, was a 'prophet like Moses';61 his work was almost immediately adapted as the charter for all Judaism.

61. Compare Franz Rosenzweig's famous quip that the symbol 'R' stands not for 'Redactor' but for 1]D"1, 'our Teacher', a title traditional Judaism often applies to Moses ('The Unity of the Bible: a Position Paper vis-a-vis Orthodoxy and Liberalism', in L. Rosenwald and E. Fox [trans.], Scripture and Translation: Martin Buber and Franz Rosenzweig [Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1994], pp. 22-26 [23]).

BIBLIOGRAPHY Adler, E.J., 'The Background for the Metaphor of Covenant as Marriage in the Hebrew Bible' (PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1990). Aharoni, Y., The Land of the Bible (London: Burns & Gates, 1979). Albright, W.F., The Biblical Period from Abraham to Ezra (New York: Harper & Row, 1963). Anderson, B., 'Exodus Typology in Second Isaiah', in B. Anderson and W. Harrelson (eds.), Israel's Prophetic Heritage (New York: Harper, 1962), pp. 177-95. Anderson, G., 'Sacrifice and Sacrificial Offering (Old Testament)', ABD, V, pp. 870-86. Barstad, H.M., The Myth of the Empty Land: A Study in the History and Archaeology ofJudah during the 'Exilic'Period (Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1996). Bertholet, A., Deuteronomium (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1899). Blum, E., Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (BZAW, 189; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1990). Boadt, L. Ezekiel's Oracles against Egypt: A Literary Philological Study of Ezekiel 29—32 (BibOr, 37; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1980). —'Ezekiel, Book of, ABD, II, pp. 711-22. Bokser, B., 'Unleavened Bread and Passover, Feast of, ABD, VI, pp. 755-64. Braulik, G., BundesdokumentundGesetz: Studien zum Deuteronium (Freiberg: Herder, 1995). Bright, I, Jeremiah (AB, 21; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965). Burden, T., The Kerygma of the Wilderness Traditions in the Hebrew Bible (New York: Peter Lang, 1994). Burrows, M., The Literary Relations of Ezekiel (New York: Jewish Publication Society, 1925). Carley, K.W., Ezekiel among the Prophets (London: SCM Press, 1975). Cassuto, U., From Noah to Abraham (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1964). Childs, B.S., Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979). Collins, T., The Mantle of Elijah: The Redactional Criticism of the Prophetical Books (Biblical Seminar, 20; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993). Coogan, M.D., 'Life in the Diaspora: Jews at Nippur in the Fifth Century BC', BA 37 (1974), pp. 6-12. —West Semitic Personal Names in the Murasu Documents (HSM, 7; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976). Cooke, S.L., 'Innerbiblical Interpretation in Ezekiel 44', JBL 114 (1995), pp. 193-208. Cornill, C.H., Das Buches des Propheten Ezechiel (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1886). Cross, P.M., 'The Tabernacle: A Study from an Archaeological and Historical Approach', BA 10 (1947), pp. 45-68. —Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973). Davis, E.F., 'Swallowing Hard: Reflections on Ezekiel's Dumbness', in J.C. Exum (ed.), Signs and Wonders: Biblical Texts in Literary Focus (Semeia Studies; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), pp. 217-37.

120

A New Heart and a New Soul

—Swallowing the Scroll: Textuality and the Dynamics of Discourse in Ezekiel's Prophecy (JSOTSup, 78; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989). Day, J., Molech: A God of Human Sacrifice in the Old Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989). de Wette, W.M.L., 'Dissertatio critico-exegetica qua Deuteronomium a prioribus Pentateuchi Libris diversum' (PhD dissertation, Jena, 1805; reprinted in Opusucla theologica [Berlin, 1830]). Douglas, G.C.M., 'Ezekiel's Temple', ExpTim 9 (1897/98), pp. 365-67,420-22,468-70,515-18. Driver, S.R., An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (Gloucester: Peter Smith, 1972 [1891]). Elliot-Binns, L.E., 'Some Problems of the Holiness Code', ZAW61 (1955), pp. 26-40. Firmage, E., B. Weiss and J. Welch (eds.), Religion and Law: Biblical-Judaic and Islamic Perspectives (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990). Fishbane, M., Text and Texture: Close Readings of Selected Biblical Texts (New York: Schocken Books, 1979). —Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985). Fohrer, G., Die Hauptprobleme des Buches Ezechiel (BZAW, 72; Geissen: Alfred Topelmann, 1952). —Introduction to the Old Testament (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1968). Forshey, H., The Construct Chain Nahalat Yahwh/Elohim', BASOR 220 (1975), pp. 51-53. Freedman, D.N., 'Son of Man, Can These Bones Live?', Int 29 (1975), pp. 171-86. —'The Deuteronomic History', IDBSup (1976), pp. 226-28. —'The Formation of the Canon of the Old Testament', in Firmage, Weiss and Welch (eds.), Religion and Law, pp. 315-33. —The Unity of the Hebrew Bible (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1991). Freedy, K., and D.B. Redford, 'The Dates in Ezekiel in Relation to Biblical, Babylonian and Egyptian Sources', JAOS 90 (1970), pp. 462-85. Fretheim, T.E., 'The Priestly Document: Anti-Temple?', VT18 (1968), pp. 313-29. Friedman, R.E., 'From Egypt to Egypt: Dtr1 and Dtr2', in B. Halpern and J.D. Levenson (eds.), Traditions in Transformation: Turning Points in Biblical Faith (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1981), pp. 167-92. —'Sacred History and Theology: The Redaction of the Torah', in The Creation of Sacred Literature: Composition and Redaction of the Biblical Text (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981), pp. 25-34. — The Exile and Biblical Narrative (HSM, 22; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981). —Who Wrote the Bible? (New York: Harper & Row, 1987). —'Tabernacle', ABD, VI, pp. 292-300. —'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 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995), pp. 70-80. Garscha, J., Studien zum Ezechielbuch: Eine redaktionkritische Untersuchung von Ez 1-39 (Europaische Hochulschriften, 23; Bern: Peter Lang, 1974). George, J.F.L., Die alteren jiidischen Feste, mil einerKritikdergesestzgebung des Pentateuch (Berlin: Schroeder, 1835). Grabbe, L. (ed.), Leading Captivity Captive: The Exile as History and Ideology (JSOTSup, 278; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998). Graf, K.H., Die geschichtlichen Bucher des Alten Testaments (Leipzig: Weigel, 1866). —'Die sogenannte Grundschrift des Pentateuch', ArchivfurwissenschaftlicheErforschungdes Alten Testaments 1 (1869), pp. 466-77.

Bibliography

121

Graham, O., 'Moses and Cyrus', KT28 (1978), pp. 195-203. Greenberg, M., Ezekiel 1-20 (AB, 22; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983). —'Biblical Attitudes towards Power', in Firmage, Weiss and Welch (eds.), Religion and Law, pp. 101-12. —'Establishing a Moral Order', BR 7 (1991), pp. 42-45. —'What are Valid Criteria for Determining Inauthentic Matter in Ezekiel', in Lust (ed.), Ezekiel and his Book, pp. 123-35. Grintz, Y.M., 'Archaic Terms in the Priestly Code', Leshonenu 39 (1974-75), pp. 5-32. Guenther, A.R. '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). Haag, H., Was lehrt die literarische Untersuchung des Ezechiel-Textes? (Freiburg: Paulusdruckerei, 1943). Halpern, B., The First Historians (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988). Haran, M., Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978). —'The Law Code of Ezekiel XL-XLVIII and Its Relation to the Priestly School', HUCA 50 (1979), pp. 45-71. —'Behind the Scenes of History: Determining the Date of the Priestly Source', JBL 100 (1981), pp. 321-33. Hayes, J.H., "The Traditions of Zion's Inviolability', JBL 82 (1963), pp. 419-26. Hayes, J.H., and J.H. Miller, A History of Ancient Israel andJudah (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986). Heider, G.C., The Cult ofMolek: A Reassessment (JSOTSup, 43; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985). —'Molech', ABD, IV, pp. 895-98. Herrmann, S., Die prophetischen Heilserwartungen im Alien Testament (BWANT, 85; Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1965). —A History of Israel in Old Testament Times (London: SCM Press, 1975). Holscher, G., Hesekiel: DerDichter unddas Buch (BZAW, 39; Geissen: Alfred Topelmann, 1924). Horst, F., Leviticus xvii-xxvi undHezekiel: eine Beitragzur Pentateuchkritik (Colmar: Barth, 1881). Hurvitz, A., 'The Use of KJKJ and fQ in the Bible and Its Implication for the Date of P', HTR 60 (1967), pp. 117-21. —'Linguistic Observations on the Biblical Usage of the Priestly Term mi?', Tarbiz4Q (197071), pp. 261-67. —'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. —A Linguistic Study of the Relationship between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel (CahRB, 20; Paris: Gabalda, 1982). —'The Language of the Priestly Source and Its Early Historical Setting—The Case for an Early Date', in Proceedings of the Eight World Congress of Jewish Studies (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1983), pp. 90-93. —'Dating the Priestly Source in Light of the Historical Study of Biblical Hebrew a Century after Wellhausen', ZAW100 (1988), pp. 88-100. Japhet, S., I and II Chronicles (OTL; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993). Jenson, P., Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World (JSOTSup, 106; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992). Joyce, P., Divine Initiative and Human Response in Ezekiel (JSOTSup, 51; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989).

122

A New Heart and a New Soul

Kaminsky, J.S., Corporate Responsibility in the Hebrew Bible (JSOTSup, 196; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995). Kaufmann, Y., '30 IT3 ^10 12 Dip ^0 H^UZTn miQKH mi'nn (Tel Aviv: Mossad Bialik-Dvir, 1937-56). —The Religion of Israel from its Beginning to the Babylonian Exile (trans. M. Greenberg; New York: Schocken Books, 1972). Klein, R., Israel in Exile: A Theological Interpretation (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979). —'Ezra-Nehemiah, Books of, ABD, II, p. 737. Klostermann, A., 'Beitrage zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Pentateuchs', ZTK 38 (1877), pp. 401-45. Knohl, I., The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1995). Kobayashi, Y., 'Tel-Abib', ABD, VI, p. 344. Lang, B., Kein Aufstand in Jerusalem: Die Politik des Propheten Ezechiel (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1981). Leiman, S., The Canonization of the Hebrew Scripture: The Talmudic and Midrashic Evidence (Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, 47; Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1976), pp. 72-73. Levenson, J.D., 'Who Inserted the Book of the Torah?', HTR 68 (1975), pp. 203-33. —Theology of the Program of Restoration of Ezekiel 40-48 (HSM, 10; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976). —'Zion Traditions', ABD, VI, pp. 1098-102. Levine, B.A., 'Research in the Priestly Source: The Linguistic Factor', EretzIsrael 16 (1982), pp. 124-31. —'Late Language in the Priestly Source: Some Literary and Historical Observations', in Proceedings of the Eight World Congress of Jewish Studies (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1983), pp. 69-82. —Numbers 1-20 (AB, 4a; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1993). Liwak, R., 'Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Probleme des Ezechielbuches: eine Studie zu postezechielischen Interpretationenund Kompositionen' (PhD dissertation, Bochum, 1976). Lohfink, N., 'Auslegung deuteronomischer Texte, IV,Bibel undLeben 5 (1964), pp. 250-53. Lust, J., 'Ez XX, 4-26: une parodie de 1'histoire religieuse d'lsrael', ETL 20 (1967), pp. 488527. Lust, J. (ed.), Ezekiel and his Book (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1986). Malamat, A., 'The Last Kings of Judah and the Fall of Jerusalem: An Historical-Chronological Study', IEJ18 (1968), pp. 137-56. Margolioth, E., 'The Laws of the Priests and of the Sacrifices in Ezekiel', Tarbiz 22 (1950), pp. 21-27. Matties, G.H., Ezekiel 18 and the Rhetoric of Moral Discourse (SBLDS, 126; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990). Mazar, A., Archaeology of the Land of the Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1990). McEvenue, S., Narrative Style of the Priestly Writer (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1971). McKeating, H., Ezekiel (OTG; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993). —'Ezekiel the "Prophet Like Moses"?', JSOT61 (1994), pp. 97-109. Milgrom, J., Studies in Levitical Terminology, I (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1970). —Cult and Conscience: The ASHAM and the Priestly Doctrine of Repentance (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976).

Bibliography

123

—'Priestly Terminology and the Political and Social Structure of Pre-Monarchic Israel', JQR 69 (1978), pp. 65-81. —Leviticus 1-16 (AB, 3; New York: Doubleday, 1991). Miller, J.W., Das Verhdltnis Jeremias und Hesekiels sprachlich und theologisch untersucht (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1955). Moshkovitz, Y., The Book ofEzekiel (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1985). Mowinckel, S., Studien zu dem BucheEzra-Nehemiah, III (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1965). Myers, J.M., Ezra Nehemiah (AB, 14; New York: Doubleday, 1965). —II Chronicles (AB, 13; Garden City: Doubleday, 1965). —I Chronicles (AB, 12; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965). —'Edom and Judah in the Sixth-Fifth Centuries BC', Near Eastern Studies (1971), pp. 377-92. Nelson, R.D., The Double Redaction of 'the Deuteronomistic History (JSOTSup, 18; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981). Noldeke, T., Untersuchungen zur kritik des Alien Testaments (Kiel: Schwers, 1869). Noth, M., Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien (Tubingen: Max Neiymar, 1957). —The Laws in the Pentateuch and Other Studies (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967). Oded, B., 'Judah and the Exile', in J.H. Hayes and J.M. Miller (eds.), Israelite and Judean History (London: SCM Press, 1977), pp. 435-88. Paran, M., Forms of the Priestly Style in the Pentateuch: Patterns, Linguistic Usages, Syntactic Structure (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1989). Paton, L.B., 'The Holiness Code and Ezekiel', Presbyterian and Reformed Review (January 1896), pp. 98-115. Perdue, L.G., and B. Kovacs, A Prophet to the Nations: Essays in Jeremiah Studies (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1984). Pfisterer Darr, K., 'Ezekiel among the Critics', Currents in Research 2 (1994), pp. 9-24. Polzin, R., Late Biblical Hebrew: Toward a Historical Typology of Biblical Hebrew Prose (HSM, 12; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976). Pons, J., 'Le vocabulaire d'Ezechiel 20: le prophete s'oppose a la vision deuteronomiste de 1'histoire', in Lust (ed.), Ezekiel and his Book, pp. 214-33. Procksch, O., 'Fiirst und Priester bei Hesekiel', ZAW5& (1941), pp. 99-133. Propp, W.H.C., 'The Priestly Source Recovered Intact?', VT46 (1997), pp. 458-78. —Exodus 1-18 (AB, 2; New York: Doubleday, 1999). Redford, D.B., Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992). Rendsburg, G., 'Late Biblical Hebrew and the Date of P', JANES 12 (1980), pp. 65-80. Rendtorff, R., Das Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch (BZAW, 17; Berlin: W. deGruyter, 1977). Reuss, E., L 'histoire sainte et la loi (Paris: Sandoz et Fischbacher, 1879). Reventlow, H.G., Das Heiligkeitsgesetzformgeschichtlich untersucht (WMANT, 6; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1961). Rofe, A., Introduction to the Composition of the Pentateuch (Biblical Seminar, 58; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999). Rooker, M.F., Biblical Hebrew in Transition: The Language of the Book of Ezekiel (JSOTSup, 90, Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990). Rosenzweig, F., 'The Unity of the Bible: a Position Paper vis-a-vis Orthodoxy and Liberalism', in L. Rosenwald and E. Fox (trans.), Scripture and Translation: Martin Buber andFranz Rosenzweig (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1994), pp. 22-26. Rowley, H.H., 'The Book ofEzekiel in Modern Study', BJRL 36 (1953), pp. 146-90.

124

A New Heart and a New Soul

Schoff, W.H., The Ship 'Tyre'; a Symbol of the Fate of Conquerors as Prophesied by Isaiah, Ezekiel and John and Fulfilled at Nineveh, Babylon and Rome; A Study in the Commerce of the Bible (New York: Longmans, 1920). Schwartz, B., 'Selected Chapters of the Holiness Code: A Literary Study of Leviticus 17-19' (PhD dissertation, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1987). —'The Prohibition Concerning the Eating of Blood in Leviticus 17', in G.A. Anderson and S.M. Olyan (eds.), Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel (JSOTSup, 125; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), pp. 34-66. Seeligmann, I.L., 'Die Auffassung von der Prophetic in der deuteronomistischen und chronistischen Geschichtsschreibung', in Congress Volume Gottingen (VTSup, 29; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1977), pp. 254-84. Shaver, J., Torah and the Chronicler's History Work(EJS, 196; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989). Ska, J.L.,'La sortie d'Egypte (Ex 7-14) dans le recit sacerdotal (Pg) et la tradition prophetique', Bib 60 (1979), pp. 191-215. —'La place d'Ex 6, 2-8 dans la narration de 1'Exode', ZAW94 (1982), pp. 530-48. Smend, R., Der Prophet Ezechiel (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1880). Smith, M., Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament (New York: Columbia University Press, 1971). Smith, S., 'The Ship Tyre', PEQ 85 (1953), pp. 97-110. Stern, E., The Material Culture of the Land of the Bible in the Persian Period, 538-332 B. C. (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute; Israel Exploration Society, 1973). —Archaeology of the Land of the Bible. II. The Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian Periods (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 2001). Sun, H.T., 'Holiness Code',ABD, III, pp. 254-57. Tadmor, H., The Period of the First Temple, the Babylonian Exile and the Restoration', in H. Ben-Sasson (ed.), A History of the Jewish People (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1976). Thiel, W., 'Erwagungen zum Alter des Heiligkeitsgesetzes', ZAW&l (1969), pp. 40-73. Thompson, R.J., Moses and the Law in a Century of Criticism (VTSup, 19; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1970). Torrey, C.C.,Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Original Prophecy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1930). Van Seters, J., Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975). —The Pentateuch: A Social Science Commentary (Trajectories, 1; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999). Vatke, W., Die biblische Theologie wissenschaftlich dargestellt (Berlin: Bethge, 1835). von Rad, G., Das Geschichtsbliddes Chronistischen Werkes (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1930). Wagner, V. 'Zur Existenz des sogenannten "Heiligkeitsgesetzes"', ZA W4 (1884), pp. 256-57. Weinberg, S.S., 'Post Exilic Palestine, an Archaeological Report', Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities 4 (1971), pp. 8-97. Weinfeld, M., Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic School (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972). —'Covenant Terminology in the Ancient Near East and Its Influence on the West', JAOS 93 (1973), pp. 190-99. Wellhausen, J., 'Pentateuch and Joshua', in Encyclopaedia Britannica, XVIII (New York: Hall, 9th edn, 1885), pp. 505-14. —Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (Berlin: Reimer, 5th edn, 1899). —Prolegomena to the History of Israel (trans. J. Sutherland Black and Alan Menzies; New York: Meridian, 1957).

Bibliography

125

Williamson, H.G.M., Israel in the Books of Chronicles (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977). —1 and 2 Chronicles (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982). —Ezra andNehemiah (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987). Wilson, R.R., Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980). Wold, D.J., 'The Biblical Penalty of Kareth' (PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1978). Wright, D.P., The Disposal of Impurity (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987). Zadok, R., On West Semites in Babylonia during the Chaldean and Achaemenian Periods (Jerusalem: H. J. & Z. Wanaarta, 1977). — The Jews in Babylonia during the Chaldean and Achaemenian Periods According to the Babylonian Sources (Haifa: University of Haifa Press, 1979). —Sources for the History of the Jews in Babylonia during the Chaldean and Achaemenian Periods (Jerusalem: Akademun, 1980). Zevit, Z., 'Converging Lines of Evidence Bearing on the Date of P', ZAW94 (1982), pp. 502-509. —'Philology, Archaeology and a Terminus a Quo for P's flN^n 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. Zimmerli, W. 'Le nouvel "Exode" dans le message des deux grands prophetes de 1'exil', in La branched'amandier: hommagea Wilhelm Vischer (Montpellier: Castelnau, 1960), pp. 216-27. —'The Special Form- and Traditio-historical Character of Ezekiel's Prophecy', VT\ 5 (1965), pp. 515-16. —Ezekiel 1 (trans. R. Clements; Hermenia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979). —Ezekiel 2 (trans. R. Clements; Hermenia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983).

INDEXES INDEX OF REFERENCES

OLD TESTAMENT

8.5

Genesis

1 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.14 1.15 1.17 1.20 1.21 1.22 1.24 1.25 1.26 1.28 1.29 1.30

2.7 2.19 4.13

6.7 6.9 6.13 6.18 6.20 6.21

7.8 7.11 7.13 7.14 7.21 7.23

8.4

64 64 64 64 64 64 64 66 66 71

63,66

63 63 71 73 66,73

66 66 46 63 56 70 36 63 73 63 48 72 63,66 63,66

63 48

8.13 8.14 8.17 8.19 8.20-21

9.1 9.2 9.3 9.7 9.9 9.10 9.11 9.12 9.13 9.14 9.15 9.16 9.17 9.22 17.1 17.2 17.6 17.7 17. 17.12 17.19 17.20 17.21 17.27 19.24

23 24.2-30

48 48 48 63,71 63,66 55,77

71 64 63,73

71 36 66

36 66 65 65 35,66 35, 65, 66

36 42 56 77 71,77 36,71

39 40,41

36

26.4 26.24 26.33 28.3 28.4 31.39 32.33 35.9 35.11 35.14-15 36.7 37.1 37.33 41.42 41.45b-46a 44.28 45.20 46.6-27 47.26 47.27b 47.28 48.3-6 48.4 48.15 49.27 49.29-33 50.12-13

71 71 101 71 39 45 101 71 71 17 39 39,75

45 57 75 45 91 75 101 71,75 75 75 71 101 45 75 75

71,77

36 40 61 75 42

Exodus

1.7 1.13 2.24 2.25

71,77 79 66 99

Index of References 3.8 3.17 3.19 4.10 6-8 6.1 6.2-9 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 7.1-5 7.1 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.19 10.6 12 12.8-9 12.11 12.12 12.13 12.14 12.15 12.17 12.18 12.19 12.41 12.42 12.43-45 12.43-44 12.43 12.44 12.45 12.48 12.49 12.51 13.2 13.3 13.9 13.12 13.15 14.16 14.26 15.9 15.13-15

99 99 87 72 108 87 99 39 66 43, 75, 99 34, 35, 99 35,38,98 109 91, 109 72, 109 43 33,35 33 101 48 116 108 43, 103 97 44,48 96 44,72 47,48 39,41,96 72 99 41 41 40,41 41 41 41 39-41 72 101 87 87 101 101 33 33 74 42

16.3 16.15 17.1-7 18.13 18.14 20-24 20.2 20.5 20.17 20.23 21.12 23.11 23.15 25-31 25-29 25.4 25.5 25.8 25.9 25.20 25.21 25.25 25.40 26 26.1 26.3 26.14 26.31 26.33 26.36 27.2 27.9 27.16 27.18 27.21 28.1 28.3 28.4 28.5 28.6 28.8 28.15 28.33 28.36 28.37 28.38 28.39 28.42

68 73 72 59 59 13 34 103 40 42,43 16 115 48 73 75 57 56 33 91 53,54 53 54,81 91 58 57 73,81 53,56 57 51 57

62 57 57 57 44 52 52 52,61 57 57 57 57 57 32 61 46 61 73

127 28.43 29.1 29.6 29.9 29.18 29.25 29.28 29.36-44 29.36-37 29.36 29.39 29.40 29.41 29.44 29.45 29.46 30.21 30.30 30.33 30.37 30.38 31 31.10 31.13

31.14 31.15 31.17 32.11 33.1 33.11 34.7 34.14 34.18 34.19 34.25 35.6 35.19 35.23 35.25 35.35 36 36.8 36.16 36.19 36.35 36.37 37.12

44 52,56 61 44, 109 55,77 55,77 44,45 110 60 59,60 57 109 55,77 52 33 33,35 44 52 96 32 96 49 53 33, 34, 49, 100 96 32 49, 100 87,99 98 102 46 103 48 101 48 57 53 56,57 57 57 58 57 57 53,56 57 57 54,81

128

A New Heart and a New Soul

Exodus (cont.) 38.2 62 38.9 57 38.16 57 38.18 57 39.2 57 39.3 57 39.5 57 39.8 57 39.24 57 39.27 57 39.28 57,61 39.29 57 39.30 32 39.31 53,61 39.33 58 39.34 56 39.41 53 40.18 58 40.19 53 40.20 53 Leviticus 1 1.9 1.13 1.16 1.17 2.2 2.5 2.9 2.12 3 3.5 3.16 3.17 4.8 4.12 4.14 4.20 4.21 4.31 5.1 5.8 5.15 5.17 5.21 6.8

62 55,77 55,77 65 51,55,77 55,77 60 55,77 55,77 62 55,77 55,77 44 59 60 59 59 60 55,77 46 51 46 46 46 55,77

6.14 7.9 7.18 7.20-21 7.21 7.24 7.25 7.27 7.28-36 7.35 7.36 8 8.1 8.2 8.9 8.14-23 8.14 8.17 8.21 8.28 9.1-5 9.2 9.3 9.11 10.6 10.9 10.10-11 10.10 10.17 11 11.10 11.11 11.12 11.13 11.20 11.23 11.31 11.32 11.39 11.40 11.41 11.42 11.44 11.45 11.46 12.2 13.40

55, 60, 77 60 44,96 96 90 45 96 96 58 53 44,45 60 110 59 61 110 59 60 55,77 55,77 110 56 56 60 62 44 51,96 50 46 64 66,90 90 90 90 90 90 59 59 59,73 59 90 90 34, 35, 63, 64 35 66 45 62,63

13.45 14.7 14.46 14.53 15 15.5 15.6 15.7 15.8 15.10 15.11 15.16 15.17 15.18 15.19 15.21 15.22 15.23 15.26 15.27 15.31 16 16.3 16.4 16.6 16.11 16.12 16.18-33 16.22 16.27 16.29 16.31 16.32 16.34 17-26 17 17.4 17.5 17.6 17.7 17.9 17.10 17.12 17.14 17.15 17.16 18

62 65 59 65 31 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 45 59 31,33 46 59 61 59 59 61 60 46 59,60 39,41,44 44 53 44 11, 12, 19, 20,85 21 79,96 65 55,77 44,45 79,96 96 39 96 41,45,59 46 21,43

129

Index of References 18.2 18.4 18.5 18.6 18.7 18.8 18.9 18.10 18.11 18.12 18.13 18.14 18.15 18.16 18.17 18.18 18.19 18.20 18.21 18.24 18.26 18.27-29 19.2 19.3 19.4 19.7-8 19.7 19.8 19.10 19.25 19.30 19.31 19.34 19.36 19.37 20 20.2-5 20.3 20.6 20.7 20.8 20.9 20.10-15 20.10 20.11 20.12 20.13

34 34,99 99, 100, 102 42 42,43 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42,43 42 42 42,45 40,78 89 115 39,41,99 96 34 34,49 34 44 44 46,96 34 34 49, 55, 78 34 34,41 60 99 21 96 31,55 96 34,35 34, 100 47 78 40,78 47 47 47

20.16 20.17 20.19 20.20 20.21 20.22 20.23 20.24-26 20.24 21.5 21.8 21.10 22.2 22.6 22.8 22.16 22.25 22.32 23 23.5 23.13 23.14 23.18 23.20 23.21 23.22 23.28 23.29 23.30 23.31 23.36 23.39 23.41 23.42 24.1-9 24.3 24.15 24.16 24.17 24.22 25.4-7 25.6 25.18 25.38 25.43 25.46 25.53

47 46 42 42 42,45 99, 115 37, 100 51 34,99 62 34, 100 62 31,53 59 45 46 40 31,34,99, 100 16,48 47,48 55,77 44,72 55, 56, 77 32 44,72 34 72 72,96 72,96 44 116 116 44 41 115 44 96 41 63 34,41 115 73 36,99 34 67 67 67

26.4 26.5 26.6 26.9 26.11-12 26.11 26.13 26.15 26.19 26.21 26.22 26.25 26.26 26.30-33 26.31 26.33 26.39 26.42 26.43 26.45 27.14 27.21 27.22 27.23 27.26-27 27.30 27.32 27.33

34 21,35,79, 97 34,54 49,55 36, 37, 100 39 37 74 36,71 31 31 34 99 80 97 64,97 74, 80, 97 68,97 80 38 38, 74, 88 74,75 35 99 35,42 32 32 32 32 58 32 32,67 32

Numbers 3 3.3 3.12 3.28 3.31 3.32 3.36 4.6 4.8 4.10 4.12

51,52 53 101 51 52 51 58 53,56 56 56 56

25.55 26

26.1 26.2 26.3

130 Numbers (cont.) 4.14 56 4.25 53,56 4.31 58 5.3 33 5.6 46 5.15 70 5.27 46,47 5.31 46 6 53, 60, 62 6.2 53 6.3 53 6.5 53,62 6.6 53 6.8 32,53 7.89 110 8.14 51 48 9.5 9.6 63 9.7 63 9.13 46,96 9.14 41 10.8 44 10.10 34 64 11.22 13-14 17 13 99 13.27 99 13.32 38 14 69 14.18 46 14.30 35,98 14.34 24, 46, 69 15.7 55,77 15.10 55,77 15.13 41,55,77 15.14 55,77 44 15.15 15.17-21 58 39,41 15.29 15.30 41 15.38 59 15.39 59 15.41 34 16-18 69 16.3 68 90 16.5 16.7 68,90

A New Heart and a New Soul 16.8 16.9 16.14 17.5 [Eng.] 17.8 [Eng.] 17.20 17.23 18 18.1 18.3 18.4 18.5-8 18.5 18.8 18.11 18.12 18.15 18.17 18.18-19 18.19 18.23 18.27 19 19.7 19.8 19.9 19.10 19.11 19.13-20 19.13 19.16 19.20 19.21 19.22 20.1-13 20.10 20.20 22.30 25.11 25.12 25.13 27-36 27.12-13 28-29 28 28.3 28.6 28.8

67 50 99 70 70 70,90 70 50,51 46 51,96 51 50 51,52,69 44 44 93 101 55,77 58 44,58 44,46 93 46 59 59 45 44, 45, 59 63 96 45 63,65 45 44, 45, 59 59 72 67 87 101 103 36,75 103 109 110 115 109 56 55,77 55,77

28.9 28.11 28.16-25 28.19 28.24 28.27 28.31 29 29.2 29.6 29.8 29.13 29.17 29.20 29.23 29.26 29.29 29.32 29.35 29.36 30.16 31 31.16 31.30 31.35 31.40 31.46 31.47 32 32.1-42 33 33.3 33.4 33.50-56 33.52 34.1-29 34.1-15 35 35.1-34 35.34 36 36.1-13

56 56 48 56 55,77 55,77 56 109 55, 56, 77 55,77 55, 56, 77 55, 56, 77 56 56 56 56 56 56 116 55,56 46 52 46 51 63 63 63 51 109 32 114 48 44 32, 109 54,78 32 109 110 32 33 110 32

Deuteronomy 1.6 1.8 1.21 1.28

68,69 98 86 91

Index of References 1.33 2.3 2.15 3.19 4.1 4.5 4.8 4.14 4.15-18 4.18 4.19 4.23 4.24 4.25 4.27 4.28 4.31 4.34 4.35 4.37 4.39 5.1 5.2 5.3-5 5.5 5.9 5.15 5.18 5.30 6.3 6.4-6 6.4-5 6.6 6.15 6.24-25 7.6 7.7 7.9 7.12 7.13 7.16 8.6 8.8 8.11 8.14 8.18 8.19 9

99 68,69 90 68,69 99 99 99 99 91 64,91,94 92 92 103 87 88, 100 92, 101 92 87 35 90 35 99 34 34 33 103 49,87 40 37 99 93 93 93 103 100 90 90 35,36 36 93 91 37 36 92 92 36 92 99

9.6-13 9.7 9.18 9.19 10.8 10.12 10.15 11.9 11.14 11.22 11.32 12.1-4 12.1 12.2 12.5 12.17 12.30 12.31 13.9 13.10 14.1 14.2 14.8 14.19 14.21 14.23 15.5 15.12 16.1-16 16.1-8 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.7 16.13-15 16.13 17.8 17.9 17.12 18.1-8 18.4 18.5 18.7 18.10 18.18 19.9 19.13 19.21

72 92 87 92,99 50,92 37 90 99 39,93 37 99 95 99 56, 89, 94 98, 115 93 98 89 37,91 95 63 90 45 64 45 93 37 115 116 48 48 48 108 116 116 93 96 96 50,92 9 93 50,92 92 89,94 109 37 91 91

131 20.8 21.5 21.23 22.1 22.21 22.24 23.3-6 24.8 24.16 25.11-12 25.12 25.13-16 25.19 26.8 26.9 26.15 26.17 27.3 28.1 28.9 28.13 28.15 28.26 28.36 28.48 28.51 28.64 29.5 29.16 29.17 29.27 30.1 30.2 30.3 30.6 30.14 30.15 30.16 30.19 31.20 31.27 31.29 32 32.13 32.18 32.23

91 96 45 97 95 40 115 37 96,97 42 91 60 92 87 99 99 37 99 37 37 37 37 45,64 92, 101 93 93 88, 92, 101 34 89, 94, 101 92 92,99 88 93 88 93 93 100 37 100 99 72 87 97 93 92 97

132 Deuteronomy 32.24 32.40 32.42 32.46 32.49-52 33.4 33.10 33.28 34.4 34.10

A New Heart and a New Soul (cont.) 97 35 62 37 109, 110 38 55 93 98 102

Joshua 1.7 2.11 2.19 5.1 5.6 5.10-15 8.1 8.29 8.33 10.26 14.8 22.5 22.25 22.27 22.28 23.6 24.14 24.23

37 35,91 47 91 99 48 86 45 41 59 91 37 33,34 33,34 33,34 37 103 93

Judges 2.12 2.15 2.18 2.19 2.22 5.2 6.10 9.11 13.4-7 17.13 20.26

87 90 66,67 72 37 62 34 93 53 52 59

Ruth 2.17

59

1 Samuel 1.11 2.14 5.6 7.13 8.20 12.15 14.25 15.27 17.44 17.46 24.5 24.6 26.19

53 52 90 90 101 90 65 73 64 64 73 73 55

2 Samuel 1.12 6.20 11.11 21.10 22 22.13

59 43 65 64 61 61

1 Kings 2.3 2.37 3.6 3.8 3.14 5.13 6.27 7.9 7.11 7.25 7.26 7.32 7.34 8 8.7 8.23 8.48 8.60 11.5 11.7 11.33 11.38 13.22 13.24

37 47 36 90 37 64 73 54 53,54 53,54 54 54 62 116 53,54 36 93 35 89 89 37 37 45 45

13.25 13.28 13.29 13.30 13.33 14.9 14.11 14.23 16.2 16.4 16.7 16.13 16.26 16.33 18.46 21.24

45 45 45 45 92 87 64 56,89 87 64 87 87 87 87 90 64

2 Kings 2.23 3.15 9.7 9.37 10.31 16.3 16.4 17.6 17.10 17.11 17.13 17.17 17.23 18.11 18.32 19.18 21.6 21.10 22.17 23.3 23.9 23.10 23.13 23.19 23.24 23.25 24.2

63 90 91 45,65 37 89 56,89 106 56,89 87 91,92 87,89 91 106 93 92, 101 87,89 91 87 36 10 89 89 87 89 93 91

1 Chronicles 5.21

63

133

Index of References 16.15 22.13 23.29 28.20

35 86 60,61 86

2 Chronicles 2.3 3.3 3.14 4.5 8.12-13 8.13 15.8 18.34 24.24 28.22 29.5 30.3 31.3 32.23 33.6 36.14

115 54 57 54 115 116 89 59 44 46 45,46 48 115 42 87 46

Ezra 7.6 7.10 7.14 9.11

114 114 114 45,46

Nehemiah

8.1 9.2 9.15 10.32-33 13.1 13.27

114 40 35 115 114 46

Job 12.8 24.12 39.13

64 66 65

Psalms 8.9 18 18.13 18.14 19.2

64 61 61 61 64

37.18 37.35 38.6 39.6 46 48 65 69.35 73.7 89 95-99 95.8 98.2 104.20 105 105.8 105.16 105.30 132 136.12 137 148.10 150.1

56 41 74 54 105 105 105 64 54 105 105 72 42 64 68 35 68 64 105 87 106 64 64

Proverbs 1.12 2.21 3.29 6.29 11.1 16.11 18.11 19.29 20.10 25.11 28.10 28.14 31.22

56 56 37 40 60 60 54 44 60 54 56 72 57

Isaiah 3.1 3.23 4.4 11.11 13.18 22.12 32.18 34.4

68 61 66 107 91 63 31 74

37.19 40.3-5 41.8 41.9 41.17-20 41.17-18 42.14-16 43.1-3 43.10 43.14-21 43.18-19 43.19 43.20 44.1 44.2 44.24-45.13 44.24 44.26 44.28 45.3 47.3 47.8 48.20-21 48.21 49.7 49.8-12 49.10 51.9-10 52.10 52.11-12 54.2 54.10 54.11-12 55.12-13 56.3 56.6 56.7 60.10 60.13 61.5 62.8 64.10 65.4

92, 101 108 90 90 108 108 108 108 90 108 108 108 108 90 90 108 108 108 108 108 42,43 37 108 108 90 108 108 108 42 108 31 36 108 108 40 40,41 41 40 55 40 40 38 44

Jeremiah 2.20 3.6 3.13

56,89 56,89 56

134 Jeremiah (cont.) 3.16 71,72 3.21 92 4.1 89 4.25 64 40 5.7-8 5.8 40 5.22 45 5.24 39 6.12 33 7.9 40 7.18 87 7.20 92,99 7.25 91 7.30 89 64 7.33 7.34 38 9.1 40 64 9.9 9.13 37 9.15 88 9.18 31 9.21 65 10.9 57 87 11.17 12.9 73,74 13.27 89 64 15.3 15.7 92 16.4 64 16.6 63 16.14-15 108 16.18 89 17.2 89 92 18.11 19.7 64 21.5 92,99 22.5 38 71,72 23.3 25.4 91 25.5 92 25.6 87 25.7 87 25.11 38 25.18 38 26.3 92 26.4 37 26.5 91

A New Heart and a New Soul 26.23 27.17 29.19 30.10 30.18 32.21 32.23 32.29 32.30 32.31 32.32 32.34 32.35 33.5 33.13 34.20 35.15 36.3 36.7 36.30 42.18 44.2 44.3 44.4 44.6 44.8 44.10 44.22 44.23 46.27 49.31 51.30

45 38 91 86 31 87 37 87 87 92,99 87 89 89 92,99 67 64 91,92 92 92,99 45 92,99 38 87 91 38, 92, 99 87 37 38 37 86 37 31

Lamentations 45 1.17 70 4.18 Ezekiel 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.9 1.11 1.13 1.22 1.23 1.25

64,81 48 1 90, 106 73 53,82 61 64 64,73 64

1.26 1.28 2.1-3.11 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.10-3.1 3.5 3.7 3.9 3.13 3.14 3.15 3.20 3.22 4 4.3 4.4-6 4.4-5 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.13 4.14 4.16 4.17 5 5.2 5.8 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14 5.15-16 5.15 5.16 5.17 6 6.2 6.3-4 6.3 6.6

64 65 109 72,73 109 109 86 109 72 72, 112 86 73 90 106 103 90 69,79 60,61 24 46 46 46 17,46,69, 77 88 44,45 68 74,75 74,79 74 42 43,44 55, 64, 89, 91, 113 74 92, 99, 103, 117 38 97 43, 44, 92, 99 68,97 74,97 79 90 95 74 90

135

Index of References 6.7 6.8 6.13

6.14 6.19 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.8 7.9 7.10 7.18 7.19-20 7.19 7.20 7.21 7.25 7.26 8 8.1 8.3 8.5 8.6 8.10 8.12 8.17 8.18 9.6 9.9 9.10 10.1 10.2 11.8 11.9 11.15 11.16 11.17 11.18 11.19-20 11.21

12.14 12.15

90 90 55, 77, 89, 95, 111, 113 33 77 70 91 70 92,99 91 70 62,63 46 45 45, 64, 89, 113 40 28 77,79 59,91 48 59, 103 103 55 54,64,91, 113 54, 113 87 91 55 77 91 64 61,81 74 43,44 38 75 75,88 89, 90, 113 93 89, 90, 113 74 88

12.20 12.23 12.28 13 13.13 13.22 14.3 14.6 14.7 14.9 14.10 14.13 14.14 14.17 15.4 15.6 15.8 16 16.5 16.10 16.13 16.16 16.19 16.26 16.32 16.37 16.38 16.40 16.41 16.42 16.59-63 16.60 16.62 17.3 17.7 17.20 17.23 18 18.5 18.6-8 18.6 18.7 18.11 18.13 18.15

38 75 75 75 92,99 92, 103 95 75 53,76 33 46 33, 46, 47, 68,83 65 74 73,74 73,74 46, 47, 83 57, 58, 95 65 56,57 57 95 55,56, 111 87 40 42, 43, 83 103 95 43,44 103, 117 108 35, 36, 83 35,36 65 65 46 66 94 100 73 40, 45, 46, 95 73 40 47 40

18.16 18.19 18.20 18.21 18.23 18.24 18.25 18.26 18.27 18.31 19 20

20.1-44 20.1 20.5-9 20.5

20.6 20.7 20.8 20.9 20.10 20.12 20.13 20.14 20.15 20.16 20.17 20.18-20 20.18 20.19 20.20 20.21 20.22 20.23 20.24 20.27-28 20.27 20.28

73 36,46 46, 96, 97, 113 36 103 46, 103 67 103 103 93 75 34,35,37, 42, 49, 76, 81,87,90, 98, 99, 114 98, 102 48,95 99 34, 35, 90, 99, 103 35,90 34, 89, 103 89, 92, 99 42,90 49,90 33, 34, 49, 100 49 42 35 49 91 103 37, 100 34 33,34,49, 100 92,99 42 35,88 49 95 46 35, 55, 56, 77, 98,

136

VewH

Ezekiel (cont.)

in 20.30 20.31 20.32 20.33-42 20.33 20.34-40 20.34 20.37 20.38 20.39 20.41 20.42 21.12 21.14-16 21.23[Eng.] 21.29 21.31 21.37 22.7 22.8 22.10

22.11 22.12 22.15 22.20 22.26

23 23.10 23.18 23.24 23.25 23.29 23.35 23.37 23.38

23.39 23.47 24 24.2 24.21

75,89 89, 113 92 107 87,94 108 87,88 67 39, 108, 111 31,79 42, 55, 56, 77,88 35 91 63 70 70 61 73,74 39 49 42, 43, 45, 46 40, 113 92 88 92,99 28,49-51, 77, 79, 113 95 42, 43, 83 42 71, 111 92,99 42, 43, 83 92 73,74 49, 55, 78, 113 55 95 75 72,73 55

24.23 25.3 25.4 25.10 25.13 25.14 26 27 27.6 27.7 27.13 28.7 28.10 28.22 28.25 28.26 29.5

29.12 29.13 29.16 29.17 29.18 30.7 30.11 30.12 30.14 30.19 30.20 30.23 30.24 30.26 31.1 31.6 31.12 31.13 32.3 32.4 33 33.4 33.5 33.9 33.10 33.11 33.12 33.15

74 55 31,38 38 33,38 33, 92, 99 75 58 58,82 57 63 40,74 40 43,44 42,103 37,44 64, 65, 73, 74 38, 77, 88, 112 77, 112 70 48 62,63 38 74

38,40 44 44 48 88 66, 76, 112 88 48 64 40 64 71, 111 64,65 47,83 47 47 92,103 74 92, 103 103 100

33.18 33.19 33.22 33.24 33.25-26 33.25 33.26 33.27-29 33.27 34 34.4 34.5 34.8 34.10 34.25 34.26 34.28 35.3 35.4 35.12 36.2 36.3 36.5 36.6 36.7 36.10 36.11 36.13 36.17 36.19 36.20-22 36.20 36.21 36.22 36.23 36.26-27 36.26 36.27 36.29-30 36.29 36.30 37.1 37.23 37.25 37.26

103 103 90 38, 103 79 75 40 79 65 36 67, 79, 97, 113 73 73,74 73,74 36,80 39 37 33 38 73,74 38 38 38, 103 103 35 72 71,72 38 45,46 88 32 31,79 31,79 31,32,75, 79 42 93 93, 114 36, 37, 100 93 93 93 90 89 103 31,33,36,

137

Index of References

37.27 37.28 38.17 38.18 38.19 38.20 38.23 39.4 39.5 39.6 39.7 39.15 39.19 39.20 39.25 39.27 39.28 40^8

40.1 40.2 40.5 40.43 40.45-46 40.45 40.46 42.20 43 43.7 43.8 43.9 43.10 43.11 43.13 43.19 43.21 43.25 44 44.5 44.6-16 44.6 44.7-14

55, 108 31,80 31,33,55 91 92,99 103 64 42 73,74 65 37 79 63 68 68 31,32,79, 103, 117 42 35 13, 17,21, 22, 32, 33, 109, 110, 112 90 109 54,81 54,81 52 51 51,52 50,51 60 31-33,79, 80 31-34,76, 79 33,80 109 77,79 54,81 59 59,60 56 69 77,79 10,22 68,69 69

44.7 44.8 44.9 44.10 44.11 44.12 44.13 44.15-16 44.15 44.16 44.20 44.21-23 44.23-25 44.23 44.24 44.31 44.88 45 45.1-6 45.6 45.7 45.9 45.10 45.18-25 45.18 45.19 45.21-25 45.21 45.22 45.23 45.25 46.1-15 46.2 46.4 46.6 46.14 46.16-18 47.9 47.13-48.29 47.13-20 47.14 47.22-23 47.22 48.11 48.13-14 48.14 48.18

40,41,55 51,52,55 40,41,55 46,50 50,55 35,46 52,53 52,55 50,51,55, 92 51,55 62 51 96 50, 77, 79 28,49 45 55 11 110 58 58 68,69 60 109 48 62 48 48 59,60 56 48 109 59 56 56 44,45 110 66 109 109 35 40 39,41,42 51 110 32 58

48.20 48.21

58 58

Daniel 9.27 11.31 12.3 12.11

89 89 64 89

Hosea 2.17 2.20 4.2 4.3 4.10 4.13 7.4 7.12 9.10 12.8

107 64 40 64 68 89 40 64 53,89 60

Joel 2.27

34

Amos 1.9 2.7 2.11-12 4.6-8 5.21 8.2 8.3 8.5 8.10

35 40 53 68 55 70 70 60 63

Micah 1.16 6.10-11 6.14 7.14-15

63 60 68 107

Nahum 2.13

45

Habakkuk 1.6 1.14

31 64

138

A New Heart and a New Soul

Zephaniah 1.3

64

Haggai 1.15 2.1 2.10 2.18

48 48 48 48

Zechariah 3.5 7.5 10.6 13.1

61 48 34 45

Other Ancient References Talmuds b. Men. 45a 112 b. Sab. 13b

112

EZEKIEL AND P: SHARED TERMINOLOGY

ft

D3Tai TH DIK—A Sign between Me and You (Sabbath) 49 miR—Native 41 n^DK (pN)—(A Land) That Devours 38 DTHbR HIPP ']K—I am Yahweh Your God 34 nEnpQ/DDtJTpa miT "]»—I Yahweh Sanctify You/Them 34 H3B im»—Four Corners (of the Altar) 62 Drmaa pK—The Land of their Sojourn 39 in-TIEto—Neighbor's Wife 40

a 'D'Tinpn/rrpra—Follow Statutes 37 DDTm T3—-Between Me (Yahweh) and You (Israel) 33 ~Q3-p—Outsider/Foreigner 40 Dinb DV 12JI? HUm»n ]tD«nn—On the First (month), on the Fourteenth Day of the Month (Passover) 47 Dl"?EJ rVQ—Covenant of Peace 36 J

E^-^m—Coals of Fire 61 m~II>m^—Uncover Nakedness 42 1

in 1Q1/D3 DrPQl—His/their Blood upon Him/Them 47

n

"?nn )n31 enpn ] s n ^inn—Separate between the Holy and the Profane 50 DT ^r mn K'nn—To Bring a Sword against You 74 DDDirQ "ian "ian—The Stranger Residing among You 39 rr~Q D^pil—Establish a Covenant 36 mn D3nn» p"1 in—Unsheathe the Sword against You 74 1

Drrn1^ mn 1 "3» '•a IUTI—They Will Know That I Am Yahweh Their God 35 inUD/Dnm nra -inn:i—Provision of Rain in its Season 39 T rP~Q ~1DT—Remember the Covenant 35

140

A New Heart and a New Soul

n nnrm-'TK nm man—Joined Each to the Other 73 'flip DtZ) NQtD/^n—Profane My Holy Name 31 D'nmpn—Eternal Rule 44 p«3 "nan 3in—A Sword Passing through the Land 74 m*in—Desolation 38 B nSB—Span/Hand's-Breadth 54

nJEft DVTOE)1?DV—A Day for a Year 69 non1? BraiZF—You Dwelt Securely 37 3

^DD-^D mSH ^D—Every Bird, Every Winged Creature 66 DTir/m"lI7nD2—Cover Nakedness 73 "? H^D^b—For Food/Sustenance 73 ^2*33 OH ^—Bread by Weight 68 11 7 IHD1?—To Serve Me as Priest 52 "ION p1?—Therefore Say 75 Dni:n T J?1?—In the Eyes of the (Foreign) Nations 42 DniE)1? mun -JB 1 ? IQUb—Stand before the Congregation to Serve Them 50 infc?1?—Until Satisfied 68 0 pfU n]nr/nn/nS^nT«Q—Honest Scale, Weights, Ephah 60 n^TTlD—Possession 38 ]1U niDTQ/TDTa—Reminder of Guilt 70 mno—Griddle 60 niantDD—Staff as Blooming 70 H^rO bo—From Above 53

^Q bi;q 46 HSDliQ—Turban 61 "'EJlpQ—My Sanctuary 55 IT32D—Carved Image 54 ^3tt3—My Tabernacle 31 3

pK]/npN]—Groan 66 nSIB/n ^3]—Carcass 45

rcnn nwDB/ni3—impurity 45 null—Feather/Plumage 65 "ITD—To Separate 53 •'T-nN HBD—Stretch out My Arm 33

Ezekiel and P: Shared Terminology D31in pQ]—Languish because of their Iniquities 74 Dl» I2S3—Person 63 iTn E®3 ta/TPn efe]—Living Beings 66 ]iy K&3—To Bear Guilt 46 •>T-n» TIKE)—I Raised My Arm 35 U mun-liJ—Until the Evening 59 mfen ^S ^U—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 D^Ehpn/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

A New Heart and a New Soul

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

A New Heart and a New Soul

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)

^ISD—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/D^UDn—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

A New Heart and a New Soul

•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

A New Heart and a New Soul

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