Echoes of a Prophet: The Use of Ezekiel in the Gospel of John and in Literature of the Second Temple Period (Library Of New Testament Studies)

library of new testament studies

Echoes of a Prophet The Use of Ezekiel in the Gospel of John and in Literature of the Second Temple Period

Gary T. Manning Jr

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT SUPPLEMENT SERIES

270

Editor

Mark Goodacre

Editorial Board

John M.G. Barclay, Craig Blomberg, Elizabeth A. Castelli, Kathleen E. Corley, R. Alan Culpepper, James D.G. Dunn, Craig A. Evans, Stephen Fowl, Robert Fowler, Simon J. Gathercole, Michael Labahn, Robert Wall, Robert L.Webb

Echoes of a Prophet The Use of Ezekiel in the Gospel of John and in Literature of the Second Temple Period

Gary T. Manning Jr

T&.T CLARK INTERNATIONAL

A Continuum imprint L O N D O N

•

N E W

Y O R K

Copyright 2004 T&T Clark International A Continuum imprint Published by T&T Clark International an imprint of Continuum The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SE1 7NX

15 East 26th Street, Suite 1703, New York, NY 10010

www. tandtclark.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 Tradespools, Frome, Somerset

EISBN 9780567080868

CONTENTS

Acknowledgments Abbreviations

vii ix

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION AND METHOD

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Previous Work on Ezekiel's Influence on John Intertextuality Methodology Focus of this Work Conventions Outline of the Book

1

2 3 7 19 20 20

Chapter 2 THE USE OF EZEKIEL IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS

1. History, Identity, and Eschatology of the Community 2. Epithets for the Community and its Enemies 3. Imitating Ezekiel (Ezekiel 1, 10, 17, 30, 37, 40; Pseudo-Ezekiel) 4. Summary of the Use of Ezekiel in the Dead Sea Scrolls

22

23 59 68 73

Chapter 3 THE USE OF EZEKIEL IN OTHER SECOND TEMPLE LITERATURE

1. The Merkabah Vision (Ezekiel 1; 3.2, 14-15; 10; Sirach 49.8; Testament of Levi 5.1; 7 Enoch 14.8-25; 39.2; 71.1-2) 2. Sheep and Shepherd (Ezekiel 34; 1 Enoch 89-90; Psalm of Solomon \12\-AA) 3. Dry Bones (Ezekiel 37.1-11; Sirach 49.10; 4 Maccabees 18.17; Lives of the Prophets 3.12; 1 Enoch 90.4-5) 4. Summary of the Use of Ezekiel in other Second Temple Literature

78

79 86 96 99

Echoes of a Prophet

Chapter 4 ALLUSIONS TO EZEKIEL IN JOHN: MAJOR ALLUSIONS

1. Shepherds and Sheep 2. Vine and Branches 3. Summary

100

100 135 149

Chapter 5 ALLUSIONS TO EZEKIEL IN JOHN: MINOR ALLUSIONS

1. The Opened Heavens (Ezekiel 1.1; Genesis 28.12; John 1.51) 2. The Dry Bones Summary of John's Use of the Vision of Dry Bones 3. Water and the Spirit 4. Summary of the Use of Water as Spirit in John

150

150 160 171 172 194

Chapter 6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

1. 2. 3. 4.

Tendencies in the Form of Allusions Tendencies in the Method of Allusions Messiah and Community Tendencies in Johannine Allusions

Bibliography Index of Scripture and Ancient Sources Index of Modern Authors

198

199 203 206 209 214 225 238

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This book, like most worthwhile accomplishments, owes much to many people. It is both a pleasure and an obligation to give them credit here. This book is a slight revision of my doctoral dissertation, composed under the direction of Marianne Meye Thompson and David Scholer.1 The topic of the use of the Old Testament in the New has been of interest to me for many years. Marianne Meye Thompson suggested the particular topic of the use of Ezekiel in the Gospel of John, for a Johannine Christology seminar paper in the fall of 1999. I am grateful to her for the idea, and especially for her encouragement and excellent advice in the course of my research and writing. David Scholer served as the second reader for the dissertation and gave useful suggestions and encouragement. My time at Fuller Theological Seminary was made both productive and enjoyable by time spent in classes or in research with these two professors, as well as with Dr James Bradley, Dr Donald Hagner, and Dr Ralph Martin. I am grateful to Dr James VanderKam of Notre Dame University, who graciously read an early draft of Chapter 2. His comments provided material direction as well as encouragement at the beginning of my research. I also appreciated encouragement from professors at Talbot School of Theology: Dr Clint Arnold, Dr Michael Wilkins, and many others. I worked on revising the dissertation during my first year teaching at International College and Graduate School in Honolulu; I am thankful for the fellowship with staff and faculty, as well as students who helped me clarify my views on the Gospel of John. Writing the dissertation was also made possible through the generous support of several foundations. I was grateful to Fuller and its donors for providing me with the Full Fellowship; the Juliette M. Atherton Scholarship, the Hawaii Community Scholarship Fund, and the Hawaii Veterans Memorial Scholarship all provided generous funding as well. My extended family was of invaluable support during my studies. There were many times during my doctoral work that I recognized the need for 1. G. Manning, 'Echoes of a Prophet: The Use of Ezekiel in the Gospel of John and in Literature of the Second Temple Period' (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Fuller Theological Seminary, 2003).

viii

Echoes of a Prophet

endurance and hard work. I am grateful to my parents, Gary and Karen Manning, for instilling those values in me from a young age, as well as for encouraging me during my doctoral work. My parents-in-law, Joe and Mary Ann Lawson, provided wonderful family andfinancialsupport. Two of my brothers-in-law were especially helpful: David Lawson kept my computer working, and Jonathan Trautner kept my car running. Our church family at the Evangelical Free Church in Diamond Bar, California, was a place of good fellowship and friendship. Our home church, Faith Christian Fellowship of Honolulu, kept us in prayer and kept friendships alive during our years away. Most of my year of research and writing was spent working at home, so my family was close to my work. My wife, Barbara, was unflagging in her encouragement, and kept the house running smoothly when my writing schedule grew heavy. My children, Josiah, Nathaniel, Daniel, Ian, and Caleb provided (mostly) welcome interruptions to my work on a daily basis. I appreciated their patience throughout the year. Finally, this work is dedicated to its three subjects: God's faithful servants Ezekiel and John, and Jesus the Messiah, for whom Ezekiel hoped and about whom John reported.

ABBREVIATIONS AB AcTDan AER AGJU ANF APOT

AUSS BDAG BDB BETL BHS Bib BSac BTB BZ BZNW CBQ CBQMS CDSS Cone ConNT CRINT CQR DJD DNTB

Anchor Bible Acta Theologica Danica American Ecclesiastical Review Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums Anti-Nicene Fathers R.H. Charles (ed.), Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913) Andrews University Seminary Studies F.W. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2nd edn, 2000). Francis Brown, S.R. Driver and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907) Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium Biblia hebraica Stuttgartensia Biblica Bibliotheca Sacra Biblical Theology Bulletin Biblische Zeitschrift Beihefte zur ZNW Catholic Biblical Quarterly Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series G. Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (New York: Penguin Press, 1997) Concordia Coniectanea neotestamentica Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum Church Quarterly Review Discoveries in the Judaean Desert C.A. Evans and S.E. Porter, Dictionary of New Testament Background (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000).

Echoes of a Prophet DSD DSS DSSCOL DSSSE DSSHAG ECDSS ExpTim HBT HSM HTCNT HTR HUCA ICC IDE Int ISBE JAOS JBL JBLMS JETS JJS JQRMS JR JSJ JSNT JSNTSup JSOT JSOTSup JSPSup JTS LCL NASB NedTTs

Dead Sea Discoveries Dead Sea Scrolls Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins Library F. Garcia Martinea and E. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (2 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 19971998) James Charlesworth (ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts with English Translations (10 vols.; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1994-) Eerdmans Commentaries on the Dead Sea Scrolls Expository Times Horizons in Biblical Theology Harvard Semitic Monographs Herder's Theological Commentary on the New Testament Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual International Critical Commentary George Arthur Buttrick (ed.), The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (4 vols.; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962) Interpretation Geoffrey Bromiley (ed.), The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (4 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, rev. edn, 1979-88) Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Biblical Literature Monograph Series Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Journal of Jewish Studies Jewish Quarterly Review Monograph Series Journal of Religion Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series Journal of Theological Studies Loeb Classical Library New American Standard Bible Nederlands theologisch tijdschrift

Abbreviations Neot NICNT NIDNTT NovT NovTSup NTS ODJR OTL OTP PVTG RB ResQ RevQ RevScRel RSV SBEC SBLDS SBT Scr SE SJLA SJT SNTSMS SR STDJ StudBL SVTP TDNT TynBul TSAJ TZ UBSGNT VC VCSup VD WBC WUNT ZNW

XI

Neotestamentica New International Commentary on the New Testament Colin Brown (ed.), The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (3 vols.; Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1975) Novum Testamentum Novum Testamentum Supplements New Testament Studies Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion Old Testament Library James Charlesworth (ed.), Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti graece Revue biblique Restoration Quarterly Revue de Qumran Revue des sciences religieuses Revised Standard Version Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity SBL Dissertation Series Studies in Biblical Theology Scripture Studia Evangelica I, II, III ( = TU 73 [1959], 87 [1964], 88 [1964], etc.) Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity Scottish Journal of Theology Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Studies in Religion I Sciences religieuses Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah Studies in Biblical Literature Studia in Veteris Testamenti pseudepigrapha Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich (eds.), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley; 10 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964-) Tyndale Bulletin Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum Theologische Zeitschrift United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament Vigiliae christianae Supplements to Vigiliae christianae Verbum domini Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

Xll

Echoes of a Prophet

Table of Abbreviations for Ancient Works 1 En. 2 En. 2 Bar. 3 Bar. 4 Bar. 4 Ezra 4 Mace. Ant. Agr. Asc. Isa. Barn. Ep. Jub. Liv. Proph. Men. Peshikta R. Pss. Sol. Sot. Spec. Leg. Sukk. T. Jud. T. Levi T. Mos. T Zeb. Targ. 1 Sam. Targ. Ezek. Targ. Jer.

1 (Ethiopic) Enoch 2 (Slavonic) Enoch 2 (Syriac) Baruch [= Apocalypse of Baruch] 3 (Greek) Baruch 4 Baruch 4 Ezra [= 2 Esd. 3-14] 4 Maccabees Antiquities of the Jews De agricultura Ascension of Isaiah Barnabas Epistle of Barnabas Jubilees Lives of the Prophets Menahot Peshikta Rabbati Psalms of Solomon Sotah De specialibus legibus Sukkah Testament of Judah Testament of Levi Testament of Moses Testament of Zebulon Targum on 1 Samuel Targum on Ezekiel Targum on Jeremiah

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION AND METHOD

The Gospel of John contains some of the most powerful images of Jesus that can be found in the Gospels. Jesus is described as the good shepherd and the true vine; the Holy Spirit flows as water and breath from him. Part of the power of these images lies in their antiquity. Shepherd, vine, water and breath had already served as powerful symbols in the Scriptures of Israel. In John's quest to explain the significance of Jesus, he draws on these images that were already familiar to his readers. While John uses images and quotations from the full range of the Old Testament, these particular images, as well as a few others, bear the stamp of one of Israel's most unusual prophets, Ezekiel. Ezekiel had the disconcerting habit of using familiar metaphors in unfamiliar ways;1 perhaps it is not surprising to find John using Ezekiel's metaphors in new ways to describe Jesus and his followers. In many cases, John combines metaphors from Ezekiel and other passages from the Old Testament; sometimes, there is a hint that Ezekiel provides for John a sort of window on the rest of the Scriptures. When John uses images from Ezekiel, we have the opportunity to overhear a sort of conversation between the prophet and the Evangelist. Ezekiel speaks, and John repeats; but John's iteration is not merely an echo. Each of Ezekiel's metaphors is re-expressed. The original purpose of the metaphor is usually still visible in John's retelling; but in each case, John applies Ezekiel's metaphor to Christ and his community. John was not the first to use these images from Ezekiel; other authors in Second Temple Judaism had also used and modified Ezekiel's metaphors. What follows in this study is an attempt to hear these various 'conversations' with Ezekiel, and thus to understand John's application of Ezekiel's oracles to Jesus Christ.

1. Scholars of Ezekiel typically observe his tendency to play with common metaphors. As Durlesser points out, Ezekiel's 'allegories experimented with unconventional aspects of conventionalized metaphors, and provided... new details, aberrant shifts, and bizarre twists.' J.A. Durlesser, 'The Rhetoric of Allegory in the Book of Ezekiel' (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1988), p. iv.

2

Echoes of a Prophet 1. Previous Work on EzekieVs Influence on John

Four monographs on John's use of the Old Testament have been published in the last century.2 However, these deal only with explicit OT quotations, and so are of limited value for this study, since John never quotes Ezekiel. Numerous commentaries and articles on John have cited possible allusions to Ezekiel in several passages in John; usually, however, Ezekiel is merely listed as one of many OT background passages.3 Several dissertations and monographs make significant mention of Ezekiel's influence on John.4 Other dissertations deal with Ezekiel's influence on Second Temple literature.5 Only one dissertation, however, has been devoted to the relationship between John and Ezekiel. William Fowler's The Influence of Ezekiel in the Fourth Gospel: Intertextuality and Interpretation'6 provides a comparison of John's and Ezekiel's 'theological vocabulary' (words used by both authors fifty times or more, or used in the T am' statements). Fowler's analysis of the main 'points of contact' between John and Ezekiel

2. E.H. Freed, Old Testament Quotations in the Gospel of John (NovTSup, 11; Leiden: E J . Brill, 1965); M.JJ. Menken, Old Testament Quotations in the Fourth Gospel: Studies in Textual Form (Kampen, the Netherlands: Kok Pharos, 1996); G. Reim, Das alttestamentliche Hintergrund des Johannesevangeliums (SNTSMS, 22; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974); B.G. Schuchard, Scripture within Scripture: The Interrelationship of Form and Function in the Explicit Old Testament Citations in the Gospel of John (SBLDS, 133; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992). 3. For example, Schnackenburg proposes multiple background texts for John 10: Ezek. 34.23f.; Mic. 5.1-3; Zech. 11.15-17; 13.7-9; Ps. 23.2; 1 Chron. 4.40; and Isa. 49.9f. This sort of list suggests the exploration of a symbol rather than the examination of a parallel. R. Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John (trans. K. Smyth et al.; HTCNT; 3 vols; New York: Herder and Herder, 1968-1982), vol. 2, pp. 293, 295. 4. B.A. Fikes, 'A Theological Analysis of The Shepherd-King Motif in Ezekiel 34' (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1995); J.W. Vancil, 'The Symbolism of the Shepherd in Biblical, Intertestamental, and New Testament Material' (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Dropsie University, 1975); M.W. Woods, 'The Use of the Old Testament in the Fourth Gospel: The Hermeneutical Significance for Contemporary Biblical Interpretation' (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1980). 5. S. Fujita, T h e Temple Theology of the Qumran Sect and the Book of Ezekiel: Their Relationship to Jewish Literature of the Last Two Centuries B.C.' (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Princeton Theological Seminary, 1970); R. Nurmela, 'Prophets in Dialogue: Inner-Biblical Allusions in Zechariah 1-8 and 9-14' (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Abo Akademi (Finland), 1996); C. Rowland, 'The Influence of the First Chapter of Ezekiel on Jewish and Early Christian Literature' (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cambridge University, 1974). 6. W.G. Fowler, 'The Influence of Ezekiel in the Fourth Gospel: Intertextuality and Interpretation' (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, 1995).

1. Introduction and Method

3

proves a useful resource for this study. However, this study will part with Fowler's in a few important ways. First, Fowler's method of using the authors' 'theological vocabulary' is not the most useful method for tracing Ezekiel's influence. It causes Fowler to overlook or downplay passages in John and Ezekiel that are clearly parallel yet do not use many of the words on Fowler's list. In other cases, Fowler's method of moving from theological vocabulary to thematic parallel produces parallels that are unpersuasive, or that could be demonstrated to be parallels more persuasively by attention to particular parallel passages. Because of these differences in methodology, this study will diverge from Fowler's in three ways. First, this study focuses more attention on John's allusions to specific passages in Ezekiel. Second, this study attempts to place John's use of Ezekiel within the context of Second Temple usage of Ezekiel. Third, although this study will agree with Fowler on several of the particular 'points of contact' between John and Ezekiel, it will disagree with Fowler on the relative significance of these points of contact with Ezekiel.

2. Intertextuality The study of intertextuality begins with the assumption that a literary work can best be understood when its indebtedness to earlier literary works is analyzed.7 This belief is not unique to modern intertextual study; historical-critical scholarship has long acknowledged the value of searching for parallels between biblical texts and earlier texts (biblical or otherwise). Twentieth-century New Testament scholarship exerted a great deal of effort in finding parallels to NT literature. Such parallels might demonstrate direct verbal dependence on an earlier source, or suggest the source of theological ideas, or provide insight into the thought-world of the NT era. This labor resulted in impressive lists of parallel passages. In fact, because early twentieth-century scholarship was so ready to discover parallels to earlier literature, most of the parallels discussed today have already been noticed. However, such 'background studies' were often hampered by a lack of clear methodology. In some cases, it was unclear what sort of parallel was implied, or whether the parallel indicated dependence in either 7. Paulien emphasizes this importance: 'To the extent that an interpreter misses an author's allusion to previous literature, that interpreter will misunderstand the author's intention.' J. Paulien, Decoding Revelation's Trumpets: Literary Allusions and the Interpretation of Revelation 8:7-12 (AUSS, 11; Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews University Press, 1987), p. 168, also citing J. Hollander, The Figure of Echo: A Mode of Allusion in Milton and After (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981), pp. 65-66.

4

Echoes of a Prophet

direction between the two documents. There was a tendency to find parallel texts that actually had very little parallel material, or were historically very unlikely to have been available to the author. The lack of controls on identifying parallels led to producing 'laundry lists' of parallel passages. In other cases, scholars arbitrarily focused on one particular parallel text. The classic example of this is Bultmann's work on the Good Shepherd discourse. Despite his excellent observation that John's Good Shepherd had parallels to Numbers 27, Jeremiah 23, and Ezekiel 34, Bultmann decided that the scattered references to a shepherd in the Mandean literature were the primary source of John's shepherd imagery.8 An important correction to these problems came from Samuel Sandmel in his influential article, 'Parallelomania.'9 Sandmel made a number of sharp criticisms about the way in which many scholars adduced parallels between the NT and other Jewish literature. Some of his suggestions are worth examining here, because they had an important influence on later background studies. First, Sandmel argued for closer attention to the context of the proposed parallel: 'Detailed study is the criterion; the detailed study ought to respect the context and not be limited to juxtaposing mere excerpts. Two passages may sound the same in splendid isolation from their context, but when seen in context reflect difference rather than similarity.'10 Second, and related to the first, was Sandmel's focus on discovering the meaning of the parallel material and its role in its new setting. It is not enough to point out a proposed parallel; one must also see how the author used the 'borrowed' material.11 Third, Sandmel insisted that scholars pay attention to the creativity of the later author. Not only may some material be original to the NT author, but further, the NT author may have purposely altered the parallel material.12 Fourth, Sandmel pointed out that not all parallels illustrate dependence. Some parallels arise out of the common Judaism of the authors; some parallels occur when both authors have independently drawn on an earlier text; and some parallels are trivial or coincidental. Especially when the dating of the various texts is in doubt, it is sometimes difficult to establish the direction of the dependence.13 Finally, Sandmel argued against a polemical or biased use of parallels - e.g., making artificial distinctions between Jesus' sayings and similar rabbinic 8. R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John (trans. G.R. Beasley-Murray, R.W.N. Hoare, and J.K. Riches; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1971), pp. 364^67. 9. S. Sandmel, Tarallelomania', JBL 81 (1962), pp. 1-13. 10. Sandmel, Tarallelomania', p. 2. 11. Sandmel, Tarallelomania', p. 5. 12. Sandmel, Tarallelomania', p. 4. 13. Sandmel, Tarallelomania', p. 3.

1. Introduction and Method

5

sayings to the detriment of the latter.14 All of these suggestions have corrected and refined the study of parallels to the NT. In more recent years, the study of parallels to the NT has been supplemented by a focus on intertextuality in literary studies. In some ways, intertextuality is merely a new formulation of the historical-critical study of literary parallels. The main difference has been an increased focus on the conversation between the later work and its literary ancestors.15 Intertextual studies have sought to understand how (e.g.) a New Testament author understood his Old Testament source and adapted material from the older text for use in his own work. The study of intertextuality has only begun when a possible parallel in earlier literature is discovered. From there, the student of intertextuality seeks to learn how the later author interacts with the source document, transforms it, and uses it to advance the later work. Intertextual study considers the two overlapping contexts of an allusion or quotation. Every allusion needs to be examined as an element in both the source document and the alluding document.16 The later author may have used an allusive phrase to remind the readers of the entire passage from which the phrase was drawn. The allusion may be intended to recall a particular theme or complex of ideas in the original passage.17 Intertextual study also pays close attention to the role of the allusion in its new context.18 Finally, intertextual studies consider the congruence between

14. Sandmel, 'Parallelomania', pp. 10-13. 15. Hays defines intertextuality as 'the imbedding of fragments of an earlier text within a later one.' R.B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), p. 14. 16. Unfortunately, there are few consistently used technical terms in the field of biblical intertextuality. The text to which a later text alludes is called 'earlier' or 'precursor' (Hays, Echoes, pp. 24, 30); 'source' (C. A. Evans, Word and Glory: On the Exegetical and Theological Background of John's Prologue (JSNTSup, 89; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), pp. 18-19); 'previous literature' 'prior literature' or 'background passage' (Paulien, Trumpets, pp. 168, 178, 184); 'subtext' (A.D. Hultberg, 'Messianic Exegesis in the Apocalypse: The Significance of the Old Testament for the Christology of Revelation' (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2001), p. 41); or 'former text' (Fowler, 'Influence', p. 13). I use the terms 'source' and 'earlier' interchangeably, as well as 'alluding' and 'later.' 17. Hays describes this phenomenon thus: 'Allusive echo functions to suggest to the reader that text B should be understood in light of a broad interplay with text A, encompassing aspects of A beyond those explicitly echoed.' Hays, Echoes, p. 20. 18. In his examination of the OT quotations in John, Freed points out that this had often been neglected: 'Torrey and others have paid too little attention to the contexts of which the quotations are a part and to the theological motives and stylistic methods of the writers... In every instance [John's] quoted text appears to be adapted to its immediate context, to his literary style, and to the whole plan of the composition of his gospel.' Freed, Old Testament Quotations, p. 129.

6

Echoes of a Prophet

these two contexts. In many cases, an allusion provides a skillful link between two passages that have similar themes or theological aims.19 An allusion can be pictured as the narrow neck of an hourglass, allowing meaning to flow through it from the source document to the alluding document. The allusion itself consists of only a phrase or combination of a few words, but it allows the reader to make further connections between the old passage and the new. If only the allusive words are analyzed, the allusion does not have its full impact. The allusion serves its intended function best when the reader observes its old and new contexts, sees the congruence between those contexts, and makes the connections only hinted at by the allusion. The goal of this book is to analyze the role of allusions to Ezekiel in the Gospel of John in light of allusions to Ezekiel in other literature of the Second Temple period. Such an approach might be called 'comparative intertextuality.' Typically, intertextual studies seek to find the literary background of a single work. They analyze the conversation between a later work and its earlier literary influences. Comparative intertextuality is an attempt to place the intertextual conversations found in a single work within the context of similar intertextual conversations found in other works. In the case of this study, such an approach attempts to triangulate John's usage of Ezekiel. A straightforward study of John's use of Ezekiel is certainly useful; but it can be one-dimensional. Studying John's allusions to Ezekiel alone gives no sense of what is remarkable or what is commonplace in Second Temple literature. The observation that the good shepherd in John 10 derives from Ezekiel 34 is certainly true. It is also likely that John's use of Ezekiel here points to Jesus' status as God's agent and even hints that Jesus is the 'Son of David.' These are useful observations, but still only based on the linear relationship between John and Ezekiel. A comparison with the use of Ezekiel 34 in 1 Enoch 89-90 and in Psalm of Solomon 17 adds more dimensions to the intertextual relationship. We discover how John's use of Ezekiel 34 fits roughly within the range of what other authors did with that passage, but we also discover a few unique emphases in John's use of Ezekiel.20 This approach is not new, but it has not been widely practiced until near the end of the twentieth century. Several works on allusions in John or Revelation compare the use of those allusions to the use of similar allusions in Second Temple literature. Works by Allison, Beale, Johnson,

19. Hultberg agrees with this in his suggestion that 'Profundity of one's allusions is signaled by the integration of the theme or structure of the subtext in the new text as well as by the genre or general tone of the new text itself.' Hultberg, 'Messianic Exegesis', p. 42. 20. See pp. 132-5.

1. Introduction and Method

1

Moyise, and Vogelgesang make extensive comparisons between OT allusions found in Revelation and OT allusions found in other apocalyptic literature or in the DSS.21 Dissertations and monograph by Daise, Johnson, Meeks, and Vander Hoek22 pay some attention to this comparison, while works by Hultberg, Nash, Paulien, and Winsor make such comparisons only in passing.23 3. Methodology The goal of this book is to analyze John's use of material from Ezekiel in light of the use of Ezekiel in other literature of the Second Temple period. Because of the danger of misusing parallels (discussed above), it is important to follow a clear method in the analysis of allusions. Many of the intertextual studies mentioned above carefully describe their methodology for identifying and analyzing allusions, while others allow the reader to discover the methods used. In general, the studies of Revelation have been the most profitable in this regard, probably because the complexity of allusions in Revelation requires the use of careful and consistent methods. All of the methods used in this monograph are informed by previous work on allusions and intertextuality. In some cases, my methods have only been adopted or adapted after tracking down numerous allusions in the DSS, the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, and the New Testament. The methods used thus influence the allusions that are 21. D.C. Allison, Scriptural Allusions in the New Testament: Light from the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSSCOL 5; North Richland Hills, Tex.: BIBAL, 2000); G.K. Beale, 'Revelation', in D.A. Carson and H.G.M. Williamson (eds), It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture (Festschrift B. Lindars; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), pp. 318-36; D.H. Johnson, 'Our Father Jacob: The Role of the Jacob Narrative in the Fourth Gospel compared to its role in the Jewish Bible and in the Writings of Early Judaism' (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1992); S. Moyise, The Old Testament in the Book of Revelation (JSNTSup, 115; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995); J.M. Vogelgesang, 'The Interpretation of Ezekiel in the Book of Revelation' (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, 1985). 22. M.A. Daise, '"Rivers of Living Water" as New Creation and New Exodus: A Traditio-historical Vantage Point for the Exegetical Problems and Theology of John 7:37-39' (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Princeton Theological Seminary, 2000); W.A. Meeks, The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology (NovTSup, 14; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1967); G.W. Vander Hoek, 'The Function of Psalm 82 in the Fourth Gospel and History of the Johannine Community: A Comparative Midrash Study' (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Claremont Graduate School, 1988). 23. Hultberg, 'Messianic Exegesis'; S.B. Nash, 'Kingship and the Psalms in the Fourth Gospel' (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Westminster Theological Seminary, 2000); Paulien, Trumpets', A.R. Winsor, 'A King is Bound in the Tresses: Allusions to the Song of Songs in the Fourth Gospel' (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Graduate Theological Union, 1996).

8

Echoes of a Prophet

discovered, and allusions that are discovered sometimes influence the methods used. For example, a simplistic approach to intertextuality might only look for passages that show extensive and precise verbal parallel. But then, despite the strictness of the method, other clear allusions arise that do not fit the initial criteria, and the scholar is forced to revise the criteria to include such allusions. a. Select Passages with Possible Allusions

The first step in 'comparative intertextuality' is to locate passages, in John and in Second Temple literature, that are worth examining for the possibility of Ezekiel's influence on the later work. In one sense, this is a 'pre-step' - the details of this search will not normally be described at length in this study (nor are they described in other intertextual studies). Nevertheless, the approach to finding possible parallels, as opposed to the methods for demonstrating allusion or dependence, is worth a few comments. First, intertextual study begins with the prime criterion of availability: an allusion is only possible if the author had access to the earlier work.24 All the arguments for dependence between two documents are pointless if it is unlikely that the later author had access to the earlier work. The application of this criterion is especially important when comparing documents of disputed date, such as rabbinical material and the NT. In this study, this criterion needs little discussion, since all the Second Temple authors that we will study had access to Ezekiel. Access to particular text forms of Ezekiel is debatable, but rarely matters in the particular examples we will examine. Once it is established that the author had access to the earlier work, then the search for possible allusions can begin. Sections of the later work can be broken down into key words and phrases. For example, the Good Shepherd discourse of John 10 can be broken down into a list of significant shepherding terms and phrases. Then possible allusions can be found by searching for occurrences of those phrases and words, as well as for synonyms and cognates, in the LXX. In some cases, the search needs to be broadened by looking for the occurrence of Hebrew synonyms in the Masoretic Text, especially where no Greek counterpart is available (for example, there are more viticultural terms in the Hebrew of the MT than in the Greek of the LXX). OT passages that combine several of the terms or phrases under consideration suggest themselves as possible references for the allusion. This approach usually leads to several OT passages with parallels to the metaphor in the later passage. In some cases, it is clear that 24. Evans, Word and Glory, pp. 18—19; Hays, Echoes, p. 29; Hultberg, 'Messianic Exegesis', p. 37; Paulien, Trumpets, pp. 179-80.

1. Introduction and Method

9

a passage in Ezekiel contains more of the key terms and phrases than any other text proposed for the allusive passage. In other cases, Ezekiel does not necessarily share more of the Johannine words and phrases, but it seems that the two passages in Ezekiel and John use some key words in the same way. In other cases, discovery of parallels between a later work and Ezekiel results from a less methodical approach - simple familiarity with both texts, achieved by repeated reading. Finally, secondary literature often suggests possible parallels that then require verification and analysis. The history of interpretation provides an important check on the investigation of allusions. If an allusion has never been noticed before, then it is less likely to be genuine.25 b. Establish the Strength of the Allusion The second step in comparative intertextuality is to assess the strength, or 'volume,'26 of the allusion. The main criteria for the strength of an allusion to an earlier work are 1) the number of similar words and phrases 2) used in similar ways 3) when compared against other possible sources. These three criteria establish a unique verbal parallel between two passages. The strength of the allusion can be further established by the presence of 4) structural parallels, 5) repeated allusions to the same or nearby passages, and 6) resonance or congruence between the original context and the new context of the allusion. Each of these criteria will be examined in turn. 1) The more words and phrases that two documents have in common, the clearer the allusion is.27 The allusion is clearest when the two works share common words, but the later work may also allude to the earlier via synonyms or cognate words. In some cases, the use of synonyms or cognates may be due to different text traditions, or allusion to either the Greek or Hebrew text, or faulty memory by the later author. In other 25. Hays suggests that the history of interpretation provides at best a negative criterion for detecting allusions. Hays, Echoes, p. 31. 26. Hays, Echoes, p. 30. 27. This is a common criterion in background and intertextual studies. Chilton calls it 'dictional coherence' (B.D. Chilton, The Glory of Israel: The Theology and Provenance of the Isaiah Targum (JSOTSup, 23; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983), p. 21); Hultberg calls it the 'criteria of correspondence' (Hultberg, 'Messianic Exegesis', pp. 40-41). See also G.K. Beale, The Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the Revelation of St. John (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1984), pp. 308-09; Hays, Echoes, p. 29; J.D. Huntzinger, 'The End of Exile: A Short Commentary on the Shepherd/Sheep Metaphor in Exilic and PostExilic Prophetic and Synoptic Gospel Literature' (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Fuller Theological Seminary, 1999), pp. 152-55; S.F. Mathews, 'A Critical Evaluation of the Allusions to the Old Testament in Apocalypse 1:1-8:5' (unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Catholic University of America, 1987), pp. 11-12; Paulien, Trumpets, pp. 179-80; Vogelgesang, 'Interpretation', pp. 15-16.

10

Echoes of a Prophet

cases, the words or syntax may have been intentionally altered for stylistic reasons, to update older language, or to fit the language or theology of the later context. From a statistical point of view, phrases are far more suggestive of allusion than are single words.28 A later work may coincidentally use three separated words that can be found in an earlier passage, but if those three words are found in a single phrase common to both works, the allusion seems deliberate. Thus, a single phrase in common between two texts may be more important than several shared words not in phrases. For example, Ezek. 17.23-24 and Jn 15.6 both contain the words KAfpa (branch) and SrpouvG) (wither). However, the two words are separated in Ezek. 17.23-24, and it is not the branches that wither. Ezek. 19.12 is a closer parallel to Jn 15.6 because both combine the parallel words in a phrase (e&paveri r\ Although quantity of parallel words and phrases is important, some allusions are clear because of their use of distinctive words. Like the textcritical dictum, words should be 'weighed, not counted': single, distinctive words may increase the probability of allusion more than several nondistinctive words.29 When John uses the rare word kiifyvoau to describe Jesus breathing the Spirit on the disciples (Jn 20.22), it seems quite likely that he intends to recall Ezek. 37.9, 14, which uses the same word to describe God giving his Spirit to the exiles.30 2) The proposed allusion is stronger the more that the shared vocabulary is used in similar ways. That is, the allusion is clearer if the allusive words and phrases have the same narrative role or theological purpose in the two passages.31 If two passages use similar words, but those words have

28. Several authors suggest a criterion similar to this one: Beale, Use of Daniel, pp. 30809; Hays, Echoes, p. 29. On the other hand, some authors pay too much attention to single words to the neglect of phrases, such as Huntzinger, 'End of Exile', pp. 152-55. 29. K. Berding, Poly carp and Paul: An Analysis of Their Literary and Theological Relationship in Light of Poly carp's Use of Biblical and Extra-Biblical Literature (VCSup, 62; Leiden: Brill, 2002), p. 29. 30. See pp. 165-66. 31. Evans suggests something similar when he asks if the parallels show a 'meaningful relationship of language and conceptually.' (Evans, Word and Glory, pp. 18-19; cf. Chilton, Glory of Israel, p. 21). Beale's 'aggregate of evidence' (Beale, Use of Daniel, pp. 309-10) and Hultberg's clearer 'criterion of aggregation' (Hultberg, 'Messianic Exegesis', pp. 40-41) also call for an overlap of verbal and conceptual parallel, although they do not phrase it in quite this way. Some scholars have seen verbal parallel as a less important criterion than others precisely because this second aspect is overlooked. For example, Paulien sees the presence of verbal parallels as important in the detection of allusions, but notes that such parallels 'may prove to be merely superficial or fortuitous' (Paulien, Trumpets, p. 186). But if the shared vocabulary is linked to shared narrative role, then such superficial or accidental parallels will be excluded.

1. Introduction and Method

11

different functions in the two passages, then the parallel is relatively weak. For example, C.H. Dodd suggests that the use of compounds of epxo|ioa and ixyco (with elo- and &;-) in John 10 has a parallel in Ezekiel 34.32 However, these word groups have different roles in the two passages. In Ezekiel 34, they are used to describe God leading his flock out of exile and into the land. In John's image of the shepherd, the words are used to describe the entry of the shepherd into the fold, his freedom to lead the sheep out to good pasture, and his plan to bring in other sheep. Thus, the appointment of Joshua in Numbers 27 is the more likely background for John's use of these words, since there the same words are used to describe the leader's entry before the people, and his role in freely leading the people in and out.33 3) The strength of the allusion is also established by comparison with other possible parallel passages. If the two texts uniquely share the proposed parallel (i.e., no other proposed parallel text has the same material), then the allusion becomes stronger and more credible.34 For example, Psalm 23 might be proposed as the source of John's shepherd imagery (based on shared words and ideas); but clearly, Ezekiel 34 is the more likely candidate, since John shares words, phrases, and ideas with Ezekiel 34 that are not found in Psalm 23.35 If two works uniquely share a particular phrase, it becomes quite likely that the later work is alluding to the earlier work. Conversely, if the phrase in question can be found in a number of earlier works, demonstrating allusion to only one of them is difficult. For example, the phrase 'like sheep without a shepherd' in the Synoptic tradition (Mk 6.34/Mt. 9.36) can hardly be claimed to derive only from Ezekiel 34,36 since that phrase can be found in various forms in six books of the OT. Therefore, whenever possible, this study will compare

32. C.H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965), pp. 358-59. 33. See pp. 103-110. 34. Hultberg calls this the 'criterion of uniqueness' (Hultberg, 'Messianic Exegesis', pp. 40-41). The use of this criterion is implied in Beale, Use of Daniel, pp. 309-10; Paulien, Trumpets, p. 186; and Vogelgesang, 'Interpretation', p. 15. Strangely, this is neglected by Hays in his description of methodology, although he seems to occasionally use it in passing (e.g., Hays, Echoes, p. 24). 35. Nielsen proposes both Psalm 23 and Isaiah 53 as background for John 10; but neither of these have as many words or ideas in common with John 10 as Ezekiel 34. K. Nielsen, 'Old Testament Imagery in John', in J. Nissen and S. Pedersen (eds), New Readings in John: Literary and Theological Perspectives (JSNTSup, 182; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), pp. 66-82 (77). 36. Contra Huntzinger, who recognizes that the phrase can be found in various OT books, yet still emphasizes Ezekiel as the primary background text for Mk 6.34. Huntzinger, 'End of Exile', pp. 190-91,251.

12

Echoes of a Prophet

proposed source passages to see which is the most likely source of the allusion.37 In some cases, authors allude to more than one OT passage. Careful attention to the criteria suggested here will also aid in finding these combined allusions. As part of the exploration of the use of Ezekiel in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Chapter 2 will explore how some authors combine multiple allusions through the use of catchwords or common themes. Once the strength of an allusion is established - by the presence of similar words and phrases, used in similar ways, when compared with other possible source texts - then other criteria can be brought to bear as supporting evidence for the presence of the allusion. 4) Structural parallel is the similarity of order or outline in two passages. By itself, structural parallel may not be conclusive, but if verbal dependence has already been demonstrated, then similar structures in the two texts can add to the evidence for the presence of the allusion.38 5) Repeated reference to the same earlier work is supporting evidence. One allusion is evidence for another: when one allusion to Ezekiel is detected within a text, this can be used as evidence for a nearby allusion to Ezekiel.39 The first allusion serves as evidence that the author is familiar with, and interested in, material from Ezekiel. This evidence becomes stronger if successive allusions are to the same passage in the source text, and if the allusions in the later passage occur in proximity.40 For example, the Damascus Document makes a clear allusion to Ezekiel's 'builders of the barrier' (CD 19.33/Ezek. 13.10). Only a few lines later, the Damascus Document describes being 'enrolled' in the 'council of the people' language that sounds typical of the DSS, but is actually an allusion to Ezek. 13.9. The fact that two allusions to the same oracle in Ezekiel can be found in such close succession provides evidence for both allusions.

37. Strictly speaking, this 'criterion of uniqueness' only strengthens the evidence for the allusion from the reader's perspective, not the allusion itself. In other words, if John wanted to make sure that his readers would sense an allusion, he would add more allusive phrases. He would be less likely to draw attention to the allusion by carefully picking out phrases that were unique to the earlier passage. 38. I downplay the role of structural parallel here, as does Hays. Brawley (R.L. Brawley, 'An Absent Complement and Intertextuality in John 19:28-29', JBL 112 (1993), pp. 427-43 (436-37)) agrees on subordinating structure and repeated reference to straightforward verbal parallel. Studies of intertextuality in Revelation, however, tend to put much greater weight on structural parallel. Cf. Beale, Use of Daniel, pp. 307-08; Hultberg, 'Messianic Exegesis', pp. 38-39; Paulien, Trumpets, p. 185; Vogelgesang, 'Interpretation', p. 16. 39. This use of evidence, termed 'the criterion of concurrence' by Hultberg, is used by a number of authors: Beale, Use of Daniel, pp. 307-08; Berding, Poly carp and Paul, p. 28; Hays, Echoes, p. 30; Hultberg, 'Messianic Exegesis', pp. 3 9 ^ 0 ; Vogelgesang, 'Interpretation', p. 15. 40. Berding, Poly carp and Paul, pp. 28-29.

1. Introduction and Method

13

6) Finally, supporting evidence for the presence of allusion can be found in the 'resonance' between two texts. Two texts can be said to resonate when their contexts deal with similar themes and ideas.41 A proposed allusion extending only to a short phrase may seem rather weak; but if the surrounding contexts of the phrase in both passages touch on the same themes and ideas, the allusion may be rather strong. For example, the allusion to Num. 27.16-23 in Jn 10.1-9 can be established by several parallel words and phrases related to leading and hearing. This parallel becomes striking, however, only when the resonance between the two passages is noticed. John 10 uses leading and listening language to defend the legitimacy of Jesus' role as true shepherd or leader of Israel. Numbers 27 uses similar language to describe the legitimacy of Joshua's leadership over Israel, so that 'the congregation of the Lord will not be like sheep who have no shepherd' (Num. 27.16).42 Such resonance between passages is quite common in genuine allusions. A word should be added here about the relationship between 'echoes' and 'allusions.' Although all scholars do not use these terms exactly the same way, many treat 'echoes' as subsets of 'allusions.' An allusion is any non-quoted reference to a previous work; an 'echo' is a fainter allusion. Hays distinguishes the two on the basis of volume: echoes fulfill the criteria for allusions less clearly (although he often uses the two terms interchangeably, as do I).43 Others use intentionality as the distinguishing factor.44 Allusions (or 'direct allusions') are intended by the author, whereas echoes are the unconscious use of language from the earlier work.45 Thus, direct allusions are intended to draw the reader's attention to the source text, whereas echoes are part of the author's pattern of writing,

41. This is similar to Hultberg's 'criterion of aggregation,' which suggests that the presence of verbal, thematic, and structural parallels increases the probability that the allusion is genuine. Hultberg, 'Messianic Exegesis', pp. 40-41; cf. Beale, Use of Daniel, pp. 307-08, 327. Hays does not list resonance as a criterion for establishing allusion, but he describes the phenomenon as 'resonant overtones' (Hays, Echoes, p. 21). In the realm of explicit quotations, Freed points out the value of observing both the original context and the new context of an OT citation. Freed, Old Testament Quotations, p. 129. 42. See pp. 103-104. 43. Hays, Echoes, p. 29. 44. Beale, Hultberg, and Paulien see the determination of the author's intent in the allusion as both possible and necessary. Part of their concern is natural to the study of Revelation: they need to distinguish between genuine allusions to OT texts and 'stock apocalyptic language'. However, Beale recognizes that authorial intent is often slippery. Thus, for Beale, the 'validity' of an allusion 'can be established without coming to a final decision concerning a writer's consciousness of the reference.' Beale, Use of Daniel, pp. 307, cf. 306; Hultberg, 'Messianic Exegesis', pp. 41-43; Paulien, Trumpets, pp. 172-73, 175. 45. Hollander makes a more subtle distinction: 'echo is a metaphor of, and for, alluding, and does not depend on conscious allusion.' Hollander, The Figure of Echo, pp. 65-66.

14

Echoes of a Prophet

unconsciously absorbed from the source texts.46 This is clearly a valid distinction: all writers can attest the fact that other works influence their diction even when no allusion is intended. However, in most cases, it seems difficult for the modern interpreter to read the mind of the author and discern between intended allusions and unintended echoes. Furthermore, in most cases, it may not be necessary to determine whether the allusion was intended or not. If an allusion is sufficiently strong, readers may be reminded of the source whether the author made a conscious allusion or not. In our attempt to understand John's use of the OT, even unconscious echoes may be of value. Of course, very strong allusions are quite likely intentional. Conversely, very weak allusions may only give us a hint about common phrases of the first century, or the allusions may exist only in the interpreter's mind. These very weak allusions should probably be excluded from consideration. In general, it seems better to discuss the strength of the allusion itself, rather than the author's intention.47 c. Determine the Use of the Allusion Intertextual study has only begun once the presence of an allusion is established. As C.A. Evans put it, 'Is the parallel meaningful? Although this sometimes may be forgotten, this is the real reason for searching for backgrounds and sources of biblical passages.'48 Since intertextuality is concerned with the conversation between a work and its sources, intertextual analysis must move to an examination of the meaning of the allusion. The first step in this examination is to discern the role of the allusion in its new context; to answer the question, 'How does the allusion advance the narrative or theology of the passage?'49 In order to understand John's allusion to Jeremiah's 'true vine' (Jer. 2.21) in Jn 15.1, we need to 46. Paulien further discusses the unconscious aspect of echoes. Paulien, Trumpets, pp. 172-73, 175. 47. Here I have tipped my hand somewhat, revealing my hermeneutical approach. Clearly the author had intentions, and it is often possible to make some observations about those intentions. However, this study primarily focuses on meaning as resident in the text itself, without denying the importance of the meaning resident in the author or in the community of readers. For further discussion of the intersection of intertextuality and the locus of meaning, see Hays, Echoes, pp. 27-28. 48. Evans, Word and Glory, pp. 19-20; cf. Sandmel, 'Parallelomania', 5. 49. Some scholars, such as Hays (31-32, 34-35) and Vogelgesang (15-16), have used this 'usefulness' as a criterion for determining the strength of a proposed parallel. That is, a parallel is more likely to be genuine if discerning its presence illumines the passage. There is some value to this; in general, a hypothesis in any field of knowledge is more credible the more explanatory power it has. However, as Hultberg points out, 'usefulness' as a criterion 'relies too much on the ingenuity (or lack thereof) of the exegete...' He sees it, at best, as a negative criterion - a proposed allusion that has no explanatory value may not be genuine. Hultberg, 'Messianic Exegesis', p. 39.

1. Introduction and Method

15

observe how the 'true vine' allusion advances the discourse of John 15. In John 15, the 'true vine' suggests that Jesus is the only source of life, in contrast to any other possible vines; the allusion to the failure of Israel as God's vine in Jeremiah 2 suggests that Israel is one such false vine. Second, we can begin to understand the significance of the allusion by observing any modifications that were made to the original wording or image.50 For example, Ps. Sol. 17.28, 41 describes the just re-allocation of land under the coming messianic king, using language drawn from Ezek. 45.8; 47.13, 21-22. However, Ezekiel's expectation is that resident aliens will be adopted into the tribes of Israel, while Psalm of Solomon 17 expects that there will no longer be any aliens in Israel. Observing this modification aids in understanding the emphases and theology of Psalms of Solomon 17.51 Analyzing the modification or use of the allusion is possible only when the two contexts are carefully analyzed. In each case in this study, we will examine the meaning and role of the allusive phrase both in its original context and in its new allusive setting. A change in the role or meaning of the allusive material can indicate anything from a new application of the source text, to a mild redirection or reinterpretation of the source text, to a sharp disagreement with the source text. Allusions thus allow us to see the author's indirect or unstated interpretation of the earlier work. In general, most of the allusions in Second Temple literature examined in this study show only subtle variations from their original sense.52 What is startling about many of these allusions in Second Temple literature is not their interpretation of the original texts, but their implicit claims that the Scriptures to which they allude were now being fulfilled in a particular person or in a particular community. d. Compare to other use of Ezekiel in Literature of the Second Temple Period Many works of the Second Temple period allude to passages in Ezekiel. In some cases, it is valuable to compare the usage of the same passage in 50. Hays suggests that 'The twofold task of a criticism attuned to such echoes, then, is (a) to call attention to them so that others might be enabled to hear; and (b) to give an account of the distortions and new figuration that they generate.' Hays, Echoes, p. 21. Schuchard does something similar with OT quotations in John, although he does not address allusions. His work argues that all of the modifications to John's OT citations are intentional. Schuchard, Scripture within Scripture, pp. 151-52, 154. 51. See pp. 94-95. 52. This observation is now becoming commonplace as various scholars pursue intertextual studies. For example, Beale notes that 'Repeatedly the various authors have been shown to exhibit a strong tendency to respect the meaning of the O.T. contexts from which they draw allusions.' Beale, Use of Daniel, p. 327; see also Moyise, The Old Testament in the Book of Revelation, pp. 139-42.

16

Echoes of a Prophet

Ezekiel in various works. For example, Ezekiel's images of vine and tree (Ezekiel 15, 17, 19) seem to have influenced John 15 as well as the agricultural imagery of the Hodayot. A comparison between the use of Ezekiel in John 15 and the Hodayot allows a glimpse of a 'history of interpretation' of Ezekiel, so to speak. Different elements of each allusion can be compared: their roles in their respective works, the distinctive modifications to the original images, and the implied understanding of Ezekiel in the two later works. In some cases, it is also useful to compare the modes of usage. Although ancient writers rarely describe their methods of interpretation, it is often possible to discern what methods were used, and how writers appealed to Scripture. Certainly, the ancient authors did not neatly divide their interpretations into clear types, but often their mode of interpretation can be placed into a spectrum that ranges from prophecy-fulfillment to typological to sapiential. Wherever the interpretation falls in the spectrum, later writers expected the works of Scripture to have relevance for their own time. In some cases, they saw the details of Scripture as prophecies to be fulfilled. In most of these cases, Second Temple authors interpreted the oracles of the writing prophets as events that would later be fulfilled. Not all prophecies were assigned to the future: in some cases, prophecies were seen as having already been fulfilled in history, or as being fulfilled in the events of the author's time. In other cases, especially in the DSS, a sort of typological interpretation can be observed. The term 'typology' needs some explanation, since it has been used to mean anything from a precise method of interpretation to a broad description of any connection between the OT and the NT.53 Not all typology is the same: some focuses more on the later event (the antitype), some more on the events in Scripture (the type); some seems more allegorical, some more historical. There remains debate over the distinction between typology and allegory, over the significance of typology, and over the hermeneutical validity of typological interpretation.54 Despite those issues, various shades of typological interpretation

53. K.J. Woollcombe, 'The Biblical Origins and Patristic Development of Typology', in G.W.H. Lampe and K J . Woollcombe (eds), Essays on Typology (SBT, 22; London: SCM Press, 1957), pp. 39-75 (39). 54. Hays questions whether typology should be considered a method of interpretation, since 'Typology forges imaginative correlations of events' that require a particular understanding of the antitypical events (Hays, Echoes, p. 161). This is certainly valid; nevertheless, typology is a repeatable mode of interpretation that can be shared by a community that agrees on the status of the types and the antitypes as divine interventions. Thus, Christians who believe that the same God worked both in the Passover and in the Cross could independently observe the typological connections between the two.

1. Introduction and Method

17

can indeed be found in literature of the Second Temple period. Here I will define typology as interpretation that makes theological, correspondent connections between entities in Scripture and later entities.55 These entities may be persons, historical events, or institutions. The typological connections are theological in that they are logically based on the continuity of God's action and character. The interpreter, believing that God acts in a consistent fashion, expects to see correlation between God's past work in the Scriptures and God's present work.56 The typological connections are correspondent in that they expect some sort of repetition or recapitulation of the entity in Scripture.57 This recapitulation is not necessarily historical, although typology usually focuses on historical entities. Instead, the interpreters of Scripture expected God to act again with his people in a fashion that was consistent with his character and his covenants. The interpreter expected that his comparison of the two entities would add meaning to the antitypical event (in Scripture), the typological 'fulfillment,' or both.58 Finally, in some cases, the Scriptures were interpreted sapientially. That is, the Scriptures provided timeless principles that could be used to guide contemporary life, or to assign people or events to categories derived from Scripture. While OT wisdom and law naturally lent itself to this sort of

55. Compare Woollcombe's definition of typology: ' . . . the establishment of historical connexions between certain events, persons or things in the Old Testament and similar events, persons or things in the New Testament.' Woollcombe and Lampe use this 'historical connexion' as the primary way to distinguish between typology and allegory. G.W.H. Lampe, 'The Reasonableness of Typology', in G.W.H. Lampe and K.J. Woollcombe (eds), Essays on Typology (SBT, 22; London: SCM Press, 1957), pp. 9-38 (31); Woollcombe, 'Typology', p. 39; cf. I.H. Marshall, 'An Assessment of Recent Developments', in D.A. Carson and H.G.M. Williamson (eds), It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture (Festschrift B. Lindars; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), pp. 1-21 (10). J. Barr rightly points out that the use of history is a limited criterion for identifying typology, since some clear typology draws on nonhistorical types (e.g., law, wisdom) or uses types in an ahistorical fashion. (J. Barr, Old and New in Interpretation: A Study of the Two Testaments (New York: Harper & Row, 1966), pp. 108-14). My definition is thus fundamentally theological, typology is a way of connecting God's action in the past (in the Scriptures) with his later action (usually in events contemporary to the author). 56. Ellis comments, 'Typological exegesis assumes a divine sovereignty over history, an assumption that admittedly not everyone is prepared to accept.' E. Earle Ellis, foreword to L. Goppelt, Typos: The Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New (trans. D.H. Madvig; Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1982), p. xv. 57. Lampe comments, 'That the great events of Israel's past exhibited a certain pattern of God's acts had indeed already been appreciated by some of the Old Testament writers themselves. The prophets from time to time look forward in the future to a repetition or recapitulation of the rhythm of divine action evident in the history of the past.' Lampe, 'Typology', 26. 58. Marshall, 'Assessment', 10.

18

Echoes of a Prophet

interpretation, it could also be applied to narrative. Past events were seen as providing positive or negative examples for moral or wise behavior. When two works allude to the same passage, their reason for alluding to the passage can also be compared. There seem to be three general reasons why a later passage might allude to Ezekiel. A study of allusions to the rest of the OT would probably discern other purposes for allusions; these are merely the purposes I have observed in the use of allusions to Ezekiel. The first is to describe or draw attention to a 'messianic' figure. By 'messianic,' I accept P.M. Joyce's broad definition of that which 'vests future hopes in a royal figure.'59 Passages in 1 Enoch, Psalm of Solomon 17, and John all use allusions to Ezekiel to advance a messianic hope. Second, some works have a community-centered purpose in alluding to Ezekiel. Such works use the images in Ezekiel to explain or defend the identity of a particular community. Most of the DSS use Ezekiel for this purpose, and some of the allusions in John reflect community-centered concerns.60 Third, some Second Temple authors used allusions to Ezekiel to show continuity between the later writing and the OT prophetic tradition - in essence, to bolster the authority of the later document. Of course, almost any reference to Scripture is likely to have as part of its motivation an appeal to authority; but in some cases, it appears that an allusion to Ezekiel has been used primarily to build the authority of the later document. Some allusions to Ezekiel's vision of the chariot seem to have this purpose. Finally, comparison of the various uses of Ezekiel in later works can lead to observations about the view of Scripture held by the later writers. The mere presence of an allusion says little about an author's view of the earlier work, since there are many possible reasons for the presence of an allusion. Some allusions in the DSS are even designed to condemn the way Scripture is used by outsiders. However, most allusions to Ezekiel in Second Temple literature reveal that Ezekiel's words were regarded as permanently authoritative and relevant. The words of the prophet provided a prophecy that would later be fulfilled, or a picture of God's action that would later be repeated, or an authoritative view of life that should be followed in the present. In this sense, the later authors used the Scriptures as the validating authority behind a comprehensive vision of past, present, and future.

59. P.M. Joyce, 'King and Messiah in Ezekiel', in J. Day, (ed.), King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar (JSOTSup, 270; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), pp. 323-27 (326). 60. Hays sees something like these first two purposes in his 'christocentric' and 'ecclesiocentric' hermeneutics. He sees the use of the OT in the Gospels, and especially in John, as christocentric, and the use of the OT in Paul as primarily ecclesiocentric. Hays, Echoes, pp. xiii, 86.

1. Introduction and Method

19

These four steps for analyzing the presence and purpose of allusions are only an ideal. For various reasons, each analysis of an allusion will omit some of the steps. Only some of the criteria for establishing the strength of the allusion will apply to any single allusion. In some cases, there is not enough data to ask some of the comparative questions. In many cases, the details of the first step (finding possible allusions) are too tedious to describe at length. The last step, comparison to Second Temple literature, will be reserved primarily for Chapters 4 and 5. It should also be clear that the various steps are not always distinct. Some of the steps involved in selecting possible allusions are also part of establishing the strength of the allusion. Observing resonance between two passages is part of establishing the strength of the allusion, but it also serves in determining the role of the allusion in the later passage, and it contributes to our understanding of the author's view of Ezekiel. Comparative analysis of the use of Ezekiel is the final step, but can also be a part of the third step, analyzing the use of an allusion within a text.

4. Focus of this Work Even with a topic as apparently narrow as the use of Ezekiel in the Gospel of John, some topics and data must be excluded. First, although a good case could be made for examining the use of Ezekiel in second-century literature, this study is limited to examining the use of Ezekiel in literature up through AD 70. The impact of Ezekiel on later OT prophets, on other NT writings, on the targumim, and on rabbinic literature is occasionally mentioned, but not carefully examined. Second, a few topics must be eliminated or saved for later research. Although the topic of 'Son of Man' in Ezekiel and in John occasionally arises in this book, a full study of that topic would require a separate monograph. The breadth and depth of the secondary literature on the Son of Man indicates that such a study would be too large to be relegated to a subset of this monograph. Furthermore, since 'Son of Man' can be found in all the Gospels, Ezekiel's Son of Man (arguably) should be studied as part of the historical problem of Jesus' self-understanding rather than as a literary background for the use of Son of Man in John. Although the focus of this study is on the use of Ezekiel in John, it is often necessary to analyze allusions to other OT or Second Temple literature. It would be myopic, for example, to analyze the role of Ezekiel 15 in John 15 without noticing John's strong allusion to Jeremiah 2. Background and intertextual studies have often overemphasized one background text at the expense of others; analyzing the role of other passages can prevent such an overly narrow focus.

20

Echoes of a Prophet

Finally, it is quite likely that there are some broad theological connections between John and Ezekiel that do not reveal themselves in any single parallel. This study does not in general deal with such connections, since my methodology deals only with recognizable parallels between passages.61 5. Conventions Throughout this work I refer to the Fourth Gospel and its author as 'John', without entering into the debate over authorship. That debate is important to our understanding of the Gospel of John, but it does not affect the study of John's allusions to the Old Testament. Likewise, debate continues over John's representation of the historical Jesus. This book cannot enter into that debate at any length, although Jesus' use of imagery from Ezekiel could be used as a connecting point to the Synoptic view of Jesus. Thus, I will use terminology such as 'John's use of Ezekiel' without implying any conclusions about the relationship between dominical sayings and John's accounts. Translations of the New Testament, LXX, and other Greek literature are my own, although in most cases the translations are similar to the Revised Standard Version or the New American Standard. Translations of the MT primarily follow the Revised Standard Version or the New American Standard, but I occasionally diverge from those translations, especially when it allows a clearer demonstration of verbal parallel. For Second Temple literature, the translations are derived from the various critical editions, although again I occasionally change the wording to show verbal parallels more clearly. 6. Outline of the Book Chapter 2 analyzes the use of Ezekiel in the DSS. Perhaps because most of the Scrolls were the product of one community, it is possible to discern some consistent patterns in the use of Ezekiel in the DSS. Chapter 3 analyzes the use of Ezekiel found in other non-canonical literature of the Second Temple era (often called the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha). These works are not the product of a single community, but some trends in the usage of Ezekiel can be observed. Chapter 4 analyzes John's strongest and most extended allusions to Ezekiel: the Good Shepherd (Jn 10.1-30) and True Vine (Jn 15.1-10) metaphors. Chapter 5 deals with allusions that are weaker (and in some cases, more difficult to prove): the 'opened 61.

Some of these broad connections are addressed in Fowler, 'Influence', chs 2-4.

1. Introduction and Method

21

heavens' of Jn 1.51; the resurrection imagery of John 5; the breathing out of the Spirit in Jn 20.22; and the use of water symbolism for the Spirit throughout John (including the 153 fishes of Jn 21.11). Finally, Chapter 6 attempts to synthesize an understanding of John's use of Ezekiel in light of the use of Ezekiel in other literature of the Second Temple period. This leads to some observations on the use of the Old Testament in John and in other works of the Second Temple period.

Chapter 2 THE USE OF EZEKIEL IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS

This chapter will attempt to analyze how various works in the Dead Sea Scrolls used Ezekiel.1 The Dead Sea Scrolls contain extensive quotations from and allusions to Ezekiel; an analysis of these quotations and allusions will allow us to observe the relative strictness or freedom of quotation, the trends in appropriation, the reasons for which various authors appropriated Ezekiel, the methods of interpretation, and the way that Ezekiel influenced the thought of later authors. This analysis, together with an analysis of allusions to Ezekiel in other literature of the Second Temple period (Chapter 3), will provide a useful background against which to analyze John's appropriation of Ezekiel. Allusions, of course, are only possible if the later author had access to the earlier texts. We can be fairly confident that members of the Qumran Community knew and studied Ezekiel carefully, not only because of the many quotations, but also because of the presence of copies of Ezekiel in the Qumran library. Fragments of six Ezekiel scrolls have been discovered in the Judean Desert (1Q9, 3Q1, 4Q73, 4Q74, 4Q75, and 11Q4), as well as one scroll at Masada (MasId).2 The uses of Ezekiel discussed in this chapter should be assumed to be allusions rather than quotations, unless specifically stated otherwise. Quotations from Ezekiel are only accompanied by introduction formulae (e.g., 'as it says in Ezekiel the prophet') where specifically mentioned (in CD 3.21-4.6; 19.11-13; 4Q174 1.16-17). The allusions to Ezekiel in the literature of Qumran will be organized thematically. That is, rather than examining every allusion to Ezekiel in the order of occurrence in either the DSS or Ezekiel, I will group the allusions to Ezekiel by the way in which they are used in the DSS.3 In Section 1, I examine how some of the authors at Qumran used Ezekiel to describe the 1. I am indebted to James VanderKam, who kindly looked over a draft of this chapter and made valuable suggestions. 2. The fragments of Ezekiel cover portions of chs 1, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 16, 23, 31-37, and 41. These fragments are catalogued in DSSSE. 3. To see the allusions organized in order of their occurrence in the Qumran literature, see the chart on pp. 76-77.

2. The Use of Ezekiel in the Dead Sea Scrolls

23

history, identity, and eschatology of the Community.4 Section 2 shows how Ezekiel was a source for titles and epithets for the Community and its opponents. Section 3 discusses Pseudo-Ezekiel, which is in a class by itself. 1. History, Identity, and Eschatology of the Community a. Righteous Exiles (Ezekiel 11.15; 203-5; 20.18; 39.23; Amos 5.26-27; Damascus Document 1.3-4; 3.16-17; 7.14-15; War Scroll 1.2-3; FlorilegiumJ The use of Scripture in the DSS helps us understand the Community's particular version of Israel's history, and thus of its future. My analysis of the use of Ezekiel in the Dead Sea Scrolls suggests that their understanding of the Exile is especially important. In the Babylonian conquests of the sixth century BC, many residents of Jerusalem had been carried off into exile before the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC. The author of the Damascus Document and other authors at Qumran used Ezekiel and other Scripture to show that these early exiles were being protected from the destruction, not punished. They were the righteous; those who remained and tolerated corrupt Jerusalemite society were the sinners who would suffer God's wrath. God had removed his presence from the corrupt Temple in Jerusalem, and resided with the righteous exiles until the destruction and restoration of Jerusalem and its Temple. Only those who died during Nebuchadnezzar's siege were under God's punishment. The righteous exiles who returned and set up the new Temple were God's agents of restoration. A new priesthood was then established from among the exiles. Unfortunately, with the returning exiles came deceivers, and so the new Temple became as corrupt as the old. An examination of the use of Ezekiel in the Dead Sea Scrolls suggests that the Community's view of Israel's history was also its view of its own present and future. The current Temple had become corrupt, and so Jerusalem was again under judgment. God had already withdrawn his presence from the Temple and had removed his righteous exiles to protect them from the current corruption and the coming destruction. The Community was the group of righteous exiles at 'Damascus'. God had removed his presence from the Temple, and would soon destroy all of Jerusalem. The Gentile nations would rise up against Israel, but God would miraculously deliver Israel through his Messiah(s) and through his faithful exiles at Qumran. The Temple would then be rebuilt, with the priests of Qumran as the new priesthood. But this time, there would be no 4. Ideally, this section should be divided up into three subsections of history, identity, and eschatology. However, the passages in the DSS that we will examine do not neatly divide up these themes.

24

Echoes of a Prophet

deceivers in the return from exile; all those who had rejected the teaching of the Community would be destroyed along with the Gentiles.5 Qumran's understanding of itself as righteous exiles can be seen in the use of OT scripture. Material from Ezekiel is often used in the DSS to illustrate this self-understanding, but I will begin by demonstrating it from a passage in Amos. The Damascus Document is so called because the Community is described as being in Damascus (CD 6.5, 19; 7.14-19; 8.21; 19.34; 20.12). This may be a metaphorical reference to the Community at Qumran, it may refer to an actual branch of the Qumran sect at Damascus, or it may refer to a period in the sect's history when it (or its founder) resided in Damascus. Whichever is the case, it is clear that the Damascus Document draws on Amos 5.26-27, a passage about the exile of the Northern Kingdom, to describe the founding of the Community. If 'Damascus' was only a cipher for the Qumran Community, then it is likely that the Damascus Document derived that cipher from this passage.

CD 7.14—156 And I will expel (TP*?am) your king's booth and the kywn of your images from my tent (^nwa) to Damascus... 7.18 ... and the 'star'

Amos 5.26-27a And you brought your king's booth7 and the kywn of your images,8 the star of your gods which you made for yourselves. Therefore, I will expel (vrbam) you beyond (nxbnD) Damascus.

5. Brooke's study of the commentaries among the DSS suggests a similar view: Isa. 5.5b6a is altered in 4QpIsa 6 1.1-2 in such a way that it 'implies a reading of Isaiah 5 in which the vineyard is already destroyed but the final judgment is yet to come... As with the tendency in the other commentaries the effect of this alteration is to portray the community as standing between an initial destruction and a future judgment' (G. Brooke, 'The Biblical Texts in the Qumran Commentaries: Scribal Errors or Exegetical Variants?' in C.A. Evans and W.F. Stinespring (eds), Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis (Festschrift H. Brownlee; Homage, 10; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), p. 90). Anderson, representing another view, suggests that the Community 'understood themselves to be atoning for the sins of the exile and bringing that sad chapter in Israel's history to a close' (G.A. Anderson, 'The Status of the Torah Before Sinai: The Retelling of the Bible in the Damascus Covenant and the Book of Jubilees', DSD 1 (1994), pp. 1-29 (11-12)). This may well be an accurate observation about the view of some of the DSS. However, my observations of the use of Ezekiel suggest a slight modification to that view. They did not believe that the exile had never ended; instead, they believed that a new exile had begun because of the failure of those who returned from exile. 6. The Hebrew text of the Dead Sea Scrolls in this paper is taken from DSS HAG when the text is available (volumes 1, 2, 4A, and 4B at this writing). In other cases, the Hebrew text of DSSSE, or of the various critical editions is consulted. Translations primarily follow those of DSSHAG, DSSSE, or CDSS. 7. Or 'Your king, Sikkuth.' 8. Or 'Kywn, your images.'

2. The Use of Ezekiel in the Dead Sea Scrolls

25

The original sense of Amos 5.26-27 is clear: God would punish the idolatry of Israel (the northern kingdom) by exiling them beyond Damascus. Significantly, nba in the hifil (translated 'expel' above) always refers to exile in the OT. The author made a few creative changes that essentially reversed the meaning of the text and helped it apply more precisely to the situation at Qumran. The verb 'expel' was moved to the beginning to make it clear that the king's booth, the kywn, and the star (left out of the initial citation, but mentioned in the interpretation, CD 7.18-20), rather than just the bearers of those items, were moved to Damascus. This change in emphasis is part of the Damascus Document's interpretational strategy. Using some unusual connections with other Scriptures (Amos 9.11, Num. 24.17), the author manages to interpret the 'king's booth' as the Torah, the 'kywn of the images' as the Prophets, and the 'star' as the 'interpreter of the Torah,' presumably the Righteous Teacher (CD 7.15-18). Finally, the author of the Damascus Document reads Amos' 'beyond' (rtKbnft) as 'from my tent' (^nKE) allowing him to insert the idea, so important in some of the Scrolls, that God had abandoned the Temple. This collection of changes allowed Amos 5.26-27 to be read as a prophecy that God would remove the Scriptures, and their only faithful interpreter, from the Temple and settle them in exile in Damascus. This exile was not a punishment: the Damascus Document emphasizes the 'escape' of the exiles at the beginning and end of its interpretation of Amos 5.26-27. 'But those who heldfirmly(to the covenant) escaped to the land of the north... These escaped at the time of the first visitation. But the backsliders were handed over to the sword' (CD 7.14-15, 21). The line between typology and fulfilled prophecy is not clear in this passage. The author of the Damascus Document sees Amos 5.26-27 as a reference to a historical situation ('these escaped at the time of the first visitation'), suggesting that his application of the passage to the Community was typological. A past event (the Exile) served as a model for a later event (the founding of the Community). The elaborate reinterpretation of the elements of Amos 5.26-27, however, seem more like an attempt to see a fulfillment of prophecy. In either case, the Damascus Document uses Amos 5.26-27 to suggest that the Community consists of exiles spared from the coming destruction of Israel.9

9. M. Abegg suggests that the Qumran Community believed that the Exile had not ended yet; the founding of the Community represented the first steps towards the end of exile. Abegg's survey of the DSS is broad enough and careful enough that his conclusion probably fairly represents the view of the exile common to many of the authors of the DSS. (M. Abegg, 'Exile and the Dead Sea Scrolls', in J.M. Scott (ed.), Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions (JSJ, 56; Leiden: Brill, 1997), pp. 111-25.) However, the Damascus Document's unusual interpretation of exile in Amos 5.26-27 suggests that even within Qumran, there were a variety of ways of describing the exile.

26

Echoes of a Prophet

A few allusions to Ezekiel in the Damascus Document also suggest that Qumran saw itself in a new Exile. The Admonition10 of the Damascus Document begins with an account of the pre-history and founding of the Community (CD 1.3-2.1). Although numerous allusions to Scripture are used, the first allusion is to the summary of the exile and destruction found in Ezekiel's Gog oracle.

CD 1.3-4 For in their treachery (obinoa) in leaving him,11 he hid his face from Israel (^to&PQ vas Tnon) and from his sanctuary and gave them up to the sword (sin*? oam)

Ezek. 39.23 And the nations will know that the house of Israel went into exile for their iniquity because they acted treacherously (ibyft) against me, and I hid my face from them (DHB *3B nno*o); so I gave them into the hand of their adversaries, and all of them fell by the sword ( m m V?En)

The image of God hiding his face from his people occurs in other passages in the OT (Deut. 31.17-18; 32.20; Isa. 54.8; 59.2; Jer. 33.5), but only here in Ezekiel is the image combined with treachery and judgment by the sword. Further, there is some resonance between the two texts: both passages address the judgment of God's people and his gracious deliverance of a remnant (CD 1.3-5; Ezek. 39.21-29). Even the Damascus Document's theme of God's 'dispute with all flesh' and 'judgment against all who scoff at him' is similar in some respects to the judgment of the nations in Ezekiel's Gog oracle (CD 1.2; Ezekiel 38-39). However, the Damascus Document makes some significant changes to the text from Ezekiel. The first change is abbreviation. Some of this abbreviation is important: the Damascus Document omitted the phrase 'for the house of Israel went into exile for their iniquity.' It was important to omit this phrase, because the author of the Damascus Document saw his own Community as the exiles. The exile was not a punishment, but preservation. Those who were left behind were punished; those who were exiled were the righteous. Further, 'house of Israel' seems to have negative, or at least ambivalent, connotations in the Admonition of the Damascus Document. That is, the phrase is consistently used to describe fallen Israel in the Admonition. When the Admonition cites or alludes to an OT passage 10. The section title used in DSSHAG, vol. 2, p. 5. 11. DSSHAG (vol. 2, p. 13 fn) notes that the beginning, 'For their treachery in leaving him' (irrnTB IIOK o^snna) is an allusion to Lev. 26.40, 'For in their treachery in being traitorous to me' (^"bvn "KDK DbjJfcn). The author of the Damascus Document may be connecting Lev. 26.40 to Ezek. 39.23 through the use of the phrase (common to both) ^"ibina, which he does not actually quote.

2. The Use of Ezekiel in the Dead Sea Scrolls

27

that uses the phrase 'house of Israel,' it only includes that phrase if it can be applied to apostate Israel. If the author is applying the passage to the Community, then the phrase 'house of Israel' is omitted from the citation or allusion. On at least four occasions in the Admonition (CD 1.3^/Ezek. 39.23; CD 3.16-17/Ezek. 11.15; CD 19.33/Jer. 31.31; CD 19.35/Ezek. 13.9), quotations or strong allusions to OT passages omit the phrase 'house of Israel.'12 When the 'house of Israel' or even 'Israel' does occur in the Admonition of the Damascus Document, it is usually in a negative sense. Only when the Rules section begins, and 'Israel' describes the Damascus Community, does the term acquire any positive sense.13 CD 1.3-4 also notably modifies Ezek. 39.23 by the addition of 'and from his sanctuary,' italicized above. The idea of God abandoning his Jerusalem sanctuary is important to Ezekiel (cf. Ezek. 5.11; 10; 11.16), but it is not found anywhere in the quoted verse or in the Gog oracle. The author of the Damascus Document introduces the phrase here because God's abandonment of the Temple is important to the rest of the Damascus Document (and to some other Scrolls). The Damascus Document appropriately treats the account of the Exile in Ezekiel 39 as history rather than prophecy, but it views God's prior abandonment of the Temple as a paradigm, or a type, of the present abandonment. In the Community's eyes, God had also abandoned the Second Temple, and its destruction was imminent. Just as God left Solomon's Temple and then destroyed it, so he had now left Zerubbabel's Temple and would soon destroy it. The Damascus Document continues its history of the Community by dating its founding to 390 years after the fall of Jerusalem (CD 1.5-6). The editors of DSSHAG are inclined to accept this as 'approximately accurate'14 (giving a date of the founding of the Qumran Community in the early second century BC), but the significance of this date for our study is its source in Ezekiel. The prophet Ezekiel was instructed by God to 'bear the iniquity of Israel' one day for every year of Israel's iniquity, 390 days (Ezek. 4.4-5). In Ezekiel, this time span probably was intended to approximate the number of years from the dedication of Solomon's Temple (975/4 BC) to its destruction in 587 BC.15 Ezekiel was thus atoning for the sins of Israel as seen specifically in the Temple. If the author of the Damascus Document knew of this interpretation of Ezekiel, then he was applying it to the Second Temple: just as Solomon's Temple had been the 12. See pp. 28, 63, 64. 13. The tendency can also be observed in 1QM 2.4/Ezek. 45.17 (see p. 41); 1QH 14.10, 21.6-7/Ezek. 36.22 (see p. 49). 14. DSSHAG, vol. 2, p. 13 fn. 15. For an analysis of the chronology issues in Ezek. 4.4-6, see W. Zimmerli, Ezekiel: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel (trans. J.D. Martin and R.E. Clements; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979, 1983), vol. 1, pp. 165-67.

28

Echoes of a Prophet

center of Israel's sin for 390 years before the fall of Jerusalem, so also the Second Temple was the center of Israel's sin for 390 years after the fall of Jerusalem until the Righteous Teacher arose. If this is how the Damascus Document uses the number from Ezekiel, it seems that we have evidence of a typological interpretation. The disobedience under Solomon's temple was a type of the disobedience under Zerubbabel's temple. And just as the disobedience in Solomon's Temple led to God's abandoning it, so the disobedience in Zerubbabel's temple had led to God's leaving it. Nothing in the passage suggests that the author of the Damascus Document saw the 390 years as a prophecy to be fulfilled. The author of the Damascus Document instead saw the 390 years as a repeat of the earlier sin under the first Temple. Thus, they had returned to the time of Ezekiel - they were in a new Exile. The history of the Community is resumed in CD 3.12. In describing the arrogance of those who reject the Community, the author uses a phrase, Tor it is ours,' that is rather cryptic unless the allusion to Ezekiel is observed.

CD 3.16-17 But those who scorn them will not live. Rather, they wallowed in human sin and the ways of impurity and said Tor it is ours.' (KTI rb «o n&*n)16

Ezek. 11.15 Son of man, your brothers, your brothers, your fellow exiles, and the whole house of Israel, all of them, are those to whom the inhabitants of Jerusalem have said (r)»K), 'Go far from YHWH; this land has been given to us (KTI Mb) as a possession.'

Although the proposed allusion is rather brief, the key phrase KTT Mb is found nowhere else in the OT. The fact that references to Ezekiel can be found in the nearby context (a quotation in CD 3.21-4.1 and an allusion in CD 1.3-4) also makes this allusion more likely.17 If CD 3.18 is intended to recall Ezek. 11.15, it is a very appropriate fit. The oracle in Ezekiel 11 is a response to the residents of Jerusalem who have not been exiled. They arrogantly claim that the pre-destruction exiles are under God's judgment and that those who remained deserve to inherit

16. Vermes translates it 'This is our (way).' CDSS, p. 129. 17. The quotation and allusion are discussed above, p. 26, and below, p. 38. Interestingly, there are only a few lines, and no clear OT allusions, between the allusion to Ezekiel in CD 3.18 and the quote from Ezekiel in CD 3.21. The allusion is used to describe the arrogant outsiders and their judgment; the quotation is used to describe the Community and its blessings.

2. The Use of Ezekiel in the Dead Sea Scrolls

29

the Land. The oracle sharply rebukes such arrogance: not only is God himself a sanctuary (pifti) for the exiles (Ezek. 11.16), but God will also restore the exiles to the Land, and only the exiles will inherit the Land (Ezek. 11.17). The returning exiles will receive the promise of the new spirit and the heart offlesh(Ezek. 11.19-20);18 those who remained in Jerusalem, who 'practiced abominations,' will be judged by God (Ezek. 11.21). Finally, to make it clear for his listeners that God's wrath is on the inhabitants of Jerusalem rather than on the exiles, Ezekiel reveals the final vision of the departure of the cherubim (Ezek. 11.22-23). The wheeled cherubim, bearing the presence and glory of the Lord, leave Jerusalem and head into the mountain east of Jerusalem. Significantly, God then transports Ezekiel 'in a vision by the Spirit of God' to the exiles (Ezek. 11.24-25). According to Ezekiel, the glory of God is no longer in Jerusalem, but in the mountain, and God sends his prophet to the exiles, not to those in Jerusalem.19 This passage is such a close fit to the Community's self-perception that it is hardly surprising that the Damascus Document uses it here to condemn the scoffers. The Second Temple residents of Jerusalem saw themselves as the possessors of God's sanctuary, and they rejected the Community with an attitude that the DSS identify as arrogance (cf. CD 8.3; 20.11). The Community members saw themselves in the position of Ezekiel's exiles: God's sanctuary was with them, not in Jerusalem; the wrath of God was on Jerusalem, not on them, the righteous exiles. They saw the same future for themselves as for Ezekiel's exiles: they would one day be God's agents for cleansing Israel, they would inherit the Land, and see God destroy the corrupt inhabitants of Jerusalem. God's promise of the new spirit was already being fulfilled in these exiles by the Dead Sea, and it seems likely that they were expecting the new heart of flesh, as 1QH 18.21 hints.20 Perhaps the residents of Qumran were even impressed by Ezekiel's claim that God was now dwelling east of Jerusalem (Ezek. 11.23), as they were. Although the immediate context of CD 3.18 does not raise all of these themes, it does describe the arrogance of those who reject God's commands (CD 3.17), and suggests the idea of God's presence in the Community rather than the Temple (e.g., he 'built them a sure house in Israel,' CD 3.19). The War Scroll adds to the picture of Qumran as righteous exiles.21 In the final battle, the 'Sons of Light' will fight against 'the army of Belial,' 18. See below, p. 50. 19. Ezek. 33.23-29 returns to a similar theme. The survivors of the sack of Jerusalem, in hiding in the wilderness, again confidently claim their inheritance of the Land. Ezekiel responds that even those survivors will die because of their 'abominations.' 20. See discussion below, p. 50. 21. For the War Scroll (1QM), I use the text in DSSHAG, vol 2.

30

Echoes of a Prophet

consisting of the historic enemies of Israel and the 'violators of the covenant' (1QM 1.1-2). The 'Sons of Light' begin the War as returning exiles, as the War Scroll makes clear in its allusion to Ezek. 20.35.22 1QM 1.2-3 The sons of Levi, the sons of Judah, and the sons of Benjamin, the exiles of the wilderness, shall wage war against them [... ]23 according to all their troops, when the exiles, the Sons of Light, return from the wilderness of the peoples (D"»yn -man) to encamp in the wilderness of Jerusalem.

Ezek. 20.35 and I will bring you into the wilderness of the peoples (own -imrbK), and there I will enter into judgment with you face to face.

The allusion consists of only two words, but that phrase can be found nowhere else in the OT. The context of Ezek. 20.35 also suggests that it was the source of the phrase. The passage in Ezek. 20.33-39, a promise to repeat the miraculous deliverance of the Exodus, could easily be interpreted as prophecy about the Qumran Community. The people of Israel will be taken out from the foreign lands where they are scattered (Ezek. 20.34), but 'they will not enter the soil of Israel' (Ezek. 20.38). Instead, much like the wilderness generation, God will 'bring them into the wilderness of the peoples' (Ezek. 20.35). Significantly, there in the wilderness, God will bring them 'into the bond of the covenant' (man mooa Tixam) and will 'purge [them] from rebels' (Ezek. 20.37-38). It is reasonable to suggest that the author of the War Scroll saw in Ezek. 20.33-39 a prophecy fulfilled in the founding of the Community. There had not been a 'wilderness experience' for the returning exiles during the restoration under Zerubbabel and Ezra. Since Ezekiel's prophecy had not previously been fulfilled, they reasoned, it was now being fulfilled in the Community. They had entered into the Covenant in the wilderness (note the standard Qumran phrase m a *ra), and were now awaiting the end. When the time of thefinalwar came, the 'exiles in the wilderness' would be summoned from 'the wilderness of the peoples' to do battle in the wilderness around Jerusalem (1QM 1.2-3).

22. Y. Yadin, The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness (trans. B.R.C. Rabin; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962). 23. Bracketed ellipses, as in the critical literature, indicate unrestorable text. In some cases, I have omitted such indications where the state of the text is not necessary to my argument. Unbracketed ellipses indicate my own abbreviation of the text.

2. The Use of Ezekiel in the Dead Sea Scrolls

31

Florilegium (4Q174) also uses Ezekiel 20 to describe the Community as righteous exiles in the wilderness, although it will take some effort to demonstrate its allusion to Ezekiel 20. 4Q174 1.14-17 contains a sectarian interpretation of Psalm 1. Not surprisingly, the 'blessed man' of Psalm 1 is interpreted to refer to those who join the Community, and the 'wicked man' refers to those outside the Community (4Q174 1.15-16). To prove this interpretation, and to elaborate on the meaning of 'the counsel of the wicked,' Florilegium gives citations from Isa. 8.11 and Ezekiel, both with introductory formulae referring to 'the book of Isaiah the prophet' and 'the book of Ezekiel the prophet.'24 Isa. 8.11, which Florilegium applies to 'the last days' (4Q174 1.15), is likely cited because it contains two words common to Psalm 1 in the phrase 'walk in the way' Cyna rchri). The oracle found in Isa. 8.11-15 calls for Isaiah not to walk in the way of 'this people,' but rather to 'fear YHWH' (Isa. 8.11-13). If Isaiah obeyed, then God 'will be a sanctuary; but a rock of striking and a stone of stumbling to the two houses of Israel; and a snare and a trap for the inhabitants of Jerusalem' (Isa. 8.14). Thus the author of Florilegium suggests that the blessed man of Psalm 1 is someone who joins the Community; and this Community is God's sanctuary, set in opposition to the 'inhabitants of Jerusalem.' Florilegium continues its explanation of Psalm 1 with a citation from Ezekiel. And this refers to those about whom it is written in the book of Ezekiel, the prophet, that '[...] their idols.' (HErr^i]1^] [...] h) This refers to the sons of Zadok and to men of their council, who pursue righteousness, who have come after them to the Council of the Community. (4Q174 1.16-17) The problem comes with identifying what passage in Ezekiel is cited in the missing section. Vermes first suggested that it is an abbreviated quote from Ezek. 44.10, 'The Levites ([D"1]^) [strayed far from me, following] their idols (DH^lS:).'25 Presumably Vermes chose this passage because of its connection to the sons of Zadok and its suggestion of a new priesthood (Ezek. 44.15). But since the quoted material was negative, Vermes was forced to translate Florilegium's interpretation in a negative, and unlikely 24. For a thorough discussion of Florilegium, see G. Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in its Jewish Context (JSOTSup, 29; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985); A. Steudel, Der Midrasch zur Eschatologie aus der Qumrangemeinde (4QMidrEschatab ) : materielle Rekonstruktion, Textbestand, Gattung und traditionsgeschichtliche Einordnung des durch 4Q174 ("Florilegium") und 4Q177 ("Catena A") reprasentierten Werkes aus den Qumranfunden (STDJ, 13; Leiden: Brill, 1994). 25. CDSS, p. 494.

32

Echoes of a Prophet

sense: 'They are the sons of Zadok who seek their own counsel and follow their own inclination apart from the Council of the Community.' Other editors, presuming that the initial word in the quote is 'not' ([Kji1?), have proposed as the source Ezek. 37.23, 'that they should no longer defile themselves with their idols' (amb^ra THJ 1KECD"1 K*n).26 This allows a reasonable translation of the pesher of line 17 (above), and the words fit the gap in the manuscript. However, it is more difficult to see what connection the author of Florilegium saw between Ezek. 37.23 and the other passages (Psalm 1; Isaiah 8). Another passage, Ezek. 20.18, has not yet been suggested as the source of the quote. 'And I said to their children in the wilderness, "Do not walk ("obrrbtf) in the statutes of your fathers, or keep their ordinances, or defile yourselves with their idols" (iKQOn"^ Dm^am).' This passage has the disadvantage of using the negative particle SK instead of X*h, and not having the same word order as the quoted material in Florilegium. This is not a significant problem; as we have seen, the DSS often make mild changes to quoted material, especially when the wording is influenced by similar passages. But Ezek. 20.18 has three significant advantages over the other proposed passages. First, like Ps. 1.1 and Isa. 8.11, Ezek. 20.18 uses 'walk' terminology to describe separation: Ps. 1.1 ("jTm .. ."|Sn «*?); Isa. 8.11 (-[-m ro*?n); and Ezek. 20.18 OoSn MTTOK y i r a ) . It seems likely that the author of Florilegium connected the three passages around this common admonitory usage of "jbn. The other proposed passages (Ezek. 37.23; 44.10) do not offer as clear a connection to Psalm 1 and Isaiah 8. Second, Ezek. 20.18 advances the interpretation of Psalm 1 and of Florilegium as a whole. Ezek. 20.18 is a call to separate from the corrupt ways of 'the fathers.' That is the point of the interpretation of Psalm 1 not to walk in the ways of the wicked (Ps. 1.1) or in the ways of 'this people' (Isa. 8.11). Using Ezek. 20.18 is also consistent with one of the arguments of 4Q174, that the Community is separate from apostate Israel. Ezek. 44.10 is consistent with that argument, but does not fit well with the interpretation of Psalm 1, and also requires an awkward and unlikely translation. Ezek. 37.23 is not as effective in advancing the argument of Florilegium. Despite the occasional exegetical back flips that Florilegium demonstrates, it presents a coherent line of thought. The reconstruction of the quote should take the coherence of the passage into consideration. Finally, of the three proposed sources, Ezek. 20.18 is the verse most susceptible to a sectarian interpretation. God speaks to his 'children in the 26. Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in its Jewish Context, pp. 116-18; DSSSE, p. 355; Steudel, Der Midrasch zur Ezchatologie aus der Qumrangemeinde, pp. 25, 31— 32, 47; M. Wise, M. Abegg, and E. Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996). DSSSE reconstructs the text from Ezek. 37.23, but accidentally preserves the earlier reference to Ezek. 44.10.

2. The Use of Ezekiel in the Dead Sea Scrolls

33

wilderness' and commands them not to 'walk in the statutes of their fathers' but to 'walk in my statutes' and 'sanctify my Sabbaths' (Ezek. 20.18-20). As we have seen above, some DSS authors could use the wilderness language of Ezekiel 20 as a reference to the Community (1QM 1.2-3; Ezek. 20.35). The combination of elements - wilderness, separation, idolatry of the fathers, correct statutes, and correct Sabbath observance fit well into the particular emphases of the Qumran Community. Thus, although the current editions do not suggest Ezek. 20.18 as the source of the damaged quote in 4Q174 1.16, it offers some advantages that the other proposed sources do not have. Ezek. 20.18 offers a reasonable connection to Psalm 1 and Isaiah 8 through the use of *]Sn; it advances the argument of the interpretation of Psalm 1 and 4Q174 better than the other proposed sources; it is more susceptible to a sectarian interpretation; and it makes use of a passage known to be used in other DSS. If Ezek. 20.18 is the source of 4Q174 1.16, then the quote is used to suggest that the 'righteous man' is the one who separates from the rest of Israel and joins the 'exiles in the wilderness' to be refined by God.27 The several pieces of evidence above, from the Damascus Document, the War Scroll, and Florilegium, suggest that the Qumran Community saw itself in a recapitulation of the Exile, with the members of the Community as righteous exiles. CD 7.14-15 is used to suggest that the exile of the Torah scroll and its interpreter to 'Damascus' had been prefigured in the exile of Amos 5.26-27. CD 1.5-6 used an allusion to the '390 years' of Ezek. 4.4-5 to suggest that they were in a new exile because of the corruption of the Temple. CD 3.16-17 used an allusion to Ezek. 11.15 to invoke the hostility between the righteous exiles and the self-righteous inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to predict the coming resurgence of the exiles. 1QM 1.2-3 described the Community as the 'exiles of the wilderness,' and used language from Ezek. 20.35 to describe God's presence in the wilderness Community. The wilderness language of Ezekiel 20 was also used in Florilegium to describe the separation from corrupt Israel and purification in the wilderness. Florilegium also used Isaiah 8 to imply God's sanctuary among the exiles.28

27. For a good defense of Ezek. 37.23 as the quoted verse, see Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in its Jewish Context, pp. 116-18. 28. This understanding of the Exile in the Damascus Document diverges somewhat from Abegg's understanding of the 'Qumran theology of exile.' According to Abegg, the 14 DSS documents that he surveys all describe the Exile as still in effect until God restored the Community into the land and 'established them in their rightful place' (Abegg, 'Exile and the Dead Sea Scrolls', pp. 115, 125). Thus, exile is punishment. My hypothesis, however, does not necessarily disagree with Abegg's. My study is based on a close study of only a few documents that allude to the Exile in Ezekiel and Amos, while Abegg's study deals with a wider variety of texts dealing with exile. Further, a number of my observations are based on a close

34

Echoes of a Prophet

In some cases, the authors of the DSS seem to use a sort of typological interpretation of Scripture, where the past exile was a picture of the present exile, and the past visitation was a picture of the coming visitation. In other cases, the Scriptures were seen as prophecies that were fulfilled in the founding and history of the Community, or would be fulfilled in its future. The tendency towards typological or prophecy-fulfillment interpretation was not arbitrary. In passages judged to have already seen fulfillment in the history of Israel, the authors of the DSS were likely to use typological interpretation, seeing the previous events as pictures of the later events. In passages that were not seen as already fulfilled in Israel's history, Qumranite writers were more likely to see some sign of a prophecy fulfilled in the life of the Community.

b. Gog (Ezekiel 38.13, 22, 23; 39.7, 21; Isaiah 63.12; War Scroll 11.14-17) From the perspective of the Qumran Community, some of Ezekiel's oracles referred to the original Exile and destruction, some oracles prefigured or predicted the rise of the Community, and other oracles referred to the end of the age. Those oracles that had a historical referent either were used as models of the new Exile and coming destruction, or gave categories by which Qumran and its opponents could be evaluated. But many of the later oracles of Ezekiel (esp. Ezekiel 36ff.) had incomplete fulfillment or remained unfulfilled in the return from Exile. Those oracles, according to Qumran writers, predicted the final age, an age in which the 'poor' of the Community would provide the new priesthood of God's restored Temple. The War Scroll (1QM) contains a few allusions to Ezekiel's Gog oracle29 in its description of God's coming intervention in the final war. Some of the lines of the text are damaged beyond restoration, but it is still possible to trace the source of the material to Ezekiel 38-39. 1QM 11.15-17 ... the nations, that [... ] may know [... ] you will execute the judgments

Ezek. 39.21 all the nations will see My judgment which I have executed

intertextual comparison of the context of the quoted material with the context of the quote or allusion; while Abegg mainly analyzes passages that include language of exile or restoration. With such different questions and methodology, different answers are not surprising. 29. I use the term 'Gog oracle' (Ezekiel 38-39) as a convenient title for the passage describing Gog's attack on Israel and his subsequent destruction. Some Ezekiel scholars see this passage as a redaction of various sources, but of course, Second Temple authors would have studied OT books without thinking of any possible source or redaction theories. For various ways of dividing the passage, see L.C. Allen, Ezekiel (WBC, 28-29; Dallas: Word Books, 1990, 1994), vol. 2, pp. 202-03; Zimmerli, Ezekiel, vol. 2, pp. 96-302.

2. The Use of Ezekiel in the Dead Sea Scrolls rtDrnra) against Gog and all his assembly assembled

(n^npan iSnp)...

for you will do battle against them from the heavens...

35

s

BB!DO"nK) (against Gog, 38.1-3, 14; 39.1) 38.13 Have you assembled your assembly (~\hnp rbnpn) to plunder... ? 38.22 I will rain on him and on his troops and the many peoples that are with him, torrential rains, hailstones, fire and brimstone.

Scattered as they are, the verbal parallels are not as impressive as some others we have looked at. However, a number of other items make it clear that Ezekiel's Gog oracle is the source of the prophecy in the War Scroll. Most importantly, only Ezekiel in all the OT has a role for Gog in the Day of the Lord. All other references to Gog in the OT are geographic references with no prophetic sense or symbolism. Further, the fate of Gog in Ezekiel and in the War Scroll is the same. In the War Scroll, Gog (associated with the Kittim, or the Romans) is destroyed by God when Gog attacks Israel. The fate of Gog is discussed at greater length in Ezekiel 38-39, but it is the same: destruction by God. In the War Scroll, there is a messianic presence: 'your servant David' is invoked, as well as the 'Star from Jacob,' the 'Scepter from Israel' and 'your anointed ones' (1QM 11.1-7). Ezekiel's Gog oracle mentions no messianic figure, but it is clear that the peaceful condition of Israel before Gog attacks (Ezek. 38.8) is a result of the restoration of 'David my servant . . . their prince forever' (Ezek. 37.25). The author of the War Scroll also combines similar texts from Ezekiel and Isaiah to describe the purpose of God's destruction of Israel's enemies: 1QM 11.14 to make for yourself an everlasting name (nbii? arc rob

through the people (Din)

Isa. 63.12 Who divided the waters before them to make for himself an everlasting name (oVm nv ib rouS) Ezek. 39.7 And I will make my name known in the midst of my people Israel...

ty

nv -pro)

The War Scroll seems to combine the two texts around their common elements (God's name, God's people). The combination is appropriate: both Isaiah 63 and Ezekiel 39 celebrate God's deliverance of Israel.

36

Echoes of a Prophet

Isaiah recounts both God's wrath against Egypt during the Exodus and his coming wrath against the nations (Isa. 63.1-6, 7-14), while Ezekiel addresses only God's coming destruction of Gog. Both OT passages express a concern for God's glory in his deliverance of his people (Isa. 63.12, 14; Ezek. 38.16, 23; 39.7, 21-22, 28) - an appropriate theme for the War Scroll to introduce in this praise to God for the coming deliverance (1QM 10.1-12.18). Both passages also describe God's pouring out of his Holy Spirit on his people (Isa. 63.10, 11; Ezek. 39.29). The combination of the texts further provides a transition from the new Exodus imagery (1QM 11.9-10) to the Gog imagery (1QM 11.15-18). The War Scroll continues to describe God's purposes in destroying Gog, now with allusions to Ezekiel alone.30 1QM 11.15 to show yourself great and holy (ttnpnnbi i mnn t n) in the eyes of the remnant of the nations (D^ian mm wb), that ... may know (runb) [... ]31

Ezek. 38.23 And I will show myself great and holy Cwznpnm "rfnanm), and make myself known in the eyes of many nations (D-m D-na wb), and they will know (urn) that I am YHWH.

The War Scroll has slightly abbreviated the material from Ezekiel and changed syntax to fit its own context. Another alteration is more significant: Ezekiel's oracle against Gog describes God's glory being revealed to 'many nations' while the War Scroll limits God's glory to 'the remnant of the nations.' It seems likely that the War Scroll has substituted a phrase from a nearby oracle in Ezekiel: 'Then the nations that will remain (T\H& "iw D^an) around you will know that I, YHWH, have rebuilt...' (Ezek. 36.36). This is the only passage in the OT that ascribes 'remnant' (mm) status to the foreign nations, so it is the most likely source for 'the remnant of the nations' in 1QM 11.15.32 The fact that there are strong verbal and conceptual parallels between Ezek. 36.36 and 38.23, and between the oracles of Ezekiel 36 and 38, makes the substitution a reasonable one. The substitution may have been accidental, but if it was intentional, the motive is clear. For the War Scroll, the primary role of the

30. The first half of the line is missing, so we cannot be sure if there were further allusions to Isaiah or Ezekiel (or anything else) between the two allusions discussed. 31. Neither the subject nor the object of the 'knowing' can be determined, because the last few words of this line and the first half of the next line are obliterated. 32. Josh. 23.4, 7, 12 also describe the nations that remain, but this is a description of the captured peoples within Israel after the conquest.

2. The Use of Ezekiel in the Dead Sea Scrolls

37

Gentiles is to be destroyed at the end (1QM 1.1-6; 11.8-9; 12.11; 15.2, 13; 16.1, etc.). Ezekiel's 'many nations' may have sounded uncomfortably like a sign of blessing on the Gentiles, while the 'remnant of the nations' from another of Ezekiel's oracles was more conducive to the War Scroll's description of judgment on the nations.33 The uses of Ezekiel's Gog oracle (and related material in Ezekiel 36) are in a sense unremarkable. Ezek. 39.23 is a summary of Israel's offenses against God and God's subsequent judgment in the Exile; the Damascus Document used it to refer to the same events. The author of the Damascus Document made minor modifications to the wording of Ezek. 39.23 so that it would not conflict with the Damascus Document's picture of the Community as righteous exiles. The Gog oracle of Ezekiel 38-39 describes a final battle against Israel's enemies on the 'Day of the Lord'; the War Scroll also uses it to refer to the eschatological battle. In both cases, minor modifications or abbreviations were made to the text to make the role of the Qumran Community in those events clearer.

c. The New Priesthood and New Temple (Ezekiel 40-48; Damascus Document 3.21-4.6; War Scroll 23-4; New Jerusalem,) Ezekiel's final set of oracles, about the restored Temple, priesthood, and Jerusalem (Ezekiel 4CM8), are alluded to in three separate documents at Qumran - the Damascus Document, New Jerusalem, and the War Scroll. Although the main point of Ezekiel's closing chapters seems to be the restoration of the Temple, the Damascus Document and the War Scroll focus primarily on the restored priesthood. New Jerusalem describes the restored Temple, but there are some hints that it has a strong interest in the new priesthood. CD 3.21-4.6 is an interpretation of Ezek. 44.15. Here the reference to Ezekiel is certain, since an introductory formula is used: 'As God swore to them through the hand of Ezekiel, the prophet, saying...' Note the slight changes to the text of Ezekiel made by the author of the Damascus Document: CD 3.21-4.2 The priests and the Levites and the Sons of Zadok 33.

Ezek. 44.15 But the Levitical priests, the sons of Zadok

The final line of the Gog judgment, 1QM 11.18, is mostly unreadable, with only 7\&7\vb remaining. Yadin's attempt at reconstruction sees it as an allusion to Ezek. 7.11. However, most commentaries give up Ezek. 7.11 as untranslatable (Allen, Ezekiel, vol. 1, p. 101; Zimmerli, Ezekiel, vol. 1, p. 197), so this is not terribly helpful. If 1QM 11.18 is a reference to Ezek. 7.11, it may have been attracted to that verse by the word ]inn, also used in the phrase ana pnn (Ezek. 39.11, 15, 16).

38

Echoes of a Prophet

(pns ^ai Q-ibm), who kept the watch of my sanctuary when the children of Israel strayed from me, they shall present to me fat and blood.

(pyn m o-i^n o^nam), who kept the watch of my sanctuary when the children of Israel strayed from me, they will approach me to minister to me and they will stand before me to present to me fat and blood.

The elimination of a few of the verbs near the end of the verse does not significantly alter the meaning; the Damascus Document has a reasonable abbreviation of the Ezekiel passage. In typical fashion, one of these eliminated verbs (*iojn, 'they will stand') appears in the interpretation a few lines later (D'HOUn, 'who stand,' CD 4.4; D1DTO 'their standing,' CD 4.5).34 One important alteration is actually the smallest: the addition of 1 before 'Levites' and 'Sons of Zadok.' In the MT, the lack of the two occurrences of T puts the latter two titles in apposition to the first; that is, the sons of Zadok and the Levites are the priests (the LXX suggests the same apposition).35 But the Damascus Document has to make them into separate groups in order for its interpretation (in the following lines) to work. The priests are 'the penitents of Israel who departed from the land of Judah'; the Levites are 'those who accompany them'; and the sons of Zadok are the 'chosen ones of Israel, those called by name, who stand in the end of days' (CD 4 . 2 ^ ) . There is an interesting resonance between the contexts of Ezekiel 44 and CD 3.21^4.2. This section of the Damascus Document contrasts the 'first ones' who abandoned God's covenant with the faithful who founded the Community (CD 3.10-20). The 'first ones' failed to keep God's laws, and thus were 'given up to the sword' (CD 3.10-11). The last time that the Damascus Document used this phrase was in a quote from Ezek. 39.23 (CD 1.4) describing the destruction of Jerusalem. Now, with the citation of Ezek. 44.15, the Damascus Document connects the past destruction with the coming judgment. The faithful of the Community will receive eternal life and glory (CD 3.20), and will be the new priesthood 'in the end of days' (CD 4.4), while the faithless will be destroyed (CD 3.17). The passage in Ezekiel from which CD 3.2Iff. quotes has a similar theme. Two groups (both from the time when 'all Israel went astray') are contrasted: the 'Levites who went far from me' OtejJD iprn "KDK D'nbn, Ezek. 44.10) and the 'Levites . . . who kept the watch of my sanctuary'

34. DSSHAG, vol. 2, p. 19 fn. 35. This equation of priests and Levites is debated; for a full discussion, see Zimmerli, Ezekiel, vol. 2, pp. 456-57.

2. The Use of Ezekiel in the Dead Sea Scrolls

39

mawrnK now -|»a . . . iri^n, Ezek. 44.15).36 The first group is under judgment for defiling God's Temple: they allowed foreigners to serve in the Temple (Ezek. 44.7-8) and sacrificed to idols (44.10, 12, 13). These Levites must 'bear the guilt of their iniquity' (Ezek. 44.10, 12): they will be taken from the priestly service and assigned menial duties in the Temple (Ezek. 44.11, 13-14).37 The second group was faithful; thus they are given the titles withheld from the first: 'Priests' and 'Sons of Zadok' (cf. Ezek. 40.46). More importantly, they receive the right to perform the priestly duties of ministering to God, entering his sanctuary, approaching his table (Ezek. 44.15-16), and following the priestly purification rules (Ezek. 44.17-27). Other elements in Ezekiel 44 resonate with CD 3.2Iff. The Damascus Document, using 'eternal life' and 'last days,' is explicitly eschatological. Although Ezekiel's measurements of the Temple and the land are in some ways mundane and less 'eschatological', it is clear that the restoration results from God's presence in the Temple and the miraculous river from the Temple (Ezek. 47.1-12).38 This description of the Temple river could easily be interpreted (and was so interpreted) as belonging to the final age. Ezekiel may have primarily intended the image to be a metaphorical description of the restoration of the Land as a result of the restoration of the Temple (note the exquisite placing of the river image between the descriptions of restored Temple and restored boundaries of the Land), but his description certainly lends itself to an eschatological interpretation. Any who interpreted the passage eschatologically would naturally connect the Temple river passage with its surrounding texts, and assign the new Temple and renewed boundaries to the end. As with some other Qumran uses of the OT, the author of the Damascus Document shows a remarkable sensitivity to the context of his quotation. The passage in Ezekiel 44 continues by citing the requirements of the new priesthood - requirements that, if not identical to the Community rules, place emphasis on the same themes. For example, Ezekiel's Levites are given careful instructions on clothing (Ezek. 44.17-20; CD 11.3-4), marriage (Ezek. 44.22, notably with a command not to marry widows or divorcees, cf. CD 4.20-21); feast and Sabbath laws (Ezek. 44.24; CD 10.17ff); and ritual purity (Ezek. 44.25-27; CD 12.11-23). In language

36. Zimmerli sees the discussion of these two groups as primarily being related to two classes: the Jerusalem priests and the country priests; thus he sees this whole passage as incompatible with Ezekiel's message of personal accountability (Zimmerli, Ezekiel, vol. 2, pp. 454-58). However, Zimmerli fails to note the relative clauses that distinguish the two groups on the basis of deeds, not geography: ipm lEK vs. nnw 1WK (Ezek. 44.10, 15). 37. Zimmerli, Ezekiel, vol. 2, p. 455. 38. In personal correspondence, James VanderKam suggests that the expectation of a cleansing river from the Temple may have been one reason that the Community was founded on the shores of the Dead Sea just north of the river mouth.

40

Echoes of a Prophet

similar to that in Community Rule and the Damascus Document, Ezekiel's Levites are to settle their own disputes through the application of God's ordinances (Ezek. 44.24). Members of the Community may have also seen a similarity between their property laws (CD 13.14-15; 1QS 1.12) and the priestly requirements of Ezek. 44.28: 'They shall have no inheritance; I am their inheritance: and you shall give them no possession in Israel; I am their possession.'39 The War Scroll (1QM) also uses an allusion to Ezekiel as part of its hope for future service in the Temple. Drawing on the Temple role given to the prince in Ezekiel 44—45, the War Scroll describes the role of the whole army of Qumran in Temple ritual. 1QM 2.3-4 The chiefs ("ton) of the tribes and the fathers of the congregation behind them are to take up their station steadily in the gates of the sanctuary (ttrtpBH nrtfa); their chiefs... with their numbered men shall take up their stations for their festivals (D7THI7O1?), for their firsts of the months40 (Drptfnnb) and Sabbaths (mrntfn), and for all the days of the year (natfn w)...

Ezek. 44.3 As for the prince he shall sit in it [the gate of the sanctuary («npon w ) , 44.1] as prince to eat bread before YHWH. Ezek. 45.17 [The prince will provide the sacrifices] at the feasts (com), on the firsts of the months (DnBnrai), and on the Sabbaths (rnrattm), at all the appointed feasts CHjnirtea) of the house of Israel.

The phrase 'gate of the sanctuary' (ttnpon TO) is only used in Ezek. 44.1, 11 in the OT. And although the combination of festivals, new moons, and Sabbaths is common in the OT, only in Ezekiel is that order followed, although the War Scroll uses festivals (nun) instead of feasts (an), perhaps because ivn elsewhere in the War Scroll refers to 'stations.'41 This is admittedly a weaker allusion than some others; it is not clear that the author intended to invoke the memory or authority of Ezekiel. It is clear that the War Scroll here emphasizes the role of its non-priestly members in

39. The property rules at Qumran were not necessarily motivated by the Levitical land ownership laws or by their mention here in Ezek. 44.28; rather, Qumranites may have found support for their property rules in Ezek. 44. 40. Most translations render this as 'new moons.' However, J. VanderKam, in personal correspondence, suggests the translation 'firsts of the months,' since Qumran did not follow a lunar calendar. 41. Other passages use the order Sabbaths, new moons, festivals (1 Chron. 23.31; 2 Chron. 2.3; 8.13; 31.3; Neh. 10.34). Jub. 44.1 uses the same order. Yadin suggests a link between this order and the Jubilees-based calendar. Yadin, War Scroll, pp. 205-06, 264.

2. The Use of Ezekiel in the Dead Sea Scrolls

41

the Temple more than is precedented in levitical law. The precedent for kingly service can be found in the historical narratives of the OT (cf. 1 Kgs 8.63-64; 1 Chron. 16.2), but only in Ezekiel's 'New Temple' oracles do we see a particular gate or station assigned to the prince by law. The author of the War Scroll expanded on this to include a Temple station for all of the leaders and men of the army. The expansion is consistent with the Qumran eschatological hope for a future role in the restored Temple in Jerusalem.42 Another work at Qumran, New Jerusalem (2Q24^27; 4Q554; 5Q13-15) also expands on the final chapters of Ezekiel. This document describes the measurements of sections of the restored city of Jerusalem in a fashion similar to the measurements of Ezekiel 40-48.43 New Jerusalem is in Aramaic, so verbal parallels to Ezekiel cannot be precisely established. However, some phrases in New Jerusalem are at least synonymous with phrases in Ezekiel 40. The narrator of New Jerusalem, like Ezekiel, is led into the city (2Q24 1.1; Ezek. 40.1); and the angelic surveyor shows the prophet what he is measuring throughout both texts. The parallels to Ezekiel are mainly conceptual: the thorough measurement of doors, lintels, towers, pillars, and chambers is strongly reminiscent of Ezekiel's measurements of the Temple. The longest preserved sections of New Jerusalem describe the 'housing complexes' of Jerusalem (5Q15 fr. 12), but short fragments also survive describing the Temple (2Q24 fr. 3, 8; cf. Ezekiel 40-41; esp. 41.22) and the priestly duties (2Q24 fr. 4; cf. Ezek. 45.13-25). The only noticeable difference is one of perspective: New Jerusalem moves from outside the city towards the Temple, while Ezekiel starts at the Temple.44 It is not hard to see the motivation behind the writing of New Jerusalem. The oracle in Ezekiel is chiefly concerned with the new Temple, with its measurements, laws, and rituals (Ezekiel 40-46). Only briefly are the living spaces of Jerusalem described (Ezek. 45.1-6; 48.8-22). Ezekiel's Jerusalem is divided into portions: An allotment of 25,000 by 10,000 cubits is set aside for the Temple grounds and priestly use, another of the same size for the Levites, a smaller allotment for 'all Israel,' and a larger allotment for the prince. The buildings on this land are not described at all by Ezekiel. Further, Ezekiel's description of the priestly duties is hardly comprehensive. Clearly the author of New Jerusalem wanted tofillin the details of the 42. 1QM 3.11; 7.4 make it clear that this refers to a Temple in Jerusalem, not merely to the congregation of Qumran. Yadin, War Scroll, p. 264. 43. For careful description and diagrams of the layout of New Jerusalem and Temple, see M. Chyutin, 'The New Jerusalem: Ideal City', DSD 1 (1994), pp. 71-97 , esp. 94-96. Chyutin also defends his view that the dimensions of the New Jerusalem have mystical significance. 44. A number of these observations were also made by Vogelgesang in his comparison of the New Jerusalem in Revelation and in the DSS. Vogelgesang, 'Interpretation', pp. 151-55.

42

Echoes of a Prophet

priests' duties and living spaces, since the hope of the Community was that they would dwell in the restored city.45 Just as Ezekiel's Temple measurements had the rhetorical effect of concretizing the hopes of the Exiles, New Jerusalem's housing measurements concretized the hopes of the Qumran Community. For Ezekiel and his audience, hope was vested in a restored Temple and Land, but the specific duties and housing of the new priesthood were of lesser import. In contrast, both the housing and duties of the priests were very important to the audience of New Jerusalem, because of their belief that the restored priesthood would come from their ranks. It is a striking fact that two separate works at Qumran - probably written a century apart46 - use the same passage from Ezekiel. The Damascus Document (CD 3.21ff) describes these hopes most explicitly: the Community consisted of the 'Priests and Levites and sons of Zadok' of Ezekiel 44, who would one day supplant the current priesthood in the new Temple.47 New Jerusalem begins from Ezekiel's vision of a restored Temple and 'fills in' the gaps to describe the housing and duties of the new priesthood in the New Jerusalem. Such congruity suggests that there was a continuous interpretational tradition at Qumran about Ezekiel 40-48. The Community saw those chapters as prophecy that would be fulfilled in and through them. The Community interpreted some other passages of Scripture, including parts of Ezekiel, in a typological fashion. Any events that they deemed to have already occurred were treated typologically, as models for what was to come. But since there was not yet a Temple of Ezekiel's specifications (both physical and ritual), and especially since there was not yet a priesthood that fit Ezekiel's high calling, the Community interpreted Ezekiel 40-48 in a prophecy-fulfillment scheme. d. The Heavenly Temple (Ezekiel 1,10, 43; Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice,) The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice (4Q400-07, 11Q17, Maslk), like New Jerusalem and Florilegium, is concerned with the true Temple. Unlike those works, however, Songs is primarily interested in the heavenly Temple. Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice is a series of thirteen Sabbath liturgical 45. Vogelgesang suggests that 'the transfer of temple descriptions to the city (contrast the purpose of Revelation 21-22) has the purpose of extending cultic holiness and purity to the city.' Vogelgesang, 'Interpretation', p. 155. 46. Vermes places the Damascus Document in about 100 BC, partly because of lack of any reference to the Kittim; and he assigns 5Q15 to the end of the first century BC. CDSS, pp. 125-26, 568. 47. The typical reconstruction of the eschatology of the Damascus Document suggests that only the priests at Qumran, not all the Qumranites, would become the new priesthood. However, the Damascus Document's explanation of Ezek. 44.15 suggests that the author saw even some non-priestly members of Qumran joining the new priesthood.

2. The Use of Ezekiel in the Dead Sea Scrolls

43

songs for the first quarter of the year.48 It is not certain that the Songs were composed at Qumran; they contain few of the typically sectarian themes. Its reliance on the Jubilees calendar suggests, if not composition at Qumran, at least the reason for its adoption at Qumran.49 The songs describe various aspects of the heavenly Temple, throne room, angelic beings, and heavenly priesthood. The fragmentary sections perhaps describe various levels of heaven and eschatological events in heaven.50 The entire set of songs is important in the study of merkabah mysticism, but this study will discuss the merkabah tradition only insofar as it involves the use of Ezekiel in this work.51 Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice uses Ezekiel in two important ways. First, the structure of Songs 9-13 seems to follow Ezekiel 40-48; and second, Song 12 (4Q405 20.5-14) is directly dependent on the throne visions of Ezekiel 1,10, and 43. C. Newsom first observed that the structure of Songs 9-13 is dependent on Ezekiel 40-48.52 Like the description of the Temple in Ezekiel 40-48, Songs moves from a description of the outer temple and its chambers (Song 9) to the inner chamber (Song 10-11), and there God's throne-chariot is found (Song 12). Song 13 then describes the praise of the angelic beings. Song 12 has the most parallels to Ezekiel. Although the language of Song 12 is primarily derived from the throne visions of Ezekiel 1 and 10, Newsom correctly suggests that the merkabah is placed here in the Songs because Ezekiel 43 places the throne-vision after the description of the restored Temple. Ezekiel 1 does not clearly connect the throne vision with the Temple; Ezekiel 10 depicts God on his throne leaving the Temple before its destruction; but only Ezekiel 43 shows God's throne entering and residing within the new Temple. Since Song 12 pictures the throne48. The critical edition of Songs is found in C. Newsom, 'Shirot Olat Hashabbat', in J.C. VanderKam and M. Brady (eds), Qumran Cave 4 (DJD, 11; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), pp. 173-401. However, many of Newsom's comments on the Merkabah elements in Song 12 are found in her earlier edition, C. Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition (HSM, 27; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), from which I primarily quote. Davila also provides a useful translation and commentary. J.R. Davila, Liturgical Works (ECDSS; Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2000). 49. Newsom, citing the large number of manuscripts found and the Qumran priestly emphasis, is almost certain of its composition at Qumran. (Newsom, Songs, pp. 61-62). Davila is less persuaded by this evidence. Davila, Liturgical Works, p. 83. 50. See introductory material in Davila, Liturgical Works, pp. 83-96; Newsom, Songs, pp. 8-9, 14-15. 51. For a discussion of the role of 4Q405 in merkabah mysticism, see Davila, Liturgical Works, pp. 83-84, 90-93; I. Gruenwald, Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism (AGJU, 14; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1980), p. vii; D J . Halperin, The Faces of the Chariot (TSAJ, 16; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1988), pp. 52-53; J.J. Kanagaraj, Mysticism in John (JSNTSup, 158; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), pp. 51-54, 92-94. 52. The following material on the structure of Songs 9-12 is derived from the explanation in Newsom, Songs, pp. 51-58.

44

Echoes of a Prophet

chariot in the heavenly Temple as the final stage of the vision, it seems likely that the image is related to Ezek. 43.1-5, with details drawn from Ezekiel's other throne visions. Song 12 is directly dependent on Ezekiel 1 and 10 for much of its language, but it alters the material to suit its own emphases, as will be seen in the table below. Allusions to Ezekiel 1, 10 in 4Q405 20.7-12 (Song 12) 4Q405 20.7 The cherubim prostrate themselves before Him and bless. As they rise, a whispered divine voice (DTnSx noai bip) 8 is heard,

Ezek. 1.24 I heard the sound of the wings... like the voice of God Almighty when he speaks...

and there is a roar of praise. When they raise their wings, (Dms3D DTD) there is a whispered divine voice.

1.24 like a sound of tumult 10.16 when the cherubim raise their wings (ED1?

The cherubim bless the image of the throne-chariot (K02 m a n ) above the firmament, (irp-6 bvtm) 9 and they praise the majesty of the luminous firmament beneath His seat of glory.

1.26 And above the firmament p bmm) over their heads there was the likeness of a throne

When the wheels move (D^BIKH na^ai) angels of holiness come and go (K2T

1.19 And when the living creatures move (rvnnn robai), the wheels moved with them

1.22 a firmament, shining like crystal...

1.13-14 . . . out of the fire came (KST) lightning, and the living creatures darted back and forth (awn Ki:n).53

From between 10 his glorious wheels (^aba yam) there is as it were a fiery vision (&»*) of most holy spirits.

53.

Songs may have read Ki:n (running)

10.6 Take fire from between the wheels (SabaS rnra& BK), from between the cherubim.

(going forth). Newsom, Songs, p. 55.

2. The Use of Ezekiel in the Dead Sea Scrolls

About them, the appearance of rivulets of fire (»K •bum n n a ) in the likeness of gleaming brass

rmra),

and a work of 11 radiance (nai3) in many-colored glory, marvelous pigments, clearly mingled.

The spirits of the living 'gods'

S mrrn)

45

Dan. 7.10 A stream of fire issued... 5 4 Ezek. 1.4 . . . in the midst of the fire (tt?Kn "lira), as it were gleaming brass 1.28 Like the appearance of the rainbow... so was the appearance of the surrounding brightness (ran), (cf. 1.4) 1.20 Wherever the spirit would go, they went . . . for the spirit of the living creatures (mnn mi) was in the wheels.

with

1.13 like . . . torches moving continuously (robnnft) between the living creatures.

12 There is a sound of blessing in the tumult of their movement (nrob para), and they praise the Holy One on their way of return.

1.24 when they move (aro^a) a sound of tumult (nbnn Sip) like the sound of an army camp

When they ascend, they ascend (IOBVP Danro) marvelously and when they settle, they stand still.

10.17 When they (the cherubim) stand still, they (the wheels) stand still (TTOJP DTQM) and when they (the cherubim) ascend, they (the wheels) ascend (mrv o a r m ) with them.

move continuously ( the glory of the marvelous chariot(s).

(mm b

The number of verbal parallels and synonyms makes it clear that Song 12 is dependent on Ezekiel's throne visions, despite occasional alterations to the details.56 Some of the alterations seem to be designed to accommodate the angelology of Qumran. For example, the wheeled 'living creatures' in Ezekiel are apparently synonymous with the cherubim (Ezek. 1.15; 10.9, 54. 55. 56. vision

Cf. 1 En. 14.18 (see below, p. 82) for 'streams of fire' in the merkabah. Newsom, Songs, p. 56. As Halperin points out, most of the works in the merkabah tradition alter Ezekiel's in minor or major details. Halperin, Faces of the Chariot, p. 71.

46

Echoes of a Prophet

22). Song 12, perhaps taking its cue from Ezek. 1.20, makes the 'living creatures' into 'the spirits of the living "gods'", and distinguishes them from the cherubim, the 'angels of holiness,' and the 'most holy spirits' (4Q405 20.8, 9, 11). Ezekiel's angelic beings bear God's glorious presence, but are not depicted worshiping God. The Qumran angelology, perhaps influenced by Isaiah 6 and 1 Enoch 14, describes the angelic beings worshiping God (4Q405 20.7-9, 12). The placing of Ezekiel's vision into a liturgical context was part of the reason for making worship the chief function of the angelic beings in Song 12. Perhaps the need to accommodate Ezekiel's vision to the Qumran angelology also motivates some of the other minor changes - the reversal of wheels and angels/living creatures in 4Q405 20.9 and the moving of the chariot above the firmament (4Q405 20.8-9). The most important modifications to Ezekiel's throne-vision are related to the Sabbath Songs' liturgical and merkabah purposes. Unlike some later merkabah literature, the Sabbath Songs describe heavenly visions without hinting at a means of obtaining those visions. The nature of their participation in the heavenly worship is also unclear; was their recitation of the Songs connected with a visionary experience, or was it merely a recitation of the heavenly worship? However, it is clear that Ezekiel's language is appropriated as part of a liturgical experience centered on the heavenly Temple and the throne-room of God.57 The use of the word 'merkabah' (a term not used in Ezekiel's visions) suggests that Song 12 is part of the merkabah tradition, even if mystical participation is not evident. The appropriation of Ezekiel's vision for liturgical or merkabah purposes necessarily entails changing the purpose of Ezekiel's vision. The throne-vision of Ezekiel is an important narrative element that unites the entire prophetic work and is an essential part of expressing its theological emphasis. The initial throne-vision in Ezekiel 1 is a means of transferring God's presence and glory out of the Temple, its traditional seat. The stunning vision of the living throne bearing God's presence is not in the Temple in Ezekiel's first vision. The visions come from heaven to Ezekiel while he is in Babylon (Ezek. 1.1-3), and the visions of God's presence are outdoors (Ezek. 1.4; 3.23). The emphasis on the constantly moving living creatures and their wheels points to God's ability to reside anywhere. The central point of Ezekiel 1 is that God's presence is far more majestic than anything the Temple could hold; and that God's presence is by no means bound to the Temple. In Ezekiel 10, this image is advanced. God's majestic throne begins in the Temple, but leaves; and the fire beneath the throne is the means for the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem. Appropriately, this image comes 57. Newsom describes the Songs as 'a quasi-mystical liturgy designed to evoke a sense of being present in the heavenly temple.' Newsom, Songs, p. 59.

2. The Use of Ezekiel in the Dead Sea Scrolls

47

after several chapters describing the sin of Jerusalem and the defilement of the Temple. Ezekiel 10 thus sets God's true presence in opposition to Solomon's Temple. God's presence can only return to his Temple at the end of Ezekiel, after the judgment and restoration of Israel are complete. But this new Temple is built according to heavenly standards and it is served by a purified priesthood in a new age. There, Ezekiel sees a vision of the same majestic throne entering into the holy place and residing forever (Ezek. 43.1-7). The glory of God that could not remain in his defiled Temple, among his defiled people, can now rest contentedly in a new Temple, among his renewed people. Merkabah visions in other literature often appropriate Ezekiel's imagery without fully grasping Ezekiel's theological implications. Typically, the emphasis of merkabah literature is on visionary ascent to heaven to gain access to secret knowledge. This ascent may be put into the experience of great heroes of the faith, as in the Pseudepigrapha (e.g., 1 Enoch 14; 40; 61; 71; 2 Enoch 20; 21; Ascension of Isaiah 6, etc.); or it may be prescribed for the contemporary mystic, as in the Hekhalot literature. In either case, such literature neglects Ezekiel's use of the throne-vision to demonstrate God's majestic presence outside the corrupt Temple and his return after Israel's restoration. However, the merkabah vision in Song 12 seems to preserve more of Ezekiel's understanding of the vision than other merkabah literature. Like other merkabah literature (but not Ezekiel), Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice transfers the throne-vision to a heavenly throne-room or temple. However, unlike most apocalyptic literature, Songs does not emphasize the revelation of secret knowledge, despite its occasional dependence otherwise on apocalyptic literature like 1 Enoch. There is no sense that any visionary, whether ancient or contemporary, has ascended to heaven for a meeting with God to learn secrets. Perhaps the view of the angelic worship could be regarded as the revelation of secrets, but the typical language of revelation is not used in the surviving fragments. Second, an evaluation of the likely significance of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice within Qumran eschatology suggests a fundamental agreement with Ezekiel. Qumran's liturgy of the heavenly Temple is set in opposition to the liturgy of the Jerusalem Temple.58 The Community cannot honor the idea of God's presence in Jerusalem, so this liturgy focuses on his presence in the heavenly Temple. In other Qumran literature referring to the ideal Temple or God's presence (such as the Damascus Document, the War Scroll, New Jerusalem, see above) the authors of the DSS saw God residing in the Community, but not in the Second Temple. However, this was not a permanent state of affairs; their ultimate hope was 58.

Newsom, Songs, p. 62.

48

Echoes of a Prophet

closely aligned with Ezekiel's: God would dwell one day in a restored Temple in Jerusalem. At first glance, the heavenly Temple of the Songs is inconsistent with the eschatological Temple of the other Qumran literature. However, the use of the Songs at Qumran suggests that they saw no such inconsistency. Their ability to reconcile the two may be based on the existence of both perspectives in the OT and in its traditional interpretation (i.e., the Tabernacle was built from a heavenly model, Ezekiel's Temple may have been based on a heavenly model, but the prophets expected a restored Temple in Jerusalem). Furthermore, Qumran eschatology provided a ready harmonization for the heavenly Temple and the eschatological Temple in the various writings of Qumran. The Community viewed itself in a temporary situation before the destruction of Jerusalem and the dawn of the new age. The Songs allowed a Temple-based worship in the intermediate time before the restored Temple was built. Perhaps, as Newsom suggests, the Sabbath liturgy was the way in which God's presence in the Community was actualized. If the Community was God's Temple, it was because the recitation of the Songs allowed the Community to experience the heavenly Temple by sharing priestly duties with the angels.59 The liturgical nature of Sabbath Songs makes it difficult to classify precisely the use of Ezekiel. Sabbath Songs does not describe events, so fulfilled prophecy and typology are clearly the wrong categories. The usage is not, strictly speaking, sapiential, although the images of the heavenly throne room are timeless. Sabbath Songs is liturgical, and it has a liturgical use of Scripture. That is, Sabbath Songs uses images from Scripture to engage the Community in worship. There is little interpretation of Scripture; rather, Scripture is used to elicit images that exalt God and his dwelling places. e. Restoration and the 'Heart of Flesh' (Ezekiel 36.22-27; Hodayot 14.10; 21.10-13; Community Rule 3.5-9) Ezekiel's oracle of the 'new heart' (Ezek. 36.22-32), prophesying restoration and purification, was the source of inspiration for language in both Hodayot and Community Rule. The first set of allusions in Hodayot are not very impressive, but they set the stage for understanding the view of the heart of flesh at Qumran. In three of the psalms contained in Hodayot, language from Ezek. 36.22 is used to describe God's motives in restoring his people.

59.

Newsom, Songs, pp. 62-63.

2. The Use of Ezekiel in the Dead Sea Scrolls 1QH 14.10 For your own sake (raajjabi) you have done it (nrrraj;), to make the law and truth great... 12.38 It is not for man

49

Ezek. 36.22 It is not for your sake (pwvh vb), House of Israel, that I am going to act (nw), but for Co) my holy name.

(DI*6

[...] that you did it (nrnmj) [...], forC3)[...] 21.6-7 And I know that you, my God, have done (nrrw) these things for yourself (n^b)... to establish everything for your glory. These three lines from Hodayot are part of similar hymns. Hodayot 12 is a more personal hymn of praise for God's mercy towards the author; he thanks God for 'atoning iniquity' and acknowledges that God's reasons for forgiving are not for human advancement only. In Hodayot 14, the author thanks God not only for his own personal deliverance from 'the counsel of violence' (1QH 14.5), but also for God's work in cleansing all the members of the Community, and especially for his future plans for the Community (1QH 14.7-8, 14-19, discussed above). The author is convinced that God has used and will use the Community for his own ends, 'to make the law and truth great.' Finally, Hodayot 21 praises God for his mercy in purifying and revealing himself to a weak and sinful human (1QH 20.32-21.18). The language used to ascribe God's motives to the advancement of his own glory parallels the language in Ezek. 36.22. Although the parallels are not as striking as some others, the phrase 'for your sake' (roara^) combined with 'do' (TiW) cannot be found elsewhere in the OT. The fact that the three passages in Hodayot, like Ezek. 36.22, discuss God's motives in mercifully delivering his people from their own sin, also makes the parallel seem intentional. If they are intentional, the allusions to Ezekiel 36 are significant. The action that God promises for his own glory is the restoration from exile and the cleansing of his people (Ezek. 36.24-29), which are essentially the same actions for which the author of Hodayot is thankful (1QH 12.34-37; 14.3-9, 14-17). Hodayot (not surprisingly) transfers God's promises of restoration and cleansing from Israel to the Community, and hints that a new restoration from exile is now underway in the Community. If the view of this new restoration is in keeping with other material we have looked at (especially in the Damascus Document), then Hodayot also has a typological view of Ezekiel's Exile. The Community is in a new Exile, one that will end with a new visitation on Jerusalem and a new restoration.

50

Echoes of a Prophet

Hodayot 21 contains a further allusion to Ezekiel 36. This allusion further establishes the likelihood that the above references to God's motives in Ezekiel 36 are genuine allusions, but it also adds to our understanding of the use of Scripture in Hodayot. 1QH 21.10-11 I am a creature [of clay ... an ear of du]st and heart of stone (pKH zbi). 21.12-13 You have inscribed forever60 what is to happen in the heart of [stone] ([p^n] aba).

Ezek. 36.26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone (pKH 2b) from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.61

The phrase 'heart of stone' is found nowhere else in the OT. The double use of the phrase so soon after the allusion to Ezek. 36.22 (in 1QH 21.6), makes it likely that the reference to the restoration oracle in Ezek. 36.22ff is intentional. The precise use of the wording contributes to our understanding of the eschatology of Hodayot. In some sense, the author believed that the promised restoration and purification was already beginning in the Community, as is clear from his thankfulness for God's accomplished purification (1QH 12.38; 14.10; 21.6). However, Hodayot is still awaiting the final purification. The author notably omits any reference to the heart of flesh. Despite his status as the Instructor who knows God (1QH 20.11), and the primary means of the Community's health (1QH 16.22-24), the author has not yet received the 'heart of flesh.' This omission suggests that Hodayot awaits the transformation from 'heart of stone' to 'heart of flesh' in the coming age. This 'realized eschatology' (i.e., some purification accomplished in the present, but thefinalpurification to be accomplished in thefinalage) mirrors the ideas found in the Community Rule. There, the new initiate's purification by water is described in language reminiscent of Ezek. 36.25-27.

60. The phrase 'inscribed forever . . . in the heart' probably echoes Eccl. 3.11, 'he has set eternity in their heart,' again demonstrating the tendency to combine similar texts. 61. Cf. the same phrases in Ezek. 11.19. This passage is also used in CD 3.16-17 (see above, p. 28) to describe God's promise to judge the inhabitants of Jerusalem and inhabit the land with the exiles. There, it is only these returned exiles who receive the 'new spirit' and the 'heart of flesh.'

2. The Use of Ezekiel in the Dead Sea Scrolls 1QS 3.7-9 It is by the Holy Spirit of the Community in his (God's) truth that he can be cleansed (-intF) from all his iniquities (imam; bvn) . . . It is by humbling his soul . . . that his flesh can be cleansed ("intt"), by sprinkling with waters of purification (ma '•ran rnrnb), and by sanctifying himself with waters of purity forr s oa wnpnnbi).62

51

Ezek. 36.25, 27 Then I will sprinkle clean water on you (DmntD 0*0 Tip*)D), and you will be clean (ornntDi); I will cleanse you from all your filthiness (MTDKQtt bsn) and from all your idols. 27 And I will put my Spirit within you and cause you to walk in my statutes, and you will be careful to observe my ordinances.

The initiation of new members into the Community is described in language from Ezekiel 36, suggesting that the Community saw the promised restoration already in process. But as in Hodayot, ultimate purification yet remained: At the appointed time for judgment ... He will purify him by the Holy Spirit from all ungodly acts and sprinkle upon him the Spirit of Truth like waters of purification, (to purify him) from all the abominations of falsehood and from being polluted by a spirit of impurity ... (1QS 4.20, 21-22) Members of the Community looked forward to a completion of the purification begun in their initial and daily baptisms. Both the initiation and completion of that purification are described using language from Ezek. 36.25-27. The fact that both Community Rule and Hodayot used the same passage from Ezekiel to describe present and future purification and restoration is significant. It reinforces the view that the Community saw itself in a new Exile that mirrored the first Exile and would end in a new restoration. The similar usage of Ezekiel is evidence for a continuous interpretational tradition at Qumran about the restoration oracle in Ezek. 36.22ff.63 The authors of both Community Rule and Hodayot saw Ezekiel's restoration oracle as a prophecy that was now being fulfilled in the life of the Community, but awaited completion at the end of the age.

62. The phrase ma T33 ('waters of purification') is the typical term used for 'holy water' (Num. 19.9, 13, 20, 21; 31.23). 63. The Damascus Document is usually dated to about 100 BC or earlier. Individual Hodayot are difficult to date; the collection probably dates to the first century BC. CDSS, pp. 125-26, 244.

52

Echoes of a Prophet

f. Showers of Blessing (Ezekiel 34.25-26; Benediction 7) A benediction found in the Benediction (11Q14) contains a brief allusion to Ezekiel 34. 11Q14 7 May he . . . open for you his good treasure which is in heaven to bring down on your land showers of blessing (TO-Q TO»a), dew, rain, early rain and late rain in His/its time, and to give you the produce . . . 8 and wild beasts shall withdraw from your land ( p a n run mm).

Ezek. 34.26 And I will cause showers to come down in their season; they will be showers of blessing (ro-Q t|o©a). 34.25 And I will make a covenant of peace with them and eliminate wild beasts from the land ( p x m p nirrmn) so that they may live securely in the wilderness . . .

The Benediction is mainly a repetition of the covenant blessings found in Deut. 11.14. Ezek. 34.25-26 also echoes those covenant blessings. The Benediction reveals its knowledge of both passages by combining elements from Deuteronomy (early and late rain, corn, wine and oil) with elements from Ezekiel 34 (showers of blessing, absence of wild beasts). Both of those phrases are unique to Ezekiel. There is nothing very startling about the use of Ezekiel here; it merely reveals that the Community longed for the blessings of the Covenant and saw the prophecy in Ezekiel 34 as part of God's promise for his people. The combination of the two texts may also suggest Qumran's eschatological view of the covenant. The blessings of Deuteronomy 11 are not limited to the final age, but the similar blessings in Ezekiel 34 come with the renewed throne of David (Ezek. 34.24) and the 'plantation of renown' (Ezek. 34.29) that God will one day provide. The Benediction clearly asks God to bring his covenant blessings, but also hints at asking God to bring his eschatological blessings.

g. The Everlasting Plantation (Ezekiel 31, 17, 19, 21, 31; Hodayot 14.1418; 16.5-20) Metaphors involving a plant, plantation, or trees are common at Qumran, and especially in the Hodayot. They are among the most difficult sections to analyze at Qumran, because the images and wording are often drawn from a variety of plant metaphors in the OT. In many cases, phrases from different OT passages are conflated in a way that is difficult to untangle. In some cases, particular agricultural metaphors are drawn from OT passages, but the original metaphorical role of those phrases is altered or even reversed. In other cases, the basic metaphor is drawn from one passage, but some of the terminology from other passages. The goal of this

2. The Use of Ezekiel in the Dead Sea Scrolls

53

study is to determine the extent to which plant imagery from Ezekiel is included, and the manner in which it is interpreted. 1QH 14.14-18 is part of a hymn thanking God for establishing the Community. The speaker also praises God for his future plans for his people. The primary image is drawn from the oracle against Egypt (and Assyria) in Ezekiel 31, but some words and phrases are drawn from other parts of Ezekiel, Genesis, Psalms, and Isaiah.64 The author of Hodayot describes God's blessed people as an enormous tree that extends its roots down to the primordial deep, and its branches up to the sky. Its source of power is 'the rivers of Eden' that water it; its branches provide shade for the whole world. All of these elements can be found in the oracle against Egypt and Assyria in Ezekiel 31. The chart below illustrates some of the allusions, and demonstrates that the metaphor is derived primarily from Ezekiel 31. The Hebrew is omitted here for simplicity; parallel English words represent parallel Hebrew words. OT Allusions in Hodayot 14 (1QH 14.14—17) Hodayot 14

Ezekiel 31

Other OT

Their root 15 will sprout

Isa. 27.6 Jacob will take root, Israel will blossom and sprout

like a flower of the field forever,

Isa. 40.6 All flesh is grass, and all its loveliness is like the flower of the field

to make a shoot grow

Ps. 103.15 like a flower of the field, so he flourishes.

Ezek. 31.4 the waters made it grow Isa. 60.21 they will possess the land forever, the branch of my planting.

in branches of the everlasting plantation

So that it covers all the world with its shade,

Other OT

Ezek. 31.6 And all great nations lived under its shade.

Ezek. 17.23 And birds . . . will nest in the shade of its branches.

Ps. 80.10 The mountains were covered with its shade

64. The same image can be found in Dan. 4.8-9 (S. Holm-Nielsen, Hodayot: Psalms from Qumran (AcTDan, 2; Aarhus: Universitetsforlaget, 1960), p. 115), but the Daniel passage is much briefer, and exact parallels are more difficult to establish because Daniel 4 is in Aramaic.

54

Echoes of a Prophet

and its crown 16 (reaches) up to the skies

Ezek. 31.3, 10, 14 its Ezek. 19.11 its height 65 7 " ~° among — — - was raised above the crown J was clouds the clouds 66

Ezek. 17.22 I will take a sprig from the crown of the cedar . . . and I will plant it on a high and lofty mountain.

and its roots down to the abyss.

Ezek. 31.4 The waters made it grow, the abyss made it high.

Ps. 80.9 It took deep root and filled the land

All the streams of Eden will water its branches and they will be seas without limits;

Ezek. 31.7 For its roots extended to many waters 31.16 all the well-watered trees of Eden

Ps. 80.11 it sent out its branches to the sea, and its shoots to the river.

Isa. 27.6 Jacob shall take root, Israel shall blossom and sprout, and fill the whole world with fruit.

17 and its forest will be over the whole world, endless,

and as deep as Sheol its roots.

Gen. 2.9-10 God made every tree grow . . . a river flowed out of Eden to water the garden...

Ezek. 31.15 when it goes down to Sheol

There are a number of indications that the author of Hodayot did not feel bound by the passage that so influenced his language. First, Hodayot does not follow the same order as Ezekiel 31. Rather, it is a fresh reworking of the same metaphor, with its primary wording drawn from the passages listed above. At first, it seems surprising that 1QH 14.14-17 should use Ezekiel 31 so heavily. The author of Hodayot had to transform Ezekiel's oracle of woe against pagan Egypt into a hymn of blessing on God's people. Hodayot omits any part of the oracle that described judgment on the tree.67 The author even takes phrases connected with the destruction of the great Egypt-tree and reverses their meaning to fit his own metaphor. 65. Ezekiel 31 uses rnns for 'crown'; Ezekiel 17, like Hodayot, uses *]3I7. 66. ray may be translated as 'interwoven foliage' or 'clouds' (BDB, p. 721). The word shows up in both Ezek. 19.11 and 31.3, 10,14; BDB suggests that it should be translated as the former in Ezekiel 19 and as the latter in Ezekiel 31. The LXX reverses that, translating it as kv (ieoo) oteXexwv (in the middle of trunks) in Ezek. 19.11 and dc, \ieoov ve$eX&v (in the middle of the clouds) in Ezek. 31.3, 10, 14. 67. The same could be said about his use of Psalm 80. There, the psalmist moves from a description of the mighty vine, Israel, to its current state of abandonment.

2. The Use of Ezekiel in the Dead Sea Scrolls

55

Thus, Ezekiel's description of Egypt being cast into Sheol becomes, in Hodayot, the mighty roots going down to Sheol to tap into the abyssal waters. In Ezekiel, 'all the well-watered trees of Eden' are comforted at the destruction of the Egypt-tree; in Hodayot 14, the waters of Eden irrigate the mighty tree. However strange this usage at first seems, the thought of Hodayofs author can perhaps be traced. His elaborate agricultural metaphor was constructed with elements from various OT agricultural metaphors, but he was not overly concerned with the broad meaning of those source metaphors. In Ezekiel 31, the branches, fruit, and height of the tree are pictures of the majesty and prosperity of Egypt before its destruction. Hodayot preserves the positive meaning of the agricultural elements, but transfers the images to Qumran and omits the judgment. Hodayofs other source passages (Psalm 80; Isaiah 27, 40, 60; Ezekiel 17, 19) all use agricultural imagery to describe the majesty and prosperity of Israel or its rulers. That majesty was destroyed (Psalm 80; Ezekiel 17, 19), like the beauty of Eden (Genesis 2), but would one day be restored (Isaiah 27, 40, 60). Hodayot appropriates the imagery, but transfers it from broader Israel to God's true assembly at Qumran. This transformation of images fits the goal and theology of the author. The glory of the pagan nations was fleeting and would be destroyed. Israel's majesty had also faded, so Isaiah's prophecies would be fulfilled in the true Israel, Qumran. Hodayot resumes the image of the Community as a tree in 1QH 16.4— 21, with even more complexity. All of the passages above are used, as well as agricultural images from Genesis 3; Exodus 15; Deuteronomy 11; Psalm 1; Isaiah 5, 10; Jeremiah 2, 17, 48; Ezekiel 15, 21, 26; Hosea 10; and Zephaniah 2. The various allusions are woven together in a manner that is difficult to trace precisely. However, it seems clear that the guiding image is that of Psalm 1 and Jeremiah 17: the blessed and cursed trees. Every part of this basic image is elaborated on by the use of agricultural imagery from other passages. For example, the 'streams of water' of Ps. 1.3 are connected (via allusive language) with Isaiah's pouring out of the Spirit, the rivers of Eden, the Temple river of Ezekiel, the waters of life, and the deluge. The blessed tree of Psalm 1 is connected with the tree of life, the cedars of Ezekiel and Psalm 80, the Branch of David, and Isaiah's trees of blessing. Birds and beasts live under the tree and off the tree, in language that alludes to Psalm 80, Ezekiel 17 and 31. The cursed tree is not only cut off from its water supply, as in Psalm 1; it also withers and burns (in language taken from a variety of OT sources) and is destroyed by the waters of the flood and the Red Sea. The following chart shows only the phrases and ideas that parallel Ezekiel's imagery.

56

Echoes of a Prophet

Allusions to Ezekiel in Hodayot 16 1QH 16.5 in a garden watered by channels [... ] a plantation of cypresses and elms, together with cedars, for your glory.

Ezek. 31.3—4 a cedar... of great height... The waters nourished it, the deep made it grow tall, making its rivers flow round its plantation, sending forth its streams to all the trees of the forest.

16.5-6 Trees of life in the secret source, hidden among all the trees at the water

31.14 all the trees by the water 47.12 And by the river... will grow all trees for food. Their leaves will not wither... their leaves are for healing.

16.7 Their roots extend to the gully, and its trunk opens to the living waters

47.12 They will bear fruit every month because their water flows from the sanctuary

16.8-9 On the shoots of its leaves all the animals of the wood will feed, its trunk will be pasture for all who cross the path, and its leaves for all winged birds.

31.13 On its ruin all the birds of heaven will dwell. And all the animals of the field will be on its branches. 17.23 all winged birds will dwell under it

16.16 But Thou, O my God, hast put into my m o u t h . . . rain for all [those who thirst] and a fount of living waters which shall not fail...

Jer. 17.13 they have forsaken YHWH, the fount of living waters. Ezek. 47.9 everything will live where the river goes

16.17 but they [the waters] will become a torrent overflowing into [... ] of water and into the seas, without end

47.8 these waters... go towards the sea (note increasing water from 47.1-7)

16.18-20 They will swell suddenly from secret hiding-places, [... ] they will become waters of [judgment?] for every tree, green and dry, a marsh for every animal. [... ] like lead in powerful waters [... ] of fire and dry up.

21.3 (MT) a fire... shall consume every green tree and every dry tree 17.24 I dry up the green tree and make the dry tree flourish 19.12 [the vine] dried up; the fire consumed it.

2. The Use of Ezekiel in the Dead Sea Scrolls

16.21 By my hand you have opened their spring... turning in accordance with the proper measurement...

57

47.3-5 . . . he measured [the river] a thousand cubits... again he measured a thousand, and it was a river I could not ford...

The role of Ezekiel in Hodayot 16 is much the same as in Hodayot 14. That is, the author of Hodayot draws individual elements from Ezekiel's metaphor, but not the overall meaning of that metaphor. The main thrust of the allegory in Hodayot 16 is that the Community is the blessed tree of Psalm 1/Jeremiah 17; all the other agricultural imagery from other passages of Scripture is brought in to elaborate on elements in the Psalm 1 image: the blessed tree and its reward; the cursed tree and its punishment. In many cases, those elements are brought in with little apparent consideration for their original context. In other cases, the introduction of the other elements is quite deliberate. Psalm 1 is a wisdom psalm about the wise man and the wicked man, but Hodayot transforms that wisdom image by associating the blessed tree with eschatological metaphors: the Branch of David from Isaiah, the replanted cedar of Ezekiel 17, and the trees by the Temple river of Ezekiel 47. The continued dominance of elements from Ezekiel 31 again illustrates the use of agricultural elements to portray majesty and blessing, although those elements are transferred from pagan Egypt to the Community. The particular fashion in which multiple OT allusions have been woven together is quite complicated in Hodayot 16, but it is possible to discern the author's goal in using Scripture. In a sense, he writes a 'midrashic' psalm. That is, he weaves together a variety of Scriptures, united by their common use of agricultural imagery, into a hymn of praise for God's work - past, present, and future - in the Qumran Community. In the process, he deals with questions that beset the Community: How is it that God's true people have so little influence? Why is it that other people in Israel have the appearance of righteousness? How can this small, isolated group be the means for bringing in the new messianic age? The author's answers to these questions are both sapiential and eschatological. Passages such as Psalm 1 and Jeremiah 17 contribute the contrast between the wise of the community and the wicked outside. The tree and vine images from Ezekiel and Isaiah, many containing promises of a future restoration, introduce eschatological elements into the allegory of Hodayot 16. Other passages (such as Exod. 15.10; Deut. 11.14; Ezekiel 19, 21; Hos. 10.1-2, and Zeph. 2.9) are used to describe the coming eschatological judgment on the wicked trees. It is interesting to note that this is the same type of interpretation

58

Echoes of a Prophet

that occurs in Florilegium.6* Florilegium explains Psalm 1 using Isa. 8.11 and Ezek. 20.18, and in the process converts the wisdom of Psalm 1 into eschatology. The author of Hodayot 16 does not present himself as mere observer. He claims to be the sole conduit of the living water, the means of blessing on the Community and judgment on outsiders (1QH 16.16-24, cf. 1QH 18.12ff). God is the ultimate source, but he has decided to use the author of Hodayot 16 as his sole mediator. The only difference between the trees of the Community and the other trees is that the trees of the Community have put down roots to the living waters - water that comes from the mouth of the author and travels through canals dug by the author. The speaker is thus claiming to be God's authoritative prophet and interpreter of Scripture. This role is not described using messianic language, but the exclusive nature of the claims is remarkably similar to claims made by Jesus in the Gospel of John.69 Such exclusive claims strongly suggest that Hodayot 16 was written by the Righteous Teacher, not just one of the many teachers at Qumran. Alternatively, it was written by a later author, but intended to sound as if it came from the mouth of the Righteous Teacher. As discussed above, Hodayot 14 and 16 begin with sapiential texts, but relate those texts to eschatological expectations for the Community. In some cases, these Hodayot imply a typological interpretation of OT passages. For example, the future judgment of outsiders is described with terms drawn from earlier accounts of judgment by water - the flood and the destruction of the Egyptians at the Red Sea. Thus, the future judgment will repeat the earlier judgment. In most other cases, the Hodayot interpret OT passages as prophecies that are beginning to be fulfilled. The author of Hodayot saw, in the humble situation of the Community, the root from which the Branch of David would arise, the sapling from which Ezekiel's cedar would grow, and the hidden forest that would become the trees of life by the Temple river. Perhaps he saw Ezekiel's 'plantation of renown' (Ezek. 34.29) springing up, still shorter in stature than the other trees, but one day to surpass them all because of their exclusive access to the living waters (1QH 16.5-7). The Qumran view that they were in a temporary, intermediate time before the eschaton is also apparent: the plantation has been planted, but it has not grown up to cover the world. For now, they appear small and inconsequential, but their eventual dominance is assured. From the viewpoint of New Testament studies, it is especially interesting to note the intrusion of the future eschatology into the author's present: although the fullness of the glory of the Plantation was yet to come, its

68. 69.

See p. 3. See pp. 180-85.

2. The Use of Ezekiel in the Dead Sea Scrolls

59

roots were already set, and it was already being watered in the Community in the wilderness.

2. Epithets for the Community and its Enemies The Qumran view o f salvation history,' discussed above, allowed members of the Community to categorize people and beliefs of their age in terms generated from their history and eschatology. If they were in a new Exile, awaiting a second 'visitation' on Jerusalem, then they could use Ezekiel's epithets and judgment against their enemies, and claim Ezekiel's titles and blessings for themselves. They were the residents of 'Damascus,' the righteous exiles, or they were those who 'sigh and groan' over the condition of Jerusalem. In the coming age, the restored Zadokite priesthood would come from their ranks. The outsiders were the false prophets of Jerusalem, the 'builders of the barrier' and the 'whitewashers.' They would be refused any role in the future Temple. a. Those who Sigh and Groan (Ezekiel 9.4; Zechariah 13.7; Damascus Document 19.7-13) The Damascus Document's MS B70 contains two allusions to Ezekiel, both designed to bring out the difference between the righteous and the wicked. MS A contrasts the destruction of the wicked in Jerusalem with the deliverance of the exiles by comparing Isa. 7.17 with Amos 5.26-27 (discussed above). MS B makes the same contrast between the destruction of the wicked and the salvation of the righteous using Zech. 13.7 and Ezek. 9.4. In CD 19.7-11, Zech. 13.7 is used to describe both the righteous and the wicked: ... when that happens of which it is written by Zechariah the prophet, 'Awake, O sword, upon my shepherd and upon the man (who is) close to me - God says - strike the shepherd so the sheep will be scattered and I will turn my hand to the little ones.' But those who guard it (the precepts) are the poor of the sheep. These will escape at the time of the visitation. But those who remain will be handed over to the sword, when the Messiah of Aaron and Israel comes. Although Zechariah's 'turn my hand to the little ones' seems to describe the destruction of the 'little ones,' The Damascus Document interprets it as 70. Manuscript B contains two columns, 19 and 20. Column 19 is a mildly different recension of columns 7-8 in the main manuscript (A). Column 20 diverges somewhat from MS A, but seems to have the same point. Both A and B are manuscripts found in the Cairo Genizah (tenth and eleventh centuries respectively), but only MS A has been clearly verified by Qumran fragments. DSSHAG, vol. 2, pp. 5-6.

60

Echoes of a Prophet

protection. This interpretation is not too surprising; Zech. 13.8-9 describes the remnant who survive, who will be 'refined' and will be 'my people.' But of course the Damascus Document interprets the deliverance of the remnant as a reference to the Community - 'the poor' is a common term for the members of the Community. The author of the Damascus Document interprets Zech. 13.7 as a prophecy that will be fulfilled at the end. When the Messiah(s) come, 'those who despise' will be punished (CD 19.5-6), and the keepers of the precepts will be delivered (CD 19.9-10). This deliverance of the righteous from among the wicked is further developed in CD 19.11-13 by a quote from Ezek. 9.4. The author of the Damascus Document likely connected Zech. 13.7 with Ezek. 9.4 through the common use of the word 'sword' and the shared emphasis on the deliverance of a righteous remnant. '(And this will be) as it happened at the time of the first visitation; as it is said through Ezekiel, "To make a mark upon the foreheads of those who sigh and groan." But those who remained were turned over to the avenging sword of the covenant's vengeance.'71 The line from Ezekiel describes how some are to be spared from the destruction of Jerusalem. After showing Ezekiel four visions of idolatrous 'abominations' committed in the Temple (Ezek. 8.1-18), God calls for the angelic 'punishers of the city' to approach the altar for instructions (Ezek. 9.1-2). The glory of God prepares to leave the Temple, apparently in preparation for the punishment (Ezek. 9.3), but first God gives instructions so that the innocent will not be destroyed. He appoints a man dressed in white to go through the city, marking the foreheads of 'those who sigh and groan over all the abominations.' All others, starting with the elders in the Temple, will be destroyed by the punishers (Ezek. 9.4-7). There is a stark contrast in these visions between the elders of Israel, confident in their idolatrous worship, and those who mourn at the idolatry in the Temple (Ezek. 8.12; 9.4). To a member of the Community, the parallel to their own situation was clear. As it was with the first visitation, so it would be with the last. They were the ones who sighed and groaned over the spiritual state of the Temple; they would be spared at the coming visitation. The priesthood and all who supported the Temple were confident in their 'abominations' (for so Qumran viewed the Temple calendar and the defiled high priesthood); they would be the first to be destroyed. Interestingly, while the author of the Damascus Document interpreted Zech. 13.7 as prophecy to be fulfilled, he interpreted Ezekiel 9 in a typological sense: '(this will be) as it happened at the time of the first 71. The final phrase, 'the avenging sword of the covenant's vengeance' is taken from Lev. 26.25 (maTapa napa ann). CD 19.13 only differs in the spelling of napa.

2. The Use of Ezekiel in the Dead Sea Scrolls

61

visitation.' It is possible that the author of MS B made an essentially historical distinction between the exilic Ezekiel and the post-exilic Zechariah. That is, he interpreted Ezekiel 9 as referring to Nebuchadnezzar's destruction in 587. As a historical passage, the Damascus Document could only use it as a model or type of the coming visitation. Since Zechariah was written after the return from exile, his prophecy of destruction was yet to be fulfilled. CD 19.7-14 makes the most sense if this hypothesis is correct. If the author of the Damascus Document had the same perspective on both Ezekiel and Zechariah, he would most likely have interpreted both texts as prophecies to be fulfilled in the future of the Community. His distinction between the 'first visitation' and the coming visitation makes it likely that he interpreted this section of Ezekiel in a typological sense, and Zechariah in a prophecy-fulfillment sense. b. Builders of the Wall (Ezekiel 13.9-16; 22.17-26; Damascus Document 4.17-18; 6.17; 19.30-35; 20.3-4; Sapiential Work 1.1, 4-5) In their conflict with Jerusalem's religious establishment, the Community often made use of two of Ezekiel's polemical oracles against false prophets, Ezekiel 13 and 22. Ezekiel 13 is an extensive indictment of the false prophets, centering on a key metaphor, 'those who build a wall and whitewash it' (Ezek. 13.10). Ezekiel 22 contains a broader indictment of 'the bloody city,' beginning with a condemnation of the people of Jerusalem and continuing with denunciations of the prophets, priests, and princes of the city; then repeating indictments against the prophets and people. The false prophets hold a significant position in the diatribe, and the 'whitewasher' metaphor from Ezekiel 13 is briefly repeated. Ezekiel 13 and 22 are linked by the 'whitewasher' metaphor and by the polemical tone. These two chapters of Ezekiel are alluded to five times in the Damascus Document (sometimes in succession), and once in Sapiential Work. In one of the accounts of the history and future of the Community (CD 4.5-21), the Damascus Document describes the evil of its own time using allusions to Isaiah and Ezekiel. The author of the Damascus Document sees in his own time the fulfillment of Isaiah's prediction, 'Belial will run unbridled amidst Israel' (Isa. 24.17). This evil in Israel, itemized in CD 4.17-18, is the result of the deception by a group, 'the builders of the wall' and their leader, the is (CD 4.19).72 The phrase 'builders of the wall' ("rn p i n ) alludes to the oracle against false prophets in Ezekiel 13. Ezek. 13.10 warns of God's judgments against false prophets 'because they have deceived my people, saying "Peace!" and there is no peace; and 72. This term is left untranslated in DSSHAG (vol. 2, p. 19), but Vermes translates it as 'Precept,' probably because is is so translated when it occurs (as a derisive phrase) in Isa.

62

Echoes of a Prophet

when someone builds a wall ( p i nan), behold, they [the prophets] whitewash it.' Although the allusion extends to only two words, the fact that p r is an OT hapax legomena (meaning a 'thin or party-wall'73) makes the Damascus Document's allusion to Ezekiel certain. The fact that the Damascus Document makes another allusion to Ezekiel in the near context (Ezek. 44.15, alluded to in CD 3.21-4) only strengthens the argument.74 Ezekiel's metaphor, part of a larger indictment against false prophets in Israel (Ezek. 13.1-23), pictures a thin wall that is disguised by whitewash to look as if it were a thick wall.75 God condemns their dishonesty and promises to bring down a flood that will wipe away the wall, the whitewash, and the whitewashers (Ezek. 13.13-16). In Ezekiel, the metaphor is primarily about the whitewashers, not the builders. CD 4.17-18 instead uses the phrase 'builders of the wall,' probably in mockery of the Pharisaic goal to 'build a wall around Torah.'76 It seems likely that 'builders of the barrier' was a stock epithet for the Pharisees at Qumran even before the writing of the Damascus Document, since the term is used there without explanation.77 The prophets who predicted peace for Israel during Ezekiel's time had given a false sense of security, one that would be totally dashed by the coming cataclysm. The Qumran Community could see the same events happening in their own founding experiences - the religious leadership of Jerusalem rejected the Righteous Teacher's prophecy and thus revealed themselves as false prophets. From the Community's perspective, the false confidence and false teaching of the Temple-based leadership invited a comparison to Ezekiel's whitewashers. The author of the Damascus Document returns to this metaphor twice in CD 8.12-18 (and in its parallel material in MS B, 19.24-31). This time, the Damascus Document makes a more complete allusion to Ezek. 13.10, labeling these deceived teachers 'builders of the barrier and whitewashdaubers' (CD 8.12). As in the earlier description, this group fails to understand or accept the correct interpretation of the Law (their specific failings are catalogued in CD 8.1—9//19.16—23). They in turn are deceived by the same leader, this time called 'one who weighs the wind' and 'the

28.13 (CDSS, p. 130). The 12 seems to be the same deceiver described in CD 1.14 as 'the man of mockery' Cpxbn «TK), taken from Isa. 28.14; and the one who 'sprinkled' (^ttn). Most associate him with some early Pharisee leader. 73. BDB, p i , p. 300. 74. See above, p. 38. 75. Zimmerli, Ezekiel, vol. 1, p. 295. 76. J. VanderKam, personal correspondence. 77. 'Wall-building' apparently became so associated with this negative evaluation of the Pharisees that Hosea's description of YHWH building a wall (Hos. 2.8) was omitted in 4QpHos a . Brooke, 'Qumran Commentaries', p. 91.

2. The Use of Ezekiel in the Dead Sea Scrolls

63

Spouter of the Lie' (CD 8.13). The second use of'builder of the barrier' in this section is even more polemical than before: 'And [God] loved those who came after them; for theirs is the covenant with the fathers. And God hates and despises the 'builders of the barrier' (pnn ^"o) and his anger was kindled against them and against all who follow after them' (CD 19.30-32, cf. 8.18-19). 'Those who came after them' is a reference to the Damascus Community (CD 19.29). The anger against the builders is not connected in the text of the Damascus Document to any particular historical event. The author invokes God's judgment against 'anyone who despises God's ordinances' and especially those who turn away from the 'new covenant in the land of Damascus' and back to the false teachers of Jerusalem (CD 19.32-34). The judgment on these backsliders is elaborated in CD 19.33-20.27. The author of the Damascus Document begins his description of the backsliders with two allusions to Jeremiah. CD 19.33 Thus all the men who entered the new covenant in the land of Damascus78 and returned and betrayed and departed ("mci) from the well of

Jer. 31.31 I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel... Jer. 17.13 Those who turn away CHTOI) on earth will be written down, because they have forsaken the fountain of living water

living w a t e r (crTin wn i K a o ) . . .

(D^mro mpn), Y H W H .

This allusion to Jeremiah is worth noting because the writing metaphor in Jeremiah leads the author of the Damascus Document to a passage in Ezekiel that uses a similar image. In typical catchword fashion, the phrase 'will be written down' from Jeremiah is not quoted in CD 19.33 so that the author can use the similar phrase in his allusion to Ezekiel. The allusion to Jer. 17.13 is also consistent with Qumran's view of itself as the Temple in exile: those who have 'forsaken the fountain of living waters' are those who have turned away from 'the place of our sanctuary' (Jer. 17.12). The Damascus Document next describes the judgment against the backsliders by alluding to another part of the same oracle against false prophets in Ezekiel 13 - just one verse before Ezekiel's whitewasher metaphor begins. Clearly the author of the Damascus Document has kept his 'wall-builder' epithet firmly in mind, since he returns to the same passage in Ezekiel so soon after his earlier allusion.

78. Note how the author substitutes 'in the land of Damascus' for Jeremiah's 'with the house of Israel.'

64

Echoes of a Prophet

CD 19.35 (they) will not be accounted among the council of the people (DB moa); and when (the latter) are written (Dnrom), they will not be written ("DrO"1 mb)

Ezek. 13.9 They will not be in the council of my people ("ay Tica), and in the writing (nrom) of the house of Israel, they will not be written (lartr vb\ nor will they enter the land of Israel... (10) ... and when someone builds a wall...

The phrase 'in the council of the people' (Di? Tioa) is found nowhere in the Scriptures except Ezekiel. 13, making the source of the allusion fairly certain.79 The Damascus Document has made a few changes to the text of Ezekiel, converting the simpler 'they will not be' (VTP'Kb) to 'they will not be accounted' ("owir \fib). In Ezekiel, 'the council of my people' is set parallel to 'the house of Israel,' making the two equivalent. The author's omission of the phrase is further evidence that he was hesitant to apply the term 'House of Israel' to the Community (see above, [1 fn 12]). A few lines after the reference to the 'builder of the barrier' and his judgment, the Damascus Document returns to another 'whitewashed passage from Ezekiel. The author of the Damascus Document describes the backslider from the Community thus: 'He is the man "who is melted in the midst of a furnace." When his works become apparent, he shall be expelled from the congregation as one whose lot did not fall among those taught by God' (CD 20.3-4). The phrase quoted from Ezekiel, 'who is melted in the midst of a furnace,' is part of an oracle pronouncing judgment on Jerusalem (Ezek. 22.17-22). The residents of Jerusalem are described as 'dross' that will be melted in the furnace, Jerusalem. While the metaphor is one of purification, the focus is on the destruction of the impure dross (as is also the focus in CD 20.3-4).80 The impurities are described in Ezek. 22.23-31 - greedy prophets who take from the poor, priests who defile God's holy things, princes who use violence to acquire wealth. Ezekiel further describes these prophets with a brief return to his whitewashing metaphor: 'And her prophets have smeared whitewash for them, seeing

79. Tio is occasionally used to refer to the Community, although not elsewhere in the Damascus Document. 1QS 2.24 ('an eternal assembly'); 8.5 ('a most holy assembly'); 9.3 ('a foundation of the Holy Spirit'). The righteous and wicked assemblies are compared in 1QS 11.7-10. Cf. 1QS 4.1 (the hated assembly). 80. Ezekiel's metaphor is itself an intentional alteration of earlier refining metaphors. Refining had been used to refer to Israel's deliverance from Egypt, with Israel as the refined metal. Ezekiel alters the metaphor so that Israel is now the dross. Zimmerli, Ezekiel, vol. 1, p. 464.

2. The Use of Ezekiel in the Dead Sea Scrolls

65

false visions and divining lies for them, saying, "Thus says the Lord YHWH," when YHWH has not spoken' (Ezek. 22.28).81 There is an interesting pattern in the usage of Ezekiel in this section of the Damascus Document. The author of the Damascus Document begins by twice alluding to the oracle against false prophets in Ezekiel 13. First, he uses an epithet against false prophets from Ezek. 13.10 (CD 19.24, 31), then a judgment against them from Ezek. 13.9 (CD 19.35). He continues with an allusion to another oracle against false prophets, Ezekiel 22, and one with several verbal parallels to Ezekiel 13 (including the important whitewasher metaphor). Here, he uses an epithet and a judgment from Ezek. 22.20-22 (CD 20.3-4). The Damascus Document's allusions to three phrases from two related oracles in Ezekiel suggest both great familiarity with Ezekiel and a tendency to combine texts. Perhaps the author of the Damascus Document began with his 'wall-builder/whitewasher' epithet from Ezekiel 13; then appropriately drew the judgment against the 'wall-builders' from the same oracle. Then, connecting the oracle in Ezekiel 13 with the oracle in Ezekiel 22 by means of their common whitewasher metaphor, the Damascus Document used the dross and its judgment from Ezekiel 22. Of course, Ezekiel 13 and 22 are not related only by the whitewasher metaphor; both also condemn false prophets, although the latter oracle broadens the scope to include priests and princes. However the two texts were connected in the author's mind, it is clear that his use of Ezekiel continues in the same vein: texts from Ezekiel are used to promote the position of the Community over against the religious establishment in Jerusalem.82 Another allusion to the same oracle in Ezekiel 22 can be found in CD 6.17. CD 6.2-11 recounts the founding of the Community at Damascus. This description of the Community moves into a reminder of how the 'priests' of the Community are to be different from the corrupt priests of the Temple. Among the requirements is a close parallel to Ezek. 22.26.

81. Ezekiel 22 contains abbreviations or modifications of other elements from Ezekiel 13: prophets who do not restore the walls of Jerusalem, and oppression of the poor, in addition to the whitewash metaphor and the accusation of false prophecy. 82. This is much like the combination of texts in 4Q174 for polemical purposes; see pp. 31-32.

66

Echoes of a Prophet

CD 6.17-19 . . . and to distinguish (bnnnbi) between the impure and the pure (Tinttb KBttn ya) and to make known (JPTin*?')) (the difference) between the holy and the profane (^yrb ttrnpn fa), and to observe the Sabbath day in exact detail, and the appointed times...

Ezek. 22.26 Her priests... have not distinguished (I'rian) between the holy and the profane (Sr6 imp-pa), and they have not made known (iiPTin) (the difference) between the impure and the pure (TintD*? xatsrr'pa); and they hide their eyes from my Sabbaths, and I am profaned among them.

Ezekiel draws on similar wording from Lev. 10.10, but the Damascus Document follows Ezekiel, with some influence from the Leviticus passage. From Ezekiel, the Damascus Document used the verbs bna (hifil, to distinguish) and UT (hifil, to make known), the mention of the Sabbath, and the word order.83 The twin phrases 'between clean and unclean' and 'between impure and pure' can be found both in Lev. 10.10 and in Ezek. 22.26, but the Damascus Document more closely follows the wording of those phrases in Ezekiel, where Ezekiel mildly diverges from Leviticus (Leviticus uses the double "pa construction; Ezekiel uses a single pa). The Damascus Document may have been influenced by Lev. 10.10 in some other ways: the Damascus Document follows the positive formulation of Leviticus, and like Leviticus uses the infinitive construct forms of the verbs (instead of the perfect forms used in Ezekiel). On the whole, however, CD 6.17 has more in common with Ezek. 22.26. In addition to the verbal similarities, the two contexts are similar. Both passages address prophets, princes and priests (CD 6.1, 6, 11-21; Ezek. 22.23-28); both express a concern for the acquisition of 'wicked wealth' (CD 6.15-17; Ezek. 22.25, 27, 29); and both express the common concern for orphans and widows84 (CD 6.16-17; Ezek. 22.7, 25, 27). All of these elements are lacking from Lev. 10.10. Ezekiel's whitewash metaphor is used in another of the DSS, A Sapiential Work (4Q424). Unfortunately, this piece is fragmentary, so it is difficult to analyze the context. The first legible line begins:'... with a wine press [... ] outside, and decides to build it and covers its wall with plaster, he also [...] and it collapses due to the rain' (4Q424 1.2). The image follows that of Ezek. 13.10-16, although the wording is not identical. Sapiential Work uses Ezekiel's words for building (ma) and whitewashing, (nitt and ban). The word for wall is not the y n from the beginning of 83. The Damascus Document's reversal of phrases ('holy and profane' switched with 'pure and impure') appears to be a minor aberration; Lev. 10.10; Ezek. 22.26; and Ezek. 44.23 all start with 'holy and profane.' 84. The particular wording about orphans and widows in CD 6.16—17 seems to be drawn from Isa. 10.2.

2. The Use of Ezekiel in the Dead Sea Scrolls

67

Ezekiel's metaphor, but the Tp from the rest of the metaphor (Ezek. 13.12, 14, 15). While both passages speak about rain as the agent of destruction, Sapiential Work uses a one-word synonym Q1T (downpour) for Ezekiel's rpiw nm (flooding rain). This makes 4Q424 1.3 the most complete allusion to the whitewasher metaphor at Qumran, since it includes five elements (build, cover, whitewash, wall, and rain), where the other passages contain only two or three (build and/or whitewash, and wall). The original sense of 'false prophet' in Ezekiel's metaphor is somewhat muted in Sapiential Work. Here, the whitewasher is one of a series of people against whom the listener is warned. The exact warning associated with the whitewasher has been lost, but the next warning is against trying to learn precepts 'in the company of hypocrites,' suggesting that the 'whitewasher' was to be avoided in any sort of teaching setting. Vermes suggests that 'the main theme of this poetic composition is to instruct the just man how to ensure the progress of wisdom by not entrusting its propagation to the unworthy.'85 However, the admonition may be broader, since Sapiential Work also contains warnings against people who have little to do with the propagation of wisdom: the sleepy man, the grumbler, the stingy man, and others. The other parties warned against in Sapiential Work are all generic rather than specifically historical, suggesting that 'whitewasher' and 'builder of the wall' had become metaphors for anyone who was deceived, and were no longer limited to the particular group of 'false prophets' who were led astray by the Spouter of Lies. The fact that Sapiential Work was probably written after the composition of the Damascus Document makes this hypothesis reasonable. Perhaps the 'whitewasher' epithet, originally a stock phrase at Qumran to describe the group who supported the 'Spouter,' later came to refer to any person who followed the wrong teaching. The typological term from the Damascus Document could now be used as a sapiential term. Sapiential Work may contain a second, weaker allusion to the Ezekiel 13/22 complex in the following line: 4Q424 1.4-5 And with someone who totters you should not enter a crucible, for he will melt like lead and will not resist before the fire.

Ezek. 22.20 As they gather silver and bronze and iron and lead and tin into the crucible to blow fire on it in order to melt it, so I will gather you...

4Q424 1.4-5 contains three words in common with Ezek. 22.20: crucible ), melt ("jna), and lead (may). None of these words is very common in 85. CDSS, p. 414.

68

Echoes of a Prophet

the OT;86 no two of them can be found in any other passage in the OT besides Ezek. 22.20. Even so, the parallel is not very strong. It would probably not be worth noting if we did not already have an allusion to Ezekiel 13 in the previous line, and if we did not have evidence that the Damascus Document uses Ezekiel 13 and 22 to polemicize against false prophets. If 4Q424 1.4—5 is an allusion to Ezek. 22.20, it is further evidence of Qumran's linking of Ezekiel 13 and 22 as stock texts to be used against false teachers. Like CD 20.3-4, it uses Ezek. 22.17-20 to describe the coming destruction of the unworthy. Here, it is used to advocate separation from those unworthy to avoid being caught in their judgment. Unlike the usage in Ezekiel or in the Damascus Document, Sapiential Work uses the refiner's metaphor in a sapiential sense; it connects the 'wallbuilders' with the generic unworthy, and gives little detail about the specific group of 'wall-builders' in Jerusalem, the Pharisees. The DSS do not interpret Ezekiel 13 or 22 in a prophecy-fulfillment scheme. There is no language suggesting that the 'builders of the barrier' was a prediction fulfilled in the time of Ezekiel or in the time of the Qumran Community. Instead, the interpretation seems to have moved from typological to sapiential. The Damascus Document's typological interpretation is suggested in the phrasing of CD 8.18-19: 'And by his hate for the 'builders of the barrier,' his anger was kindled. And thus is his judgment against anyone who despises God's ordinances...' (cf. CD 19.31-32). That is, God's anger against the false prophets of Ezekiel's time was a model of his anger against the new false prophets who opposed the Community. The author of the Damascus Document was using the epithets in Ezekiel 13 and 22 to describe the first opponents of the Community, with apparent recognition that those epithets had an original historical referent during the Exile. The usage in Sapiential Work is more sapiential; there is no reference to the specific applications of the epithet against either historical group of 'false prophets.' The Damascus Document introduced epithets (and their corresponding judgments) from Ezekiel 13/22; Sapiential Work used those epithets in a generic fashion to give instruction on types of people to avoid.

3. Imitating Ezekiel (Ezekiel 1, 10, 17, 30, 37, 40; Pseudo-Ezekielj Pseudo-Ezekiel (4Q385-391) needs to be treated separately from other Qumran allusions to Ezekiel. First, it is not entirely clear that PseudoEzekiel was composed at Qumran. There is nothing in the six readable 86. TO: ten times in OT, three times in Ezekiel 22; "jna: 19 times in OT, four times in Ezekiel 22; msi?: five times in OT, three in Ezekiel 22.

2. The Use of Ezekiel in the Dead Sea Scrolls

69

fragments that is exclusively characteristic of Qumran.87 There is one mention of 'giving them the covenant' (4Q385 1.1), which may indicate Qumran's interest in the document, but none of the other typical vocabulary and emphases of Qumran. Pseudo-Ezekiel" s description of 'many in Israel who love your name and walk on the paths of justice' (4Q385 1.2-3) argues against composition at Qumran; few of the Dead Sea Scrolls have such a positive statement about Israel without limiting it to the Community or eschatological Israel.88 But the main reason that Pseudo-Ezekiel needs to be treated independently is that it does not, strictly speaking, contain allusions to or citations of Ezekiel. We cannot speak of Pseudo-EzekiePs 'usage' of Ezekiel in the same way as we can speak of (e.g.) the Damascus Documenfs usage of Ezekiel. Pseudo-Ezekiel is a work intended to use Ezekiel's authority to advance its own message. As such, it is better to describe Pseudo-Ezekiel as imitating and adding to Ezekiel, not alluding to or quoting from Ezekiel. In this respect, it is something like a Targum, although it takes more freedom with the text. Furthermore, observations about Pseudo-Ezekiel must be cautious and tentative; Pseudo-Ezekiel may have been a sizable document, but only fragments survive. Fragment 1 of 4Q385 contains material from the oracle against the nations in Ezek. 30.2-19. The seven damaged lines contain direct verbal parallels to four phrases in Ezek. 30.3-5 describing God's judgment on the pagan nations of Put, Egypt, Kush, and Arabia. The author apparently composed other elements from stock language of judgment. Little can be observed about the author's modification of the text; perhaps the omission of Ezekiel's 'Wail, alas for the day!' from the beginning of the oracle (Ezek. 30.2) changes the tone from lament to exultation over the destruction of Israel's enemies. Perhaps 4Q385c was originally attached to fragment 1; it also contains woes against Kush, Egypt, and Libya, although the remaining portion is primarily a quotation of Nah. 3.8-10.89 Another fragment of Pseudo-Ezekiel, 4Q386 3.1-3, describes the exile to Babylon, and possibly the later judgment against Babylon. Nothing can be traced to Ezekiel; one phrase 'Babylon is like a cup in YHWH's hand' is from Jer. 51.7. The beginning of fragment 2 is missing; the legible text begins, '[And they will know] that I am YHWH, who redeems my people, giving them the covenant.' It is impossible to connect this with any single passage in Ezekiel. The author used Ezekiel's stock phrase 'they will know that I am

87. 88. 89.

CDSS, p. 571. See above, p. 27. DSSSE, p. 775.

70

Echoes of a Prophet

YHWH,' as Ezekiel does, to conclude a section (as the following blank space in 4Q385 indicates). Fragment 3 contains an abbreviated account of the 'dry bones' oracle of Ezekiel 37; however, it is given a different setting. Ezekiel contests that there are many in Israel who are righteous, and asks how God intends to reward them. God answers, 'I will make the children of Israel see and they will know that I am YHWH,' in a fashion similar to Ezekiel. Then, after a blank space in the text, Pseudo-Ezekiel gives an account of Ezekiel's dry bones vision - abbreviated, but using the same wording (4Q385 2.5-8; Ezek. 37.1-10). In response to the vision, Ezekiel asks God, 'When will these things happen?' God's answer is only partially preserved, 'a tree will bend over and straighten up.' The way in which Pseudo-Ezekiel edits the dry bones vision gives insight into the way some readers of the Second Temple era understood Ezekiel 37. The dry bones vision is given in response to a question about rewards for the individual pious - a question not very characteristic of Ezekiel, but comfortable within later Judaism.90 Ezekiel's God delivers despite the sin of his people, not because of their piety. Ezekiel does describe rewards, but not in connection with the dry bones vision, and never in such terms. Second, it is clear that Pseudo-Ezekiel sees Ezekiel 37 as only about the eschatological resurrection, a point made clear by the response of the resurrected: 'they will bless YHWH of hosts who raised them' (4Q385 2.8). That the vision is interpreted eschatologically is also clear from Ezekiel's repeated question, 'YHWH, when will these things come to pass?' (4Q385 2.3, 9). The idea of resurrected hope and return from exile in Ezekiel's dry bones oracle (Ezek. 37.11-14) is lacking from Pseudo-EzekieFs retelling of the vision. The eschatological interpretation is continued in PseudoEzekiel: God answers Ezekiel's questions about the time of the resurrection with the cryptic phrase 'a tree will bend and stand up' (4Q385 2.10).91 References to other signs of the impending resurrection, if they existed, were destroyed with the rest of fragment 2. But the elements that survive contain a hint of the apocalyptic: eschatological interpretation of Scripture and hidden signs. Fragment 3 contains further 'apocalyptic' elements, none of which are derived from Ezekiel. Apparently in response to Ezekiel's request, YHWH responds, 'See, I measure time and shorten the days and the years [... ] a 90. 'The Vision of the Dry Bones develops a biblical vision and links it to the recompense of the righteous... [it] belong[s] to the sphere of eschatological final processes.' D. Dimant, l 4Q386 ii-iii - A Prophecy on Hellenistic Kingdoms?' RevQ 18, no. 72 (1998), pp. 514—30 (522). 91. On this term, see G. Brooke, 'Ezekiel in Some Qumran and New Testament Texts', in J.T. Barrera and L.V. Montaner (eds), The Madrid Qumran Congress (STDJ, 1; Leiden: Brill, 1992), pp. 317-37 (322).

2. The Use of Ezekiel in the Dead Sea Scrolls

71

little, as you said...' Although it is difficult to be sure of the sense, it seems that God agrees to shorten the time until the resurrection, or until some other eschatological event. Material from 4Q386 2.1-11 should probably be placed either shortly before or after the material in 4Q385, fragment 3 (above). The material in 4Q386 2.1-11 is reasonably well preserved, but contains little that is directly drawn from Ezekiel. It contains a conversation between Ezekiel and YHWH. As in fragment 2, Ezekiel asks about the timing of God's promises: 'When will you assemble them?', apparently in reference to the restoration from exile. God responds in apocalyptic fashion with a series of cryptic signs. 'A son of Belial will plot to oppress my people... a multitude will be defiled... and the wicked man I will kill in Memphis but my children I will bring forth from Memphis, and their remnant I shall return.' (4Q386 2.3-6). The details of a specific leader and specific restoration from Egypt suggest a prophecy written after the fact, as is typical in apocalyptic literature. The connection with the eschaton heightens the similarity to apocalyptic literature. However, the particular details of the 'prophesied' historical events cannot be established with certainty; they likely refer to political turmoil in Egypt and an otherwise unknown return of Jews in the second century BC.92 Fragment 4 of 4Q385 is an abbreviation of the throne-visions of Ezek. 1.4-28; 10.1-3, with several direct parallels to the language of Ezekiel. The only notable addition to Ezekiel's language is that 4Q385 3.5-6 identifies it as 'the vision that Ezekiel saw [... ] the gleam of the chariot (nasiQ).' Ezekiel never uses 'chariot' to describe the throne vision; its use in PseudoEzekiel suggests that Ezekiel's vision had already acquired at least some technical terminology. There are several other small changes that 4Q385 makes to Ezekiel's vision: the four living creatures each have a different face, rather than four faces for each (4Q385 4.9; Ezek. 1.10); the wheels are attached, not one within another (4Q385 4.11; Ezek. 1.16); and there are further living creatures in the coals between the living creatures (4Q385 4.12).93 These alterations have some significance in the history of merkabah interpretation, but are not as important for the study of the interpretation of Ezekiel.94

92. Several historical situations have been proposed that fit some of the details of PseudoEzekiel. For a survey, see D. Dimant, who suggests that the 'son of Belial' is Antiochus IV and that the 'wicked man' is Cleon, a governor of Memphis installed by Antiochus IV. Dimant, l 4Q386 ii-iii', pp. 520-28; cf. D. Dimant, Qumran Cave 4 XXI: Parabiblical Texts Part 4: Pseudo-Prophetic Texts (DJD, 30; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2001). 93. Cf. 4Q405 20.10, discussed above, pp. 45-46. 94. For more on 4Q385 in the history of merkabah mysticism, see Halperin, Faces of the Chariot, pp. 52-54; Kanagaraj, Mysticism in John, pp. 93-96.

72

Echoes of a Prophet

Fragment 10 is too brief to be certain of its meaning, let alone its modification of Ezekiel. The phrase 'hanging from a tree, and the birds [of heaven]' (4Q385 10.3-4) is likely derived from Ezek. 31.1-6 or 17.22-24. Both passages use a cedar tree and birds metaphorically. 1QH 14.15 combines phrases from both tree passages, suggesting that something similar may be happening here. The word 'hanging' Cnbn) is worth commenting on. It does not occur in either of Ezekiel's cedar metaphors, but a similar word, b*bn\ (lofty), appears at the end of Ezek. 17.22. The LXX translator, perhaps unsure of its meaning (it only occurs here in the OT), read it as ibm and translated KCCL Kp€|iaoa) ('and I will hang').95 The occurrence of ^br\ applied to the tree metaphor in 4Q385 is indirect evidence that others in the pre-Masoretic era may have read hbn as nSn.96 A number of scattered lines in the remaining fragments can be read,97 and even some material possibly derived from Ezekiel, but little can be said of their meaning or context without speculating fruitlessly. They do allow us to determine that Pseudo-Ezekiel was an extensive document, and that it was a combination of material from the OT and the author's own composition. Fragment 65 apparently begins a description of the measurements of the New Jerusalem in imitation of Ezekiel 40-47 (cf. New Jerusalem above). Pseudo-Ezekiel in some ways is a summary or abbreviation of passages from Ezekiel that the author regarded as important. Certainly the author's surviving choices - the throne vision, the dry bones, the tree, and the New Jerusalem - are some of Ezekiel's more compelling images. Many of the phrases in 4Q385 fragments 1, 2, and 4 are directly dependent on the phrasing in Ezekiel. The author has also taken pains to use some of Ezekiel's standard phrases: 'son of man' (4Q385 1.1; 2.5; 12.4; 4Q386 2.2);98 'prophesy and say' (4Q385 1.2; 2.5); 'they will know that I am YHWH' (4Q385 2.4; 4Q386 2.1); 'land of Israel' (*?m«r rmx, 4Q386 2.2)99; and 'the river Chebar' (4Q391 fr. 65). However, the author of Pseudo-Ezekiel also composed much of the work himself. Some of it has no parallel anywhere in the OT (e.g., 4Q385 fr. 3), while other sections are drawn from stock prophetic language (e.g., portions of 4Q385 fr. 1). It seems likely that the author was more familiar with Isaiah than with Ezekiel. In his attempt to use 'biblical language,' he uses several phrases common to Isaiah but lacking from Ezekiel. First, 95. Alternatively, his Hebrew text may have been defective here - for perhaps the same reason. 96. This issue will be resumed in Chapter 4; see pp. 144-45. 97. 4Q385 fragment 12; 4Q391 fragments 1, 2, 9, 10, 25, 36, 55, 62, and 65. 98. Although note that this phrase is sometimes used in a fashion atypical of Ezekiel, as in 4Q386 2.2. Dimant, '4Q386 ii-iii', p. 514. 99. Dimant, '4Q386 ii-iii', p. 514.

2. The Use of Ezekiel in the Dead Sea Scrolls

73

4Q385 2.1 describes God as 'YHWH who redeems' (*»un mm), a title never used in Ezekiel, but characteristic of Isaiah (the verb b*o occurs 24 times there, twelve as a title for God (Isa. 41.14; 43.14, etc.)). Second, the title 'YHWH of Hosts' (mans mm), used in 4Q385 2.8; 12.3, is never used by Ezekiel, but is commonly used by most other prophets (Isaiah: 51 times; Jeremiah: 70; minor prophets: 78). Third, 4Q385 3.7 gives God's pronouncement, 'For the mouth of YHWH has spoken these words' Cm mm), typical of Isaiah (Isa. 1.20; 40.5, 58.14; also Mic. 4.4). Ezekiel's oracles from the Lord are normally established by the phrase 'I, YHWH, have spoken' Omm mm, Ezek. 5.13; 6.10, etc.). Fourth, in his description of fallen Babylon, the author of Pseudo-Ezekiel uses the phrase 'a dwelling place for demons' and other language strongly reminiscent of Isa. 13.21. Probably the most important modification that the author of PseudoEzekiel has made to the material it derives from Ezekiel is the subtle inclusion of apocalyptic themes. Ezekiel contains in itself some of the seeds that grew into the later apocalyptic tradition, but it lacks many of the typical apocalyptic features, such as pseudepigraphy, esoteric interpretation of Scripture, elaborate eschatological imagery and cryptic timelines. The author of Pseudo-Ezekiel re-makes Ezekiel, introducing some of those apocalyptic elements. Thus the coming reward of the faithful is important (4Q385 2.2-3), as is the timing of the last days (4Q385 2.3, 9; 3.3-6; esp. 4Q386 2.1-11). The images from Ezekiel are important to Pseudo-Ezekiel, but not their original meanings: the dry bones vision is stripped of its original interpretation, and there is no evidence that the throne vision is placed within its original setting of judgment on Israel and the removal of God's glory from the Temple.

4. Summary of the Use of Ezekiel in the Dead Sea Scrolls The first striking observation about the use of Ezekiel at Qumran is the sheer number of strong allusions and quotations. There are more allusions to Ezekiel in the Dead Sea Scrolls than in all the rest of Second Temple literature. In the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, allusions to Ezekiel are much rarer and weaker. In many cases, allusions in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha are only conceptual, or limited to a few words from Ezekiel.100 Qumran literature also draws more widely on passages in Ezekiel than other Second Temple literature does. The material surveyed above suggests that Qumran literature alluded to material in 23 of the chapters in Ezekiel (see the chart below). Most of the allusions proposed in other Second Temple literature come from the throne-visions of Ezekiel 1 100.

See the following chapter on 'The Use of Ezekiel in Other Second Temple Literature.'

74

Echoes of a Prophet

and 10, the oracle about shepherds in Ezekiel 34, and the vision of the dry bones in Ezekiel 37. The strength of Qumran's allusions to Ezekiel is also striking. In the majority of the allusions to Ezekiel, Qumran authors exhibited a great sensitivity to the message of Ezekiel. Even brief allusions were usually derived from passages in Ezekiel that contributed to the author's point or resonated with the same theological themes. Of course, Scripture references were always applied to the Community or used to advance a position peculiar to Qumran. Ezekiel was appropriated for use within Qumran, but often without violence to the sense of Ezekiel. For example, CD 19.11-13 examines the deliverance of 'those who sigh and groan' over the condition of Jerusalem (Ezek. 9.4). In Ezekiel, these were clearly the few righteous residents of Jerusalem who were delivered from the destruction of 587 BC. The Damascus Document acknowledges this original meaning, but also sees it as a picture of what will happen at the 'second visitation.' Further, authors at Qumran often show sensitivity to the meaning of prophetic oracles (in Ezekiel and other prophets) by distinguishing between prophecies that were already fulfilled in the Exile and restoration, and prophecies that remained to be fulfilled in the eschaton. Since Ezekiel and other prophets seem to make this distinction in their own writings, attention to it in the DSS confirms their interest in careful interpretation. This combination of extensive and careful use of Ezekiel suggests that many authors in the Community had a strong affinity for that prophet. The fact that stock phrases, images, and ideas from all over Ezekiel were so often used with sensitivity for their original meaning (always, of course, applied to the situation of the Community) suggests that Ezekiel was the object of frequent and extended meditation at Qumran. The role of Ezekiel in certain works, such as the Damascus Document and Hodayot, even competes with the role that Isaiah has. There are a number of reasons that Ezekiel was so important at Qumran. First, the Community shared Ezekiel's priestly concerns. The book of Ezekiel is filled with the concerns of a priest: horror at the defilement of the Temple, sadness at God's abandonment of his holy place, concern for Levitical law, and hope for the establishment of a new Temple with a restored Zadokite priesthood. All of these emotions and hopes found a ready place in the heart of the Community. Their priestly concerns may have arisen out of the role of disillusioned priests in the founding of the Community. Perhaps the Righteous Teacher saw himself in the role of a priestly Ezekiel to a new generation. Second, the Community shared Ezekiel's attitude towards Jerusalem. Like other OT prophets, Ezekiel addresses most of his judgment oracles against God's people. But Ezekiel is unique among the prophets in his focus on Jerusalem. Many of the judgments that other prophets address

2. The Use of Ezekiel in the Dead Sea Scrolls

75

more broadly against Israel and Judah are directed by Ezekiel against 'the bloody city' (e.g., Ezek. 22.2). Yet Ezekiel did not condemn Jerusalem forever. It would be restored and again be the dwelling-place of God and his people. Ezekiel's anger against the corruption of Jerusalem and his hope for its future can also be found in the DSS. Perhaps the only difference is that Ezekiel communicates a sense of sick dread at the destruction of Jerusalem, while some of the DSS seem to look forward to the 'second visitation' with anticipation. This difference is understandable; Ezekiel likely composed much of his work after the awful destruction of Jerusalem, while the residents of Qumran had not experienced the devastation themselves. Most importantly, the Qumran Community made wide use of Ezekiel because much of their eschatology was built on a replay of the Exile and restoration as seen through Ezekiel's eyes. Other passages, such as the Damascus of Amos 5.26-27, could be appropriated to this Exile eschatology only with some violence. Ezekiel's eschatology, however, was much more in harmony with that of the Community. Ezekiel's oracles about the destruction of Jerusalem may have been already fulfilled, but Qumran authors could see those events recurring through the application of typology (and, of course, such a recurrence would be in harmony with prophecies about Jerusalem found in other prophets). Many of Ezekiel's oracles had not been fulfilled, and these could be applied to the Community's present and future. Ezekiel had predicted a time of purification in the wilderness before the restoration (Ezek. 20.35; 1QM 1.2-3); to the Community, the interpretation was obvious. Ezekiel predicted a restoration of a purified priesthood and the (minor) punishment of priests who had been unfaithful; Qumran saw the current Jerusalem priesthood destroyed and the new priesthood drawn from the Community. Ezekiel predicted that God would give his Spirit and a new heart of flesh to his people; the Community celebrated that giving of the Spirit in their ceremonial baptisms, although they were still awaiting the heart of flesh. Finally, the climax of Ezekiel's oracles was the return of God's presence to a restored Temple in a renewed Jerusalem. This was also the central hope of Qumran. The coincidence on so many eschatological issues suggests that Ezekiel was an important source for Qumran's eschatology, in addition to the important role played by other books from the Scriptures.

76

Echoes of a Prophet

Allusions to Ezekiel in the Dead Sea Scrolls Qumran Abbreviated Allusion or Summary

Ezekiel Reference

DSS

Reference

Passage in Ezekiel; summary

he hid his face from Israel and from his sanctuary Three hundred ninety years and said, 'For it is ours.'

CD 1.3-4

39.23

Gog; summary of exile

CD 1.5-6

4.4-5

CD 3.16-17

11.15

The priests... who kept watch of my sanctuary Builders of the wall to distinguish between the impure and the pure ... builders of the wall and whitewashdaubers ... not be accounted among the council of the people to make a mark upon... those who sigh and groan who is melted in the midst of a furnace Plantation, trees by the river

CD 3.21-4.6

44.15

CD 4.19 CD 6.17

13 22

CD 8.12-18// 19.24-31

13

Siege of Jerusalem; sin at the Temple Judgment between first exiles and remnant New Jerusalem; restored priesthood False prophets Failed leaders; defiled priesthood False prophets

CD 19.35

13

False prophets

CD 19.11-13

9.4

Slaughter in Jerusalem

CD 20.3-4

22

Judgment on Jerusalem

1QH 14.14-18

31, 17, 19

For your own sake you have done it. Plantation, trees by the river

1QH 14.10; 12.38; 21.6-7 1QH 16.2-24

36

Heart of stone Return from the wilderness of the peoples Role for tribal leaders and men in the new Temple Judgments against Gog and all his assembly Holy Spirit, waters of purification New Jerusalem

1QH 21.10-13 1QM 1.2-3

36

1QM 2.S-4

44,45

1QM 11.14^16

38,39

Egypt as a cedar; Restored king; vine of Israel God's deliverance of Israel from Exile Egypt as a cedar; Temple river; Judgment on Negev; vine of Israel New heart and new spirit Wilderness generation (after Exile) New Jerusalem; Prince in the new Temple Judgment on Gog

1QS 3.7-8; 4.20-22 2024

36

31,47,21, 19

20.35

40-48

Promise of the Spirit, cleansing New Jerusalem

2. The Use of Ezekiel in the Dead Sea Scrolls . . . in the book of Ezekiel... ' [ . . . ] their idols' Judgment on Put, Egypt, Kush, Arabia Resurrection of the righteous in Israel Throne-vision hanging from a tree, and the birds of heaven Heavenly Temple; Throne-vision Builder of the wall showers of blessings, wild beasts shall withdraw

11

4Q174 1.16

20.18

Wilderness generation

4Q385 fr. 1

30

Judgment on the nations

4Q385 fr. 3

37

Dry bones

4Q385 fr. 4

1, 10

Throne-visions

4Q385 10

31, 17

Egypt as a cedar (31); Restored king (17)

4Q405 20.7-12

43, 1, 10

Throne-visions

4Q424 1.1 11Q14 1.7

13 34

False prophets Blessings on restored Israel

Chapter 3 THE USE OF EZEKIEL IN OTHER SECOND TEMPLE LITERATURE

We now turn to an examination of the use of Ezekiel in other literature of the Second Temple period (traditionally called the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha). A few citations or clear allusions can be found in 1 Enoch, Testament ofLevi, Sirach, Psalms of Solomon, Lives of the Prophets, and 4 Maccabees. These passages combined contain fewer allusions to Ezekiel than are found in the Damascus Document alone. However, the scattered allusions and quotations of Ezekiel found outside the DSS still have value for this study, because they allow comparison with allusions to Ezekiel in the DSS and in the Gospel of John. Analysis of other literature of Second Temple Judaism must proceed somewhat differently than analysis of the DSS. Members of one community presumably wrote most of the DSS examined above over the course of about a century. Those works not composed by authors from Qumran were at least deemed acceptable for use in the Community. With other Second Temple literature, there was no such relatively homogeneous reading community. The various works likely represent different subsets of Second Temple Judaism, and thus are more likely to disagree with each other on a variety of issues (including their use of the OT). We do not know how broad the influence of some of these books was, although certainly 1 Enoch and Sirach were widely known by the first century AD. Despite the greater diversity of this body of literature, some points of contact in their use of Ezekiel can be found. As in the section on the DSS, the uses of Ezekiel will be organized by themes from Ezekiel. The literature examined here makes use of imagery only from Ezekiel's throne visions (Ezekiel 1, 10), the shepherd oracle (Ezekiel 34) and the valley of the dry bones (Ezekiel 37).l

1. Two brief allusions in Josephus and Philo will not be examined at length. In his description ofZedekiah's punishment 04rcf. 10.8.3§141 ;cf. 2 Kgs 25.6-7), Josephus mentions prophecies of the events by Jeremiah and Ezekiel. According to Ezekiel, Zedekiah would go to Babylon, but would not see it: ccxQeXc, eU Ra$\)kK el8e, KOCGGX; Ie(eKir|A.oc; iTpoeiTre (Ant. 10.8.3§141). a£a) aurov elg Baputaova... Kai OL\)TT)V OI>K oij/eiaL (Ezek. 12.13).

3. The Use of Ezekiel in other Second Temple Literature

79

1. The Merkabah Vision (Ezekiel 1; 3.2, 14-15; 10; Sirach 49.8; Testament of Levi 5.7; 1 Enoch 14.8-25; 39.2; 71.1-2) Ezekiel's vision of God's throne-chariot became, for some, the most important part of Ezekiel, or indeed, the only part worth mentioning. Many apocalyptic writers, beginning with 1 Enoch and continuing on through its ultimate development in the Hekhalot literature, adapted the details of Ezekiel's throne vision. In most cases, these visions of Ezekiel (chs 1, 3, 10, 43) were combined with visions from Isaiah 6 or Daniel 7 and were liberally elaborated with descriptions of the levels and chambers of heaven and the orders of angels.2 Descriptions of or references to the merkabah (as it came to be technically called) can be found in Sir. 49.8 (early second century BC); 1 Enoch 14 (second century BC); Testament of Levi 2, 5 (late second century BC); and 1 Enoch 39-40, 71 (early first century BC).3 Sirach's 'Hall of Faith' (Sirach 44-49) mentions three of the writing prophets by name (Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel; the others are called 'the twelve'). Sirach has only one thing to say about Ezekiel: he 'saw the vision of glory (eidev opaoiv &o£n<;), which he showed him on the chariot of the cherubim' (Sir. 49.8).4 This is an allusion to Ezek. 1.1, ' . . . the heavens were opened, and I saw visions of God (el6ov opaoeiQ Geou).'5 Philo may also have an allusion to Ezekiel's vine metaphors (Ezekiel 17,31) in Agr. 4.17. However, the parallel is entirely conceptual, with no significant verbal parallel. The virtuous person is described as a husbandman who cuts down the 'trees of folly' that 'have raised their heads as high as heaven,' burns out their roots, and replaces them with 'young shoots' which produce virtues. This sounds like the judgment on the cedar in Ezek. 31.11-14, and the 'young shoots' are reminiscent of the restoration oracle of Ezek. 17.22-24. However, all of Philo's agricultural terminology is different from Ezekiel's (e.g., 6€v5pov instead of Zfilov), so the parallel is fairly weak. 2. The elaboration of the vision is commented on by several scholars. Gruenwald, Apocalyptic, pp. 28, 29; Halperin, Faces of the Chariot, pp. 71-74; Vogelgesang, 'Interpretation', pp. 44, 208-10. 3. Many works after the Second Temple era also describe the throne vision, using language from Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and 1 Enoch. These include Apocalypse of Abraham 18 (second century AD); Ascension of Isaiah 6 (second century AD); 2 Enoch 20—21 (late first fourth century AD?); 3 Baruch 2 (late second century AD); Life of Adam and Eve 25, 28 (second - fourth century AD). The development of the visionary experience in these books is important to the study of merkabah mysticism. However, for this study of the use of Ezekiel in Second Temple Judaism, it will suffice to examine the use of Ezekiel's throne vision in the works that were written before the second century AD. Later merkabah visions tend to be more strongly influenced by 1 Enoch than Ezekiel in any case. For discussion of the merkabah vision in these later works, see Gruenwald, Apocalyptic, pp. 54—57, 64; Halperin, Faces of the Chariot; Kanagaraj, Mysticism in John; Vogelgesang, 'Interpretation', pp. 222-27. 4. Kanagaraj sees this as evidence that 'Ezekiel's Merkabah vision had occupied a significant place in the mind of ben Sira and that people in Palestine were familiar with it as early as the second century BCE.' Kanagaraj, Mysticism in John, p. 88. 5. The parallels between Sirach and Ezekiel can be examined only in the LXX, since only a few fragments of Sirach's original Hebrew survive. According to the prolog of Sirach, the

80

Echoes of a Prophet

Sirach's summary of Ezekiel's vision contains some emphases worth discussing. First, Sirach alters the plural 'visions' to the singular 'vision.' Ezek. 1.1 is an introduction to the book, not just to the throne-vision, as is clear from the plural 'visions of God.' By describing the singular 'vision of glory,' Sirach suggests that the throne-vision was Ezekiel's most important contribution.6 Furthermore, Sirach suggests that Ezekiel's work could be summarized best by reference to the throne-vision. Given the brief space that Sirach allotted for his description of Ezekiel, reference to the thronevision is a good choice: the throne-vision is vital to the message of Ezekiel, and it begins and ends the book. Second, Sir. 49.8 uses the term 'chariot of the cherubim,' a phrase not actually used by Ezekiel to describe his vision. Sirach's use of the word apua may reflect that Ezekiel's vision had already acquired the technical term 'merkabah.' The LXX also suggests an early technical use of the term: although the throne visions in Ezekiel 1 and 10 are correctly translated without the word ap|ia, the translator inserts a clarifying phrase not found in the MT, 'the vision of the chariot' (rj bpaoiQ TOU apiiatog) in Ezek. 43.3, when the throne vision is briefly recalled. Sirach's use of the phrase and his focus on the vision of the chariot suggest that for Sirach, that vision was Ezekiel's most important contribution. Ezekiel introduces his book and his first vision with the phrase 'the heavens were opened, and I saw visions of God' (Ezek. 1.1). This connection between an opening into heaven and visionary experience became common in Second Temple apocalyptic literature. Such introductions to visions were likely derived directly from Ezekiel or indirectly through Ezekiel's imitators. The OT contains a few other references to 'opened heavens,' but always with reference to the pouring out of judgment (as in the flood) or of blessing (as with manna). Only in Ezekiel are the heavens opened for God to show visions (see p. 151). The first allusion to Ezekiel's 'opened heavens' is found in the Testament of Levi (probably written 109-106 BC) in descriptions of Levi's ascent to

translator was familiar with early Greek translations of the Scriptures. His familiarity with the Greek tradition may have led him to translate allusions and quotes in accordance with the existing Greek traditions. In other cases, however, allusions can be observed only if portions of Sirach are translated back into Hebrew. 6. Of course, Sirach may have been familiar with a textual tradition that used the singular. (The translator of Sirach was familiar with a Greek translation of the Scriptures, according to the prolog.) Most of the Greek mss (K A B C) agree with the MT in the plural 'visions.' Some mss (all the Syriac, Lucian, Catena) have the singular 'vision.' These manuscripts could also be seen as evidence that some early translators or copyists saw the throne-vision as one of Ezekiel's most important contributions.

3. The Use of Ezekiel in other Second Temple Literature

81

heaven.7 Levi's vision comes after he meditates on the sinfulness of humanity and asks for personal deliverance (T. Levi 2.3-4). After praying, Levi falls asleep and sees a vision: 'And behold, the heavens were opened, and an angel of God said to me, "Levi, enter'" (T. Levi 2.5). Levi is then conducted by an angel through the two lower levels of heaven, where he learns the secrets of God's judgment and forgiveness (T. Levi 2.7-3.6). Then Levi is admitted into the third heaven: 'the angel opened to me the gates of heaven, and I saw the holy temple, and upon a throne of glory the Most High' (T. Levi 5.1). Like Ezekiel, T. Levi 5.1 connects the opened heavens with a vision of God's throne. However, the Testament of Levi, like later merkabah literature, makes some important alterations to Ezekiel's vision. First, Testament of Levi focuses on the visionary's ascent to heaven, while Ezekiel's visions were seen on earth.8 Second, one of the main purposes of Levi's visionary ascent is the revelation of cosmic secrets, where Ezekiel receives the visions as part of God's rebuke and restoration of his people. Third, Testament of Levi describes God's presence in the heavenly temple, in contrast to Ezekiel's visions of God in the clouds or in the plains (Ezek. 1.3^4; 3.22-23). And lastly, Levi's experience may begin the trend towards theurgy that culminates in the Hekhalot literature.9 What begins in the Testament of Levi as a description of what Levi did that brought about the vision (meditate, pray, sleep) eventually becomes, in the Hekhalot, a set of prescriptions for visionary ascent.10 In other cases, Ezekiel's throne language is invoked without reference to the opened heavens. 1 Enoch has three descriptions of Enoch's journeys to heaven. The first vision (7 En. 14.8-25) is in the Book of Watchers (third early second century BC), and serves as an introduction to the mysteries in the remainder of the book (7 Enoch 15-36). The second and third visions (7 En. 39.2-40.10; 70-71) are in the Book of Similitudes (early first century AD). These two visions serve as bookends for the Book of Similitudes, enclosing revelations about the cosmos and coming judgment. All three

7. Vogelgesang suggests that 1 En. 14.8-10 is the first use of the theme. However, 1 Enoch makes no reference to the opened heavens, but rather to Enoch's visionary ascent into heaven. Such an ascent may imply 'opened heavens,' but there is no clear allusion to Ezek. 1.1 in 1 En. 14.8-10. Vogelgesang, 'Interpretation', p. 45. 8. Gruenwald notes a transition from the 'geocentric' biblical prophets, who saw the heavens as unreachable, to the apocalyptic writers, who always lifted their visionaries to heaven. Gruenwald, Apocalyptic, p. 19. 9. On the theurgical prescriptions, see Gruenwald, Apocalyptic, p. 99. 10. The 'opened door' theme can be found in other literature of this period and the following centuries, which this study will not address. They include: Apocalypse of Abraham 18; 4 Ezra 8; 3 Bar. 2.1-2, 5; 6.13; 11.2; and Asc. Isa 6.6. For further discussion of the role of the opened heavens in merkabah literature, see Halperin, Faces of the Chariot, pp. 66-67; B. Lindars, The Gospel of John (NCB; Greenwood, S.C.: Oliphants, 1972), pp. 121-22.

82

Echoes of a Prophet

rely to some degree on Ezekiel's throne vision (Ezekiel 1, 3, 10), although imagery is also derived from Isaiah 6 and (perhaps) Daniel 7.11 Enoch's first vision of heaven comes after he is sent to rebuke the fallen Watchers (1 En. 12.4-14.7). In language perhaps reminiscent of Ezek. 8.3, the winds sweep Enoch up to heaven (1 En. 14.8-9), where he sees the throne room of God. The throne is described in 1 En. 14.18-20 using language from the throne visions of Ezekiel and Daniel.12 1 En. 14.18-20 And I observed and saw inside it a lofty throne - its appearance was like crystal and its wheels like the shining sun;

and (I heard?) the voice of the cherubim

and from beneath the throne were issuing streams of flaming fire. It was difficult to look at it. And the Great Glory was sitting upon it.

Ezek. 1.22 . . . there was the likeness of a firmament, shining like crystal... Ezek. 10.9 . . . and the appearance of the wheels was like sparkling chrysolite. Dan. 7.9 . . . his throne was fiery flames, its wheels were burning fire. Ezek. 1.24 . . . the sound of their wings like the sound of many waters, like the thunder of the Almighty. Dan. 7.10 A stream of fire issued and came forth from before him. Ezek. 10.6 Take fire from between the whirling wheels, from between the cherubim. Ezek. 1.26, 28 and seated above the likeness of a throne was a likeness as it were of a human form Such was the appearance... of the glory of YHWH.

This vision serves as the authority behind the revelations in the Book of Watchers. That is, Enoch's heavenly ascent serves the same function as the prophetic call in the classical prophets: it verifies that the information in

11. Vogelgesang has also made extensive observations about the use of Ezekiel in 1 Enoch's throne visions. Most of my observations are parallel to his. I differ only where Vogelgesang pays attention to detail that is important for his study of the use of Ezekiel in Revelation. Vogelgesang, 'Interpretation', pp. 194-200. 12. 1 Enoch primarily survives in Ethiopic translation, so precise verbal parallel is more difficult to establish.

3. The Use of Ezekiel in other Second Temple Literature

83

the prophecy comes from God.13 Since 1 Enoch presents itself as (among other things) an inspired interpretation of the events of Genesis, it must show that its added details and clarification of the Genesis account14 come from God. 1 Enoch's material from the prophetic calls of Ezekiel and Isaiah helps to place Enoch into the tradition of OT prophecy, and thus establish 1 Enoch's authority.15 In addition, scholars of the merkabah literature, such as Gruenwald, Halperin, and Vogelgesang, generally agree that 1 Enoch places a greater emphasis on the visionary himself than the classical prophets do, sometimes exalting him above the biblical prophets.16 For example, Enoch sees the secrets of nature and of God's judgment that are hidden from Job;17 and Enoch sees all of human history, while the prophets saw only a slice of the future. It was only appropriate that one who saw so much should also have a more exalted vision of God's throne room: Enoch ascends to heaven, whereas the prophets remain on earth; Enoch sees all the hidden rooms of God's court; and Enoch sees more details of the throne room than Isaiah or Ezekiel did.18 Enoch is, in some ways, superior to angels: he, instead of an angel, is appointed as messenger to the fallen Watchers; and only he is allowed to approach God on his throne when the angels may not (7 En. 14.21).19 The Book of Similitudes also begins with Enoch being snatched up to heaven (7 Enoch 39-40). Enoch approaches God's throne and sees 13. Vogelgesang suggests that the vision in 1 Enoch 14 represents 'an intermediate stage between prophetic call and mystic ascent.' In mystical ascent, the vision of God is the goal, whereas the prophetic call is the beginning of God's revelation. Vogelgesang, 'Interpretation', p. 196; cf. Gruenwald, Apocalyptic, pp. 34-35. 14. For further discussion of the phenomenon of 'rewritten bible' or 'biblical exegesis by expansion,' see J.H. Charlesworth, 'The Pseudepigrapha as Biblical Exegesis', in C.A. Evans and W.F. Stinespring (eds), Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis (Festschrift H. Brownlee; Homage, 10; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), pp. 139-52 (141-50); DNTB, s.v. 'Rewritten Bible in Pseudepigrapha and Qumran' by B.N. Fisk, pp. 947-52. 15. Gruenwald suggests that in works like 1 Enoch, 'Scripture is rewritten in such a way as to include the whole lot of these foreign elements [mythology and angelology]. The legitimation of this material comes, as we saw, from the fact that it has the authority of the angelic revelation, and partly also from the fact that the revelation is - fictitiously so - given to one of the sages of scriptural times.' Gruenwald, Apocalyptic, p. 28. 16. Gruenwald, Apocalyptic, pp. 34-35, 44-45; Halperin, Faces of the Chariot, pp. 71, 82; Vogelgesang, 'Interpretation', pp. 194-95. 17. Gruenwald, Apocalyptic, pp. 4-5, 8. 18. Charlesworth points out that 'Since Enoch then tends to transcend time and place - his place is either unknown or hidden (cf. 1 En. 12.1-2) - he is the perfect candidate for ascending through the heavens and viewing the world below, its history, and the future ages.' Charlesworth, 'The Pseudepigrapha as Biblical Exegesis', p. 149; cf. Gruenwald, Apocalyptic, pp. 4-5, 8,12, 32; Halperin, Faces of the Chariot, p. 71; Vogelgesang, 'Interpretation', pp. 194—95. 19. 'In this respect Enoch is here more privileged than all the angels... in the eyes of the apocalypticist, Enoch enjoys a qualitative superiority over the angels.' Gruenwald, Apocalyptic, pp. 36-37. Halperin comments that the angels in 1 Enoch are like the priests

84

Echoes of a Prophet

countless angels praising God (1 En. 39.12-40.2). In this vision, only the image of the four accompanying angels is drawn from Ezekiel.20 1 En. 39.12 Those who do not slumber... shall bless, praise, and extol you, saying 'Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord of the Spirits; the spirits fill the earth. 40.1-2 And after that I saw... an innumerable and uncountable (multitude) who stood before the glory of the Lord of Spirits. I saw them standing - on the four wings of the Lord of Spirits - and saw four other faces among those who do not slumber, and I came to know their names.

Isa. 6.3 And one called to another and said: 'Holy, holy, holy is YHWH of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory.'

Ezek. 1.5 And from the midst of it came the likeness of four living creatures... each had four wings.

Perhaps the only connections between these visions of Enoch and Ezekiel are the references to 'wings' and to the four divine attendants. However, the four cherubim in 1 Enoch have only their number in common with Ezekiel's cherubim. They are not described with wings or multiple faces or wheels, and unlike Ezekiel's cherubim, they have names and particular offices (7 En. 40.3ff). If 1 Enoch draws its description from Ezekiel, then it transfers the four wings of the angels to God. Such a transfer would not be surprising, since Ezekiel's four winged creatures composed God's chariot. The modification of angelic descriptions or functions is in any case typical of apocalyptic literature, and especially of later Hekhalot literature.21 1 Enoch 70-71 contains thefinalthrone vision, and it concludes the Book of Similitudes. Like the vision of 1 Enoch 14, this third vision uses language from Ezekiel 1 and Daniel 7.22

in the temple, who cannot enter the inner chamber - but Enoch is allowed to enter. 'We cannot miss the implication that the human Enoch is superior even to those angels who are still in good standing.' Halperin, Faces of the Chariot, p. 82. 20. Vogelgesang and Charles both suggest another allusion to Ezekiel in the passage. 'Enoch received the books of zeal and wrath, as well as the books of haste and whirlwind' (1 En. 39.2) is said to be an allusion to the scroll that Ezekiel ate (Ezek. 3.2) that caused him to be 'embittered in the rage of my spirit' (Ezek. 3.14-15). APOT, vol. 1, p. 210 fn; Vogelgesang, 'Interpretation', p. 208. It is true that the books in both cases are associated with anger and judgment, but there are too few parallel words to warrant calling it an allusion. 21. Vogelgesang, 'Interpretation', pp. 206-08. 22. The earlier throne visions of 1 Enoch may serve as part of the inspiration. Vogelgesang, 'Interpretation', pp. 208-10.

3. The Use of Ezekiel in other Second Temple Literature 1 En. 71.1-2 And I saw the holy sons of God,23 walking on flames of fire; their garments were white and their overcoats - and the light of their faces was like snow. Also I saw two rivers of fire, the light of which fire was shining like hyacinth. Then I fell upon my face before the Lord of Spirits. 1 En. 71.7 Moreover Seraphim, Cherubim, and Ophannim - the sleepless ones who guard the throne of his glory - also encircled

85

Ezek. 1.13 In the midst of the living creatures there was something that looked like burning coals of fire. Dan. 7.10 A stream of fire issued and came forth from before him. Ezek. 1.28 And when I saw it, I fell upon my face, (see also Gen. 17.3; Ezek. 3.23; 43.3; 44.4; Dan. 8.17) Seraphim: Isa. 6.2 Ophannim: 'wheels' in Ezek. 1.1521, etc.

it.

Enoch's vision continues with imagery primarily drawn from Daniel 7 (such as the 'head of days'). The vision concludes with an angelic revelation about Enoch's role as 'son of man' and model for all the righteous people to come, who will share in Enoch's reward (1 En. 71.14— 16). The heavenly vision and its accompanying prophecy serve as a conclusion to the Book of Similitudes. Enoch's first heavenly vision opens the Book of Watchers, and the second and third visions begin and end the Book of Similitudes. These two books are usually regarded as the work of two authors.24 However, there are commonalities in their use of Ezekiel, perhaps because the author of the Book of Similitudes seems to be familiar with the Book of Watchers.25 In order to authorize 1 Enoch as a prophetic book, each author includes something like a prophetic call narrative. In keeping with the obvious creativity of the authors of 1 Enoch and the exalted status of the biblical Enoch, each author composed elaborate visionary calls for Enoch. Each author drew on the three loftiest visions that could be found in the OT to describe Enoch's call. The throne visions of Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel were combined and improved on for the purpose of connecting the secret messages of 1 Enoch to the authority of the OT prophetic tradition. In a sense the Book of Watchers and the Book of Similitudes are not interested in Ezekiel's throne-vision for itself. This is revealed by the lack of resonance between the allusions and their source. Many other allusions that we have analyzed show numerous connections between the allusive

23. So APOT; OTP has 'sons of the holy angels.' 24. OTP, vol 1, pp. 6-7. 25. OTP, vol 1, pp. 6-7.

86

Echoes of a Prophet

text and the source text. That is, the allusion is not limited to the parallel words, but rather, the parallel words draw attention to broader and deeper connections between the two texts. Other OT allusions within 1 Enoch also demonstrate such resonance (see below, pp. 87-88). But the allusions to the throne vision in 1 Enoch lack such resonance. Instead, 1 Enoch uses elements from that vision and other prophetic call narratives to connect 1 Enoch to the OT prophetic tradition. Enoch's status as a prophet allows him to give authoritative interpretation of the OT. Moreover, since Enoch's call brings him into the secret places of heaven, it allows Enoch to comment on matters hidden from the OT prophets. Most importantly for Enoch's first audience, Enoch's status as the greatest prophet allowed him to see all of coming history, and explain how the events of the Maccabean revolt were connected to God's ultimate plans. The allusions to Ezekiel's throne-visions thus served the important purpose of establishing Enoch's status and bringing authority to the message of 1 Enoch. There is a subtle but important difference between this approach to Scripture and the approach found in the DSS. When the DSS quote or allude to Scripture, they are also using Scripture to support their own views. But their approach, for a lack of a better term, is more expository. That is, the authors of the Scrolls argued for (or sometimes assumed) a particular interpretation of Scripture. However, their interpretation was not established or defended through heavenly visions.26 In general, the DSS argue through Scriptures in a fashion somewhat similar to later rabbinical interpretation. In contrast, 1 Enoch suggests particular interpretations of Scripture by claiming immediate revelation, rather than arguing for a particular interpretation. This is not to suggest that 1 Enoch intends to replace Scripture; rather, the authors present Enoch as an inspired interpreter and revealer of further mysteries.27 2. Sheep and Shepherd (Ezekiel 34; 1 Enoch 89-90; Psalm of Solomon 17.21-44) Ezekiel's shepherd imagery is the likely source of inspiration for two Second Temple works, Psalm of Solomon 17 and the vision of 1 Enoch 8990. There are other works that draw on the shepherd imagery of the Old 26. One possible exception to this tendency is found in Hodayot. The author of Hodayot comes closest to arguing for direct inspiration when he describes himself as the source of living waters (1QH 16.16-24; cf. 1QH 18.12-17). Even here, however, the author does not suggest that he received his interpretations in a vision, but rather that God has given him the ability to correctly interpret the Law. 27. Although both Gruenwald and Halperin suggest that 1 Enoch and other works in the apocalyptic tradition did indeed set themselves in opposition to Scripture. Gruenwald, Apocalyptic, pp. 23, 25; Halperin, Faces of the Chariot, p. 71.

3. The Use of Ezekiel in other Second Temple Literature

87

Testament (e.g., Sir. 18.13; 47.3; 4 Ezra 5.18), but they have no distinctive reliance on the denouncement of the shepherds in Ezekiel 34. The Animal Apocalypse (7 Enoch 85-90) contains an extensive allegorical vision, revealed to Enoch on his second ascent to heaven. It is presented as a prophetic vision of the coming events of the people of Israel. The vision uses a variety of animal symbolism, but the dominant image is that of sheep. None of the symbols is explained, because the allegory is designed to be clear enough to anyone who knows the OT. The allegory is very thorough; every major event, and many of the leading figures of the OT and the Maccabean era, can be discerned in the allegory. Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, Esau, and Jacob are all depicted as various animals, but beginning with the twelve sons of Jacob, all Israelites are depicted as sheep. God is described as 'the Lord of the sheep' (7 En. 89.22, 28, 36, 54, etc.) but not explicitly as shepherd; and the leaders of Israel are sheep (7 En. 89.14, 29, 36, 72), rams (7 En. 89.42, 43, 47), or males (7 En. 90.10-12, 31), not shepherds. Each Gentile nation is associated with a particular predatory beast (e.g., 7 En. 89.14, 55, 72); Jerusalem is a high rock, on which is built a house and a tower for the sheep (7 En. 89.29, 36); the exilic and post-exilic Gentile rulers are described as unjust shepherds (or the angelic rulers behind them; 7 En. 89.59-72). In the end, the shepherds are judged, along with the 'blinded sheep' who did not resist the wicked shepherds (probably referring to Antiochus IV and his Jewish collaborators). Although the vision in 7 Enoch 89-90 draws on a range of OT sheep imagery, it is primarily inspired by and based on Ezekiel 34. Ezekiel's shepherd allegory28 describes the failure of Israel's leadership and God's promise to personally restore his people and bring back the Davidic monarchy. Although the failure of the shepherds and the chief sheep in Ezekiel 34 could refer to the entire history of Israel's leadership, no details force the reader more than a generation before the Exile. That is, Ezekiel's allegory contains elements that clearly refer to the Babylonian conquest and the exile, but no elements that clearly refer to earlier historical events. The author of 7 Enoch takes Ezekiel's historically brief allegory and extends it over the whole history of Israel, through the time of the author and up to Judgment Day. There are many general elements in 7 Enoch 89-90 that have a parallel in elements in Ezekiel 34. Most obviously, Enoch's Animal Apocalypse describes the unjust rule of shepherds over sheep,29 and ends with their

28. The exact category to which Ezekiel 34 should be assigned can be debated. However, since it is an elaborate tale with a particular meaning for each element, 'allegory' is an acceptable category. See Allen, Ezekiel, p. 161; Durlesser, 'Rhetoric of Allegory', p. 111. 29. Fikes, 'Shepherd-King', p. 169.

88

Echoes of a Prophet

judgment, much like the two oracles of woe in Ezekiel 34 (7 En. 90.21-27; Ezek. 34.7-11, 20-22). Further, both 1 Enoch and Ezekiel 34 have a sort of mixed metaphor, where leaders are depicted sometimes as sheep (or rams) and other times as shepherds. Other details from Ezekiel's sheep-shepherd imagery strengthen the parallel: Enoch's God is 'Lord of the sheep' and the leaders of Israel only lead by God's permission (7 En. 89.59; Ezek. 34.10-11, 23-24). Not surprisingly for a shepherd metaphor, wild animals symbolize Israel's enemies in both accounts. In Ezekiel, the Gentile oppressors are described as 'beasts of the field' or 'harmful beasts' (Ezek. 34.5, 8, 25, 28). 1 Enoch designates a particular predator for each Gentile nation; so, for example, a wild boar represents the Samaritans (7 En. 89.72) and wolves represent the Egyptians (7 En. 89.14-20). In both books, God promises eventual deliverance from the predators (Ezek. 34.28; 7 En. 90.6-19). Other details in the account suggest that the author of 7 Enoch was familiar with other passages in Ezekiel. 7 Enoch's sheep abandon the house that they built for the Lord of the sheep, thus bringing God's judgment on them. That house is destroyed, but God builds them a new house 'greater and loftier than the first one' (7 En. 90.28-29). Some of the details of that new house (pillars, columns, ornaments) are reminiscent of the new Temple in Ezekiel 45-48. The 'Watchers' who seduced women (cf. 7 En. 9.8-9) are bizarrely described in the Animal Apocalypse as stars with 'sexual organs like horses' (7 En. 86.4; 88.3); this description is certainly very similar to the phrase that Ezekiel uses to describe the lovers of the harlot Oholibah (Ezek. 23.20). These fallen stars are among the first cast into the abyss at the final judgment of sheep and shepherds (7 En. 90.21, 24). As we discussed in Chapter 1, the presence of one allusion to an earlier work strengthens the case for any other nearby allusions to the same earlier work. In this case, the several allusions to different passages of Ezekiel make it clear that the author of the Animal Apocalypse knows and values Ezekiel, and thus strengthens the case that Ezekiel 34 is the source of some of the imagery in the Animal Apocalypse. 1 Enoch makes some significant alterations to Ezekiel's metaphor. Some of the changes were perhaps attempts to explain Ezekiel's allegory more clearly. For example, Ezekiel's condemnation first addresses the shepherds, then the strong sheep or rams. It is not clear in Ezekiel if the strong sheep are another metaphor for the leaders of Israel, or if they represent subjects of Israel who are abusing other subjects.30 7 Enoch assigns these two figures

30. Most modern scholars see the 'strong sheep' as a reference to the aristocracy of Israel who have been allowed to oppress the lower classes. (Allen, Ezekiel, vol. 2, pp. 162-63; Durlesser, 'Rhetoric of Allegory', p. 350; W. Eichrodt, Ezekiel: A Commentary (trans. C. Quin; OTL; London: SCM Press, 1970), p. 473; Huntzinger, 'End of Exile', p. 120; Vancil,

3. The Use of Ezekiel in other Second Temple Literature

89

different meanings. Sheep or rams treated individually in the Animal Apocalypse are always the leaders or prophets of Israel: Moses (7 En. 89.17-18, 32, etc.), the judges (7 En. 89.41-42), and the prophets (7 En. 89.51-53) are sheep; and Saul, David, Solomon, and Judas Maccabee are rams (7 En. 89.45-49; 90.9-10). None of these leaders receives condemnation in the Animal Apocalypse. Instead, Enoch's condemnation is directed towards the shepherds, who punish Israel more than God commanded them. These shepherds represent the Gentile rulers over Israel (or perhaps the angelic beings behind the Gentile thrones), as is clear from their placement in the narrative after the fall of Jerusalem and up to the rise of the Maccabees (7 En. 89.59-90.5).31 Perhaps Israel's heroes are all portrayed as sheep precisely because the author of 7 Enoch had decided to give 'shepherd' a negative connotation. Another significant change is God's role in the affliction of his sheep. In Ezekiel 34, God's anger is directed at the leaders of Israel because they oppress God's people. God's judgment on the leaders partially serves the purpose of liberating his people. God will at last care for his people, both directly and through the ideal shepherd, David. But in 7 Enoch, God 'remained quiet and happy because they [the sheep] were being devoured, swallowed, and snatched; so he abandoned them into the hands of all the wild beasts for food' (7 En. 89.58). God's happiness at his people's destruction is perhaps more in keeping with the 'flock doomed to slaughter' in Zech. 11.3ff. For the author of 7 Enoch, Israel's suffering thus comes originally from God as the proper judgment for their sin. However, Israel suffered even beyond what was warranted by their sin, because God's agents of punishment, the Gentile shepherds, have punished Israel beyond God's requirements (7 En. 89.59-90.5). However, God is still just: the sheep who were unjustly punished will be raised up on Judgment

'Symbolism of the Shepherd', p. 232; Zimmerli, Ezekiel, vol. 2, p. 217. However, the passage never explains its elements clearly, so there is some possible ambiguity in the meaning of the strong sheep. 31. R.H. Charles (APOT, p. 255 fn) concludes that the shepherds must be angels, because of their shared fate with the stars (1 En. 90.22-25) and because they are not cast into the same pit as the 'blind sheep' (1 En. 90.26). He connects their number with the seventy years of the Exile. VanderKam adds that since humans are represented as animals, shepherds likely represent angelic beings (J.C. VanderKam, 'Exile in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature', in J.M. Scott (ed.), Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions (JSJ, 56; Leiden: Brill, 1997), pp. 89-109 (97-98); he also gives a summary of other views on the identity of the shepherds). However, their place in the time-line of Israel makes it seem likely that these seventy shepherds must be at least associated with Gentile rulers. The fact that there are seventy may also connect them with the traditional seventy Gentile nations (e.g., b. Sukk. 5.55b, Peshikta R. 52.7). J. Jeremias concurs that the seventy shepherds are the Gentile rulers, although allows that they might be the 'angel princes' of those nations. TDNT, s.v. 'noi|!r|v, apxiiToi|ir)v, mniiotLVG), iTOL|!r|v, iTot|!VLov' by J. Jeremias, vol. 6, pp. 485—502.

90

Echoes of a Prophet

Day (7 En. 90.32), and the wicked shepherds will be punished in a fiery pit (7 En. 90.25-26). The differences between the use of flock imagery in Ezekiel and 1 Enoch can be explained as differences in context. Ezekiel's use of the sheep and shepherd was designed to explain the problems of the Exile and reveal God's presence in Israel's afflictions. The leaders of Israel carried the primary blame even for the Exile, but God promised to restore the people after the leaders of Israel were judged. Ezekiel thus addressed Israel's disillusionment with the leadership of Israel and their despair over the current Gentile domination. 1 Enoch 89-90 was aimed at the problems of the Maccabean era. It seems probable that this section of 1 Enoch was written in the middle of the Maccabean revolt,32 since the allegory skips from the Maccabean conflict directly to Messianic deliverance without depicting the re-dedication of the Temple or the establishment of the Hasmonean dynasty (7 En. 90.13-14). In contrast to Ezekiel's time, there was less disillusionment about the failed leadership of Israel, but there was perhaps even greater despair over Gentile domination. Israel had now been under Gentile rule for almost four centuries, and the current oppression was possibly the worst yet. The author of the Animal Apocalypse thus needed to explain the severity of the punishment and give hope for the future. The author explains that Israel's current oppression was a continuation of the punishment that began in the Exile.33 The seventy punishing shepherds began their reign at the beginning of the Exile (7 En. 89.59, 66) and continued until the Maccabean revolt (7 En. 90.1-2, 6ff). The author of 7 Enoch was concerned, however, that the punishment exceeded the offense. To explain this injustice, 7 Enoch ascribes the excess punishment to the wicked (and possibly demonic) shepherds who exceeded God's orders for punishing Israel (7 En. 89.5966). Second, 7 Enoch offered hope for deliverance. The reign of the seventy shepherds was about to end, since the Lord of the sheep would soon bring his delivering power to the aid of the last ram, Judas Maccabee. Finally, the injustice of the seventy shepherds was about to be righted: at the imminent final judgment, these shepherds would be assigned the same punishment as the Watchers (7 En. 90.22-25), while the sheep who had been oppressed or killed would be restored and given a new house (7 En. 90.30-33). The author's connection between the current Gentile rulers and 32. OTP, vol. 1, p. 7. 33. VanderKam points out that the Animal Apocalypse 'presents an enduring view of the exile' although it also describes 'the historical return of the exiles and the building of the second temple.' Although some exiles returned and rebuilt the Temple in 1 En. 89.72-73, that return 'hardly seems a turning point, much less an end to the situation of exile.' The turning point comes with the arrival of the lambs who could see (7 En. 90.6) and the subsequent new age. VanderKam, 'Exile in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature', pp. 99-100.

3. The Use of Ezekiel in other Second Temple Literature

91

the primordial angelic Watchers transforms the Jewish struggle for independence into the last battle in a cosmic war. The image of the sheep in 1 Enoch is thus closely connected to the central idea of Ezekiel's image of the sheep: God will eventually deliver his sheep from their wicked rulers. However, 1 Enoch transforms Ezekiel's allegory in a few key places. The blame for the suffering of Israel is transferred from the Jewish rulers to the Gentile rulers; and the punishment of the Exile is extended into the present time. It seems likely that, if the author of the Animal Apocalypse had Ezekiel 34 clearly in mind, he saw Judas Maccabee as fulfilling Ezekiel's prophecy about the restoration of David as God's shepherd over Israel (Ezek. 34.2324). By describing Judas as a ram, the author is at least suggesting that the Maccabees are kingly. Before Judas, the onlyfiguresto be depicted as rams are Saul, David, and Solomon (7 En. 89.42-49).34 Charles suggests that this support for the Maccabees was a dominant reason for the writing of the Animal Apocalypse?5 However, the author may have seen Judas as more than just 'kingly.' The description of Judas as the ram with a strong horn that could not be overcome by any of the birds of prey invites a 'messianic' interpretation. The fact that God's deliverance comes to this horned ram, and final judgment comes after his conquest of the Gentiles, gives further evidence that the author of the Animal Apocalypse saw Judas as the anointed king.36 Psalm of Solomon 17 reflects the messianic hopes of the author and his audience in the first century BC. It clearly expects the return of 'the Lord's anointed' (Ps. Sol. 17.32) from the line of David, who will purify Israel and conquer its enemies. While the messianic ideas are drawn from a variety of OT sources, Ezekiel's influence can be seen in the main themes, and in a few of the lines of the psalm. Only the Greek translation of the Psalms of Solomon survives, so parallels to Ezekiel must be examined in the LXX. The translator apparently conformed OT allusions in the Psalms to the LXX; thus, allusions in the Greek likely represent allusions in the original Hebrew.37

34. This is somewhat complicated by the use of three words in the Ethiopic for 'ram.' The followers of the Maccabees are called dabelat, 'males'; whereas Judas and the other Maccabees are called mahase, 'rams'; and a third word, translated 'rams,' describes Saul, David, and Solomon. M. Black, The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch (SVTP, 7; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1985), p. 276; R.H. Charles, The Book of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2nd edn, 1912), pp. 208-09. 35. APOT, vol. 2, p. 182. 36. It is possible that Judas is the ram who takes Enoch by the hand in 1 En. 90.31, furthering the impression that Judas is an eschatological figure (Black, 1 Enoch, p. 279) However, the identity of the ram is uncertain; it may refer instead to Elijah (1 En. 89.52) (Charles, The Book of Enoch, p. 215). 37. K. Atkinson, An Inter textual Study of the Psalms of Solomon: Pseudepigrapha (SBEC, 49; Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2001), p. 348, fn 9.

92

Echoes of a Prophet

The main themes and even some of the structure of Psalm of Solomon 17 are much like those of Ezekiel 34. The Psalm begins with an affirmation of God as king (Ps. Sol. 17.1-3) and of David's eternal dynasty (Ps. Sol. 17.4). Then the psalmist denounces the rulers of Israel (probably referring to Pompey and his Jewish supporters38) and describes God's judgment on those rulers and on Israel (Ps. Sol. 17.5-20). The solution to this situation is the re-establishment of the Davidic line, which the author prays for and describes (Ps. Sol. 17.21-44) using some shepherding imagery. This Davidic king will rule over God's people as God's faithful representative; in fact, T h e Lord himself will be his king' (Ps. Sol. 17.34; cf. 21, 26, 32, 42). Finally, the psalm reaffirms God's kingship and prays for speedy deliverance of his people (Ps. Sol. 17.45).39 In Ezekiel, the same themes are enumerated in more allegorical language. God is the true owner of the flock (Ezek. 34.6-10), and he condemns the false shepherds of Israel (Ezek. 34.1-10, 17-22). God will appoint David to rule as a good shepherd over them in his stead (Ezek. 34.23-24), but more importantly, God himself will directly rule over his people (Ezek. 34.11-22, 25-31). There are also a few verses in Psalm of Solomon 17 that show verbal parallels to Ezekiel 34. The oppressed state of the people of Israel is described using a few phrases reminiscent of the scattered sheep of Ezekiel 34. Ps. Sol. 17.16 Those who love the assemblies of the pious fled from them... 17 They were wandering (enslavedVTO) in the wilderness so their lives would be saved from the evildoer... 18 Their scattering (oKopiTiG|i6<;) by the lawless ones came into all the earth...

Ezek. 34.4 . . . you did not return the wandering (TO i\kx.v6[i€vov) 12 Just as the shepherd seeks his flock . . . in the midst of scattered (6iaK€XGjpia|i<EVG)i/) sheep, thus I will seek out my sheep and I will bring them back from every place where they were scattered

The language of scattering in Ps. Sol. 17.16-18 is reminiscent of sheep imagery, although not strongly. Since the parallels are only single words and synonyms, it is difficult to make the case that the language of scattering derives exclusively from Ezekiel 34. However, the fact that

38. For a discussion of the historical setting and a defense of the view that Pompey is the pagan leader in view, see Atkinson, Psalms of Solomon, pp. 46-51, 360-61 and OTP, vol. 2, pp. 640-41. 39. Fikes, 'Shepherd-King', p. 171, points out some of these structural similarities.

3. The Use of Ezekiel in other Second Temple Literature

93

Psalm of Solomon 17 follows this description of 'scattered sheep' with a definite allusion to Ezek. 34.23 (discussed below) suggests that the author was inspired by Ezekiel 34. As with Ezekiel 34, the scattered state of the people is contrasted with the coming reign of David. The author of Psalm of Solomon 17 next appeals to God to raise up the son of David. The shepherd language used to describe this king reflects the Davidic Messiah of Jer. 37.9 LXX,40 Ezek. 34.23-24, and Mic. 5.3 LXX. Ps. Sol. 17.21 Behold, Lord, and raise up for them their king, the son of David (ccvaoTrpov autolg tov fiuoikea auxcdv uiov AauiS)41 at the proper time. 17.40 He will be strong (laxupog) in his deeds and mighty in the fear of the Lord, shepherding the flock of the Lord (iroiiiaivtov TO iroipinov Kuptoi)) in faithfulness and righteousness, and he will not leave (any) to be weak among them in their pasture. 17.27 And he will know them, that they are all children of their God.

Jer. 37.9 (LXX) I will raise up for them David their king (xov Aaui6 paoiAia auicdv avaoxrpix) aviolc,.) Ezek. 34.23 And I will raise up over them (avaoTryw en' atkoug) one shepherd, and he will shepherd them (iTOL|iav€l oarcoug), my servant David, and he will be their shepherd, (cf. Ezek. 37.24-25) Mic. 5.3 And he will arise and see and shepherd his flock (m)i[iavel TO TTOI|IVIOV OCUTOO) in the strength (lo/m) of the L o r d . . . Ezek. 34.30 And they will know that I am the Lord their God, and they are my people.

Clearly, some of the most important elements in the passage allude to Jeremiah and Micah. However, some elements come from Ezekiel 34: the weak sheep (Ezek. 34.4, 16); the pasture (Ezek. 34.14, 18); judgment on the leaders (Ps. Sol. 17.5-20; Ezek. 34.1-10, 17-22), and deliverance from the Gentile nations (Ps. Sol. 17.22-25; Ezek. 34.28-29). Furthermore, the shepherd-like rule of the coming David in Ps. Sol. 17.41 will eliminate the past inequities and oppression by human leaders, much like the promise of God in Ezek. 34.22, 27. Finally, David's rule is accompanied by a restored covenant between God and his people in both Ps. Sol. 17.27 and Ezek. 34.30. The author of Psalm of Solomon 17 also expects the coming king to redivide the tribes and the land (Ps. Sol. 17.28, 43). This expectation is 40. Atkinson, Psalms of Solomon, p. 346. 41. aviotrpi in the LXX is normally used in its intransitive sense of 'arise.' It is only rarely used as a transitive with a personal object, in the sense of 'raise up, appoint' - and when it is used thus, it is always in prophetic passages (cf. Amos 9.11; Jer. 23.4-5; 37.9 LXX). Thus the transitive, personal use of aviair||ii in Ps. Sol. 17.21 is evidence for an appeal to the prophetic tradition of God's promise to raise up a new David.

94

Echoes of a Prophet

similar in concept and wording to the expectations found in Ezek. 45.8; 47.13, 21. 42 Ps. Sol. 17.41 He will lead them all in equality, and there will not be arrogance among them so as to oppress (KaTa6uvaai€i)0f|voa) among them. 17.28 And he will divide (Kaxa|i€pLO€L) them in their tribes (ev talc; cjwtaug autcov) on the land,

and the stranger and the alien will no longer dwell (m)cpoiKr|G€i) with them.

Ezek. 45.8 And the princes of Israel will no longer oppress (KaToc6uvaaT€i)aoi)oiv) my people, and the house of Israel will inherit (KaiaKA/rpovoiiriaouoiv) the land according to their tribes (KarafyvXac,auttiv). (MT: the princes will give the land to the house of Israel) (cf. 47.13) 47.21-22 And you will divide (&ia}iepiaeTe) this land to them, to the tribes (talc; (JWAJOUC;) of Israel... for you and for the sojourners who dwell (TOIQ fTapoiKouaiv) in your midst.

The important similarities are clear: both texts expect an end to unjust dispossession and a coming re-allocation of the tribes onto their ancestral land when God delivers his people. Psalm of Solomon 17.28 uses KaTa|i€pL(k), while Ezekiel uses KaiaKA,r|povo|ieG) (Ezek. 45.8) and 6ux|iepi(a) (Ezek. 47.21). All three words can be used of an inheritance; the former two are essentially synonymous and are commonly used of the division of the land under Joshua and in the Law. The differences are equally important. Although Ezekiel uses messianic imagery in other parts of his book, such imagery is muted in Ezekiel 45-48. There is discussion of the prince and his role in the new Temple, but he is overshadowed by the description of the new Temple. The MT gives the assignment of dividing the inheritance to the 'princes,' while the LXX omits any mention of the agent (Ezek. 45.8). Ezekiel gives the prince only a negative role in the re-allocation: the prince will no longer take land from his people, but will allow them to keep their possessions (Ezek. 46.18). In contrast, Psalm of Solomon 17 assigns the re-allocation solely to the 'son of David' (Ps. Sol. 17.21). The most important difference between the division of land in Psalm of Solomon 17 and Ezekiel is the status of the Gentiles. Ezekiel specifically includes resident Gentiles (MT: D^an, 'sojourners'; LXX: TTPOOTIXUTOL, 'sojourners' or 'proselytes') in the division of the land; the MT gives the Gentiles a portion with the tribe among whom they dwell, while the LXX

42.

Atkinson, Psalms of Solomon, p. 351; OTP, vol. 2, p. 667.

3. The Use of Ezekiel in other Second Temple Literature

95

describes a new (j>uAf| -rrpoor|A.i)T(ji)v ('tribe of sojourners/proselytes') who will inherit land (Ezek. 47.23). The author of Psalm of Solomon 17 was familiar with Ezekiel, and likely with the LXX (e.g., note Ps. Sol. 17.23, where the allusion to Ps. 2.9 follows the LXX against the MT). Clearly the author of Psalm of Solomon 17 sharply disagreed with the prophetic tradition about the future inclusion of Gentiles, and favored the exclusivity hinted at in Zech. 14.21. This exclusivity is a strong theme in Psalm of Solomon 17: the messianic realm will exclude Gentiles (Ps. Sol. 17.22,24,25,28), sinners (Ps. Sol. 17.23, 25), and the arrogant (Ps. Sol. 17.41). This difference can also be described as a difference in the moral expectations for the messianic age. For Ezekiel, the righteousness of the new age would be revealed injustice and in cultic purity. The new rulers would no longer oppress the poor, the widow, the orphan, or the alien. For the Psalms of Solomon, the new age would be characterized by obedience to the Torah and destruction of sinners. The author of Psalm of Solomon 17 made one other alteration to Ezekiel's vision of kingship. In Ezekiel, David's rule is described as just and righteous, but his teaching role is not mentioned. In Psalm of Solomon 17, David's role as a teacher of God's law is emphasized; 'he will judge peoples and nations with the wisdom of righteousness' (Ps. Sol. 17.29, cf. 17.35); 'he will be a righteous king, taught by God' (Ps. Sol. 17.32); and 'his words are refined more than the costliest gold' (Ps. Sol. 17.43). Psalm of Solomon 17 thus pictures the anointed king not only as a just ruler, but as the chief teacher and example of righteousness. The author of Psalm of Solomon 17 uses Ezekiel's prophecies of the coming king (Ezekiel 34) and the coming kingdom (Ezekiel 45-47) to undergird his own hopes for the coming messianic reign. His description draws on a range of OT passages that describe the coming king or kingdom, but focuses on elements that were most important to Jews of the first century BC. With the end of the Hasmonean dynasty, the author longs for a return of Israel's true kingship. Under the pagan rule of Pompey, the author of Psalms of Solomon emphasizes the destruction or servitude, not the inclusion of Gentiles. Essentially, the author uses Ezekiel's prophecies of a future nation and king in service to his own picture of the coming king and kingdom. His representation in some cases is faithful to Ezekiel's (as in the idea of the messiah as representative of YHWH), but in other cases expands on or even contradicts Ezekiel (as in the changed status of the Gentiles). Psalm of Solomon 17 and 1 Enoch 89-90, despite their obvious differences, have in common a focus on the messianic promise of Ezekiel 34. Of course, the term 'messianic' needs some definition; here I accept P.M. Joyce's minimal definition of 'messianic' as that which 'vests future hopes in a royal figure.'43 Clearly Ezekiel 34 vests future hopes in 'my 43.

Joyce, 'King and Messiah', p. 326.

96

Echoes of a Prophet

servant David.' The authors of Psalms of Solomon 17 and 1 Enoch 89-90 each use some of the imagery from Ezekiel 34 to explain their own messianic hopes. The sheep allegory in 1 Enoch 89-90 focuses on God's rule and keeps its reference to Judas Maccabee as the promised king almost as brief as Ezekiel's reference to David. In contrast, Psalm of Solomon 17 elaborates on the rule of the coming David, while keeping God's ultimate kingship clearly in view. 1 Enoch, in the apocalyptic tradition, knew exactly who the restored king was, and waited only for God's affirmation that Judas Maccabee was indeed that expected king. Psalm of Solomon 17 apparently had no particular person in mind, but equally expressed confidence that God would raise up his anointed to deliver his people at the proper time. Clearly, this messianic use of Ezekiel by these two authors of the Second Temple period has implications for John's use of Ezekiel 34. Like the authors of 1 Enoch 89-90 and Psalm of Solomon 17, John used Ezekiel 34 to describe a messianic figure, a new leader of God's people.

3. Dry Bones (Ezekiel 37.1-11; Sirach 49.10; 4 Maccabees 18.17; Lives of the Prophets 3.12; 1 Enoch 90.4-5) Surprisingly, Second Temple literature outside of the DSS contains only two clear references to Ezekiel's vision of the Valley of the Dry Bones (Ezek. 37.1-14). Both of these (4 Mace. 18.17; Liv. Proph. 3.12) are direct quotes of significant phrases from the oracle in Ezekiel 37. There are also possible allusions to the dry bones in Sir. 49.10 and 1 En. 90.4-5. 4 Maccabees (early first century AD) is a self-proclaimed philosophical discourse on how 'devout reasoning can overcome any emotion' (4 Mace. 1.1). The author's main evidence is the resistance of Eleazar's martyred family, who maintained their faith in God and their obedience to the Law despite torment and death under Antiochus IV. Near the end of his work, the author praises Eleazar for teaching the hope of the resurrection to his sons, a hope which allowed them to persevere through torture. Eleazar, the author says, taught about the resurrection from the works of Moses (Deut. 32.39), Solomon (Prov. 3.18), and Ezekiel. 4 Mace. 18.17 [Eleazar] affirmed the Ezek. 37.3 And he said to me, words of Ezekiel, 'Son of man, 'Can these dry bones live?' can these bones live?' (el (r\oemi ia OOTOLra£rpa taOia;) (ei (rjoeToa xa 6am mivroc;) This is clearly a direct quote; the only additional word, £tpd, was taken from the immediate context (Ezek. 37.2, 4). The author quotes no more of the passage from Ezekiel; he expects his audience to know the positive

3. The Use of Ezekiel in other Second Temple Literature

97

answer to the question. The question 'Can these dry bones live?' serves as shorthand for Ezekiel's account of the resurrection of the dry bones. Since the quotation of Ezekiel is sandwiched between two other OT citations about life after death, the author of 4 Maccabees saw Ezekiel's dry bones vision as only, or primarily, about the final resurrection. Lives of the Prophets has a broader understanding of the dry bones vision. Written in the early first century AD, Lives of the Prophets contains brief accounts of the lives and teachings of the biblical prophets. Some of the material in the Life of Ezekiel (chapter 3 of Lives of the Prophets) is derived from information in canonical Ezekiel, such as the account of his ministry to the exiles at Chebar, his visions of the standing Temple, his rebuke of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and his depiction of the coming Temple. Other material is hagiographic: a prophecy about the river Chebar reminiscent of Zech. 5.1-3 LXX, and Ezekiel dividing the river Chebar to save the exiles. The retelling of Ezekiel's dry bones vision is brief but instructive: Liv. Proph. 3.12 He used to say this Ezek. 37.11 LXX Son of man, these to them: 'Are we lost? Has our hope bones are the whole house of Israel, and they say, 'Our bones have p e r i s h e d ? ' (AiaTT€(|)(jOvr|Ka|iev; become dry, our hope has perished, &mjoA,€TO r\ eA/irlg T\\I<JSV;) A n d i n t h e we are lost' (anoAxotav r| eAmg r||id)v, wonder of the dead bones he persuaded them that there is hope for Israel both here and in the coming age.44 The author of the Lives does not neglect the implications of Ezekiel 37 for understanding the final resurrection; but he recognizes that the vision is about resurrected hope for Israel. Sirach may also contain an allusion to Ezekiel's oracle of the dry bones in his summary of the twelve prophets in his 'hall of faith.' Sir. 49.10 And may the bones (m oota) of the twelve prophets rise up (avaGaAm) from their place; for they comforted Jacob and redeemed them with hopeful faith 4A.IT I8OC;).

Ezek. 37.11 These bones (m ooxa) are the whole house of Israel, and they say, 'Our bones have become dry, our hope (el^io) has perished...' 12 Thus says the Lord God: ' . . . I will raise you ^ from your graves...'

44. Greek text from C.C. Torrey, The Lives of the Prophets: Greek Text and Translation (JBLMS, 1; Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, 1946), pp. 22-24.

98

Echoes of a Prophet

The verbal parallel in the Greek is limited to two words (oota and 4A.ITig), but the allusion may have been slightly stronger in Sirach's original Hebrew (now mostly lost except for a few fragments among the DSS). The raising of the dead in Ezek. 37.12 is described with the hifil of nbv; although this word is translated with a variety of Greek words in the LXX, it is translated with dvaGaAAco in Hos. 8.9. Thus, Sirach's 'may they rise up' may have been part of an allusion to Ezekiel's 'I will raise up' in the Hebrew.45 Besides these two or three parallel words, there are some conceptual parallels between Sir. 49.10 and Ezekiel 37. Sirach describes the resurrection in terms reminiscent of Ezekiel 37, and connects that resurrection with hope, as Ezekiel does. This connection between hope and the resurrection, although tenuous, is similar to the allusion to Ezekiel 37 in Lives of the Prophets. Sirach's placing of resurrection language immediately after his description of Ezekiel (Sir. 49.8, see p.79) may be significant evidence for allusion; on the other hand, the juxtaposition may be coincidental, since Sirach uses a similar blessing for the faithful judges (Sir. 46.12). The Animal Apocalypse in 1 Enoch 85-90 (discussed in greater detail above, pp. 87-91) may also contain an allusion to Ezekiel 37, although it is weaker than the above allusions. Enoch's description of the Maccabean martyrs may derive some of its language from the account of the resurrection of the dry bones. 1 En. 90.4^5 . . . and [the birds of prey] left neither flesh, nor skin, nor sinew on them absolutely, until their bones stood bare, then their bones fell to the ground, and the sheep became few.

Ezek. 37.8 And as I looked [at the bones], there were sinews on them, and flesh had come upon them, and skin had covered them; but there was no breath in them,

The account of the slaughter of the sheep is primarily a reference to the horrible tortures endured by the martyrs under Antiochus IV (i.e., 2 Maccabees 6-7), but it is possible that the description is intentionally a reversal of the resurrection of the dry bones in Ezekiel 37. Certainly the author of 1 Enoch was familiar with Ezekiel; the entire allegory of 1 Enoch 89-90 is inspired by Ezekiel 34. Presumably, the author of 1 Enoch understood the vision of the dry bones as a reference to the resurrection. If so, then this allusion hints at the coming reversal of the death of these martyred sheep: as their bodies were disassembled, so they will be

45. The translator of Sirach seems to favor dvaGaMo) more than other LXX translators did, since five out of its eight occurrences in the LXX are in Sirach.

3. The Use of Ezekiel in other Second Temple Literature

99

reassembled (1 En. 90.32). On the other hand, such an allusion may indicate more subtlety than is otherwise typical of the Animal Apocalypse. 4. Summary of the Use of Ezekiel in other Second Temple Literature The diversity of Second Temple literature cautions against generalizations, although a few trends can be observed. In contrast to the DSS, other Second Temple literature alludes to a much narrower range of EzekiePs oracles: the throne-chariot, the sheep and shepherd, and the dry bones. The use of these three images suggests some of the concerns of the age. Ezekiel's merkabah vision in Sirach, 1 Enoch, and Testament of Levi (as well as in the Sabbath Songs) hints at the rising importance of visionary ascent literature, and points towards later merkabah mysticism.46 In the apocalyptic literature, descriptions of the merkabah also served to authenticate the status of the visionary as an initiate to divine secrets. Allusions to the sheep and shepherd of Ezekiel 34 in / Enoch and the Psalms of Solomon indicate the rising hopes for messianic deliverance during the Second Temple era. References to Ezekiel's vision of the dry bones show the rising interest in the final resurrection. As with the DSS, other Second Temple writings tend to use allusions with sensitivity to their meaning and context. Careful reading of both contexts of the allusions often reveals that the later work was reapplying or contextualizing Ezekiel's message to the problems of another time. There are some exceptions to this careful interpretation; perhaps more exceptions than are found in the DSS. 1 Enoch and Psalm of Solomon 17, for example, seem to correct Ezekiel's oracles. Allusions to the merkabah vision are somewhat less concerned with the role of that vision in Ezekiel. Rather, they combine imagery from Ezekiel's vision with other OT theophanies as part of a new visionary account. Their goal was more to connect with the general OT prophetic tradition than with the specifics of Ezekiel's revelation.

46.

See pp. 84-86.

Chapter 4 ALLUSIONS TO EZEKIEL IN JOHN: MAJOR ALLUSIONS

In Chapters 2 and 3, we examined allusions to Ezekiel in the literature of the Second Temple period to try to discern the range of ways that Ezekiel was understood and used. Observations from those chapters will provide a background against which to observe John's understanding and use of Ezekiel. In Chapter 4, we will look at John's two clearest allusions to Ezekiel: the Good Shepherd discourse (Jn 10.1-30) and the Vine discourse (Jn 15.1-10). 1. Shepherds and Sheep John uses the metaphor of sheep and shepherds extensively in Jn 10.1-30, and returns to the image in Jn 11.51-52. The first passage is strongly allusive of Ezekiel 34, but also contains allusions to Numbers 27. Jn 11.5152 resumes some of the themes from John 10, and alludes to the shepherd image of Ezekiel 37. John returns to pastoral imagery in the account of Peter's restoration (Jn 21.15-17), but it is difficult to demonstrate clear allusions to Ezekiel or any other OT passage. In this section, I will examine the allusions to Ezekiel and Numbers, comment on John's modification of Ezekiel's imagery, and then compare John's use of Ezekiel with the use of Ezekiel in Second Temple literature. a. The Setting of John 10 The setting of John 10 is crucial for understanding its use of OT images and its role within the Fourth Gospel. The discourse and debate of John 10 are the culmination of the controversy over Jesus' identity in John 7-10.1 1. This narrative flow is so clear that it is surprising to read the suggestion that the shepherd discourse is 'out of place,' as Deeley suggests (M. Deeley, 'Ezekiel's Shepherd and John's Jesus: A Case Study in the Appropriation of Biblical Texts', in C.A. Evans and J.A. Sanders (eds), Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals (JSNTSup, 148; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), pp. 252-65 (252-53)). Du Rand sees the shepherd discourse as 'a conclusion to chapters 5-10 in which the unbelief and hostility towards Jesus are mounting, especially from the religious establishment in Jerusalem (spatial framework) around the time of the mentioned feasts (cultural framework).'

4. Allusions to Ezekiel in John: Major Allusions

101

John 7 begins with Jesus' brothers who 'do not believe in him' (Jn 7.5). The crowds at the Feast of Tabernacles debate Jesus' identity (Jn 7.12, 26-27, 31, 40-43, 45^6), but most of the leaders reject his teaching (7.13, 25-26, 32, 47-52). Jesus makes a number of claims about himself (Jn 8.28-29, 3738; 8.12), which results in a debate about Jesus' identity and the source of his authority (Jn 8.12-30). Jesus eludes capture on three occasions during this series of conflicts (Jn 7.32, 44-45; 8.20, 59), and then ends this period of teaching in the Temple. Most of the themes and arguments of John 8 are repeated in John 10, either within Jesus' shepherd discourse, or in the ensuing conversation. The following chart lists several of these parallels. Other thematic ties could be adduced, but the following are the clearest verbal connections between the two passages. Parallels Between John 8.12-59 and John 10.1-33 10.7-8 I am the door of the sheep... if anyone enters through me, he will be saved, he will go in and out, and find pasture. 10.9 If anyone enters through me, he will be saved and go in and out and find pasture. 10.17 For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it up again. 10.19 Many of them were saying, 'He has a demon, and he is insane.' 10.24 And they were saying to him: 'How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.'

8.12 I am the light of the world; the one who follows me will never walk in the darkness, but he will have the light of life. 8.31-32 If you remain in my word... you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. 8.29 And the one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what is pleasing to him. 8.48 The Jews answered and said to him, 'Don't we say correctly that you are a Samaritan and you have a demon?' 8.25 Then they were saying to him, 'Who are you?'

J. du Rand, 'A Syntactical and Narratological Reading of John 10 in Coherence with John 9', in J. Beutler and R. Fortna (eds), The Shepherd Discourse of John 10 and its Context: Studies by Members of the Johannine Writings Seminar (SNTSMS, 67; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 94-115 (95); see also J.B. Soucek, T h e Good Shepherd and His Flock', Ecumenical Review 9 (1957), pp. 143-53.

102

Echoes of a Prophet

10.25 ' . . . the works that I do in my Father's name, these testify concerning me.' 10.26-27 But you do not believe, because you are not of my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them and they follow me. 10.27-28 My sheep hear my voice... and I give them eternal life, and they will never perish

8.18 I am the one who testifies concerning myself, and my Father testifies concerning me. 8.47 The one who is from God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear, because you are not from God. (cf. 8.31, 43) 8.51 Truly, truly I say to you, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death

(ou (JLT| dTToA.a)VTOu eiQ t o v alcdva).

o(oi) [ir\ GecoprioT] elc; xov oclcovoc).

10.33 The Jews again took up stones to stone him... The Jews answered him, 'For good works we do not stone you, but for blasphemy, because... you make yourself God.' Then they were trying again to lay hold of him, and he escaped from their hand.

8.58-59 Jesus said to them, 'Truly truly I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.' Then they picked up stones to throw at him. But Jesus hid and went out from the temple.

After the debates of John 8, the controversy continues as Jesus performs another Sabbath healing. The healed blind man is the focal point of the next controversy. The Pharisees, unable to directly attack Jesus, put the blind man on trial as a means of condemning Jesus. The once-blind man openly acknowledges Jesus' power, and as a result is expelled from the synagogue. The 'trial' of the blind man illustrates that the Pharisees are guilty both of rejecting Jesus and of misusing their authority over their 'flock.' A brief conversation between Jesus and some Pharisees (Jn 9.39-41) provides the transition from the trial of the blind man to the shepherd discourse. Jesus said, 'For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind.' Some of the Pharisees who were with him heard these things and said to him, 'Surely we are not also blind?' Jesus said to them, 'If you were blind, you would not have sin2; but now that you are saying, "We see," your sin remains.' This exchange makes it clear that the shepherd discourse that follows begins as a polemic against the leaders of Israel. The immediate situation 2. The phrase 'to have sin' (exeiv &\xapxiav) seems to imply the guilt of sin; see Jn 15.22, 24; 1 Jn 1.8.

4. Allusions to Ezekiel in John: Major Allusions

103

to which Jesus responds is the Pharisees' rejection of him and their mistreatment of the blind man. 3 More broadly, Jesus is denouncing the entire political and religious leadership of Jerusalem. During Jesus' stay in Jerusalem (John 7-10), the Temple leadership and the Pharisees have rejected his authority and tried to arrest him. In the shepherd discourse, Jesus uses two (or three) linked pastoral metaphors to condemn the unjust judgment of the leaders of Israel, to proclaim himself as the only reliable judge and leader of Israel, and to again call people to follow him. The discussion that follows the shepherd discourse also confirms how clearly the shepherd discourse is tied to the narrative of chapters 7 through 10. The crowds see Jesus' speech as a continuation of the debate over the blind man, since some use the healing as evidence that Jesus was not demon-possessed (10.21; cf. 9.24ff).4

b. Gatekeepers (Numbers 27.16; John 10.1-6, 9) Jesus begins his polemical metaphor by criticizing the Pharisees' decision about him, and appealing to the leaders of Israel to judge him correctly. Thus far they have used human standards to judge Jesus (Jn 7.24; 8.15). Jesus appeals to them to use the right criteria to judge him, and thus to accept him as the legitimate shepherd of Israel. The OT background of Jn 10.1-6 complements this understanding of the passage. Although much of the imagery in John 10 is derived from Ezekiel 34, the first section seems primarily inspired by Num. 27.16-23.5 John 10.1-9

Numbers 27.16-23

10.1 Truly, truly I say to you, the one who does not enter through the door into the fold of the sheep, but climbs in from outside, he is a thief and a bandit. 2 But the one who enters through the door is the shepherd of the sheep (mH|ir|v kox\v icov TTpopaicov).

16 And Moses said to the Lord, 'Let the Lord G o d . . . appoint a man over this congregation... and the congregation of the Lord will not be like sheep who have no shepherd (i)oe\ Trpopatoc, o!<; OUK <EOTIV iToi|ir|v)-

3. Several scholars have noticed the connection to the previous trial. R.E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (AB, 29-29A; 2 vols; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966, 1970), vol. 1, p. 388; Dodd, Historical Tradition, pp. 358-59, 361; C.R. Koester, Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel: Meaning, Mystery, Community (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), p. 104; Soucek, 'The Good Shepherd and His Flock', pp. 143-53. 4. Brown, John, vol. 1, p. 388; Koester, Symbolism, p. 104. 5. Evans also points out some of the parallels in the chart below. Evans, Word and Glory, pp. 29-31.

104

Echoes of a Prophet

3 To him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice (if|<;

20 A n d you will give your glory upon him, so that the children of Israel may listen to him

c|)G)vf|<;

and he calls his own sheep by name and he leads them out (^ayei aura). 4 When he brings out all his own, he goes before them C<E|iTrpoa0€v auicov TTopeueTai) and the sheep follow him, 7 for they know his voice. 9 I am the door; if anyone enters through me, he will be saved, he will go in and out (eioeXeboemi Km and find pasture.

21 at his word (4irl tcp OX6\IOLTI carcou) they will go out, and at his word they will come i n . . . 17a [a man] who will lead them out (kJZa%Ei aiJToug) and who will lead them in, 17b who will go out before t h e m . . . TTpo TTpoocoTroi)

17b who will go out (k&Xevotxai) before them and who will go in (elotXevoemi) before them. 2 1 . . . at his word they will go out (QeXevoovmi), and at his word they will come in (eloeXevoovmi), he and all the children of Israel.

The number of words and synonyms in c o m m o n makes the allusion to N u m . 27.16-23 quite likely. The first allusion (Num. 27.16/Jn 10.1) is not too impressive, since any use of sheep/shepherd imagery is likely to use the words 'sheep' and 'shepherd' (iTpoPaia and 7roi|ir|v).8 The use of such language in N u m . 27.16 at least establishes that Joshua's selection is seen as the appointment of a new shepherd. The rest of the parallels carry more weight. The idea of the sheep hearing the shepherd's voice is not found in any shepherd metaphor in the O T except in N u m . 27.16-23. 9 Although J o h n 10 does not use exactly the same wording, it uses synonymous words 6. Cf. Jn 10.27a, 'My sheep hear my voice.' 7. Cf. 10.27b, 'and I know them and they follow me.' 8. For example, 2 Sam. 24.17 (LXX only); 2 Chron. 18.16; Ps. 79.2 LXX; Isa. 40.11; 63.11; Jeremiah 23; Ezekiel 34; Zechariah 10, 11, 13.7. 9. It is occasionally claimed (e.g., by J. Turner, 'The History of Religions Background of John 10', in J. Beutler and R. Fortna, (eds), The Shepherd Discourse of John 10 and its Context: Studies by Members of the Johannine Writings Seminar (SNTSMS, 67; London: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 33-52 (43-44)), that the sheep's recognition of the shepherd's voice is one of the elements of John 10 not found in the OT at all. It is true that the verbal parallel between John 10 and Numbers 27 is not exact, but the study of verbal parallel must take into consideration the use of cognates and idioms; see below.

4. Allusions to Ezekiel in John: Major Allusions

105

and phrases - CCKOUG) for eloaKOUG), and 4)covr| auioO for 4TTI ICO OTO\IOLTI airrou (at his mouth; Num. 27.20). These changes are at least partially motivated by changes in the language. The LXX eloaKouco was normally replaced in the NT by dcKouca; the few remaining occurrences in the NT describe God hearing prayers.10 The phrase 'at his mouth' is a literal translation of the Hebrew idiom nsrbi7. The Hebrew phrase occurs 23 times in Numbers, usually translated with fyuvr] or iTpootaYiia. Only here in Num. 27.21 is it literally translated with 4TT! TQ ox6\xaxi ocircoi).11 John's use of 4>a)vr| here is thus consistent with the normal translation of '•S'Si? in the LXX. This may indicate John's familiarity with the Hebrew, or it may indicate his updating of Septuagintal language. The language of 'going in' and 'going out' also primarily alludes to Num. 27.16-23, although there are some loose connections to Ezekiel 34 (explored below, p. 111). First, there is a phrase in common (egayei ahm/ e£ct£ei airuoix;). This phrase is very common in the OT, usually describing God's action in bringing Israel out of Egypt.12 However, the phrase is only used in two of the OT shepherd images: Num. 27.17 and Ezek. 34.13. The phrase in Jn 10.4 'he goes before them' Cqj/rTpooGev atkcov has a parallel in Num. 27.17, 'he will go out before them irpoooSiTOi) oarcwv). Here again, John's language updates the older Greek. TTpo TTPOOWITOU is rarely used in the NT, and only when quoting or alluding to the LXX; John replaces it with the more contemporary e|iTTpoo0€v. Finally, the pairing of e£€pxo|ica and eloepxo|iai provides a parallel between Jn 10.9 and Num. 27.17, 21. This pairing is by no means uncommon in the NT or in the LXX,13 but only John 10 and Numbers 27 use the words in the context of a shepherd metaphor. Although each of these four phrases (he leads them out; he goes before them; they hear his voice; he/they go in and out) is only a moderate or weak allusion by itself, the cumulative effect of the four is a rather strong and recognizable allusion.14

10. eloaKouo) occurs 226 times in the LXX, but only five time in the NT (and only in passages otherwise allusive of the LXX). dKouw occurs 428 time in the NT, and 888 times in the LXX. 11. The phrase ^"b^ is translated as 5ia (f>G)i/f|c; (Kupiou) in Num. 3.39; 3.51; 4.37; 4.41; 4.45; 10.13; 13.3; and as 6ict upooxctYiictTog (KDPLOD) in Num. 9.18; 9.20; 9.23; 33.38; 36.5. It is sometimes translated with other phrases related to speaking or commanding: em. TO OTO^UXTL in Gen. 41.40; Deut. 21.5; Deut. 19.15, etc.; as 6ia prpaxoc, Kupiou (Num. 33.2; 34.5); or hv Tponov ouveia^v (Num. 3.16). 12. There are at least 64 occurrences in the LXX and six in the NT. 13. There are at least 22 occurrences of the pair in the LXX and eighteen in the NT. 14. Contra Robinson, who suggests that 'the language [of 10.1-9] is not coloured by the Old Testament in the way that it is in the allegorical sequel.' J.A.T. Robinson, 'The Parable of John 10:1-5', in Twelve New Testament Studies (SBT; Naperville, 111.: Alec R. Allenson, 1962), pp. 67-75 (69).

106

Echoes of a Prophet

The shepherd of Ezekiel 34 has often been proposed as the sole or primary background for Jn 10.1-9,15 but the appointment of Joshua in Numbers 27 is the more likely source. Ezekiel 34 uses some of the same words (or synonyms) discussed above (7Toi|ir|v, TTpopata, e^aya), eioayu). However, John's use of the -ayco terms is closer to that of Numbers 27. In Ezek. 34.13, God promises that he will lead his people out (e^ayco) of the Gentile nations and into (eloayo)) their sheepfold. In both Numbers 27 and John 10, the similar terms are used to describe the role of the leader of Israel leading his people freely in and out of the camp or sheepfold.16 This is not to suggest that Ezekiel 34 has no role in Jn 10.1-9 (that role will be fully explored below), but that the language of Numbers 27 dominates. John's use of imagery from Joshua's appointment carries significance for Jesus' polemic against the leaders of Israel. Num. 27.16-22 is primarily about the legitimacy of Joshua's rule.17 Moses asks God to appoint a leader over Israel 'so that they will not be like sheep who have no shepherd.' God responds by selecting Joshua, 'a man who has the spirit in himself (Num. 27.19). Moses is to take Joshua before the congregation, publicly lay hands on him, and the people will 'ask for judgment by Urim' from the high priest (Num. 27.20-21). Then some of Moses' glory (LXX 6o£ct; MT Tin, majesty or authority) will pass to Joshua (Num. 27.20), and he will lead the people. This confluence of symbolic actions powerfully affirms Joshua's legitimacy as Moses' replacement over Israel. The use of this imagery in the setting of John 10 is clear. Jesus is saying that he is the legitimate leader of Israel, as Joshua was, and he is calling on the people and the rulers of Israel to accept his leadership. The wilderness generation, including the high priest, made a correct judgment about Joshua. The beginning of the shepherd discourse rebukes the Pharisees and chief priests for their faulty logic in rejecting Jesus, and invites them to make a correct judgment about Jesus. The immediate setting of conflict with the Pharisees in John 9 suggests that the shepherd discourse is a polemic against the Pharisees; the broader setting of conflict with the

15. E.g., Dodd, Historical Tradition, pp. 358-59; Fikes, 'Shepherd-King', p. 183; D.F. Kiefer, 'Ezekiel 34: An Exegetical and Theological Analysis of the Shepherd Motif with Special Reference to John 10' (unpublished masters dissertation, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1991), p. iii. 16. The phrase 'to go out and go in' may also suggest the breadth of Joshua's leadership; as Gray suggests, lto go out and come in is an idiomatic way of expressing activity... and is a usus loquendi similar in character to the frequent Semitic periphrases for all which consist of two terms for opposed classes... Moses, therefore, begs that his successor may initiate all the undertakings of the people and see them through.' G.B. Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers (ICC, 4; repr., 1956, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1903). 17. P J . Budd, Numbers (WBC, 5; Waco: Word Books, 1984), p. 308; D.T. Olson, Numbers (Louisville: John Knox, 1996), p. 169.

4. Allusions to Ezekiel in John: Major Allusions

107

authorities in John 7-9 suggests that the polemic is also directed against the Temple council (Jn 7.45-52).18 There are other, peripheral connections between Num. 27.16-22 and Jn 10.1-9. The description of Joshua as a 'man who has the spirit in himself invites comparison to John's Jesus, who is marked by his possession of the Spirit (cf. Jn 1.33; 4.13-14; 7.37-39; 20.22). The transfer of Moses' glory to Joshua reminds the reader of the glory of Jesus in Jn 1.14, 17. And of course, the fact that Joshua and Jesus have the same name ('Iriooug) is significant for some NT authors (Mt. 1.21; Heb. 4.8ff). These are intriguing ways in which John 10 resonates with Numbers 27, and it would not be surprising if John considered them significant as he wrote these passages. However, John explicitly alludes only to the 'leading' and 'following' language of Numbers 27 (elaepxo[ioa, 4£€pxo[iai, e^dyw, and eloaKouw), suggesting that his primary aim in alluding to that text was to discuss Jesus' legitimate leadership and Israel's need to accept it. The opening Trapoi|iia makes this point by presenting a hypothetical decision to be made. The gatekeeper of the fold needs to decide whether someone coming in is a thief or a real shepherd.19 How can the gatekeeper tell the difference? Jesus offers some obvious criteria, couched in language drawn from Numbers 27. A thief would sneak in over the wall and the sheep would be afraid of him, but a legitimate shepherd would enter through the door, and his sheep would come at his call. The application to the context of John 10 is clear: the Pharisees and the priesthood, as 'gatekeepers' of Israel, need to make correct judgments about Jesus' claims to authority (cf. Jn 7.24; 8.15).20 The Temple council has used the wrong criteria (Sabbath-keeping) to reject Jesus (Jn 7.23-24, 32, 45-52), and the Pharisees of the synagogue have used the same wrong criteria to reject Jesus and one of his followers (9.14-16, 24, 34). Jesus acknowledges that

18. Brown (following Brims) also suggests that the background in Numbers 27 gives 'an echo of the priestly ideal and ordination... Jesus was attacking the priests as well as the Pharisees in these parables.' Brown, John, vol. 1, p. 392, citing J.E. Bruns, 'The Discourse on the Good Shepherd and the Rite of Ordination', AER 149 (1963), pp. 386-91. 19. Koester described the passage as a contrast between Jesus and 'the Jewish authorities who monitored access to the synagogue.' Koester, Symbolism, p. 104; see also Robinson, 'The Parable of John 10:1-5', p. 71. 20. This is roughly in agreement with Robinson's and Koester's interpretation of the gatekeeper in Jn 10.1-2. (Koester, Symbolism, p. 104; Robinson, 'The Parable of John 10:1-5', p. 71). However, Brown thinks that the role of the gatekeeper is assigned to Jesus even in Jn 10.1-2. Following Schneider, Brown sees the structure of John 10 as a parable in Jn 10.1-5, and an explanation of the parable in the following verses (Brown, John, vol. 1, pp. 391-92, citing J. Schneider, 'Zur Komposition von Joh. 10', ConNT 11 (1947), pp. 220-25). While this is an attractive suggestion, it does not explain how John 10 alters the meaning of the images on each approach. Jesus is first the shepherd, then the gate; the leaders of Israel are first gatekeepers, then strangers, then hirelings, then wolves.

108

Echoes of a Prophet

they should exclude false leaders (Jn 10.1), but they should accept him as the true leader of Israel because he has openly proclaimed himself (cf. Jn 18.19-21), because many people in Israel are openly accepting him, and because he is 'shepherding the sheep' in a way that no thief would.21 This interpretation of the TTocpoijiia, based on its background in Numbers 27, explains a few of its difficult elements. If the point of the gatekeeper image is to point to Jesus' legitimate rule, then the sense of Xr\oxr\(; in Jn 10.1 becomes clear. The Temple hierarchy has decided to reject Jesus as an insurrectionist, and so Jesus defends himself as a true shepherd. This decision by the Temple council has only been hinted at until now: we hear that they have been planning to kill Jesus (Jn 7.25); that they tried unsuccessfully to arrest him on the Temple grounds (Jn 7.32); that 'none of the rulers or the Pharisees have believed in him' (Jn 7.48); and that the Temple council rejects Jesus before hearing from him (Jn 7.50-52). The labeling of Jesus as an insurrectionist becomes clearer in Jn 11.47-50. The chief priests, Pharisees, and the high priest Caiaphas all condemn Jesus in words that amount to calling him a hrpTr\Q: if Jesus continues, the Romans will intervene. It is better for Jesus to die the death of a revolutionary. In one of the great Johannine ironies, the high priest, who ought to be instrumental in commissioning Jesus as ruler of Israel (Num. 27.19, 21-22), instead conspires for his death. John highlights another great irony at the trial of Jesus. The gatekeepers' judgment is so poor that they crucify their true king as a A^aiife, and allow the real criminal to go free: 'Now Barabbas was a A.T)OTr|<;' (Jn 18.39-40).22 Another problem in the passage is the apparently abrupt break between the two door images in Jn 10.1-6 and 7-9. The first iTapoi|iia has Jesus as the shepherd and the leaders of Israel as the gatekeepers; the next has Jesus as the door and the leaders as thieves. However, the two images fit together thematically. The first parable is a defense of Jesus' legitimacy and a rebuke to the gatekeepers of Israel; the second parable assumes Jesus' legitimacy and calls their legitimacy into question. To put it another way: Jesus first calls the gatekeepers to make a correct judgment and allow him in (10.1-6); then he reminds them that he is the true gate, the true judge, and they risk being excluded and convicted as Xr\oml (10.7-9).23 The chief

21. Meyer agrees on the emphasis on correct criteria, but focuses primarily on the criterion of the means of entry. P.W. Meyer, 'A Note on John 10:1-18', JBL 75 (1956), pp. 232-35 (233). 22. Soucek also wrestles with the use of lr\oxr\(; in John 10, and suggests that Jesus is directly condemning messianic pretenders (Soucek, 'The Good Shepherd and His Flock', pp. 143-53. However, it seems clear that the real opponents in the passage are the Pharisees and priests, who are compared to XrpmL 23. Bernard suggests something similar, although he sees both the doorkeeper and the door as referring to Jesus: 'the primary meaning is that He is the legitimate door of access to

4. Allusions to Ezekiel in John: Major Allusions

109

priests and Pharisees thought they were judging Jesus and his followers, but instead, they were being judged. The single criterion for this judgment on the leaders was whether they would correctly judge Jesus. This image works on two levels. First, if Jesus is claiming to be the true shepherd, this is equivalent to a claim to kingship (explored further below). As the true king of Israel in the Davidic line, Jesus can rightly dismiss 'all who came before' as thieves and Xrpmi (Jn 10.8). They were all unlawful claimants to the leadership of Israel. If the current authorities continue to resist Jesus' kingship, then they label themselves as insurrectionists. Further, their behavior has been that of thieves: they steal, kill, and destroy (Jn 10.10). Such a description is in keeping with a long tradition of calling the Jerusalem priesthood 'thieves.' Craig Evans lists twenty examples of Temple priests being called thieves or described as thieves in Second Temple and rabbinic literature.24 But the image also works on another level, that of the new sheepfold. The chief priests and Pharisees see themselves as the gatekeepers of Israel. They protect Israel from the threats of false teaching and from revolutionary leaders. Jesus' description of himself as the 'door' suggests another sheepfold that the chief priests and Pharisees have no control over, and indeed one that currently excludes them. Jesus is the gate that will exclude the thieves and Xr\ozai. The word auAri needs to be briefly unfolded. Is there any significance to the choice of this word? The word is used to mean 'sheepfold' in the Iliad and in a few papyri,25 but it is never so used in the NT or in the LXX. In the NT, this is not surprising, since there are no other occurrences of a\)Xr\ or other words for sheepfold. In the LXX, the normal word used is |iav6pa (also used in Ep. Barn. 16.5, so it remained current into the second century AD). In most occurrences in the LXX, |iav6poc is used literally to refer to the dens of lions or folds for sheep. Only in Ezek. 34.14 is it used metaphorically: In good pasture I will feed them, in the high mountain26 of Israel will be their folds (|iav6pai);27 there they will rest and there they will be refreshed the spiritual auA.r|, the Fold of the House of Israel, the door by which a true shepherd must enter. In v. 9 the thought is rather that He is the door which must be used by the sheep.' J.H. Bernard, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John. (ICC, 29; 2 vols; New York: Charles Scribner and Sons, 1929), vol. 2, p. 352. 24. Targ. Jer. 6.13; 7.9; 8.10; 23.11; T. Mos. 6.6; Josephus, Ant. 20.8.8§181; 20.9.2§206-07; 2 Bar. 10.8; 4 Bar. 4.4-5; Targ. 1 Sam. 2.17, 29; t. Men. 13.18-22; t. Sot. 14.5-6; /. Zeb. 11.16— 17; lQpHab 8.12; 9.5; 10.1; 12.10; 4QpNah 1.11; Mk 11.17. Evans, Word and Glory, p. 32. 25. //. 4, 433; PHib. 36, 4; POxy. 75, 20. BDAG, s.v. a&Xi\, p. 150. 26. The MT has the plural "nrn 'in the mountains.' 27. The MT has DITU, which can mean 'their grazing grounds' or 'their dwelling-places.' BDB, s.v. ma.

110

Echoes of a Prophet with good food, and in rich pasture they will be fed on the mountains of Israel.

When John uses OCUATI to describe the sheepfold, it is possible then that he is using a synonym for [iav6poc. Since much of the shepherd image in John 10 relies on Ezekiel 34, this is a distinct possibility. The fold is Israel, or even 'the high mountain,' Jerusalem, and the gatekeepers control access to it. There is another possibility for the meaning of auA/r|, one that is complementary to the first. The vast majority of the uses of oa>A.r| in the LXX refer to the courts of the Tabernacle or Temple.28 The use of the word in this metaphor may hint at the direction of Jesus' polemic: the Temple council that has been conspiring against Jesus. In either case, it is clear that the sheepfold refers to Israel. Thus, when Jesus claims to be the 'door of the sheep,' he is claiming that he is the judge who determines who gains access to the true sheepfold. The chief priests and Pharisees believe that they have excluded Jesus from the sheepfold; Jesus tells them that they themselves are now excluded from the true sheepfold (Jn 10.8-9, 26-27). Only those who enter through Jesus the gate will be accepted. While it might be too much to suggest that John is talking about the 'true Israel,' he is certainly establishing criteria for membership in God's people. The Synoptic teachings on the Kingdom of God have much in common with John's teaching on God's flock. Membership in the Synoptic Kingdom or in the Johannine flock is dependent on believing Jesus. In the Synoptics, membership in the Kingdom is dependent on accepting Jesus as the proclaimer of God's kingdom; in John, it is dependent on believing in Jesus and his teaching.29 Membership in the flock is no longer dependent on membership in Israel. This sense is made clear the next time the cc&lri is mentioned. 'I have other sheep which are not from this fold. I must bring them also; they will hear my voice, and there will be one flock, one shepherd' (Jn 10.16). All who hear Jesus' voice are his sheep, regardless of nationality. John is not content to leave this as a metaphor; he explains the meaning in Jn 11.51-52,'... Jesus was about to die for the nation; and not for the nation only, but that he might gather the scattered children of God together.'30

28. Of course, the word ax>Xx\ can be used generically to refer to a public square or an open section of any building. In the LXX, it has this sense 45 times; but on 141 occasions it refers to the Temple courts. In the NT, ax>\r\ is used only once to signify the Temple courts (Rev. 11.2), seven times to refer to the court of the high priest, and twice for some other house court. 29. Brown makes a similar observation, suggesting that the 'I am' statements replace the Synoptic phrase 'The kingdom of God is l i k e . . . ' Brown, John, vol. 1, p. 393. 30. See below, pp. 125-26.

4. Allusions to Ezekiel in John: Major Allusions

111

Jesus also explains the meaning of his sheepfold in his conversation with Pilate. When Pilate points out that Jesus' own nation and chief priests have handed him over (Jn 18.35), Jesus responds, 'My kingdom is not from this world.' Part of Jesus' point is that he has a heavenly kingdom, but certainly the contrast is also with Pilate's 'your nation.' Jesus is the shepherd-king of a new sheepfold that is not bound to the narrow confines dictated by the chief priests and Pharisees. c. The Good Shepherd (Ezekiel 34; John 10) The shepherd discourse begins with an allusion to the appointment of Joshua in Numbers 27. However, most of John's shepherd imagery (Jn 10.1-30; 11.49-52; 21.15-17) alludes to the shepherd metaphors in Ezekiel 34 and 37.15-28. Even the early sections of John 10 examined above have some affinities to material in Ezekiel. John's combination of allusions to Numbers 27 and Ezekiel 34 is worth discussing. There is a transition from language that primarily alludes to Numbers 27 (Jn 10.1-9), to language that primarily alludes to Ezekiel 34 (Jn 10.10-16, 27-30). There is some overlap between the allusions to Numbers 27 and the allusions to Ezekiel 34: the hearing and following language drawn from Numbers 27 is resumed in Jn 10.27, and Ezekiel's sheep and bad shepherds have influenced Jn 10.1-2. It is quite possible that John has combined the two passages around catchwords, as is common in the DSS and in Paul's writings. In this case, the catchwords are e^dyo), elodcYO), Trpopaia, and TTOL|irjv. These words (or close synonyms) are found in both Numbers 27 and Ezekiel 34, and both passages deal with the concept of God's legitimate shepherd.31 Num. 27.16-22 is useful to John because it contains the idea of Israel properly judging and accepting Israel's legitimate ruler. Ezekiel 34 is useful to John because it contrasts the bad shepherds of Israel with two good shepherds, God and David. The allusions to Ezekiel are clear if only for their number. In the following chart, the parallel words and their roles in each book are compared. This allows a demonstration not only that the two passages share many words in common, but that those words have the same function in each metaphor. Each of the themes in the chart will be explored below.

31. Vancil suggests that 'legitimate rule' is one of the dominant themes in Ezekiel 34. Vancil, 'Symbolism of the Shepherd', p. 230.

112

Echoes of a Prophet

Verbal Parallels between the Shepherd Images in John and Ezekiel32 John 10, 11

Ezekiel 34, 37

Protagonist

m)i[ir|v (Jesus, 10.2, 11, TTOL|ir|v (God, 34.12; 14) David, 23)

Actions of the Protagonist

dyco (Jesus, 10.16)

eloayco (God, 34.13)

e^ayoi) (Jesus, 10.3) ouvayco (Jesus, 11.52)

^ayw (God, 34.13) o\)vdy(x) (God, 34.13; 37.21) ocpCco (God, 34.22)

ocpCo) (Jesus, 10.9) God's People

TTpopata (10.1-27) m TTpopata t a k[id (10.26, 27) mk\xa (10.14) 7TOL|ivr) (10.16)

Actions of God's People

Blessings on God's People

Trpopata (34.1-31; 36.37-38) t a TTpoPatd [iou ( 3 4 . 3 22) XOLOQ |ioi) (34.30)

ITOL^VLOV (34.12, 31)

YLVCOOKO) (they know

YLVCOOKCO (that I a m the

Jesus, 10.14) olSa (they know his voice, 10.4, 5)

Lord, 34.15, 27, 30)

|iCoc TTOL|ivr| ( 1 0 . 1 6 )

pdpSov litav (37.17, 19) eQvoc, Iv (37.22)

Leaders of Israel33

elc; iTOLfiriv ( 1 0 . 1 6 )

TTOL|i€va Iva ( 3 4 . 2 2 )

etc; avGpGyrroc; ( 1 1 . 5 0 )

ocpxcov e t c ( 3 7 . 2 2 )

v o ^ (10.9)

vofxri ( 3 4 . 1 4 )

OUK coy TTOL|ir|y ( 1 0 . 1 2 )

\ir\ e l v a t TTOL|i€va(; (34.8)

|iio0a)TO<; ( 1 0 . 1 2 )

iTOL|ieveg ( 3 4 . 2 , 5, 7, 8,

KXhxr)<;, XJ]OTX]Q ( 1 0 . 1 ,

9, 10) TTpopaia loxupd (34.20, cf. 17-19)

9) aXXozpioc, (10.5) Actions of Leaders

KleTTTCO ( 1 0 . 1 0 )

t a epta TrepLpdXXeo0€ (34.3)

32. Parallel words are given in their lexical forms; parallel phrases are quoted verbatim. 33. This row is added for completeness; clearly there is no exact verbal parallel between the descriptions of the leaders of Israel in Ezekiel 34 and John 10. Conceptual parallels between the two are explored below.

4. Allusions to Ezekiel in John: Major Allusions

113

TO yaAa KaxeoQeTe ( 3 4 . 3 )

Guco (10.10) CCT\6XX\)[H (10.10)

oc()aCa) (34.3) KateoGta) (34.3) 34 aTroA-^ua) (34.4) 35

d^irpi (10.12)

OUK €K(Tyc«jO ( 3 4 . 6 , 8)

Other Antagonists

Xikoc; (10.12)

Griptov (34.5, 8)

Actions of Antagonists (or resulting state of God's people)

apTTccCw (10.12)

6O6LGJ (34.28)

eivj kata,brwma (34.5, 8,10) eivj pronomh, (34.8, 22, 28) OKOpfTlCcO ( 1 0 . 1 2 )

6iaoTT6Lpa) ( 3 4 . 5 , 6, 12)

&iaaKOpiTLCG0 ( 1 1 . 5 2 )

TTAxxvdoo ( 3 4 . 4 , 1 6 ) 5iaxk)pL(Gi) (34.12)

Before moving to an analysis of the parallels, it is worth noting the strength of the overall connection between John 10 and Ezekiel 34. The two passages share three phrases, eleven key words, five close synonyms, and four weaker synonyms. The amount of verbal parallelism makes it clear that John is not merely drawing on everyday shepherd life, as a few scholars have claimed.36 Furthermore, no other shepherd metaphor in the OT comes close to having this many verbal parallels to John 10. For example, John has in common with Zech. 11.1-17 only 5 shepherding terms. John and Jer. 23.1-4 share only four shepherding terms. The rest of the occurrences of the shepherd metaphor in the OT (LXX or MT) show even fewer parallels with John 10. There are about 60 passages in the OT that use shepherding terminology metaphorically; the rest of these have only one, two, or three significant words in common with John 10. These other passages become even less likely as background passages when it is realized that at least one of the terms they usually share with John is 'sheep' or 'shepherd.'

34. The LXX has 'you drink the milk,' while the MT has 'you eat the fat' ( t e « n 35. Ezek. 34.4 actually describes the state of the sheep as lost (TO diToA.G)A.6c;), which is the result of poor shepherding. 36. E.g., J. Quasten, 'The Parable of the Good Shepherd: John 10:1-21', CBQ 10 (1948), pp. 1-12, 151-69(6-7).

114

Echoes of a Prophet

d. The Good Shepherds: God, David, and Jesus

Jesus identifies himself as the good shepherd. The adjective 'good' suggests two distinctions. First, in the opening lines of John's shepherd discourse, Jesus sets up a contrast between the thief and the shepherd. 'Good' describes Jesus as the shepherd who comes in through the door (OUTOC), in contrast to the thief (kKelvoc,).37 But in the context of the allusion to Ezekiel, the 'good shepherd' is God, in contrast to the bad shepherds of Israel. The allusion seems designed to read Jesus' role in light of God's role as shepherd of Israel. It is not only the fact that both are called 'shepherd'; in John's metaphor, Jesus fulfills all the tasks that God fulfills in Ezekiel 34. In Ezekiel, God rebukes the leaders of Israel; in John, Jesus rebukes the leaders of Israel. In both metaphors, God and Jesus share the roles of leading their sheep (Jn 10.3, 16; 11.52; Ezek. 34.13; 37.21)38 and saving them (Jn 10.9; Ezek. 34.22). Beyond the parallel use of ocpCca, the idea of deliverance by God and Jesus is important. In Ezekiel, God will deliver his sheep from their old shepherds (Ezek. 34.7-10); in John, Jesus will exclude the thieves from the sheepfold (Jn 10.8-10) and will rescue the sheep when the hirelings have run away (Jn 10.12-13). Ezekiel's God and John's good shepherd also both deliver their sheep from predators; the good shepherd does so at the cost of his own life (Jn 10.11, 13-14; Ezek. 34.28).39 There is also a hint that Jesus, like God in Ezek. 34.10, will 'require the sheep from their hand,' and remove his opponents from their positions of authority over Israel. In Jn 10.3, the shepherd leads the sheep out of the fold, but does not lead them back in (unlike the shepherd in Numbers 27). In the next part of the iTapoi[iia, the leaders of Israel find themselves described, not as gatekeepers, but as thieves and kr\oxai (Jn 10.8) who are excluded from Jesus' sheepfold. A similar relationship between sheep and shepherd is described in Ezekiel and John. Jesus and God both describe the people as 'my sheep', 'my own', 'my flock', or 'my people' (Jn 10.14, 16, 26, 27; Ezek. 34.3, 6, 30, 31, etc.). In the OT sheep metaphors, the owner of the sheep is always

37. J.A.T. Robinson pointed out that 'The parable is built around the contrast between Toutcp and eicelvoc;, the two figures who seek access to the courtyard.' Robinson, 'The Parable of John 10:1-5', pp. 70-71. 38. Luzarraga notes that Jesus in John 10 and God in Ezekiel 34 both lead their sheep by their word. J. Luzarraga, 'Presentacion de Jesus a la luz del A.T. en el Evangelio de Juan', EE 51 (1976), pp. 497-520. 39. Fikes, analyzing John's view of Jesus, suggests that Jesus 'viewed himself as the one who accomplished the activity Yahweh promised. He saw himself as the compassionate shepherd who met the needs of his flock, as the shepherd-king who was able to rescue and save, and as the judge who separated the believers from unbelievers.' Fikes, 'Shepherd-King', pp. 182-83; see also Eichrodt, Ezekiel, p. 472.

4. Allusions to Ezekiel in John: Major Allusions

115

God, even when a human leader is given the title of shepherd.40 The phrase 'my sheep' occurs only in Jeremiah 23 and Ezekiel 34 in the OT, and in both metaphors, the speaker is God. Thus, when John's Jesus uses the phrase 'my sheep,' a reader familiar with the OT is drawn to consider the close connection between Jesus and God. That connection must at least be an identity of purpose and function; furthermore, it suggests a sharing of authority that transcends most OT messianic expectations. In both John and Ezekiel, there is an emphasis on the relationship between sheep and shepherd. In both books, the relationship is expressed in terms of knowledge. In John 10, the sheep know the shepherd's voice (Jn 10.3), they know Jesus, and Jesus knows them (10.14, 27). In Ezekiel 34, one of God's promises of hope is that 'they will know that I am the Lord' and that 'they are my people' (34.27, 30). The final line of Ezekiel's oracle assures the people that 'I am the Lord your God' (34.31). John 10 thus primarily uses Ezekiel 34 to make a connection between two good shepherds: God and Jesus. But John 10 also makes a connection to David, the other good shepherd of Ezekiel 34.41 The connection is first suggested within Ezekiel itself. David is God's shepherd, and he will do the same things that God does: he will shepherd the people (m)i|iav€i) and be their shepherd and ruler (Ezek. 34.23-24; cf. 37.22-24). John also establishes the connection between Jesus and David by alluding specifically to Ezekiel's prophecies about David. Jn 10.16 And I have other sheep which are not from this fold; and I must lead them, and they will hear my voice, and they will become one flock (|ita TTOL|j.vr|),

one shepherd (&Q mn|ir|v).

Ezek. 37.19 [Israel and Judah] will be one staff (pap6ov \iiav) in my hand. 37.22 And I will make them one nation (eGvoc; <EV) in my land... and one ruler (apxoov etc;) will be over them. 37.24 My servant David will be ruler over them, and there will be one shepherd (iroiiifjv etg) over all. 34.23 And I will raise up over them one shepherd (i\oi\ieva eva)... my servant David.

40. See, e.g., 2 Sam. 5.2; Ps. 77.20; 78.71; Isa. 63.11 (MT only); Jer. 23.1; 50.6; Zech. 10.3. In each of these, human leaders are named as shepherds, but the sheep still belong to God. 41. Note Deeley's comment, 'The appropriation of Ezekiel 33-37 makes it possible for John to speak of Jesus as the "good shepherd"; in such a way and in such a context that he emphasizes Jesus' unity with the Father as well as his authority to rule and his rightful place as Davidic descendant.' Deeley, 'Ezekiel's Shepherd', p. 264.

116

Echoes of a Prophet

In Ezekiel's oracles, the restoration would not be complete until Israel was again one kingdom with one king. The first mention of this united kingdom referred only to its one shepherd (Ezek. 34.23; cf. 37.24). That phrase (etc; m)i|ir|v) is found in Jn 10.16, and nowhere else in either testament, making the allusion to Ezekiel certain. The reversal of word order is consistent with changes in Greek usage. In the Greek of the LXX, it was customary to place dc, after its noun; in the NT, dc, occurs before its noun with a few exceptions (none in John).42 The phrase [iioc m)i|ivr| (one flock) is not found in the OT, but it is intended to refer to the pap6ov \xiav (one staff) and <E9VO<; <EV (one nation) of Ezekiel 37. The modification from 'one nation' to 'one flock' was likely for stylistic purposes. It allowed better preservation of the metaphor, and the cognate alliteration (|iia iT0i|ivr|, CLC; m)i|ir|v) is pleasant and proverbial in style.43 There are some other important parallels between John's Jesus and Ezekiel's David. Although David is never called the 'good' shepherd, he is clearly presented as good in contrast to the wicked shepherds of Israel. The mention of 'one shepherd' (Ezek. 34.23; 37.24) likely not only refers to the united kingdom, but also to David's eternal reign - there will be no other king after him (Ezek. 37.25). David's rule is clearly secondary to God's in Ezekiel, however.44 David is only appointed after God himself has eliminated the wicked sheep and shepherds, and God is the one who brings down the eschatological blessings on his people (34.25-30; 37.2428). David rules as vassal prince over Israel, while God is the suzerain king.45 David does exactly what God does - he is a faithful shepherd who feeds God's flocks. Although David is subordinate to God, their actions are united. As Eichrodt expresses it, 'One can see Yahweh himself at work in this servant... what Ezekiel chiefly means by this servant David is that

42. Of the 345 occurrences of dc, in the NT, dq only follows its noun in 14 instances (many of which may use dc, as an indefinite article). Although I did not study all of the 1034 occurrences of dc, in the LXX, the ratio in Ezekiel appears typical of much of the LXX: dc, occurs after its noun 26 times (e.g. Ezek. 1.15; 4.9; 34.23; 37.17) and before its noun only once (Ezek. 9.2). 43. Brown nicely preserves the alliteration with his translation 'one sheep herd, one shepherd.' Brown, John, vol. 1, pp. 384, 387. 44. Joyce, 'King and Messiah', p. 334. 45. 'As the Judaean kings had only stayed in place by the sufferance of the suzerains, so, in Ezekiel's view of the future, the 'messiah' will reign only in so far as his rule remains subject to the stated will of Yahweh.' Joyce, 'King and Messiah', p. 336. Allen similarly suggests that the coming monarchy would be protected against the old abuses by the subordination of the prince as vassal to God. Allen, Ezekiel, vol. 2, p. 163. Eichrodt suggests that 'my servant David, the prince' implies that David is king, but also God's 'minister and trusted adviser' or has a 'specially preferential position among Yahweh's counsellors.' Eichrodt, Ezekiel, p. 476; see also Zimmerli, Ezekiel, vol. 2, p. 219

4. Allusions to Ezekiel in John: Major Allusions

117

he is to be regarded as the fully reconstituted image of God, in whom the will of God... is finally brought into effect.'46 The parallel to John's christology is clear. Jesus is God's faithful representative who fully carries out God's work (Jn 10.25, 37-38). As God appoints David over God's sheep, so God gives the sheep to Jesus (Jn 10.29). God makes a covenant with David (Ezek. 34.25 LXX); God knows, loves, appoints, and commands Jesus (Jn 10.15, 17, 18). Outside of the shepherd discourse, Jesus regularly points out that his authority comes from the Father (5.26-27, 30-32, 37) and that there is unity of purpose and action between Jesus and the Father (Jn 5.17-23, 6.38, 8.28-29). Although John's 'one shepherd' is a strong allusion to Ezekiel's David, John never describes Jesus as the son of David.47 The only reference in John to David is ironic: the Jerusalem crowds are sure that Jesus cannot be the Messiah, since they know that the seed of David must come from Bethlehem, and Jesus is from Nazareth (Jn 7.42). However, the allusions in John 10 to Ezekiel's coming David should be regarded as implicit references that the audience comprehended. Their request that Jesus openly declare if he is the Christ (Jn 10.24) should be read as the crowd's reaction to Jesus' claim to be the good shepherd.48 The fact that Jesus' speech links him to both good shepherds, God and David, makes it clear that the passage is intended to communicate Jesus' messianic identity in divine and human terms.49 Jesus' connection to God is established at first by his allusions to divine action in Ezekiel 34, but it becomes more explicit during the following debate: 'I and the Father are one' (Jn 10.30). Jesus, like David, has been given charge over the sheep (Jn 10.28-29). But that rule over the sheep is so closely united with God's own shepherding rule that Jesus can speak of a oneness with God. After further

46. Eichrodt, Ezekiel, p. 478. 47. F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Development of Old Testament Themes (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1968), p. 80. 48. A. Guilding, The Fourth Gospel and Jewish Worship: A Study of the Relation of St. John's Gospel to the Ancient Jewish Lectionary System (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1960), pp. 131-32. 49. That Jesus' shepherd metaphor connects to both God and David has been observed by many commentators. 'Jesus is recognized by John as the eschatological fulfillment of Yahweh's promises in Ezekiel 34, both as shepherd God and messiah' (Fikes, 'ShepherdKing', p. 180). 'Thus when Jesus proclaims himself the good shepherd (John 10), the reader cannot forget that in the OT Yahweh (Ezek. 34.11) or the messiah (Ezek. 34.23) is the shepherd who cares for his flock: Jesus identifies his ministry with theirs, and the appropriation of Ezekiel 34 is fairly direct.' D.A. Carson, 'John and the Johannine Letters', in D.A. Carson and H.G.M. Williamson (eds), It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture (Festschrift B. Lindars; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), pp. 245-64 (255); cf. Deeley, 'Ezekiel's Shepherd', p. 264; Fikes, 'Shepherd-King', p. 180; Koester, Symbolism, pp. 27-28, 104; Schnackenburg, John, vol. 2, p. 84.

118

Echoes of a Prophet

debate over his meaning, Jesus explains in another way: since he does all of his Father's works, The Father is in me and I am in the Father' (Jn 10.38). This pronouncement of the unity of Jesus and the Father is somewhat unprecedented in John 10. Jesus' statement that 'I and the Father are one' seems out of place, unless the appeal to the shepherds of Ezekiel 34 is seen. Jesus has connected himself with Ezekiel's David, and through David, to God.50 Jesus' use of Psalm 82 ('You are gods') as a defense for his unity with God has troubled commentators and produced a variety of interpretations. Understanding the allusions to Ezekiel 34 in John 10 does not solve all of the problems, but at least some connections can be seen. Psalm 82, Ezekiel 34, and John 10 share the same central message: the rulers of Israel are mistreating their people, and God will judge those rulers and deliver his people. Furthermore, John's interpretation of Psalm 82 coheres with the rest of the argument of John 10: the Son is the agent of the Father and accomplishes his work (Jn 10.36-38), just as Ezekiel's shepherd oversees God's flock on his behalf. While the precise nature of Jesus' argument from Psalm 82 can be debated, the choice of the quoted passage is in harmony with the topic of John 10.51 There are a few differences between the good shepherds of Ezekiel 34 and the good shepherd of John 10, and these differences reveal the distinctive christology of John. Most importantly, John's shepherd 'lays down his life for the sheep' (Jn 10.II).52 Within the metaphor, this describes the good shepherd risking his life, in contrast to the hireling, who flees. In Ezekiel, there is little thought of any risk to either great shepherd, God or David. If John is drawing his image from Ezekiel, it is only through elaboration.53 Perhaps the combination of two images, David the shepherd of Israel (Ezek. 34.23; 37.24) and God defending the sheep from predators (34.5, 10, 22, 28) was a reminder of David the shepherd-boy risking all for his sheep (1 Sam. 17.34-36).54 While the shepherd-boy story is not 50. See also Nielsen, 'Old Testament Imagery in John', p. 70. 51. Jungkuntz also noted this connection between Psalm 82 and Ezekiel 34. R. Jungkuntz, 'An Approach to the Exegesis of John 10:34—36', Cone 35 (1964), pp. 556-65 (564). 52. Nielsen points out that the reader knows what to expect from a shepherd metaphor, so 'John's Gospel comes close to breaking the frame when it presents the good shepherd as laying down his life for the sheep.' Nielsen, 'Old Testament Imagery in John', p. 80; see also Fikes, 'Shepherd-King', p. 179. 53. J. Beutler suggests that John here drew on the image of the servant who lays down his life in Isa. 53.10-12 (although no shepherd imagery is used in this passage). J. Beutler, 'Der Alttestamentlich-judischer Hintergrund der Hirtenrede in Johannes 10', in J. Beutler and R. Fortna (eds), The Shepherd Discourse of John 10 and its Context: Studies by Members of the Johannine Writings Seminar (SNTSMS, 67; London: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 18-32 (25). 54. Cf. Brown, John, vol. 1, p. 398.

4. Allusions to Ezekiel in John: Major Allusions

119

mentioned in Ezekiel, it is not far-fetched to recall it. The purpose of the boyhood accounts of David was to illustrate his worthiness as king. His old occupation as shepherd was possibly one reason for the prominence of the shepherd image during the Exile. Thus, when Ezekiel treats David as shepherd, recalling David the shepherd-boy may have been quite natural. While the metaphor may describe the shepherd risking his life, clearly the meaning of the metaphor is the giving of his life. Jesus makes this clear once the metaphor proper is finished: 'the Father loves me because I lay down my life, that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own will' (Jn 10.17-18).55 After this, 'to lay down one's life' always describes the voluntary giving of life for another.56 The metaphor is thus expanded from the polemic against false shepherds to include a foreshadowing of Jesus' death and resurrection.57 John's christology requires this addition: the sheepfold cannot welcome Jesus' sheep until he has died and risen. e. Jesus' Opponents The polemic against the leaders of Israel comes in four waves. Each is a variation on the image of the shepherd and the sheep. All are influenced by OT images; all fit well into the thought of John. First, as discussed above, the leaders of Israel are the gatekeepers who are unable to tell the difference between a thief and the real shepherd. Jesus rebukes the gatekeepers for their lack of discernment. Second, the leaders of Israel are themselves the thieves who are taking advantage of the sheep; they are excluded from Jesus' sheepfold. Third, the leaders of Israel are hired shepherds who do not defend the sheep against the predators. They are replaced and made irrelevant by the arrival of the true shepherd. Finally, the leaders of Israel (as well as others who do not believe Jesus) are the false sheep who are excluded from Jesus' fold.58 The image of the leader as gatekeeper is probably not derived from the OT. Although the image of blind watchmen combined with poor shepherds can be found in Isa. 56.9-11, there are no verbal ties to that image in John 10.59 55. The phrase xiQr\vai xr\v y\ivxr\v ev xf\ xeipi (to take life in hand) is used in the LXX to describe risking life (Judg. 12.3; 1 Sam. 19.5; 28.21), as Brown points out (Brown, John, vol. 1, p. 386). However, the bare ii0r|vai xr\v \\roxr\v (to take life) is used of killing (1 Kgs 19.2). 56. Jn 13.37, 38, of Peter's wish to die for Jesus; Jn 15.13, to describe Jesus' great love in dying for his friends; and 1 Jn 3.16, to describe Jesus dying for his followers and his followers dying for each other. The phrase does not occur elsewhere in the NT. 57. See also Koester, Symbolism, p. 17. 58. Brown notes the first three of these. Brown, John, vol. 1, p. 388. 59. Isa. 56.9-11 is sometimes presented as a strong parallel to John 10 because of its combination of blind watchmen and shepherds. (L. Morris, The Gospel According to John

120

Echoes of a Prophet

The connections to Ezekiel 34 are more apparent in other parts of John's metaphor. First, although the words 'thief and 'steal' do not come from Ezekiel 34, the idea certainly does. The thief, Jesus points out, only comes into the fold to 'kill and steal and destroy' (Jn 10.10; cf. 10.1, 8). The bad shepherds of Ezekiel act as thieves, although they are never called such. They feed themselves (Ezek. 34.2, 8), they drink up (KOCTOJGIG)) the milk and clothe themselves with the sheep's wool (Ezek. 34.3). Clearly, since the sheep belong to God, this is theft. The killing and destroying is also apparent in Ezekiel 34, since the shepherds 'slay the failing' (Ezek. 34.3). Jn 10.10 The thief does not come except to steal and kill (euofj)60 and destroy. 10.8 All who came before me61 are thieves and bandits, but the sheep did not hear them. (cf. 10.1)

Ezek. 34.8 The shepherds fed themselves, (cf. 34.2) 34.3 Behold, you drink up the milk and clothe yourselves with the wool and slay the fatling.

As discussed above, John's description of the leaders as thieves points towards the rapaciousness of the ruling priesthood, so often denounced in Second Temple literature.62 In this context, it also points towards the rejection of Jesus' followers by the Temple Council and the Pharisees.63 The polemical epithet 'stranger' is a subset of the thief metaphor. The thief and the stranger both try to lead the sheep, but the sheep will not follow (Jn 10.1, 5, 8). There is no clear OT allusion for the 'stranger,' but it is clearly an insulting title here. The term akkozpioQ can range in meaning from 'stranger' to 'foreigner.'64 In either case, the sense of aAAotpiog here is (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), p. 443; Robinson, 'The Parable of John 10:1-5', p. 72). However, the two passages share only the word 'shepherd,' and the parallel disappears altogether in the LXX. The LXX omits 'watchmen' and misreads 'shepherds' (a s m) as 'evil' (misreading shepherd language is not uncommon in the LXX, due to the similarity between run, n*n, Jttn, and in). 60. Guco is usually used in the sense of 'sacrifice'; Brown suggests that this could be 'a sly reference to the priestly authorities.' Brown, John, vol. 1, p. 386. 61. It is difficult to decide whether the phrase 'before me' is the best reading, since some early witnesses (sp45vid' 75 K* E etc.) lack it, and since the omission would be both shorter and stylistically more difficult. It is possible that the phrase was omitted by some scribes to avoid the implied condemnation of OT heroes. This was apparently the motivation behind the omission of TTavteg in other witnesses. B.M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2nd edn, 1994), pp. 195-96. 62. See p. 109 above. 63. Brown sees the thief in Jn 10.10 as a 'general representative of darkness who is a rival to the Son,' and the thief in Jn 10.1 as a direct reference to the Pharisees and priests. Brown, John, vol. 1, pp. 395, 393. 64. Robinson suggests that the implication in Jn 10.5 is that the leaders of Israel are actually 'foreigners to God's people.' Robinson, 'The Parable of John 10:1-5', pp. 69-70.

4. Allusions to Ezekiel in John: Major Allusions

121

that the people of Israel will no longer follow the leaders of Israel. This may be an oblique reference to the blind man of John 9, who refused to submit to the Pharisees.65 This suggestion that the leaders of Israel might lose their following would strike a note of fear; one of the regular concerns of Jesus' opponents in John is that the people will follow him en masse (Jn 7.47-53; 11.47-48; 12.10-11; 12.19). The third characterization of the leaders of Israel in John 10 comes closest to Ezekiel 34. The leaders are described as 'hirelings' who do not care about the sheep and who leave them to be eaten by wolves. Jn 10.12-13 The one who is a hireling, and not a shepherd (OUK civ TTOL|ir|v), who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf seizes and scatters, because he is a hireling and the sheep do not matter to him.

Ezek. 34.5 My sheep were scattered because there were no shepherds (\ir\ elvai TTOifievou;), and they became prey for all the beasts of the field, (para 34.8) 34.6 My sheep were scattered, and there was no one who seeks or returns them.

Deeley downplays the connection here between John 10 and Ezekiel 34 by emphasizing that in John 10, Jesus' opponents are never even called shepherds.66 Although Deeley is technically correct, she misses the significance of IIIGGGJTOC; as one who tends the sheep, but does not own them. Conceptually, this is the same as the shepherds of Ezekiel, who must give an account to the true owner for the mistreatment of the sheep. Furthermore, the parallel Greek phrases OIJK OJV m)i|j.r|v (Jn 1.12) and \ir\ dvai noL|ievag (Ezek. 34.5) suggest that the two metaphors have the same view of the leaders. Ezekiel has the negated infinitive of €1411 followed by TToi|i€va<; and John has the negated participle of €l|ii followed by mH[ir|v\ Both clauses are causal: Ezekiel's sheep became prey because (8 id + infinitive) of the lack of true shepherds; John's hireling abandons the sheep to the wolves because (causal use of the participle) he is not a shepherd. John's metaphor has one other antagonist: the wolf. The wolf is parallel to the 'wild beasts' of Ezekiel 34, although there may also be an allusion to Ezek. 22.27.

65. 66.

Brown makes a similar suggestion. Brown, John, vol. 1, p. 393. Deeley, 'Ezekiel's Shepherd', p. 260.

122

Echoes of a Prophet

Jn 10.12 the wolf seizes (6 XUKCX; apira(ei) and scatters them

Ezek. 22.27 Her rulers in her midst are like wolves seizing prey (ol XUKOL apiTa(ovTe<; apTTayiiata) to shed blood, so that they may acquire dishonest gain.67 34.5 My sheep... became prey for all the beasts of the field, (cf. 34.8, 25, 28) 34.22 I will save my flock, and they will never be prey again.

The presence of this element of the metaphor is evidence of how thoroughly John follows Ezekiel 34 here. In Ezekiel 34, the meaning of the 'wild beasts' is very clear: they are the surrounding pagan nations (Ezek. 34.5-6, 13, 27-28). John has reproduced this element of the metaphor in the ravaging wolf, although the predator no longer has a clear referent. It certainly does not refer generically to the Gentiles, since they are now welcomed into the new fold.68 John's replacement of Ezekiel's GrjpLov with AAJKOC may be a normal development of the sheep metaphor in the Second Temple era. Isaiah's description of the future peace between wolf and lamb (Isa. 11.6; 65.25) developed into a standard pairing (Sir. 13.17; Mt. 7.15; 10.16; Lk. 10.3; Acts 20.29; 4 Ezra 5.18). On the other hand, the wolf may be intended to symbolize a particular entity. If Jn 10.12 also alludes to Ezek. 22.27, then the wolf could refer to the rulers of Jerusalem. Ezekiel 22 contains a declaration of woe against 'the bloody city,' Jerusalem (Ezek. 22.2, 19). The princes of the city are described as predatory lions and wolves because they oppress the poor, take bribes, and use violence in their pursuit of wealth (Ezek. 22.7, 25, 27). The accusation against the hireling in John 10 is thus that he has done nothing to prevent oppression by the rulers of Jerusalem. This claim is similar to other accusations against the high priests found in Second Temple literature.69 If John's wolf is intended to recall the ruling priesthood, then John's metaphor is somewhat mixed, since the 'hireling' may also refer to the priesthood. Interestingly, Ezekiel's metaphor is mixed in the same way: the negligence of the shepherds allows predators to seize the sheep (Ezek. 34.5, 8), but the shepherds themselves are described using predator language. The shepherds 'slaughter the fadings' (Ezek. 34.3), and 67. A similar pairing of XVYLOQ with apna£ is found in Gen. 49.27, describing Benjamin; and in Mt. 7.15, describing false prophets. 68. Jn 10.16; 11.52; see below, [4 fn 78-np]. The inclusion of followers of Jesus from outside Israel is suggested in Jn 11.51-52: Jesus will die 'not only for the nation, but so that he might gather the scattered children of God as one.' 69. See p. 109, above; esp. Josephus, Ant. 20.8.8§181; 20.9.2§206-07.

4. Allusions to Ezekiel in John: Major Allusions

123

God will rescue the sheep 'from the mouths' of the shepherds (Ezek. 34.10) as if they themselves were predators.70 It is also possible that John's wolf refers to the Roman procurators and the legions that will destroy the sheep of Israel. This would maintain the Gentile referent of the predator in Ezekiel 34, and would be consistent with the rapaciousness of the wolf. If so, the claim is that the leaders of Israel are the true Xvpml. They are the insurrectionists who will bring the wrath of Rome on Israel. However, although the wolf may refer to the Roman or priestly rulers of Jerusalem, that meaning is muted. The wolf of John 10 primarily serves two roles: to point out the consequences of the shepherds' failure, and to draw attention to John's allusion to Ezekiel's shepherd metaphor. Finally, the leaders of Israel are counted with the non-believers who are not Jesus' sheep (Jn 10.26-27).71 Ezekiel is the only OT prophet to 'judge between sheep and sheep' (Ezek. 34.17, 22). In Ezek. 34.11-16, God promises to restore the lost and injured sheep - but he will 'feed the strong sheep with judgment' (Ezek. 34.16b). These sheep have been oppressing the weak sheep, and now they will be judged. In Ezekiel's allegory, these 'strong sheep' may refer to the kings of Israel, or they may refer to the upper class. If the strong sheep are the kings, then Ezekiel's allegory is restating the oracle against the bad shepherds from a different viewpoint. More likely, Ezekiel is showing how poor shepherding by the kings has resulted in social chaos, with the upper classes oppressing the lower classes.72 In either case, the strong sheep are the ruling class of Israel, and their oppression is brought under control by the appointment of the new shepherd, David. In John 10, Jesus never calls his opponents by Ezekiel's epithets 'fat sheep' or 'strong sheep.' Instead, the parallel between the polemic in Ezekiel 34 and John 10 is conceptual rather than verbal: God in Ezekiel 34 and Jesus in John 10 both judge between sheep and sheep. In Ezekiel 34, the strong sheep are judged for their oppression of the weak sheep. That element is present in Jesus' polemic against the Pharisees' treatment of the blind man, but it is muted. In John 10, the sheep are judged on the basis of their belief in Jesus. The shepherd has entered the fold and called for his

70. Zimmerli's translation of Ezek. 34.10 is particularly suggestive: 'I will tear (the beasts of) my flock from their jaws.' Zimmerli, Ezekiel, vol. 2, p. 206. 71. Dodd points out how the trial of John 9 begins to separate the sheep. The blind man is revealed to be Jesus' sheep by his defense of Jesus, whereas the Pharisees show that they are not Jesus' sheep by their rejection of Jesus. Dodd, Historical Tradition, p. 361. 72. This is the view of most Ezekiel scholars: Eichrodt, Ezekiel, p. 473; Huntzinger, 'End of Exile', pp. 120-21; Vancil, 'Symbolism of the Shepherd', p. 232. Similarly, Allen, Ezekiel, vol. 2, p. 163 sees this passage as a description of 'social exploitation... among the exiles themselves.'

124

Echoes of a Prophet

sheep, and his sheep have followed (Jn 10.2-4). If any sheep do not follow him, the logical conclusion is that they do not belong to the shepherd.73 This is the conclusion that Jesus proclaims in Jn 10.26-27: 'But you do not believe, because you are not of my sheep. My sheep hear my voice and I know them and they follow me.' The characteristics of hearing, knowing, and following were used to prove the identity of the shepherd in Jn 10.2^; now the same characteristics are used to prove the identity of the sheep. The sheep that do not hear and follow Jesus are clearly not his sheep, and they are excluded from the sheepfold. Jesus' sheep are secure: 'there is no one who will snatch (apTraoei) them from my hand' (Jn 10.28, cf. 29). The implication is that all those sheep that will not follow Jesus risk being snatched by the wolf. We can trace a development in theology as we examine John's modification of polemical epithets from Ezekiel. God's judgment against the leaders of Israel in Ezekiel 34 stands on two related themes: justice and covenant faithfulness. Ezekiel judges the leaders of Israel because they have not been just rulers. Like most OT prophets, Ezekiel accuses Israel's wealthy and elite of oppressing the poor. This charge introduces another: the rulers of Israel have not obeyed the covenant. The Law did not forbid wealth, but it gave clear guidelines for how the wealthy ought to treat the poor, and how the rulers ought to treat the ruled (e.g., Deut. 15.1-18; 16.18-20; 17.14-20; 24.10-22). Thus God's accusations in Ezekiel 34 are that the elite of Israel have not kept the covenant. They have brought down the curse of Deut. 17.19, 'Cursed be the one who perverts the justice due to the alien, the orphan, and the widow.' The judgment in John 10 begins similarly. The Pharisees have unjustly mistreated the blind man and others who wish to follow Jesus. However, Jesus' primary indictment against the leaders of Israel is not that they are unjust or do not follow the covenant. Rather, Jesus accuses them of not accepting his claims. In essence, this is a transition from judgment based on faithfulness to judgment based on faith. While Paul's justification by faith is not an explicit point of theology here, clearly the only standard of judgment that is important to John is faith in Jesus as the Son of God. This standard is held as superior to covenant faithfulness, since John presents belief in Jesus as more important than keeping the Sabbath. f. The People of God

We turn last to the element of the sheep as the people of God in the shepherd discourse. This element is left for last because the sheep are not 73. Brown gives an excellent quote from Chrysostom {In Jo. 61.2): 'If they do not follow Jesus, it is not because he is not a shepherd, but because they are not sheep.' Brown, John, vol. 1, p. 406.

4. Allusions to Ezekiel in John: Major Allusions

125

introduced into the discourse for their own sake. Rather, the sheep serve to show the difference between Jesus and his opponents. Jesus and his opponents are contrasted in how they treat the sheep. Hence, most of the ideas addressed in this section have already been touched on in the above sections. Nevertheless, it is valuable to address how John 10 uses the image of the sheep from Ezekiel 34 to describe God's people. The fact that both John and Ezekiel use sheep as a metaphor for God's people is in itself not very striking, since God's people are described as sheep throughout the OT. However, there are other important parallels. John first suggests a redefinition of the people of God in Jn 10.16, 'I have other sheep who are not of this fold; and I must bring them and they will hear my voice and they will be one flock, one shepherd.' The addition of sheep from outside the fold, who are admitted on the basis of hearing Jesus, suggests that John is redefining God's fold. In John 11, the narrator resumes the theme of gathering God's people in his explanation of Caiaphas' prophetic words, 'You do not consider that it is better for you that one man die for the people and that the whole nation should not perish.' John's explanation is closely tied to Jesus' earlier description of the 'other sheep' and alludes to two related passages in Ezekiel. Jn 11.51-52 . . . [Caiaphas] prophesied that Jesus was about to die for the nation (tou eGvoix;); and not for the nation only, but that he might also gather (awaYocYfl) all the scattered (SieoKopiuqieva) . . .

. . . children of God as one (elg ev). 10.16 I have other sheep that are not of this fold, and I must bring them and they will hear my voice, and they will be one flock, one shepherd (jiia Troqii/n, elc, T\oi[ir)v).

Ezek. 28.25 And I will gather from the nations where they were scattered (SieoKopTaoGiiaoa'). 37.21-22, 24 (GI)VCC£CO) Israel

I will gather (owc^a)) them from the regions around them, and I will lead them into (doafa) the land of Israel. I will appoint them as one nation (etc; <EGVOC; £V) in my land... and one ruler (apx^v elq) will be over them all, and they will no longer be two nations... And my servant David will be ruler in their midst, and one shepherd (TTOLHV etc;) will be over all.

The allusion to Ezek. 28.25 is subtle but demonstrable.74 The idea of gathering scattered Israel is described elsewhere in the OT (e.g., Isa. 11.1116; Mic. 2.12; Jer. 23.3; 31.7-14; Ezek. 34.12, 16), but the combination of 74. As far as I can tell, this allusion has not been pointed out in the secondary literature.

126

Echoes of a Prophet

ovvctyu and SUXOKOPTTICO) only occurs in Ezek. 28.25 and Deut. 30.3. Ezek. 28.25 itself alludes to Deut. 30.3, invoking God's promise to restore the people of Israel to their land if they repent.75 The parallel between Jn 11.52 and Ezek. 37.21-27 is also subtle; it only includes the gathering of God's people (ouyayo), eloayco) and the phrase dc, ev. The use of the phrase eic, <EV to describe unity is more in line with Greek usage in the LXX than in the NT, 76 suggesting that it alludes to some passage in the LXX. The presence of this allusion to Ezek. 37.21-27 can be further demonstrated by a number of interlocking clues. First, the slightly clearer allusion to Ezek. 28.25 can be used as evidence for the allusion to Ezek. 37.21-27. It seems likely that John has combined allusions using the sort of catchword combination that we have seen elsewhere in the DSS and in John. Here, allusions to Ezek. 28.25 and 37.21-27 may have been combined by the use of ovvayu. There are other connections between Ezek. 28.25 and 37.21-27: both promise restoration from the surrounding nations to the land 'which I gave to my servant Jacob' (Ezek. 28.25; 37.21, 25),77 and each passage has independent parallels to Ezekiel 34. Second, complex intertextual connections between John 10 and 11.52 on the one hand, and Ezekiel 34 and 37.21-27 on the other hand, suggest that Jn 11.52 alludes to Ezek. 37.21-27. Ezek. 37.21-27 resumes the shepherding image begun in Ezekiel 34. The ruler in both oracles is the 'prince,'78 'My servant David,' the 'one shepherd' (Ezek. 34.23-24; 37.2425), and God promises a 'covenant of peace' in both passages (Ezek. 34.25; 37.26). In a similar fashion, Jn 11.52 resumes themes from John 10. God's people are scattered but will be gathered (Jn 10.12, 16; 11.52); the shepherd gives his life for the sheep (Jn 10.17; 11.51-52), and there is an emphasis on the future unity of the flock (Jn 10.16; 11.51-52). The connections between these passages are tangled, but suggestive, as the following diagram depicts. The arrows show the direction of influence; the arrows indicate clearer allusion.

75. Deut. 30.3, part of the 'blessings and curses,' promises restoration as part of God's blessing after Israel's repentance. Ezek. 28.25 closely parallels Deut. 30.3, but gives no explicit prerequisites for the restoration to the land. 76. E.g., Gen. 2.24; Exod. 26.24; 2 Sam. 2.25; 1 Chron. 23.11; Ezek. 22.19; 37.17, 19. The phrase only occurs in the NT in Mt. 19.2 (a quotation of the LXX), Jn 11.52, and 1 Jn 5.8. 77. Note the parallel phrases between the two passages in Ezekiel: ) UOLVTOL OIKOV lopa.r\k 4K (ieoou x&v 49VG)V, oh elor|A.0ooav 4K€I (Ezek. 37.21) TG)V 49vwv, ou 6L6OKop7TLO0Tioav 4K6L (Ezek. 28.25) xbv Iopar|A. 4K Lv 4TTI tf|g yf\c, auicav, r\v 6€8c»)Ka xQ 6oiUa) (aou LxKWp (Ezek. 37.25) iv 4TTL xf\Q yr\c, auxwv, fjv 4yw 6e6coKa xQ 6ouA.co (iou ICCKCDP (Ezek. 28.25) 78. Both passages describe David as 'prince' rather than 'king,' (K*1^ in the MT and apxcov in the LXX).

4. Allusions to Ezekiel in John: Major Allusions Jn 10

I

Jn 11.51-52

<-

Ezekiel 34

«-

Ezekiel 37.21-26

\

111

I

The fact that both John and Ezekiel briefly resume their shepherd metaphors in later chapters may be coincidental. However, the connections at least provide some supporting evidence for the allusion in Jn 11.52 to Ezek. 37.21ff. The main reasons for John's allusions to Ezek. 28.25 and 37.21-26 are clear. John sees the OT prophecies of the gathering of Israel being fulfilled in the followers of Jesus. Ezekiel promises the coming restoration of exiles to the land (Ezek. 28.25; 37.21) and the establishment of David's rule over both Israel and Judah so that there is only one nation (Ezek. 37.21-22). John transforms Ezekiel's 'one nation... one ruler' (Ezek. 37.22) into 'one flock... one shepherd' (Jn 10.16) with some warrant, since Ezekiel also describes David as a shepherd in Ezek. 37.24. However, John modifies the image from Ezekiel: other sheep will be included 'that are not from this fold.' Since the fold represents Israel in John 10, this suggests the inclusion of believers in Jesus from outside Israel (Jn 10.16, 26-27). The inclusion of followers of Jesus from outside Israel is also described in Jn 11.51-52: Jesus will die 'not only for the nation,79 but so that he might gather the scattered children of God as one.'80 The gathered sheep in Jn 10.16 become the gathered children of God in Jn 11.52, and now it is clear that Jesus will gather sheep, God's children, from beyond the nation. These two references by themselves could be taken as a promise to gather Diaspora Jews to Jesus, but in John, Gentile believers are suggested by John's description.81 This inclusion of Gentiles is clear from John's description of the 'scattered children of God (xcc TCKVOC TOO Geou)' in Jn 11.52. In the Johannine corpus, tot i€Kva xoO Oeou are all God's children, regardless of nationality. The only other use of that phrase in the Gospel of John explicitly includes all believers in Jesus. 'But as many as received him, he gave them the right to become children of God (T€KVCC GeoO), to those who believe in his name,

79. Does John's phrase oux u-rrep TOU eGvoix; novov parallel Ezekiel's dc, eGvoc ev or perhaps OUK eoovioa eci eU Suo eOvrf? If so, it suggests that John saw Ezekiel's creation of 'one nation' as including Gentiles along with Israel and Judah. 80. Heil points out that 'Jesus' dying on behalf of (uirep) the people parallels his laying down his life on behalf of (inrep) the sheep (10.11, 15) that is, those who believe in him.' J.P. Heil, 'Jesus as the Unique High Priest in the Gospel of John', CBQ 57, no. 4 (1995), pp. 72945 (734). 81. Brown suggests that Jesus' reference to the gathering of the fold in Jn 10.16 may have originally had a 'much simpler meaning' on the lips of Jesus, but that John has extrapolated the sense to include the church. Brown, John, vol. 1, p. 397.

128

Echoes of a Prophet

who were born not from blood, nor from the will of the flesh, nor from the will of man, but from God' (Jn 1.12-13). Human ancestry provides no privileged access to becoming children of God, according to John (see also 1 Jn3.1, 2, 10;5.2).82 Where does John's inclusion of Gentiles come from? The OT in several places describes a future in which Gentiles will worship in the Temple (Isa. 2.2-4; 56.6-8; 60.2-14; Zech. 14.16-17). Isaiah follows his description of Gentile service to God (Isa. 56.6-7) with a promise to gather both Jews and Gentiles. 'Lord Yahweh, who gathers the scattered of Israel, declares, "I will gather yet others to him [Israel] besides those already gathered'" (Isa. 56.8). Isaiah's connection of the gathering of Israel with the ingathering of Gentiles may have influenced John and other NT writers. But the fact that John alludes to Ezekiel's account of the gathering suggests that Ezekiel may also be one of the sources for John's thoughts on Gentile inclusion in God's people. The main passages on the gathering of Israel to which John alludes (Ezek. 28.25; 34.12-13; 37.21-26) do not explicitly include Gentiles in that gathering. Ezekiel's sheep are the people of Israel, not Gentiles (Ezek. 34.30). The role of the Gentile nations in these passages is to be judged if they opposed Israel (Ezek. 28.26; 34.25-29) or to testify to God's deliverance of Israel and acknowledge him as God (Ezek. 28.26; 37.28). It is possible that John's understanding of Ezekiel's sheep metaphor was strongly influenced by the last line of Ezekiel 34 (in the MT only): 'You, my sheep, the sheep of my pasture; you are humans (D*TK) and I am your God.' This may have led John to a universalizing of the sheep image. John's allusions to Ezekiel may be intended to recall the prophet's understanding of Gentiles as revealed throughout Ezekiel. Ezekiel's inclusive attitude towards Gentile sojourners or proselytes may surpass that of any other OT prophet. Like many prophets, Ezekiel calls for fair treatment for sojourners (Ezek. 22.7, 29). But Ezekiel goes further by including sojourners in Israel. In Ezekiel 14, Ezekiel condemns those who worship idols, then hypocritically inquire of God's prophets. The oracle declares judgment on 'anyone of the house of Israel, or of the sojourners (i3/iTpoor|AuTo<;) who sojourn in Israel, who separates (iTrVana/UoTpicoGfi) from me...' by keeping idols in his heart (Ezek. 14.7). God warns the inwardly idolatrous Jew or sojourner: 'I will cut him off from the midst of my people' The sojourner is thus linked with 'my people', 'the house of Israel' and is expected to worship God alone (Ezek. 14.7-8; cf. Num. 15.16). The Torah-keeping sojourner is regarded as initially in a relation-

82. Most commentators agree that John's 'other sheep' and the 'scattered children of God' primarily refer to Gentile Christians. G.R. Beasley-Murray, John (WBC, 36; Waco: Word, 1987), pp. 171, 198; Brown, John, vol. 1, pp. 396-97, 442-43.

4. Allusions to Ezekiel in John: Major Allusions

129

ship with God, since idolatry causes separation from God and from his people.83 Among the 'oracles of hope' that begin with Ezekiel 34, the Gentile sojourner is also included in Israel. Even while the Gentile nations (eGvn) are regarded as enemies of God's people (see especially Ezekiel 38-39), the sojourners inherit with the children of Israel. Ezekiel 47 pictures the just reallocation of land in Israel, but sojourners are included. Allot it as an inheritance for yourselves and for the sojourners who live among you and have children in your midst. They will be to you as native-born children of Israel; they will be allotted an inheritance with you among the tribes of Israel. In whatever tribe the sojourner resides, there you shall assign him his inheritance, says the Lord YHWH. (Ezek. 47.22-23). Interestingly, the LXX heightens the inclusion in comparison with the MT. The LXX adds the phrase 'they will eat with you'84 and describes a new tribe of sojourners rather than membership in the tribes. In either case, allocation of land to Gentiles is unprecedented in the OT.85 In Ezekiel, it illustrates the expectation that Gentile sojourners will become part of the people of God. Even the language of the MT makes this clear: the sojourners are called 'children of Israel' and they receive an inheritance.86 No NT passage directly alludes to the above passages in Ezekiel. However, John's modification of Ezekiel's sheep metaphor to include Gentile sheep 'who are not from this fold' seems to reflect Ezekiel's attitude towards Gentile sojourners. John's reinterpretation of the sheep metaphor to include Gentiles is an expansion of Ezekiel's metaphor that is in harmony with the message of Ezekiel. 83. Zimmerli agrees that Ezek. 14.7 'displays the distinct intention of including the ~ta in the cult' and that it is related to pre-exilic casuistic law for sojourners. Zimmerli, Ezekiel, vol. 1, p. 303, also citing Alfred Bertholet, Die Stellung der Israeliten undder Juden zu den Fremden (Freiburg, 1896), pp. 110-13. 84. The addition of (Jxtyoviai in the LXX may result from reading "b^ (they will eat) for lbs"1 (they will cast). 85. Zimmerli suggests that Ezekiel's promise of inheritance for sojourners arose when Gentiles joined the 'Yahweh community in Babylon.' The author of the passage is 'fully prepared to assimilate the la ... this surely means also that [the sojourner] is to be incorporated into that tribe.' Zimmerli, Ezekiel, vol. 1, p. 532. Allen agrees with Zimmerli and adds, 'The injunction to treat [sojourners] like nationals did indeed form part of the legal traditions... but here it is given a radically new application in terms of naturalization and integration into tribal communities.' Allen, Ezekiel, vol. 2, p. 281. 86. Allen speaks of a new 'liberating spirit' in the closing chapters of Ezekiel, 'embracing within its range of tribal privilege the resident alien (47.22-23). If there was no longer room in the temple for the pagan staff who cared nothing for Yahweh (44.7, 9), there was room aplenty in the land and so in the covenant for non-Israelites who were committed to him in faith.' Allen, Ezekiel, vol. 2, p. 281.

130

Echoes of a Prophet

John also modifies the criteria for inclusion in God's people. In Ezekiel 34, God's sheep are the people of Israel whom God promises to rescue from oppression. Some people are excluded from this group: the failed leadership of Israel and the pagan oppressors. Thus, Ezekiel's implied criteria for membership in God's flock are membership in Israel and faithfulness to the covenant. Pagan oppressors (the predators) are excluded because they do not belong to Israel; the past leaders of Israel (the bad shepherds) are rejected because they are blatant violators of God's law. Although Ezekiel 34 makes no mention of it, elsewhere Ezekiel makes it clear that Gentile proselytes are also part of God's sheep (Ezek. 14.7-8; 47.22-23), as we have suggested above. However, Ezekiel's sojourners are only included because they dwell in Israel and live as Israelites. Within Ezekiel's eschatological scheme, membership in the coming reconstituted flock of God is first dependent on God's restoration through his servant David; individual sheep (including the Gentile sojourners implied in Ezek. 14.7-8; 47.22-23) belong to the flock if they live in the land and follow the covenant. In John, membership in the new flock of God is first dependent on the death and resurrection of Jesus (Jn 10.17; 11.51-52); and individual sheep belong to the flock if they follow Jesus, hear his voice, and obey him (Jn 10.16, 26-27, 4). A related development in John's metaphor of the sheep is the emphasis on following (ctKoAouGeiv). In Ezekiel, the emphasis is on God's shepherd role in leading (-ayco) the sheep from exile to grazing lands (Ezek. 34.1315). In John, there is also an emphasis on the sheep obediently following the good shepherd (10.4-5, 27). The reason for this becomes clear in the contrast set up in Jn 10.26-27. 'But you do not believe, because you are not of my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.' Hearing the shepherd and following him are equivalent to believing in Jesus. John's shift of the metaphor from leading to following is consistent with the important theme of belief in John's Gospel. John also modifies the blessings on God's people found in Ezekiel. There are some interesting similarities. As mentioned above, Ezekiel and John both use the idea of abundant pasture as a picture of blessing on God's people (Ezek. 34.13-15, 25-29; Jn 10.9). Ezekiel's 'good' and 'fat' pastures (Ezek. 34.14) symbolize safety, deliverance from enemies, and abundance of resources for Israel (Ezek. 34.25-29), but these physical blessings come as a result of God's new 'covenant of peace' and his appointment of David over his people (Ezek. 34.23-25). The restoration to the land is associated with a spiritual restoration of the people: 'they will no longer defile themselves with their idols... or with their transgressions... I will cleanse them, and they will be my people...' (Ezek. 37.23). For John, the pasture symbolizes life. Entry through Jesus the sheepgate allows the believer to find pasture, which is closely connected with having abundant life (Jn 10.9-10). Thefirstpromise that Jesus makes to his

4. Allusions to Ezekiel in John: Major Allusions

131

sheep who hear and follow him is that he will give them eternal life ( p oclwviov, Jn 10.28); perhaps this should remind us of the eternal covenant (6ta0r|Kr| alcovta) that God promises his people in Ezek. 37.26. In both books, the adjective 'eternal' is intended to comfort and assure of safety. Ezekiel also emphasizes that the people, King David, the Temple, and God's personal dwelling will all abide forever in the land (Ezek. 37.25-27). Three times, Ezekiel's shepherd oracle assures God's people that they will 'dwell in security' (ev €Am6i) in the land, safe from enemies (Ezek. 34.25, 27, 28). In John, Jesus assures his followers that 'no one can snatch them' from the hands of Jesus and the Father (Jn 10.28-29). In summary, John redefines Ezekiel's flock. Ezekiel promised a new flock, gathered and restored by God, and shepherded by David. The flock consists of Israelites who keep the Torah. Ezekiel's other observations on the coming restoration of Israel allowed for Gentile sojourners to become part of the flock as well. John also promised a new flock, brought together by the death and resurrection of Jesus. The flock consists of those who believe in Jesus, both Jews and Gentiles. g. Restoration of Peter (John 21.15-17) John returns to the shepherd metaphor once more in the account of Peter's restoration and re-commissioning. Jesus' words of restoration have some connection with Ezekiel 34, but the allusion is weaker than that in John 10 and 11. Jn 21.15-17 [Jesus] said to him, 'Tend my lambs' (pooK€ ra dpvtot |iou)... 'Shepherd my sheep' (iToijioave m TTpoPaia |iou)... 'Tend my sheep' td

Ezek. 34.15 I will tend my sheep (cyo) PooKipo) id upopaid |iou). 34.23 [David] will shepherd them (iTOL|iav€L

The parallel is not very strong, first, because the only parallel words are so common (POOKO), TToip,atvG), TTpoPaxov). It would be difficult to speak about shepherding without using at least m)i|iaivG) and iTpopaiov; and all three of the Major Prophets used these three terms in their pastoral metaphors for God, his people, and their leaders. Second, the parallel words do not have similar roles in the two passages. The verses quoted in Ezekiel describe God's resolution to take care of his people and appoint a new shepherd; in John, Jesus is telling Peter to take care of the people. Contrast this with the strong parallels seen between John 10 and Ezekiel 34, where the parallel phrases demonstrate Jesus' connection to God and David. Here, there is little suggestion that Peter is fulfilling any expectation from Ezekiel 34. Any links to Ezekiel's shepherd imagery are implicit at best, and mediated

132

Echoes of a Prophet

through the shepherd discourse of John 10. Jesus appoints Peter to serve as shepherd in the same way that God appoints Jesus (Jn 10.29); this is much like God's appointment of David in Ezekiel 34. Thus, Peter is expected to carry out the same shepherding tasks as Jesus, as Jesus carries out the same shepherding tasks as the Father (Jn 10.28-30). If an OT antecedent is sought for Peter's commission, there may be a faint reference to Jer. 23.4, where God promises, 'I will raise up shepherds for them, who will shepherd them, and they will not be afraid or terrified any longer.' There are some conceptual ties between Jn 21.15-17 and Jer. 23.4, but the verbal parallel is no better than the parallel between John 21 and Ezekiel 34.87 Jn 21.15-17 should therefore be treated as a resumption of John's shepherd symbolism, not as an allusion to any OT passage. Jesus had denounced the leaders of Israel as hirelings who flee at any sign of danger. Jesus is now calling Peter to be a good shepherd in contrast to the leaders of Israel. Jesus' restoration of Peter thus deals with the various elements of Peter's denial before the cross, and his continued failure after the resurrection. Peter's reason for attempting to follow Jesus into the high priest's courtyard had been love for Jesus (Jn 13.36-37); now Jesus ties that love to service rather than martyrdom. Peter's fear had caused him to deny Jesus; now Jesus calls him to be the sort of fearless shepherd who will not abandon God's people.88 After the resurrection, Peter had abandoned his calling to return to fishing; now Jesus calls him to take up the shepherd's staff and lead the flock with the same sort of self-sacrifice with which Jesus leads. Comparison to Second Temple Literature. John's use of Ezekiel 34 cannot be directly compared with the interpretation of Ezekiel in the DSS, since the DSS never allude to Ezekiel 34. Shepherd metaphors are occasionally used in the DSS, but there are no clear allusions to Ezekiel 34. The only similarity is in methodology. Both John and some of the DSS occasionally combine allusions to various OT texts around common themes and catchwords. I suggested that John 10 combined allusions to Numbers 27 and Ezekiel 34 around the common theme of God's legitimate ruler, and by the catchwords e^ayw, doayu, TTpopatcc, and ITOIIIIV- Jn 11.52 may have combined allusions to Ezek. 28.25 and 37.21-22 with the catchword 87. Sheehan sees the shepherd language as a reference to the 'appointment passages' such as Numbers 27; Ps. 78.70-72; 1 Chron. 17.6; and Jer. 3.15; 23.1-4 (J.F. Sheehan, 'Feed my Lambs', Scr 16 (1964), pp. 21-27). However, Jn 21.15-17 has very little verbal parallel with any of these passages. 88. Koester suggests something similar: 'Peter's task must be understood in light of what Jesus said earlier in the Gospel about what it means to be a shepherd... Peter, like the good shepherd, would lay down his life.' Koester, Symbolism, pp. 16-17.

4. Allusions to Ezekiel in John: Major Allusions

133

o\)vayu). This type of combination of Scriptures can be found, for example, in CD 1.3-4, linking Lev. 26.40 and Ezek. 39.23 by the catchword 'sword'; and in Florilegium, linking Ps. 1.1, Isa. 8.11, and Ezek. 20.18 by the catchword 'walk.'89 John's use of Ezekiel can be compared more readily to the use of Ezekiel in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 89-90) and in Psalm of Solomon 17, since those two works are the only Second Temple works (besides the NT) to allude extensively to Ezekiel 34. There are a number of similarities worth noting. First, all three authors expect a fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy about 'my servant David.'90 For John, God's appointed shepherd is Jesus; for the Animal Apocalypse, it is Judas Maccabee; for Psalm of Solomon 17, the shepherd is yet unknown. All three authors follow Ezekiel 34 in seeing their messiah as the representative of God, who delivers his people by God's power. In this sense, all three works interpret Ezekiel 34 in a messianic fashion.91 Ezekiel 34 is primarily about God as shepherd of his people, with a few verses on his representative, David; the three later works give more attention to the messianicfigure,although they never forget that he serves as God's representative. The fact that all three maintain the messiah's subordination to God suggests their common reliance on the messianic expectations found in Ezekiel (and other OT prophets), since in other ways, the three works have rather different views of the messiah. The three authors have a similar balance between messianic and community-centered interpretation of Ezekiel 34. Each passage puts great emphasis on God's appointment of and aid to the messiah; but in each, the messianic community is also important. All three define the faithful community in relationship to the messianic figure. In the Animal Apocalypse, the faithful community consists of the lambs who take up swords and fight beside Judas Maccabee; in Psalm of Solomon 17, the faithful community consists of those who have resisted Hellenization and kept the Law; in John, the faithful community is the trueflock,who follow, believe, and obey Jesus. In each case, the identification of the faithful community entails judgment on outsiders.92 For the Animal Apocalypse 89. See [2 fn 24-np, 71]. 90. Hanson suggests that John's usage is more typological, since Jesus' Davidic role is not emphasized (A.T. Hanson, 'John's Use of Scripture', in C.A. Evans and J.A. Sanders (eds), The Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel (JSNTSup, 104; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), pp. 358-79 (363)). However, the fact that Ezekiel 34 contains clear prophecies makes it unlikely that John is interpreting Ezekiel 34 typologically. John and the Animal Apocalypse are announcing the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy, while Psalm of Solomon 17 is asking God to fulfill that prophecy. 91. Much like Hays' 'christocentric' interpretation, although of course the term is less appropriate for 1 Enoch and Psalms of Solomon. 92. Nielsen points out that John 10 leaves the reader with only two choices: 'life within the flock or outside it.' Nielsen, 'Old Testament Imagery in John', p. 79.

134

Echoes of a Prophet

and Psalm of Solomon 17, the messianic kingdom is clearly faithful Israel. In John, the messianic kingdom, Jesus'flock,is also faithful Israel, but in a different way. Entry into this flock is on the basis of belief in Jesus, not on the basis of keeping the Law or membership in ethnic Israel. The differences between the appropriations of Ezekiel 34 in the three works are also important. The Animal Apocalypse and Psalm of Solomon 17, in keeping with typical messianic expectations, describe their messiahs as conquering kings who will expel the Gentiles and establish the kingdom of Israel. The power of these messiahs comes from God, but the messianic figures are not themselves supernatural. In John 10, the picture of the good shepherd is different in important ways. Most obviously, John's shepherd is one with God in a way that far surpasses anything in the Animal Apocalypse or Psalm of Solomon 17. Even when Jesus is linked with Ezekiel's other good shepherd, David, there is a different expectation of what it means to be a shepherd-king. To the author of Psalm of Solomon 17, the messiah's kingship entails not only conquest, but also being taught by God, teaching the people, and serving as a model of obedience to God. In John 10, Jesus' kingship is pictured as equally real, but Jesus' role as teacher is the dominant image, and there is no sense of conquest. In 1 Enoch, Judas Maccabee is expected to be the last king, since the day of judgment will come after the victory. In Psalm of Solomon 17, there is little suggestion that the messiah will bring in the end time; rather, he is the beginning of a new Davidic dynasty. John's pastoral imagery does not explicitly describe thefinalage, but the connections with Ezekiel 34 make it likely that John describes the messianic age as beginning with Jesus. The literal day of judgment and resurrection is yet to come (John 5), but the messianic age is inaugurated by Jesus' 'glorification.' There is no question that Jesus is the beginning of a new dynasty; Jesus is the 'one shepherd' who will never need to be replaced. All three images of the shepherd-king and his flock intentionally modify the pastoral imagery in Ezekiel 34. Each author chose to modify the image in different ways. It is interesting that both 1 Enoch and the Psalm of Solomon modify Ezekiel's image to increase enmity towards Gentiles, while John modifies the image to include Gentiles. Psalm of Solomon 17 is clear that there will be no place in Israel for Gentiles when the king comes; Ezekiel's inclusion of Gentiles in the land distribution is vetoed. The author of 1 Enoch's Animal Apocalypse transforms the symbolism of the wicked shepherds from Jewish leaders to Gentile rulers, and describes the destruction of the Gentile shepherds and predators. However, the Animal Apocalypse keeps a place in the final age, and even in the Temple, for those Gentiles who 'worship the first sheep,' Jacob (1 En. 90.30, 32). In John's pastoral metaphor, Gentiles are not slaves to the flock; rather, they are described as the 'other sheep' who are also safe in Jesus' hand, for whom

4. Allusions to Ezekiel in John: Major Allusions

135

he lays down his life. Even those sheep who were not born into the original flock receive the right to become God's sheep.

2. Vine and Branches Jesus' parable about the vine and the branches builds on a broad OT background. I will not attempt to prove that Ezekiel is the only background passage, since it is clear that the Vine discourse of John 15 is composed of elements from Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. Material from each of the three prophets will be examined to determine how John uses and modifies their vine images in his description of Jesus and his followers. a. Jesus as the True Israel (Isaiah 5.1-7; Jeremiah 2.21-221John 15.1-10) The opening line of Jesus' Vine parable contains a clear reference to Jer. 2.21: Jn 15.1-3 I am the true vine (rj Jer. 2.21 But I planted you a fruita[iireA.o<; r\ aXr|0iv6(;), and my father is bearing vine (ct|j,TTeA,ov KapTroc|)6pov),93 the gardener... he prunes every entirely true (moav akr\Qivx\v)f4 how branch that bears fruit (kapiTov did you turn to bitterness, an alien cj)€pov)... vine? The verbal parallel includes the two words qrrreA.o<;, aAr|0iv6<;, and KapTiov (|)6pov/KccpTTO(t)6pov\ The first two words constitute a strong parallel, since they occur in the same phrase, separated by two other adjectives in Jer. 2.21. The parallel extends to more than just the parallel words, however. In John, God is specifically called the gardener (yeoopYoc;); in Jer. 2.21, God clearly functions as the gardener without the title. God plants the vine, and part of the point of the oracle (Jer. 2.1-3.4) is that Israel has rejected God despite God's care for Israel (Jer. 2.3). The phrase Kapuov c|)epov (Jn 15.2) parallels Kocpmxt)6pov (Jer. 2.21), but there is a subtle modification. In Jer. 2.21, fruit-bearing is a metaphor for Israel's earlier faithfulness and usefulness to God (cf. Jer. 2.2-3, 5), in contrast to Israel's later apostasy. In John 15, the vine is Jesus, so there is no thought of his apostasy. The metaphorical element of fruit-bearing is thus transferred from the vine to the branches. There, the meaning of fruitbearing is essentially the same as in Jeremiah: branches that do not bear 93. The Hebrew p-iro (Soreq, a choice species of vine) is rendered here as KapTro4)6poi> (a fruit-bearing vine); in Isa. 5.2, the same word is rendered as qj,TTeA.ov ocoprix (a Soreq vine), transliterating the Hebrew (see below, [ch. 4 fn 97]). 94. The MT has 'a Soreq vine, an entirely faithful seed.'

136

Echoes of a Prophet

fruit are apostate and worthless; branches that bear fruit are faithful and useful. The themes of faithfulness and usefulness are dominant themes in both John 15 and Jeremiah 2. In Jeremiah 2, Israel is described as a devoted bride, holy to the Lord, and as the first-fruits that are sacred to God alone (Jer. 2.23). The sin of Israel is described as faithlessness: the people have gone after other water sources (Jer. 2.13, 18), the bride has become a harlot (Jer. 2.20, 25, 32-33) and the vine has become 'alien' (Jer. 2.21).95 Jeremiah also condemns Israel for worthlessness: 'they went far from me, and went after worthless things, and became worthless' (Jer. 2.5). The prophets went after 'profitless things' (Jer. 2.8, cf. 2.11), the people hewed out broken cisterns (Jer. 2.13), the grapes became bitter (Jer. 2.21 LXX). In John 15, the repeated command to abide (Jn 15.4,5,7) communicates the necessity of faithfulness; the fruitless branches (Jn 15.2, 5-6) warn against uselessness. Many of these observations about Jer. 2.21 could also be made about Isa. 5.1-7, which also provides important parallels to John 15. Jn 15.1-3 I am the true vine (r| oqiTTeAoc;), and my Father is the gardener. He takes away every branch that does not bear fruit (KapTrov ())epov), and he prunes (Ka0aLp€i) every branch that bears fruit.

Isa. 5.2, 6 I built96 a fence around it, and I provided stakes, and I planted a Soreq vine (a|iTTeA.ov ocoprix)97 . . . and I waited for it to bear a grapebunch (iTOifiaai oia^uA.riv), but it bore thorns 9 8 ... I will lay it waste; it will not be pruned (ou \ir\ T[ir\Qr\) or hoed.

The verbal parallels between Isa. 5.1-7 and Jn 15.1-10 are not very impressive, since they consist only of synonyms (e.g., Kapirov ^epov is equivalent to mnfiocu om
95. Craigie et al. see this image of worthlessness as a development from earlier positive senses of the metaphor (as in Ps. 80.8-11), which is further developed in Ezekiel 15. P.C. Craigie, P.H. Kelley, and J.F. Drinkard, Jr., Jeremiah 1-25 (WBC, 26; Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1991), p. 37. 96. MT describes God in the third person in vv. 1-2, and switches to the first person in v. 3; the LXX begins the first person description in v. 2. 97. Isa. 5.2 and Jer. 2.21 have in common their reference to the choice Soreq species of vine (see p. 135, above), which only occurs in two other places in the OT. It is possible that John has combined allusions to these two passages around the catchword Soreq, although such a linkage is only visible in the MT. 98. MT has 'wild grapes.'

4. Allusions to Ezekiel in John: Major Allusions

137

and wine-vat; then plants and tends the vine. He waits for grapes, but the vine produces only thorns. As in John 15, the lack of fruit results in judgment. In both John 15 and Isaiah 5, pruning is only for fruitful vines. God's protection and nurture are only directed towards those who bear fruit. Isa. 5.1-7, like Jer. 2.21, condemns the worthlessness of Israel. What use is a vine that doesn't produce grapes? This emphasis is more noticeable in the Hebrew text. The vine produces D^OKS, which can be translated as 'stinking or worthless things' or 'wild grapes.'99 Isaiah's exposition of his parable makes it clear that the expected fruit is righteousness and justice, while the wild grapes are bloodshed and outcry (Isa. 5.7). 10° This bears some resemblance to the fruit in John 15, which represents the proof of discipleship: answered prayer, keeping Jesus' commandments, and love for God and one another. While the fruit does not have exactly the same meaning in Isaiah 5 and John 15, both use fruit to describe positive moral qualities expected in God's people. The most important modification that John makes to the images from Isaiah and Jeremiah is to the identity of the vine. In both OT passages, the vine is Israel; while in John 15, the vine is Jesus.101 Perhaps John's transfer of identity resulted from messianically oriented meditation on Isa. 5.7, 'For the vineyard of the Lord of Hosts is the House of Israel, and the man of Judah is his beloved seedling.' Both the LXX and the MT have the singular 'man of Judah,' which could have been interpreted as a reference to the messiah (although it was not so interpreted in the Targum). Psalm 80 might have provided a connection that allowed the vine to symbolize both the messiah and Israel: 'O Lord of Hosts, turn, we pray; look from heaven and behold; visit this vine and mend it, [this vine] that your right hand planted, and on the son of man, whom you strengthened for yourself.' (Ps. 79.15-16 LXX).

John and other early Christians could easily interpret the LXX reference to the 'son of man' as a messianic reference. The combination of this messianic reference with a description of Israel as the vine makes it an 99. BDB, s.v. D"Wn. The word is a hapax and is rendered variously by various ancient translations and modern scholars (see J.D.W. Watts, Isaiah 1-33 (WBC, 24; Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1985), p. 55). The LXX translator rendered it as CLKOLVQOL (thorns), perhaps confusing it with the nearby TO© (thorns, Isa. 5.6). 100. Isaiah uses a nice play on words: God expected ttsroo, but there was only nsED; he expected npiz, but there was only npi7S. 101. Kee, focusing on the 'Branch' of Isa. 4.2; 11.1, sees the problem a little differently: 'Instead of picturing the community as the vine and the Messiah as the Branch, John identifies Jesus as the vine and his people as the branches...' H.C. Kee, 'Messiah and the People of God', in J.T. Butler, E.W. Conrad, and B.C. Ollenburger (eds), Understanding the Word (Festschrift B.W. Anderson; JSOTSup, 37; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), pp. 341-58 (355).

13 8

Echoes of a Prophet

attractive background passage for John 15. However, Psalm 79 LXX has relatively few words in common with John 15, and the two passages have rather different points. Psalm 79 is an appeal for God to deliver his vine, Israel, from its enemies; John 15 calls for God's people to be faithful to Jesus and thus useful to God. However the transfer of meaning in the vine metaphor was justified, John's allusions to the vine imagery in Isaiah and Jeremiah suggest that Jesus is faithful Israel. Israel had been the 'true vine' (Jer. 2.21), but was now useless and faithless. Jesus remained faithful, and thus God would now prune and tend Jesus and his branches instead of Israel. For the disciples, this meant that their hope of usefulness to the farmer lay in remaining connected to the faithful vine. By implication, all other vines were false and were destined for destruction. Although the passage never states it clearly, there is a suggestion that the nation of Israel was such a false vine. To put it another way, the individual's relationship with God had always been mediated through Israel. Individual fate was tied to the collective fate of Israel. Now Jesus calls his followers to mediate their relationship to God through himself. Their fate would no longer be dependent on Israel's faithfulness and usefulness; it would now be firmly fixed on Jesus. Furthermore, the individual's usefulness would now be assured by his dependence on the faithful vine, Jesus. This is not to suggest that John's vine metaphor invites a radical shift to individualism, since abiding in the vine ties each believer to the vine community. However, John invites individuals to transfer their loyalty from Israel to Jesus, the true vine. b. Judgment and Blessing: The Vine in John and Ezekiel Ezekiel's vine parables are more developed than those in Jeremiah or Isaiah, perhaps because those works influenced Ezekiel. Ezekiel's vine parables have some of the same themes: failed expectations, worthlessness, and judgment. Before analyzing John's use of Ezekiel's vine parables, I will briefly describe the three uses of vine imagery in Ezekiel. In Ezek. 15.1-8, Jerusalem is described as a bundle of vine prunings that have already been burned at the edges. The status of the vine wood as pruned branches is only implied in the MT, but is made explicit in Ezek. 15.4 LXX ('at the annual pruning'). Ezekiel rhetorically asks about the usefulness of vine wood, especially half-burned vine wood. Clearly, the wood itself is useless except for firewood. The initial burning likely refers to the fires started during the sack of Jerusalem in 597 BC; the final burning refers to the destruction of the city in 587 BC (Ezek. 15.7).102 The 102. Allen, Ezekiel, vol. 1, p. 221. However, Eichrodt sees the burning of the two ends of the vine as referring to the conquests of Israel by Sargon, and Judah by Nebuchadnezzar; the unburned portion referred to Jerusalem. Eichrodt, Ezekiel, p. 194.

4. Allusions to Ezekiel in John: Major Allusions

139

point of Ezekiel's parable is that Jerusalem's only value is to feed the fire. Thus, the coming destruction of Jerusalem is only what is expected, since its residents 'have acted faithlessly' (MT, bvn ibya) or 'fell away in transgression' (LXX, TrapeireoovTOpa-rrcoSiiaTi,Ezek. 15.8). Ezek. 17.1-10 contains an extensive parable about Israel's rebellion against Babylon, explained in Ezek. 17.11-21. The royal house is described as a vine, removed from a cedar in Israel and transplanted to Babylon, and tended by an eagle, the king of Babylon. The vine had the opportunity to grow strong in its new field, but instead it turned its loyalty to another eagle, Egypt. In consequence, the vine is torn up, its fruit rots (LXX) and its branches wither. The punishment against king Zedekiah will come, says Ezekiel, because Zedekiah swore in the name of the Lord to serve Nebuchadnezzar (Ezek. 17.19), but now seeks to ally with Egypt (Ezek. 17.13-19). The vine, the royal house, will be destroyed in consequence. Ezekiel 19 tells the same story in hindsight. Two laments are given for the fallen royal family. The first describes the royal family as a pride of lions, now captured and lying in a pit in Babylon. The second lament describes the royal family as a vine with strong branches. The vine itself is the royal mother (Ezek. 19.1, 10), either literally referring to Josiah's wife, Hamutal, or metaphorically referring to David's line. The strong branches are the princes of the house. Ezekiel laments the current state of the vine: torn up, cast down, withered, stripped of fruit and branches, and paradoxically transplanted in the wilderness (Ezek. 19.12-13). Although most of the destruction came from outsiders, the fire came from the 'strong branch,' signifying that the blame lay at Zedekiah's feet. The destruction is so total that Ezekiel sees no hope of another king arising from the royal family (Ezek. 19.14). In a few important ways, John 15 parallels Ezekiel's vine parables more than it follows other OT vine metaphors.103 This can be seen first by the amount of shared vocabulary between John 15 and Ezekiel's vine parables, especially in contrast with Isaiah 5 and Jeremiah 2. The chart below shows the common words and phrases in John 15 and five OT vine metaphors, and gives the meaning of each metaphorical element.

103. Scott sees the Ezekiel passages as the prime background for John 15, although 'even Ezekiel does not really match the imagery employed in John 15, where the main thrust is the description of the relationship between the vine and the branches.' M. Scott, Sophia and the Johannine Jesus (JSNTSup, 71; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), p. 29.

Echoes of a Prophet

140

OT Verbal Parallels to Vine Imagery in John 151 John 15

Ezekiel 15

Ezekiel 17

Ezekiel 19

Isa. 5.1-7

Jer. 2.21-22

Jesus

Jerusalem

Royal house

Royal house

Israel

Israel

Disciples or apostates

Uselessness upoavaTeAAovTa Blessing, rulers

TToietv oxafyvXr)

KapiTO(j)6po<;

Justice, righteousness

Blessing, purity

Blessing, discipleship

Blessing

Rulers

Blessing

KaGodpo), KaGapog cleansing/ pruning

KaQapoic,

T6(iva) p r u n e ,

(annual) pruning

tend

TO KA,f||ia...

TTUp, KCCTeoGLG),

TTUp, I

Judgment on fruitless branches

Judgment on Jerusalem

upoavaTeAAovTa

T] pdp6og; nup,

Judgment on royal house

KaTeaGtco,

cleanse

Judgment on royal house

The amount of verbal parallel makes it clear that Ezekiel's vine parables are the dominant background to John's vine parable. Overall, Ezekiel's vine parables have 8 words (qiTTeA-og, K ^ a , (jxEpco, KapTOc, KaGaLpco/KaGapog/ KaGapoic, £npoavG), TTUp, Kmco/KaTeaOLGo) and two phrases (tyepeiv KapiTOv, TO Kkf\\ia... e^Tipav9r|/€?r|pav0r| r\ pap&o<;) in common with John 15. This is significantly more than the wording shared between John 15 and any other OT passage. Even when only one of Ezekiel's vine parables is compared to John 15, the parallels are greater than with any other OT passage. Isa. 5.17, for example, has only one word and two synonyms in common with John 15; whereas Ezekiel 17 has three words, one synonym, and one phrase 104. Several of the connections between John 15, Ezekiel 15, 17, 19, and Jeremiah 2 are commented on in Evans, Word and Glory, p. 39. Evans also suggests Hos. 10.1, Kaia TO TT^GOC; x (according to the abundance of his fruit) as an important background for the phrase Kccp-rov TioXvvlvXdova (much/more fruit) in Jn 15.1, 5 (see also Morris, John, p. 593). However, the use is rather different in the two passages. The fruit in Hos. 10.1 is condemning evidence against Israel, whereas fruit is positive proof of discipleship in John 15.

4. Allusions to Ezekiel in John: Major Allusions

141

in common with John 15.105 Ezekiel and John also share some rare words in common. Ezekiel 15 and John 15 are the only two passages in either testament to use cognates of KaGocipG) to refer to pruning. Ezekiel is the only book in the LXX that regularly uses Kkxpa for 'branch'; John 15 is the only passage in the NT to use the word at all. John's use of the word suggests his intention to recall Ezekiel's vine parables.106 Ezekiel's vine parables, like John's and unlike any other OT vine images, distinguish between vine and branches. In Ezekiel 17 and 19, the branches are individuals and the vine is the royal house of Israel. The branches of Ezek. 17.6-7 are interpreted in Ezek. 17.13-15 as the 'chief men' (r)YOD|ievoi) and the 'emissaries' (dyY^oi) to Egypt.107 In Ezek. 19.10-14, the vine is the royal house, the 'strong branches' are the princes of the royal house, and the singular 'branch' is Zedekiah. Other OT vine images either do not describe branches, or use them to symbolize blessing on the vine. One of the most important parallels between John 15 and Ezekiel is the use of KaGcupG) and its cognates (ica0apo<;, KaGapaiq) to refer to pruning. Everywhere else in the NT and LXX, these words refer to purity and purification; only in Ezekiel 15 (LXX) and John 15 are they used to refer to pruning. Ezek. 15.4 describes the uselessness of vine wood; the LXX clarifies this by describing the uselessness of vine branches that have been pruned xv\v KCCI' evioarrov KaGapaiv air' OCUTTIQ ('at the annual pruning from it [the vine]'). In Jn 15.2-3, God prunes (Koceoapei) the fruitful branches, thus making them pure (KaGapog). John 15 describes judgment on the vine in terms similar to all three of Ezekiel's vine metaphors. In Jn 15.6, the fruitless branches wither grpaiveiv) and are burned (Koaeiv) in the fire (nup). In Ezek. 15.4, the pruned branches serve only as fuel for the fire (TTUP); in Ezek. 17.9-10, the vine's shoots (with rotten fruit) wither (£r|paiveiv); in Ezek. 19.12-14 the branches and the 'strong branch' wither ($r|pocu>€iv), and the fire (irup) consumes them (KcaeoGieiv, avodiGKeiv). John's choice of wording for burning updates septuagintal language; fire in the LXX typically 'consumes' (KaieoGieiv, avodioKeiv) whereas in the NT, fire always 'burns' or 'burns up' (KOCL€IV, Koaaicaieu/).108

105. Contra Nielsen, 'Old Testament Imagery in John', pp. 72-73. There is a strong conceptual connection between Isa. 5.1-7 and John 15, but the stronger verbal parallel shifts the evidence towards Ezekiel as the dominant background. 106. KACCSOC; is the most common word for 'branch' in both testaments. 107. However, Zimmerli sees the branches as representing the attitude of King Zedekiah, first towards Babylon and then towards Egypt. Zimmerli, Ezekiel, vol. 1, pp. 362, 364. 108. On two occasions, the book of Hebrews follows the LXX pattern, but one is a quotation of the LXX (Heb. 10.27), and the other is an allusion (Heb. 12.29).

142

Echoes of a Prophet

John 15 also shares broad themes with Ezekiel's vine images. John's judgment on the fruitless branches has strong verbal parallels with the judgment on Jerusalem in Ezekiel 15, and the themes of the two images resonate as well. The main point of Ezekiel 15 is that the faithlessness of Jerusalem (Ezek. 15.8) has resulted in worthlessness and therefore judgment (Ezek. 15.4-6). In John 15, the judged branches fail to abide in Jesus (faithlessness) and thus produce no fruit (worthlessness) and are judged.109 Similar images of judgment are found in Ezekiel 17 and 19. The king has forsaken his covenant with God and the king of Babylon, and has placed his trust in Egypt. Instead of staying in his appointed place, the king rebelled and sought a different farmer (Ezek. 17.7-8, 15). In consequence, the vine was uprooted and the strong branch vine withered and burned (Ezek. 19.12, 14). In John 15, the branches, Jesus' disciples, must remain where God has placed them. If they do not remain attached to Jesus, but seek prosperity elsewhere, they will be cut off, allowed to wither, and burned (Jn 15.2, 6). In Ezekiel, the allegiance is directed towards God and Nebuchadnezzar; in John 15, the allegiance is directed towards Jesus, God's representative. In Ezekiel, the three vine metaphors announce judgment against Jerusalem and its leaders. This is perhaps one reason for John's appropriation of Ezekiel's vine metaphors. Conflict with Jerusalem and its rulers is one of the driving themes of John, as was already seen in examining the shepherd discourse. In a few places, the Farewell discourses keep the Jerusalem opposition in the background (e.g., Jn 15.21-25). Judas, a fruitless vine, has just left to betray Jesus to the chief priests (Jn 13.21-30). Judas is an example of one who places his trust in a false vine, the Jerusalem council. Jesus' parable of the true vine explains the betrayal of Judas, and exhorts the disciples to trust only Jesus. The covenant faith once mediated through Israel would now be mediated through Jesus, the faithful vine. c. The Messianic Vine Jesus' description of himself as the 'true vine' can be explained as his appropriation of the privilege and status of Israel to himself. Jesus was Israel as Israel ought to have been: a choice vine, producing fruit consistent with his identity. Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel describe Israel as a vine that had failed to produce grapes, a nation that had been unfaithful to God. John describes Jesus as the 'true vine' who remains faithful to the 109. Morris points out the shared emphasis on usefulness: fruit 'is the only reason for growing a vine; as Ezekiel pointed out long before, a vine does not yield timber (Ezek. 15).' Morris, John, p. 594.

4. Allusions to Ezekiel in John: Major Allusions

143

Father and produces fruit through his disciples. However, the vine image also contains the potential for messianic interpretation. We have already seen that Ezekiel 17 provides important background for John 15. In Ezekiel 17, the royal house is depicted as a vine transplanted from a cedar in Israel to Babylon. Instead of growing there, the vine faithlessly seeks to be transplanted to Egypt, and the vine is destroyed. The line of David has apparently failed, and there seems little hope that it will be restored. But the allegory does not end there. God himself promises to take a new cutting from the tall cedar, and he himself will plant it in Israel. It will become not a vine, but another mighty cedar that dominates the world. There is some verbal parallel between John 15 and the messianic cedar in Ezek. 17.22-24. Jn 15.1-3 I am the true vine and my father is the gardener... and every branch (KAf||ia) bearing fruit (KapTTOv 4)epov), he prunes.

Ezek. 17.23 On a high mountain of Israel I will plant it, and it will bring forth shoots (PAXXOTOV) and bear fruit (TTOLT|0€L Kapuov) and become a noble cedar... its branches (toe will be restored.110

Jn 15.1-3 and Ezek. 17.23 thus have in common one word (Kkfpa) and one parallel phrase (KapiTOv 4)€pov/m)ir|aei Kapirov)111. Although Ezek. 17.22-24 is primarily about a cedar rather than a vine, the vine image is in the immediate background (Ezek. 17.1-10), and the translator's use of pAxxotog to describe the shoots recalls more the shoots of a vine than of a cedar.112 The parallel is strengthened by the fact that the elements of the two metaphors have similar meanings. In both images, God is the farmer who tends his plant and ensures that it will bear fruit. Ezekiel's cedar is a king from the royal line, tended by God, while John's vine is Jesus the Messiah, also tended by God. Ezek. 17.22-24 was the subject of some messianic speculation in the Second Temple era. The LXX subtly increases the messianic emphasis of the passage by its use of masculine pronouns for the cedar. The Hebrew text

110. The MT has n»ton (they [the birds] will live); possibly the LXX translator read it as (they will return/be restored). Allen, Ezekiel, vol. 1, p. 253. 111. The modification of the phrase for 'bearing fruit' is typical of Johannine style. The L X X uses KapTTOv iToielv, KapiTov (j)epeiv or KOCPTTOV 8i8ovoa, as d o other N T writers, b u t J o h n only uses Kapirov cf)€peiv (Jn 12.24; 15.2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 16). Ezek. 17.8 also uses KapiTov c^epetv.

112. pAxxotoc is normally used to describe the shoots of a vine or other small plant, as in Ezek. 17.8; 19.10 (cf. Gen. 40.10; Num. 17.10; Sir. 50.8; see also BDAG, s.v. pAaoiog, p. 177). Here, pXotoioc; translates ^tt, which is variously translated elsewhere as K^fpa (Mai. 3.10), or

144

Echoes of a Prophet

naturally uses masculine pronouns and adjectives to refer to the cedar, since HK (cedar) is masculine. However, the Greek K€Spoc; is feminine. The LXX appropriately uses a feminine adjective (\xeyaXvi) to modify the cedar, but then uses masculine pronouns to personify the cedar. 1 will plant... and I will hang him (ctkov)... every beast will rest under him (akoO), and every bird will rest under his (auuou) shade... his (OCUTOO) branches will be restored' (Ezek. 17.22-23). The last three pronouns could be masculine or neuter, but neuter would be even less likely than masculine. There is no neuter antecedent, and the first pronoun is clearly masculine. The translator consistently uses feminine pronouns, participles, and adjectives to refer to the vine (r| cqnreAxx;) in Ezek. 17.6-10, so the alteration to masculine here seems to intentionally refer to the person represented by the cedar.113 The Targum to Ezekiel also treats the cedar as a king from the line of David, although it does not use the word 'Messiah.' 'I Myself will bring near a child from the kingdom of the house of David which is likened to the lofty cedar, and I will establish him from among his children's children; I will anoint and establish him by my Memra on a high and exalted mountain. On the holy mountain of Israel will I establish him, and he shall gather together armies and build fortresses and become a mighty king; and all his righteous shall rely upon him, and all the humble shall dwell in the shade of his kingdom.' (Targ. Ezek. 17.22-23) Levey contends that the lack of 'Messiah' in this passage (and throughout the Targum to Ezekiel) makes the Ezekiel Targum non-messianic in contrast to other targumim.114 He suggests that this Targum was written during the time of Johanan ben Zakkai, when explicit messianic teaching could incur the Roman death penalty.115 However, despite the lack of the word 'messiah,' the Targum preserves a messianic interpretation by the use of targumic messianic language such as 'house of David.'116 113. Levey claims that only the Vulgate gives a messianic translation of this passage; but the Vulgate uses neuter pronouns to refer to the cedar, and makes no other significant modification to the text. S.H. Levey, The Targum of Ezekiel (Aramaic Bible, 13; Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1987), p. 57. Hos. 10.1 LXX does something similar with pronoun use: 'Israel (masc.) was a luxuriant vine (fern.), its (fern.) fruit was prospering; according to the abundance of his (masc.) fruit he multiplied altars.' 114. S.H. Levey, The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation. The Messianic Exegesis of the Targum (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1974), pp. 78-80, 85; Levey, The Targum of Ezekiel p. 57. 115. Levey, The Targum of Ezekiel, p. 5. 116. It is possible that another element in the LXX may have been interpreted messianically by early Christians. The LXX translates bubm nnrin (on a high and lofty mountain) as €TT' opog ui|/r|A.6v, Kod Kpe(iaaa) aurov (on a high mountain, and I will hang him). The rare word Slbn (lofty) was misread, by the translator or by an earlier scribe (note the use

4. Allusions to Ezekiel in John: Major Allusions

145

It is clear that Ezek. 17.22-24 referred to a messianic figure (a coming Davidic king) when it was written, and was so interpreted by some authors of the Second Temple era. The messianic conclusion to Ezekiel's vine parable may have provided the primary motivation for John to apply the image to Jesus. If so, then part of the implication of Jesus as the 'true vine' is that he is faithful to God, unlike the unfaithful vine, Zedekiah. Like other unfaithful kings, Zedekiah broke his oath and his covenant with God (Ezek. 17.13-19). In contrast, Jesus will be completely faithful to his father. There may be a hint of polemic against the current faithless rulers of Israel here as well. d. The People of God

The shepherd discourse was primarily a messianic claim for Jesus, with the sheep as literary foils for the good and bad shepherds. The Vine parable makes some claims about the identity of Jesus, but is primarily about the branches, the people of God. The parables of the vine and the shepherd make many of the same christological and ecclesiological claims. In both cases, Jesus transfers authority and privilege from Israel or its rulers to himself. The sheep must follow the good shepherd instead of the bad; the branches must cling to the true vine instead of the false. John 15, like John 10, redefines God's people. God's people always enjoy his tending and produce fruit for his benefit. Before, that opportunity came through being a faithful part of the vine of Israel. Now, God's tending, and the resulting fruitfulness, would only come through the faithful vine Jesus. God's people are now those who 'abide in' Jesus, hear his words, obey his commands, and thus produce fruit.

of rbn in Pseudo-Ezekiel's allusion to this passage; see p. 72) as the verb rbr\ (to hang), and thus translated it with the Greek verb Kp6(iaoo). The Greek verb group Kpe^avvuiii (including eiTLKp€(iavvi)(iL, Kpe|iaCa), and Kp€|iaco) means 'to hang,' and can refer to the hanging of anything. However, whenever the object is a person, Kpe|iavvi>|j,i invariably refers to execution or the public display of executed corpses. The Kpe|iavvi>j!i group is used with a personal object to signify execution or display of corpse seventeen times in the LXX, always translating nbn, and four times in the NT. rbn is also translated once with aiaupow and once with UJTTHII. It is unlikely that the LXX translator had this meaning in mind; either he was literally translating a phrase that made no sense to him, or he was using Kpe[iavvu|ii in some agricultural sense that is otherwise unattested in Classical or Hellenistic Greek. However, a survey of patristic references to Ezekiel 17 reveals that none commented on the unusual wording in Ezek. 17.22. Little more can be said of this unusual phrase in Ezekiel 17 except that one can easily imagine that early Christian readers of the LXX could have seen it as a prophecy about the crucifixion of the messiah.

146

Echoes of a Prophet

The True Vine parable of John 15 is thus both christocentric and ecclesiocentric.117 Agricultural images from the OT are used to describe both the Messiah and his community. In comparison with John 10, John 15 is less christocentric in its use of OT imagery. John 15 makes only two observations about Jesus: he is the true vine, and he mediates life to the branches. The rest of the vine parable describes God's people. In John 10, most of the OT language is used to defend Jesus' legitimacy, although there are also a number of observations about God's people. The different emphases are appropriate to the two contexts: John 10 defends Jesus' legitimacy over against the legitimacy of the Pharisees and priests; while John 15 is part of the Farewell Discourses, which are primarily concerned with the post-glorification relationship between Jesus and his disciples. Comparison to Second Temple Literature. The only Second Temple works to significantly allude to Ezekiel's vine metaphors are Hodayot 14 and 16.118 Hodayot 14 and 16, like John 15, combine agricultural imagery from a variety of OT passages.119 John 15 draws on the generic OT symbol of the vine, but alludes primarily to the words and ideas in the vine images of Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Isaiah. It seems likely that these passages were combined because they all describe judgment on Israel or its rulers using vineyard or vine metaphors. The passages also share the themes of failed expectation, faithlessness, and uselessness, and common words (or synonyms) related to fruit-bearing, pruning, and withering. John's vine parable uses the judgment language of its OT sources to warn against faithlessness and uselessness to Jesus; but John's focus is more on the positive aspects of Jesus as the faithful vine and his followers as fruitful branches. The two 'agricultural' Hodayot do something similar in combining plant-related metaphors from the OT to create a new image. In the Hodayot, the metaphors are more expansive and draw on more of the OT. In Hodayot 16, for example, there are allusions to almost every agricultural metaphor in the OT. When the Hodayot allude to Ezekiel, they are more likely to draw on the image of the cedar from Ezekiel 31, but occasionally phrases from Ezekiel 15, 17, 21, and 47 can be found. Perhaps because the Hodayot allude to so many agricultural metaphors in the OT, no single pattern of appropriation can be discerned. As we saw in Chapter 2, the Hodayot sometimes reverse the original usage of a particular metaphor. 117. Kee describes it thus: 'These related symbols [vine and branch] announce both the launching of the Messiah's work and the results of his transforming activity in behalf of God's people.' Kee, 'Messiah and the People of God', p. 355. 118. See Chapter 2, pp. 52-58. 119. Sir. 24.12-22 (not analyzed in this work because it makes no allusions to Ezekiel) also alludes to a variety of OT agricultural images to create an ode to Wisdom.

4. Allusions to Ezekiel in John: Major Allusions

147

For example, Hodayot 10 uses phrases from Ezekiel 31, an oracle of woe against Egypt, to describe blessing on the Community (see pp. 54-55). John 15 and the Hodayot both appropriate OT agricultural imagery (including imagery from Ezekiel) to describe their communities. In both cases, this appropriation entails a replacement: the privileges and blessings once bestowed on Israel are now bestowed on the new community. John makes this replacement by describing Jesus as the 'true vine' with an implied contrast to the faithless vine, Israel. Membership in this new community is dependent on 'abiding' in the vine, the Messiah. Only by remaining faithful to the true vine, Jesus, can anyone experience the pruning of the Father and the joy of bearing fruit to God's glory. The Hodayot makes a more explicit contrast between true trees and false trees. The Community is the plantation of trees with roots reaching to the 'rivers of Eden,' the 'living waters' (1QH 14.16, 16.7). The rest of Israel are other trees that appear healthy but have not tapped into the living water (1QH 16.9-10). Those trees will experience judgment (1QH 16.19), while the true plantation will grow up to cover the world (1QH 14.15-16). Both John 15 and Hodayot 16 use their agricultural metaphors to warn their respective communities about the dangers of apostasy. The burned branches of John 15 are those who have not remained in Jesus and his teachings; the fruitful branches are those who cling to Jesus and thus experience the pruning of the Father and greater fruit. Hodayot 16 warns that the Community is like a plantation that willflourishunder the Teacher's hand, but will become barren without him (1QH 16.22-26). As part of their warning, both Jn 15.6 and 1QH 16.20 allude to the judgment of withering (wzr/SripcavG)) and fire (raK/irOp) found in Ezek. 19.12.120 In John 15, the withered and burned branch is contrasted with the fruitful branch to illustrate the consequences of faithfulness to or apostasy from Jesus. Unfortunately, 1QH 16.20 is imperfectly preserved, but it apparently contrasts the burned, withered tree with the fruit-bearing tree to illustrate the consequences of accepting or refusing the message from the Teacher. Both John 15 and Hodayot 16 have a 'messianic' element, although the differences are important. In John 15, Jesus is the authoritative mediator between the Father and his people; the Father will tend only branches that remain on the vine. This fits well into the Fourth Gospel's messianic claims for Jesus. It is also possible, as argued above, that the allusions to Ezekiel 17 are designed to associate Jesus with the house of David while contrasting him with the failed leadership of Israel (see pp. 143^5). The author of the Hodayot makes no messianic claims for himself,121 but

120. See p. 56. 121. Some of the references in the Hodayot to 'branch' or 'branches' may be subtle messianic references. 1QH 16.22 expresses the hope 'that their boughs may become a beautiful

148

Echoes of a Prophet

presents himself as the authoritative mediator of God's teaching and the source of life for the Community. He claims to have received 'discernment into your truth' and the 'mysteries of your wonder' (1QH 15.26-27). The author is claiming to be at least a prophet extraordinaire: 'But you, o my God, have placed your words in my mouth, as showers of early rain, for all who thirst and as a spring of living waters' (1QH 16.16). The community stands or falls by the mediation of the author of the Hodayot (1QH 16.2126). Thus both John 15 and Hodayot 14, 16 use agricultural imagery from the OT to define their communities and their leaders. There is a hint of replacement in both works: Jesus replaces Israel in John, and the Community replaces Israel in the Hodayot. Or, to put it another way, membership in the people of God is now mediated through a single leader for both John and the Hodayot. Both Jesus and the Righteous Teacher claim to be the exclusive means of access to God, although in a slightly different manner. Jesus uses vine imagery to describe himself as the true Israel, and hints that he is the replacement for the royal house of Israel. The Righteous Teacher does not claim Israel's status for himself, but rather for the Community. His claim is no less exalted for that difference: the author of Hodayot claims that God has transferred some of his own roles to the Righteous Teacher. The Righteous Teacher, authorized by God, is now the source of living waters (1QH 16.16) and the farmer for the plantation (1QH 16.21-23). Both of these roles were assigned to God in the passages to which Hodayot alludes (Jer. 2.13, 21; Isa. 5.1-7). I suggested above (p. 58) that the various allusions in Hodayot 14 and 16 hint at various ways of interpreting OT passages. Thus, the Hodayot see some agricultural metaphors as prophecies now being fulfilled, others as models of things yet to come, and others as warnings to pursue correct teaching at Qumran. John 15 likewise hints at various modes of reading the OT. The topic of John 15 is primarily sapiential in that it gives guidelines for present life in association with Jesus; however, the reference to the 'true vine' suggests either that Jesus is the antitype of ideal Israel (the intended vines of Jeremiah 2 and Isaiah 5), or that he is the fulfillment of messianic expectations (Ezek. 17.22-24). The fact that all three of these methods can be suggested for John 15 may also suggest that such a distinction is not useful in this context. In other passages, such as John 10, there is a clear suggestion that Jesus is the fulfillment of an OT promise. However, in John 15, the distinction between prophecy, typology, and wisdom is less clear.

branch of glory' (cf. Isa. 4.2). It is not clear if the use of the term in the Hodayot is a hope of generic blessing on the Community or an expectation that the Messiah will arise from the Community.

4. Allusions to Ezekiel in John: Major Allusions

149

3. Summary John's two clearest allusions to Ezekiel are found in the Shepherd and Vine discourses. Both of these passages use catchwords to combine allusions to several OT passages, but in both cases, particular images from Ezekiel are important. The Shepherd discourse uses allusions to Ezekiel to describe Jesus as the Davidic Messiah, God's faithful representative, united in purpose and function with God. The allusions to Ezekiel in the Vine discourse are designed to contrast Jesus with faithless Israel, Jerusalem, and its leaders. In both cases, the metaphors assigned to Jesus suggest a redefinition of God's people. In Ezekiel and the other OT passages to which John alludes, Israel was God's people, God's sheep, God's vine. John draws new borders around God's people with his Vine and Sheep discourses. God's people are those who follow Jesus and his teachings, who believe in him. God's promises for security and life are now mediated through Jesus: God will hold Jesus' sheep, and he will tend the branches that are in Jesus. Some authors of Second Temple Judaism allude to the same passages in Ezekiel, sometimes for similar reasons. The Animal Apocalypse and Psalm of Solomon 17, like John 10, use Ezekiel's shepherd to describe messianic hopes, although those hopes were different in some important ways from John's messianic claims. The Animal Apocalypse and Psalm of Solomon 17 each use imagery from Ezekiel to aid in describing a conquering messiah. All three works describe a community of 'true believers' who are faithful to the messiah: the Maccabean supporters in the Animal Apocalypse, the faithful resisters of Hellenization in Psalm of Solomon 17, and Jesus' followers in John 15. The Hodayot are not explicitly messianic, but use allusions to Ezekiel's vine and cedar to describe the faithfulness of their own community in contrast to the rest of Israel. Much like John 15, the Hodayot describe their community as the true plantation, which alone is tended by God. John 15 and Hodayot 16 both use agricultural imagery from Ezekiel as part of exclusive claims for their leaders. Each author describes his leader as God's sole representative and prophet. The tendency to combine allusions, by the use of catchwords, into new metaphors was apparently common in literature of the Second Temple period. John 10 combines allusions to material from Numbers 27 and Ezekiel 34 around the common image of the shepherd and common words such as €?dtYW, eloayo), TTpopaia, and TTOi|ir|v. John 15 combines allusions to Isaiah 5, Jeremiah 2, and Ezekiel 15, 17, 19 around the common image of the vine and catchwords related to bearing fruit, pruning, and withering. This is typical also of Hodayot 14 and 16, which combine allusions to agricultural images in the OT. Psalm of Solomon 17 alludes to shepherd images in Ezekiel 34 and Micah 5; and the Animal Apocalypse of 1 Enoch combines allusions to Ezekiel 34 and Zechariah 10, 11.

Chapter 5 ALLUSIONS TO EZEKIEL IN JOHN: MINOR ALLUSIONS Chapter 4 dealt with the two clearest and most extensive of John's allusions to Ezekiel. This chapter will address a number of shorter allusions, most of which are less clear than the allusions found in the Shepherd and Vine discourses. These secondary allusions include references to the 'opened heavens' of Ezek. 1.1, the 'dry bones' of Ezekiel 37, and the water symbolism of Ezekiel 36 and 47. Some other scholars have also suggested Ezekiel 40-46 as the background for the theme of the 'new temple' in John. 1 Although John certainly presents Jesus as the new temple at times, it is difficult to establish verbal parallel to any passage in Ezekiel. Thus, this study will only analyze John's image of the new temple as it intersects with the other topics in this chapter.

1. The Opened Heavens (Ezekiel 1.1; Genesis 28.12; John 1.51) John's first allusion to Ezekiel occurs at the end of Jesus' conversation with Nathanael and the other early disciples. As with many other allusions, this one combines references to two OT passages. Jn 1.51 'Truly, truly I say to you, Ezek. 1.1 And the heavens were you will see heaven opened (ptyeoQt opened and I saw visions of God TOV oupocvov dvetpyora) (iced r)voix0r)oav ol oupavoi, KCA €i6ov opaoeic, 0€oO).

1. Fowler in particular sees John's 'new temple' imagery (Jn 1.14; 2.17-21; 4.21-24; 7.3739) as being a 'primary point of contact' between Ezekiel and John. Furthermore, he suggests that Jesus' relationship to the Temple in John 7-9 is strongly reminiscent of God's relationship to the Temple in Ezekiel 6-10 (Fowler, 'Influence', pp. 128-44). However, the parallels he lists are broadly thematic, not verbal. Other scholars see a more general connection between the eschatological expectations for a new Temple in John and Ezekiel. Brown, John, vol. 1, p. 123; Evans, Word and Glory, p. 132; C.R. Koester, The Dwelling of God: The Tabernacle in the Old Testament, Intertestamental Jewish Literature, and the New Testament (CBQMS, 22; Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association, 1989), pp. 222-24; Schnackenburg, John, vol. 1, p. 350, fn 29.

5. Allusions to Ezekiel in John: Minor Allusions

151

and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man

Gen. 28.12 Behold, a ladder fixed on earth, whose top was reaching into heaven (^Ic; xbv oupavov), and the angels of God were ascending and descending on it

(Kal xoix; ayY^oix; xou GeoO avapaivovtac; Kal Kaiapaivovrac; e m xbv uiov TOO av9pc5iTou).'

(Kal ol ay ye Am TOLI Geou hvkfyoiivov Kal Kaiepaivov €TT' aircf|<;).2

Jesus utters this saying in response to Nathanael's amazed belief in Jesus. Jesus' promise to the disciples combines elements from the theophanic visions of Jacob and Ezekiel. The allusion to Ezekiel can be reasonably established despite its brevity. It consists of three words (opaco, oupavog, avoiya)) in very similar phrases. Other passages in the OT speak about opened heavens, but only in Ezekiel is that image used to introduce revelation from God. Other passages describe the opening of the floodgates (KatappaKTai/miK), not the heavens, to pour out God's wrath (Gen. 7.11; 8.2; Isa. 24.18; similarly Isa. 63.19 LXX).3 The variation between the singular and plural of oupavoc; is not significant, since some LXX translators as well as most NT authors alternate between the two.4 John uses the singular here because, unlike other NT authors, he always uses the singular of oi)pavo<;.5

2. The Q account of Jesus' baptism preserves an allusion to the same passage in Ezekiel: 'the heavens were opened {v\v^xQrpav... OL oupavoi) to him, and he saw (ddev) the Spirit descending (Kaiapofivov) like a dove and coming upon him (en' auxov)' (Mt. 3.16//Lk. 3.21-22). The parallel baptism account in Mk 1.10 uses OXLCCO instead of dvoiyo). Luke also records a saying by Stephen that is remarkably like John's version, 'Behold, I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man (Gecopco toix; oupavoix; 6ir|voiYM<evoD<; Kal xbv ulov IOU dvGpcotTOu) standing at the right hand of God' (Acts 7.56). 3. In a few cases, these gates open to pour out God's blessing (Mai. 3.10; Ps. 78.23; T. Jud. 24.1). This use of the floodgates seems designed to show God pouring out blessing in as much abundance as the waters of the Great Flood. 4. The two translations likely reflect the dual form in Hebrew, irntD. The LXX uses the plural for 9% of the occurrences of oupavo;, while the NT uses the plural for 33% of the occurrences. Ezek. 1.1 is the only place in Ezekiel that uses the plural. 5. Brown suggests that John's allusion to Ezek. 1.1 is closest to the allusion in Lk. 3.21-22 (see [fn 2], above) because both use the singular of oupavoc;, while Matthew and Mark use the plural (Brown, John, vol. 1, p. 91). However, the use of singular and plural is in accord with the style of each author. Like John, Luke prefers the singular of oupavog (18 out of 18 occurrences in John; 55 out of 61 occurrences in Luke—Acts). Matthew's use of the plural of ohpavoc, reflects his slight tendency to use the plural (55 out of 82 occurrences).

152

Echoes of a Prophet

The second part of the saying is a clear allusion to Gen. 28.12.6 The verbal parallel is precise enough that it almost qualifies as a quote. The only modification to the Genesis material is the change in case to 'angels' (from nominative to accusative) and conversion of the imperfect verbs to participles. Both of these are grammatically appropriate and necessary changes to fit the allusion into its new context. Gen. 28.12b has a standard subject-verb pairing (the angels were ascending and descending); John makes this clause into the object of his sentence by converting the nominative to an accusative and the indicative verbs to participles. The precise parallel in word order also is strong evidence for John's dependence on Gen. 28.12. The combination of the two allusions is typical of other combinations we have seen in John and in the DSS, in that the two passages share common themes and possible catchwords. The two passages both introduce theophanies: Ezek. 1.1 introduces the vision of God's throne chariot, and Gen. 28.12 introduces a vision of God upon the ladder.7 In both theophanies, angelic beings attend God. In Jacob's vision, God's ladder is filled with angels; in Ezekiel's vision, the wheels of God's throne are angelic beings. Jacob's ladder is simultaneously fixed in heaven and earth, allowing Jacob to see God, while Ezekiel's chariot comes from heaven and descends to earth. The language of ascending and descending is clearest in Jacob's vision, but that element is also observed in Ezekiel's vision. The throne is first seen in the storm cloud, but it comes down to the land and later ascends: 'when the living creatures rose (escape iv) from the earth, the wheels rose also' (Ezek. 1.19; see also 1.20, 21; 10.19; 11.22). By combining allusions to these two visions, John implies that Jacob and Ezekiel had essentially the same vision. More importantly, the inclusion of the Son of Man in the combined allusion suggests that the visions of Jacob and Ezekiel were christophanies as well as theophanies. This would be a difficult claim to maintain, if we did not have an even clearer example of this idea elsewhere. After quoting and interpreting Isa. 6.10 as a prophecy about the Messiah (Jn 12.40), John explains how Isaiah gained such insight about Jesus: Jn 12.41 Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory (dhev xx\v So£av OCUTOO), and he spoke concerning him.

Isa. 6.1 I saw (el6ov) the Lord sitting on a high and lofty throne, and the house was full of his glory (tf)c So£r)c OCUTOU).

6. This connection was first observed by Augustine in contra Faustum 12.26. Brown, John, vol. 1, p. 89. 7. The MT has God above the ladder, while the LXX has God, like the angels, on the ladder (4TT' 0Lmf\Q, Gen. 28.13).

5. Allusions to Ezekiel in John: Minor Allusions

153

This is quite likely a genuine allusion to Isa. 6.1, since it occurs immediately after a quote from Isa. 6.10. Even without this contextual hint, a description of Isaiah 'seeing his glory' could hardly be a reference to anything beside the throne-vision of Isaiah 6. John thus claims that Isaiah's theophany was a revelation of Jesus as well as of Yahweh.8 Thus, John implies that the three great theophanies of Jacob, Isaiah, and Ezekiel were somehow also visions of Christ. Two possible meanings suggest themselves. First, John may be reinterpreting those visions to say that Jacob, Isaiah, and Ezekiel actually saw Christ rather than Yahweh. Such a view would perhaps be consistent with John's claim that 'no one has ever seen the Father' (Jn 1.18). In John's view, the OT visionaries actually saw the Son. However, there are problems with this view. One of John's themes is the subordination of the Son to the Father, and it would seem unusual if John allowed the Son to displace the Father in the great theophanies of the OT. Furthermore, if John is suggesting that the apparent theophanies were christophanies only, he invites the interpretation that the Father is the Son. Regardless of later Trinitarian considerations and debates, nothing in John suggests that he saw the Son and the Father as the same person. It seems more likely, then, that John is suggesting that the great theophanies revealed Christ in addition to the Father. That is, some element within those visions also revealed the Son.9 Such a view would be more in keeping with John's understanding of the relationship between God and his Son (as revealed, for example, in Jn 1.1-3). It is possible that John saw Jesus revealed as 'the glory of God' in the three visions.10 The presence of God's glory is explicit in the throne-visions of Ezekiel and Isaiah (Isa. 6.1, 3; Ezek. 1.28 (LXX); 3.12, 23; 8.4; 10.22 (LXX)), but is only suggested in Jacob's vision. The Targumim to Genesis 28.12 both add that the Shekinah, the inhabiting glory of God, was on Jacob's ladder.11

8. Something similar is implied in Jn 8.56, 'Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw and was glad.' There is no clear OT passage to which this refers; it is possible that it refers to traditions about Abraham's vision of his descendants {Midrash Rabbah 44.22 on Gen. 15.18; 4 Ezra 3.14). Brown, John, vol. 1, p. 360. 9. Such a view is consistent with the use of the title 'Son of Man' in this passage, since that title can signify a heavenly being (as Dan. 7.13-14 was often interpreted to mean). 10. Other NT authors have a similar view. The author of Hebrews describes Jesus as 'the radiance of his glory and the exact representation of his being' (Heb. 1.3, alluding to Wis. 7.25-26). Some Pauline scholars also suggest that Paul viewed Jesus as the glory of God; see C.C. Newman, Paul's Glory-Christology: Tradition and Rhetoric (NovTSup, 69; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992), pp. 242-46. 11. Brown, John, vol. 1, p. 90. However, this evidence is of limited value, since Targum Neofiti to Genesis may be dated to the fourth century AD, and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan to Genesis may date to the eighth century AD (M. Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis (Aramaic Bible, IB; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1992), p. 15; M. McNamara,

154

Echoes of a Prophet

John's allusions to the visions of Jacob, Isaiah, and Ezekiel thus resonate with the themes of Jesus as the tabernacle, the glory of God (Jn 1.14), and the new Temple (Jn 2.19-20). David Johnson, in his analysis of John's allusions to the Jacob narrative, points out some of these common themes in the material drawn from Ezekiel 1 and Genesis 28. Both passages feature angelic escorts and revelation from God.12 Both passages also share a Temple theme. Jacob's use of names like 'House of God' (Bethel) and 'Gate of Heaven' to describe the place of revelation led the OT prophets to see Jacob's vision as 'a proleptic symbol of the significance of the Jerusalem temple and of the angelic Cherubim.'13 Likewise, Ezekiel's vision shows God's presence, first leaving the Temple, then returning to a restored Temple. Johnson thus believes that in John, 'Jesus replaces... Bethel as the place of God's revelation.'14 This may be reading too much into John's allusion. After all, John's allusion puts Jesus in the place of the ladder, not Bethel. However, Johnson is clearly correct in seeing a focus on the presence and glory of God in the allusions.15 The combined allusion in Jn 1.51 thus promises the disciples that they will see something as great as the visions of Jacob and Ezekiel. They will see a revelation of the Messiah, God's glory opened to human eyes.16 He will be like Jacob's ladder that connects heaven and earth, like Ezekiel's chariot that brings the glory of God to earth. But how is this promise fulfilled? In the Prologue, John suggests that it was indeed fulfilled: 'And the Word becamefleshand dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, glory as of the unique one from the Father' (Jn 1.14). That is, John claims that 'we' have seen the revealed glory of the divine Word - essentially the fulfillment of the promise of Jn 1.51. There is no transfiguration in John that might qualify as a fulfillment of this promise. Instead, the promise of

Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis (Aramaic Bible, 1A; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1992), p. 43). Of course, targumim were in use well before the first century, and it is possible that these late targumim preserve earlier targumic interpretations. 12. Johnson, 'Our Father Jacob', pp. 48-49; see also U. Busse, 'Die Tempelmetaphorik als ein Beispiel von implizitem rekurs auf die biblische Tradition im Johannesevangelium', in C M . Tuckett (ed.), The Scriptures in the Gospels (BETL, 131; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997), pp. 395^28 (406). 13. Johnson, 'Our Father Jacob', p. 49. 14. Johnson, 'Our Father Jacob', p. 202. 15. Johnson also sees Jesus as replacing Jacob as the 'new Israel, the head of the covenant community' (Johnson, 'Our Father Jacob', p. 202). This view is based on a possible ambiguity in the Hebrew text of Gen. 28.12, 'the angels ascending and descending on it/him ("D)' Some rabbis saw the pronoun as a reference to Jacob instead of the ladder (Midrash Rabbah 49.3 on Gen. 28.12-13). 16. B. Lindars describes the saying as a 'promise that the disciples will see Jesus risen and glorified as the messianic King, fulfilling the Jewish expectations which surround the claim to messiahship.' Lindars, John, p. 121.

5. Allusions to Ezekiel in John: Minor Allusions

155

Jn 1.51 is fulfilled in Jesus' crucifixion, when he is 'glorified' and 'lifted up.' The 'lifting up' reveals Jesus to be the true representative of God (Jn 8.28). Only after Jesus is glorified do the disciples receive the Spirit (Jn 7.37-39; 20.22) and correctly understand Jesus as the fulfillment of Scripture (Jn 12.16). That is, Jesus is revealed as the mediator of heavenly things through his exaltation on the cross.17 Jesus' promise in Jn 1.51 is thus fulfilled when the hearers recognize that Jesus is the ladder of Jacob, the chariot of Ezekiel that bears God's glory.18 The promise in Jn 1.51 may also be fulfilled in the giving of the Spirit, closely associated with the 'glorification' in John. When Jesus promises the disciples that they will see the great theophanies, this is an implicit claim that they will receive the spirit of prophecy. Although John does not allude to Joel 2.28, that prophecy is perhaps relevant. Joel associates the outpouring of the Spirit with the gift of prophecy: 'And it will happen after these things that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and daughters will prophesy, and your old men will dream dreams, and your young men will see visions' (opaoeig 6i|/ovTai; Joel 3.1 LXX). To 'see visions' was standard language used by the prophets (Ezek. 1.1; Isa. 1.1; Nah. 1.1; Obad. 1.1). Thus, Jesus' promise to the disciples may imply a fulfillment of Joel's prophecy, the gift of prophecy through God's Spirit.19 As we saw in Chapters 2 and 3, Ezekiel's throne vision influenced several Second Temple writings: Testament of Levi, 1 Enoch, and Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice. The twelfth Song of the Sabbath Sacrifice describes God, his angels, and his heavenly courts in terms derived from Ezekiel 1 and 10 (see pp. 44-46, 79-86). Song 12 uses Ezekiel's vision as part of liturgical worship. The participants envisioned themselves as present with the angels, worshiping God. None of the allusions to Ezekiel's throne vision in John or in other Second Temple literature have a liturgical purpose, but all have God's glory and majesty as a sub-theme.20

17. 'The disciples will see Jesus' glory to the full only when they have seen the final "great thing," the supreme work of the death, resurrection, and ascension, and it is only then that they will fully believe.' Brown, John, vol. 1, p. 88; see also Beasley-Murray, John, p. 28. 18. 'One of John's most original and daring ideas is that the glory of God is already revealed in the Passion of Jesus... Hence, while Jesus is still on earth, the vision of his heavenly glory is given to those who have eyes to see it, and earth and heaven are joined.' Lindars, John, p. 122; see also Johnson, 'Our Father Jacob', p. 204. 19. I have not seen this interpretation of the saying in Jn 1.51 in print; however, it seems likely that such an interpretation might be found in older works. Most interpretations of Jn 1.51 see it as a promise of further insight or revelation. 20. Kanagaraj points out that one of the common elements of merkabah literature is the goal 'to enter before the Throne of Glory' and 'to gaze on the King, on his Throne, in his majesty and his beauty.' Kanagaraj, Mysticism in John, p. 81.

156

Echoes of a Prophet

John's allusion to the OT theophanies is composite, as is typical of such allusions in Second Temple literature.21 John combines phrases from Ezekiel 1 and Genesis 28, and later (in John 12) alludes to the theophany of Isaiah 6. 1 Enoch's visions clearly combine elements from the visions of Ezekiel, Daniel, and Isaiah. Song 12 primarily refers to Ezekiel's vision, but may include a few allusions to Daniel 7 or 7 Enoch as well. The combination of such images is not surprising. John, like most Second Temple authors, expected coherence between the various OT theophanies. The same God who appeared to Jacob also appeared to Ezekiel and Isaiah. 1 Enoch and the Testament of Levi merely add to that list - the God of Jacob also appeared to Enoch or Levi. John promises that the disciples, and therefore all believers in Jesus, will see the same God that Jacob and Ezekiel saw - and that that vision will include the Son of Man. Most Second Temple allusions to Ezekiel's theophany place the vision and the visionary in heaven, in God's throne room. Song 12 envisions the participant as present in heaven (whether this was perceived as an exercise in spiritual imagination or a pursuit of visionary experience is debated). In the Testament of Levi, the heavens open to allow Levi to ascend through the levels of heaven to see God's throne room. In the visions of 1 Enoch, Enoch ascends to heaven, and the throne room is described using allusions to Ezekiel 1,10, Isaiah 6, and Daniel 7.22 John, on the other hand, gives no hint that the vision is in heaven. Rather, Jesus promises that they will see a vision like those of Jacob and Ezekiel, on earth. 1 Enoch and Testament of Levi use allusions to Ezekiel to link their respective seers to the OT prophetic tradition, and even exalt Enoch and Levi above the OT prophets. Ezekiel remains on earth, but Enoch and Levi are brought to heaven. There is a slightly different emphasis in John's use of Ezekiel and Genesis 28. 1 Enoch uses images from Ezekiel to imply that Enoch, like Ezekiel, was a prophet who received messages directly from God. But John does not allude to Ezekiel's vision to describe Jesus as a seer or prophet. Instead, John uses the combined allusions to place Jesus within the visions of Ezekiel and Jacob. The experience of the seer is promised instead to the disciples. In other words, 1 Enoch and Testament of Levi use the OT theophanies to exalt their respective seers as superior prophets; John uses the same OT allusions to exalt Jesus as the object of the OT visions. In summary, John is like Second Temple authors in that he combines allusions to the various OT theophanies. However, John places the visions 21. Halperin points out the tendency in apocalyptic literature to combine elements from the Sinai revelation (Exodus 19) with the merkabah vision. Halperin, Faces of the Chariot, pp. 113-14. 22. Cf. also Rev. 4.1-11, in which the visionary ascends to heaven to see God's throne and receive a revelation.

5. Allusions to Ezekiel in John: Minor Allusions

157

and the visionaries on earth rather than in heaven. John, like other authors, uses allusions to the OT theophanies to make a connection to the OT prophetic tradition. But works like 1 Enoch and the Testament ofLevi use such allusions to describe their respective seers as observers of the OT theophanies, while John uses his allusion to describe Jesus as the object of the OT theophanies. John implies, not that Jesus has seen as well as Jacob and Ezekiel, but that Jacob and Ezekiel were so fortunate as to see Jesus (much like John's claims for Abraham and Isaiah in Jn 8.56; 12.40). Is Jn 1.51 part of a Johannine anti-visionary polemic? A full answer is beyond the scope of this study, since it involves analysis both of the developing merkabah tradition and of a number of passages in John which may be part of this polemic (Jn 1.18; 3.3, 13; 5.37; 6.46). However, a few tentative observations must be made here in order to address the meaning of Jn 1.51. A number of scholars believe that there was a flourishing practice of visionary mystical ascent in the first century AD or earlier.23 While such mystical practices certainly existed by the third century AD, evidence for earlier practice is equivocal. There is a tendency by some scholars to assume that any allusion to Ezekiel's merkabah vision is somehow connected to the pursuit of heavenly visions. However, the development in the merkabah tradition over the centuries suggests the need for caution in our descriptions of merkabah practice at any particular time. There are several strands of evidence that need to be considered in order to reconstruct the development of the merkabah tradition. First, early 23. Among the scholars who study merkabah mysticism, Kanagaraj has the most confidence in first-century practice of visionary ascent; Gruenwald cautiously affirms its likelihood; and Halperin suggests that it was unlikely (Gruenwald, Apocalyptic; Halperin, Faces of the Chariot; Kanagaraj, Mysticism in John). Many Johannine scholars believe that John's polemic is directed towards such practice. (P. Borgen, Bread from Heaven: An Exegetical Study of the Concept of Manna in the Gospel of John and the Writings of Philo (NovTSup, 10; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1965); N.A. Dahl, 'The Johannine Church and History', in W. Klassen and G.F. Snyder (eds), Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation (Festschrift O.A. Piper; New York: Harper & Row, 1962), pp. 124-42; Johnson, 'Our Father Jacob', p. 203; Meeks, The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology; H. Odeberg, The Fourth Gospel: Interpreted in its Relation to Contemporary Religious Currents in Palestine and the Hellenistic-Oriental World (repr., Chicago: Argonaut, 1968, Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1929); G. Quispel, 'Nathanael und der Menschensohn (Joh 1 51)', ZNW41 (1956); C. Rowland, 'John 1.51, Jewish Apocalyptic and Targumic Tradition', NTS 30 (1984), pp. 498507; A.F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports About Christianity and Gnosticism (SJLA, 25; Leiden: Brill, 1978). These views are nicely summarized in A.D. DeConick, Voices of the Mystics: Early Christian Discourse in the Gospels of John and Thomas and Other Christian Literature (JSNTSup, 157; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), pp. 34-42; J.D.G. Dunn, 'Let John be John: A Gospel for Its Time', in P. Stuhlmacher (ed.), Das Evangelium und die Evangelium: Vortrage vom Tubinger Symposium 1982 (WUNT, 28; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1983); Kanagaraj, Mysticism in John, pp. 21-44.

158

Echoes of a Prophet

apocalyptic literature, some of which we have examined (see pp. 44-46, 79-86), contains many descriptions of visionary ascent to heaven, usually including elements from Ezekiel I.24 However, these visionary experiences are given only to the heroes of Israel - Enoch, Abraham, Levi, and Moses. There is no evidence that such experiences were available to ordinary people. The purpose of the merkabah elements in such visions is, in a sense, hagiographic. These heroes and their visions are placed beyond the reach of ordinary people precisely by their experience of visionary ascent.25 In this sense, this literature is actually evidence against an early practice of visionary ascent mysticism. The hagiographic aspect of the early accounts of visionary ascent is often overlooked in current scholarship. Second, the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice is sometimes adduced as evidence that the Qumran sect practiced visionary ascent.26 However, the liturgy of the Songs never clearly states this. The descriptions of heavenly worship certainly draw on Ezekiel 1 and Isaiah 6, but the Songs never describe any sort of visionary ascent by the participants. A description of heavenly worship does not necessarily imply visionary experience. Many of the Psalms also describe worship of God in settings and by agents that the speaker cannot see (e.g., Pss. 19, 29, 96, 97, 99, 104, 148, 150), and these are not usually adduced as evidence for visionary ascent. Third, the NT may provide some evidence aboutfirst-centurypractice of visionary ascent. Paul describes a visionary ascent to heaven in 2 Cor. 12.1-7, and John is caught up to heaven in Rev. 4.1-4. However, neither author describes the ascent as something to be pursued. Like the OT prophets, Paul and John apparently receive their visions without any instigation on their parts. At least, neither account describes any such instigation. In other places, NT authors seem to oppose certain types of

24. For various understandings of the connection between merkabah mysticism and apocalyptic literature, see Gruenwald, Apocalyptic, pp. 29-72; Halperin, Faces of the Chariot, pp. 63-114; Kanagaraj, Mysticism in John, pp. 116-49. Kanagaraj uses the apocalyptic literature as evidence that 'as early as the first century, there was a tradition in Judaism that righteous men could ascend to the highest heaven to see God on the throne' (Kanagaraj, Mysticism in John, p. 122). Gruenwald more cautiously agrees, describing the apocalyptic literature with terms like 'mystical preoccupation' and 'mystical speculations.' He points out that 'lack of literary evidence makes it difficult for us to state with certainty when heavenly ascensions were first systematically practised in Judaism... at least by the time of the composition of the Book of Enoch, the practice was already seriously considered (Gruenwald, Apocalyptic, p. 32). 25. Vogelgesang emphasizes the 'exaltation of the seer' common in the apocalyptic literature. He sees the apocalyptic literature, and in particular, 1 Enoch 14, as 'an intermediate stage between prophetic call and mystic ascent' (Vogelgesang, 'Interpretation', pp. 194-96). 26. See Halperin, Faces of the Chariot, pp. 49-55; Kanagaraj, Mysticism in John, pp. 8998; also pp. 79-86 above.

5. Allusions to Ezekiel in John: Minor Allusions

159

visions, such as in Col. 2.16-19. The Gospel of John is at least reacting against some view of heavenly ascent (Jn 1.18; 3.3, 13; 5.37; 6.46), but it does not give clear evidence of the practice of such visionary experiences. Fourth, evidence from rabbinic sources is sometimes used to suggest that ben Zakkai, Akiva, and others practiced visionary ascent as early as the first century.27 Aside from the usual difficulties with dating rabbinic material to the first century, we have the further problem that the proposed early references to visionary ascent are somewhat ambiguous.28 They may represent a sort of exegetical speculation about the merkabah, rather than attempts to experience mystical ascent.29 Some of the early material primarily serves to warn against exposition of Ezekiel 1, and makes no clear statements about the pursuit of visionary experiences. Finally, the Hekhalot literature and later rabbinic literature provides clear evidence that some Jewish mystics used a variety of rituals, including meditation on Ezekiel 1, for the purpose of experiencing ascent to heaven and a vision of heavenly worship.30 However, this literature begins in the middle of the third century AD, and shows dependence on all of the above strands except the NT. A pattern of development in the use of merkabah material can clearly be seen. The earliest descriptions of visionary ascent (e.g., 1 Enoch, Testament 27. Tosefta Hag. 2.1-4; PT Hag. 2.1 77b; BT Hag. 14b. For a discussion of these, see Gruenwald, Apocalyptic, pp. 73-97; Halperin, Faces of the Chariot, pp. 11-38; Kanagaraj, Mysticism in John, pp. 150-58. 28. Gruenwald admits, 'It is really very difficult to guess what the Merkavah speculations of the circle of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai were like.' Gruenwald, Apocalyptic, p. 85. 29. Halperin, Schafer, and Himmelfarb are among the scholars who see the early rabbinic references to the merkabah as exegetical and speculative (M. Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven and the Christian Apocalypses (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993); M. Himmelfarb, 'Heavenly Ascent and the Relationship of the Apocalypses and the Hekhalot Literature', HUCA 59 (1984), pp. 73-100; P. Schafer, 'The Aim and Purpose of Early Jewish Mysticism', in Hekhalot-Studien (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1988); P. Schafer, 'Merkavah Mysticism and Rabbinic Judaism', JAOS 104 (1984), pp. 537-54; idem, 'New Testament and Hekhalot Literature: The Journey into Heaven in Paul and in Merkavah Mysticism', JJS 35 (1984), pp. 19-35; idem, 'Tradition and Redaction in Hekhalot Literature', JSJ 14 (1983), pp. 172-81). Halperin suggests that the early rabbinic discussions of the merkabah were designed to 'show the wondrous greatness of the ancient sages' (Halperin, Faces of the Chariot, p. 15). Gruenwald, although affirming that early practice of visionary ascent is likely, agrees that most of the early rabbinic evidence suggests 'mystical escapism' or 'interest in, and preoccupation with, mystical speculation,' rather than 'mystical experience.' He finds it clear that 'the Ma'aseh Merkavah speculations of the Tannaim basically were of a midrashic nature' and that there was 'a clear distinction... between the midrashic speculations about the Merkavah and its mystical perception' (Gruenwald, Apocalyptic, pp. 82-83; cf. 75-77, 85, 9091, 96-97). 30. For a description of this literature, see Gruenwald, Apocalyptic, pp. 98-123; Halperin, Faces of the Chariot, pp. 359-87; Kanagaraj, Mysticism in John, pp. 80-86.

160

Echoes of a Prophet

of Levi) are limited to OT saints, and are instigated by God, not by any human action. The experience of heavenly ascent is described in order to put the seer at least on the level of the OT prophets, far beyond the reach of ordinary people. Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice and early rabbinic material suggest a strong interest in the idea of visionary ascent, but may have been limited to speculative meditation on merkabah passages of Scripture. Only later rabbinic literature and the Hekhalot clearly indicate that heavenly ascent was something to be desired. Only this later literature suggests that the seer could initiate the heavenly ascent, and that such ascent was open to anyone who knew the mysteries. The first century comes somewhere in the middle of this development. It is possible, as many scholars claim, that there was already widespread practice of visionary ascent, and that John was opposed to such practice. But John's polemic could have been addressed against something less than fully developed merkabah mysticism. It could have been addressed against the sort of speculative exegesis of merkabah found in early rabbinic material, or even against the heavenly ascent ascribed to the great heroes in the Pseudepigrapha. John is reacting against at least a speculative theology of visionary experiences, but he may be reacting more specifically against claims of the sort found in 1 Enoch, or even against the pursuit of such visions. Thus when Jn 1.51 makes the claim that the disciples will see 'the heavens opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man,' he is at least describing Jesus as the true source of revelation from God. By keeping the visionary on earth, John may be specifically opposing some of the ideas of mystical ascent found in apocalyptic literature. If there already was a widespread pursuit of merkabah visions by the end of the first century, then Jn 1.51 may be seen as part of a polemic against such practices.

2. The Dry Bones a. The Resurrection (Ezekiel 37.4, 9, 12; Daniel 7.14; 12.2; John 5.25-28) John makes two allusions to Ezekiel's oracle of the dry bones. The first of these allusions, found in Jn 5.25-28, is less clear than the later allusion, but is still a likely allusion.

5. Allusions to Ezekiel in John: Minor Allusions Jn 5.25 Truly, truly I say to you, that the hour comes and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God (ol veKpol (kouoouaiv rfV; tyuvr^ TOD uiou toi) 0€ou), and those who hear will live (CT|OOI)OLV).

28 Do not be amazed at this, that the hour comes in which all who are in the tombs ([ivipeioK;) will hear his voice and will come out . . .

161

Ezek. 37.4 And he said to me, 'Prophesy on these bones and say to them, "Dry bones, hear the word of the Lord (ctKovoaze Aoyov Kupiou).'" 9 . . . Thus says the Lord, 'Come from the four winds and breathe on these dead (TOIX; veKpoug), and let them live (Crpazuoav).' 12 Thus says the Lord, 'Behold, I will open your tombs (jivrpaToc), and I will lead you out from your tombs and lead you into the land of Israel.'

The two passages have several words and synonyms in common, but they are spread out over several verses in both passages, making the allusion faint. Both passages describe the dead (veKpog) hearing (ctKOua)) from God through the prophet, coming alive ((aco), and leaving their tombs (|ivr||i€Lov/|ivf||ia).31 The prophet who mediates the revivification is called the 'son of man' in Ezek. 37.3, 9, 11, and both 'Son of Man' and 'Son of God' in Jn 5.25, 28. There are also some fainter connections between the two passages. The discourse in Jn 5.19-47 is response to a challenge by the 'Jews' over Jesus' Sabbath-breaking and apparent claim to equality with God (Jn 5.16-18). This dispute begins with the healing of the lame man by the pool of Bethesda on the Sabbath. As is often the case in John, miraculous signs lead to discourses, and there are often important ties between the sign and the discourse.32 Here, there are several connections between the healing of the lame man and the ensuing discourse.33 It is perhaps possible to view the healing of the lame man (Jn 5.1-15) as a prophetic action, which leads to its explanation in the following discourse (Jn 5.19-48). The great crowds of the sick around the pool are like the dead (Jn 5.1-3, 21, 25);34 Jesus, the

31. The two words are synonymous in both the LXX and NT (cf. Lk. 24.1, 2). John only uses livrpelov (14 occurrences); the translator of Ezekiel favored \ivfpu. (four out of five occurrences). 32. E.g., the feeding of the 5,000 leads to the Bread of Life discourse (John 6); the healing of the blind man leads to the Good Shepherd discourse (John 9-10). 33. C.K. Barrett, The Gospel According to John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 2nd edn, 1978), p. 260. 34. Is there a faint echo of Ezekiel 37 in John's description of the sick crowds? Jn 5.3 describes 'a multitude (iTA.fieo<;) of the sick, blind, lame, and withered (£r|pwv),' which sounds faintly like Ezek. 37.2, 'there were very many (ITOMA o^oSpa) in the valley, and they were very dry grpa o(J>66pa).'

162

Echoes of a Prophet

Son of God, calls one of them as if from his tomb (Jn 5.5-6, 25, 28), and tells him to rise up (Jn 5.8; note the use of eyeLpco).35 In the discourse, Jesus explains that he has the authority to heal this man, even on the Sabbath, because he is acting completely on his Father's behalf (Jn 5.17, 19-20). But more than that, Jesus the Son has the authority to raise people from the dead and to exercise judgment, again in total submission to the Father (5.20-30). The lame man's healing is thus like a resurrection,36 and serves as a prophetic act and stimulus for the ensuing discourse. John's understanding of Ezekiel 37 is suggested by the way in which he modifies the image of the dry bones. As many commentators have pointed out, Jn 5.21, 25-26 describes the giving of life in the present, and Jn 5.2729 describes the final resurrection.37 Jn 5.25 describes the new life as already beginning ('the hour is coming and now is'); thus 'the dead' are the spiritually dead, and those who live are those who listen to the Son of God.38 Jn 5.28 describes the final resurrection ('the hour is coming'), in which both righteous and wicked are called from their tombs for judgment.39 The Father gives the Son the authority to give life now (Jn 5.21, 25-26), as well as to raise the dead and pronounce judgment on judgment day (Jn 5.27-29). This pairing of new life and final resurrection is one way in which John reveals his understanding of Ezekiel 37. The image of revivification (Ezek. 37.1-10) symbolizes several related ideas: purification, the restoration of Israel's hope, return to the land, and the giving of God's Spirit (Ezek. 37.11-14). John uses language drawn from Ezekiel 37 to discuss both the immediate gift of new life to believers, and the future resurrection. The addition of the idea of a future resurrection (Jn 5.27-29) may represent

35. Beasley-Murray, John, pp. 73-74 36. Dods describes the healing of the blind man thus: 'but accepting the life that was in Christ's command, he passed then and there from death to life.' M. Dods, The Gospel of St. John (Expositor's Bible, 43; 2 vols; New York: A.C. Armstrong and Son, 1903), p. 740. 37. M.M. Thompson compares the two ideas thus: 'While the promises regarding life in 5.25 envision a time that is coming and is now here, the promise regarding resurrection in 5.28-29 envisions a time that is coming but is not here.' M.M. Thompson, The God of the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2001), p. 84. For similar views, see, e.g., Barrett, John, pp. 261-63; Beasley-Murray, John, pp. 76-77; Brown, John, vol. 2, pp. 219-20. Schnackenburg suggests that the idea of two views of the resurrection may have come from Ezekiel 37. Schnackenburg, John, vol. 2, p. 106. 38. Barrett points out that these 'dead' differ from those of Jn 5.28 in that they are not in the tombs, and that 'the aorist participle uKovoavzec; suggests those who at the time of writing have been vivified by the word of Christ.' Barrett, John, pp. 262, 263. 39. Grassi suggests that the phrase 'the hour comes' is a reference to the events of Ezek. 37.12. J. Grassi, 'Ezekiel XXXVII. 1-14 and the New Testament', NTS 11 (1964), pp. 162-64 (164).

5. Allusions to Ezekiel in John: Minor Allusions

163

normal Second Temple understanding of Ezekiel 37,40 or it may also be related to John's allusions to Daniel in the passage. Jn 5.29 and Dan. 12.2 describe similar fates for the righteous and wicked at the final resurrection. Jn 5.29 those who did good will come forth to the resurrection of life (eic, avaomoiv (G)f|<;), and those who practiced evil to the resurrection of judgment (dc; avaomoiv Kpujeax;).

Dan. 12.2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth will arise (avaoTr\oovTai), some to eternal life (dq (cofiv alwvaov), some to reproach and some to eternal shame (elc; 6veidio\xov . . . icai aloxuvr|v

Jn 5.29 and Dan. 12.2 share the common theme of judgment and resurrection for righteous and wicked, and share a parallel phrase (el; avaatacnv (wf|<;/dvaaTr|oovTai elg (G)f|v alcoviov). The fact that John alludes to both Ezekiel 37 and Daniel 12 within a few verses of each other (Jn 5.25, 28; Jn 5.29) suggests that he combined the two allusions around the common theme of final resurrection. John's use of the oracle of the dry bones also suggests that he saw Jesus as the fulfillment of Ezekiel's expectations of new life for God's people. The dry bones oracle does not have explicit messianic references, but there are two reasons why John sees the passage as referring to Jesus. First, the dry bones oracle is the second of three related oracles about the coming restoration of Israel (Ezek. 36.16-38, the 'new heart'; 37.1-14, the 'dry bones'; 37.15-28, the 'two sticks'). The third oracle (Ezek. 37.15-28) includes a description of the role of 'my servant David' in the restoration (Ezek. 37.22, 24-25). John has clearly meditated on this oracle, since he alludes to it in Jn 11.51-52.41 Thus, as John considers Ezekiel's vision for the future, he naturally connects elements from these two related oracles, and sees a role for the messiah in all three oracles. Second, John's messianic understanding of the oracle of the dry bones is likely related to his understanding of Ezekiel's role as 'Son of Man' in that oracle. Ezekiel the prophet is a model of John's view of Jesus. Ezekiel is able to serve as the agent of revivification, but only because God gives him the power and instructs him to use it (Ezek. 37.3, 7, 10). Ezekiel's power to raise the dead bones is exercised only in entire submission to God. This is, of course, exactly how John portrays Jesus' relationship with the Father throughout the Fourth Gospel, and especially here in John 5. The Son only does what he sees the Father doing (Jn 5.17, 19-20), he raises the dead as

40. See pp. 96-97, 171. 41. Seep. 125.

164

Echoes of a Prophet

the Father does (Jn 5.21, 25-26), and he judges all people in accordance with the Father's will (Jn 5.22, 27, 30). These parallels between the roles of Ezekiel and Jesus are made even more striking by the fact that they are both called 'Son of Man' (Ezek. 37.3, 9, 11). John's description of Jesus as the agent of new life and the final resurrection is thus rooted in the work of Ezekiel, the 'son of man' in Ezek. 37.1-14. However, the description of Jesus as the agent of the final judgment does not come from Ezekiel. John's allusion to Daniel 7 suggests a source for the idea of the Son's role in the final judgment. Jn 5.27 And he [the Father] gave him authority (e£oi)oiav e8a)K€v atktp) to exercise judgment (KpLotv Troieiv), for he is the Son of Man (XAQQ dvGpoSiTou).

Dan. 7.13 one like a son of man (ox; ulo<; ai/OporiTou) came... 14 and authority was given to him (€6o0r| autco e£ouaia). 7.22 [The Ancient of Days] gave judgment (rf]v Kpioiv €6a)Ke) to the saints of the Most High.

The allusion is quite strong. Jn 5.27 and Dan. 7.13-14 have in common the term 'son of man' and a phrase consisting of three words (k&voiav e6a)K€v ai)T(p/4666r) aired) e£ouaia). Thus, the idea of Jesus as the agent of judgment is closely related, in idea and wording, to the 'one like a son of man' in Dan. 7.13-14, 22. Interestingly, in both allusions, John has focused on the vision of the prophet rather than its interpretation. That is, he focuses on Ezekiel's image of the revivification (Ezek. 37.1-10) rather than its interpretation as national restoration (Ezek. 37.11-14);42 and he focuses on Daniel's son of man as a single heavenly figure (Dan. 7.13-14) rather than on its interpretation as 'the saints of the Most High' (Dan. 7.15-18, 22, 27). As is often the case with John's use of allusions to the OT, the modifications to the OT material are suggestive of John's view of the people of God. In Ezekiel, the dry bones coming to life symbolizes a national restoration and the giving of God's Spirit, and is offered to 'the whole house of Israel' (Ezek. 37.11). Likewise, Daniel's rewards of final judgment and resurrection are given to 'the saints of the Most High' (Dan. 7.18), 'your people' (Dan. 12.1). John, however, makes it clear that both new life and the final resurrection are only available to those who follow Jesus. The present gift of new life is limited to those who 'hear my word and believe the one who sent me' (Jn 5.24, cf. 25). Likewise, the final resurrection and judgment, inaugurated by the voice of the Son of Man, is

42. Later, John reverses this and focuses more on the interpretation than the vision; see below.

5. Allusions to Ezekiel in John: Minor Allusions

165

presented on the basis of deeds (as often in both testaments), but the context suggests that belief in Jesus is the crucial criterion for the final judgment as well. In Jn 5.21, Jesus says that 'the Son makes alive ((cpomnei) whom he wishes.' This suggests both the present gift of life and the future resurrection. Those he chooses are his followers, who hear his voice and believe in the sender (Jn 5.24). While this language has a predestinarian tone consistent with John's description of Jesus' followers elsewhere (see Jn 6.37-40; 10.26-29), the primary point seems to be that the people of God are limited to the followers of Jesus. Perhaps the claim to 'make alive whom he wishes' also explains Jesus' action in healing only one of the sick from the multitude (Jn 5.5-9). Both Jesus' action in healing only one person, and his discourse on new life, emphasize that the promises of Ezekiel and Daniel are limited to those who follow Jesus. Some also see the raising of Lazarus as a fulfillment of the promise in Jn 5.21 to bring the dead to life;43 thus, it may also faintly allude to the 'dry bones' of Ezekiel 37. Jn 11.38 Jesus came... to the tomb (TO \ivr[[xelov)... 39 Jesus said, 'Take away the stone.' 43 . . . He cried out with a loud voice, 'Lazarus, come forth!' 44 The one who had died came forth

Ezek. 37.12 Thus says the Lord, 'Behold, I will open your tombs (xoL[ivr\\xaxa), and I will lead you up (dva^co) from your tombs and lead you into the land of Israel.'

The parallel is primarily conceptual, since the two passages only share one word in common. In both passages, the tomb is opened, and the dead come forth. In Ezekiel, the dead arise at the command of Ezekiel (Ezek. 37.10); in John, Lazarus comes forth at the command of Jesus. However, it seems best to see the raising of Lazarus as a partial fulfillment of the promises of John 5. As Jesus promises, the dead come forth at the voice of the Son of God (Jn 5.25). It is possible that John intends the raising of Lazarus to demonstrate that Jesus will also be the agent of the final resurrection. When Martha confesses her belief that Lazarus will rise 'at the resurrection on the last day,' Jesus responds, 'I am the resurrection and the life' (Jn 11.24-25). This response, as well as the act of raising Lazarus, recalls some of the words of John 5, rather than any specific details of Ezekiel 37. b. The Giving of the Spirit (Ezekiel 37.9-10; Genesis 2.7; John 20.22) John returns to Ezekiel's oracle of the dry bones at the end of his gospel. His allusion there has much in common with his allusion to the same 43.

Barrett, John, p. 260.

166

Echoes of a Prophet

material in John 5, but now he focuses on Ezekiel's interpretation of the oracle of the dry bones as the giving of the Spirit.

Jn 20.22 And after saying this, he breathed (eve^uoipcv) on them and said, 'Receive the Holy Spirit

Ezek. 37.9 Prophesy, son of man, prophesy on the breath (TTveOjia) and say to the breath, 'Thus says the Lord, "From the four winds come and breathe (k\i$\)or\oov) on these dead, and let them live Gen. 2.7 And God formed the man of dust from the earth, and he breathed into (kvefyvorpev) his face the breath of life (TTVOTJV (oofjc;), and the man became a living being (\\f\)Xr\v Cory;).

The verbal parallel between John and the earlier works extends to two words. Jn 20.22 and Ezek. 37.9 have in common the verb e|i(|)uoaa) and the noun iTV€i)|ia. Gen. 2.7 also uses 4|i(j)i)oa(D, but uses the similar TTVOT) instead of nveOiia.44 The parallel is strong, however, because 6|i4>uoao) is such a distinctive word.45 It occurs only six times in the LXX, and only here in Jn 20.22 in the NT. Besides the above uses in Gen. 2.7 and Ezek. 37.9, it is used to describe Elijah breathing life back into the widow's dead child (1 Kgs 17.21 LXX) and in three other passages with different metaphorical senses.46 John's allusion to Gen. 2.7 is quite natural, since Ezekiel 37 itself strongly echoes the language of the creation of humanity in Gen. 2.7. In Genesis, the first human life results from God breathing into the lifeless body.47 This breath makes the man a 'living being' (rrn ES^/elg i|/uxf}i> Cciooav) like the animals, but also seems to 'constitute humankind as the image of God.' 48 For both Ezekiel and John, the language of breathing into 44. The difference between the LXX rendering of the two passages represents the difference between the Hebrew: n«©3 = irvori (breath) in Gen. 2.7, and n n = m/eG^a (breath, spirit, wind) in Ezek. 37.9. 45. See p. 10 for the criterion of distinctive wording. 46. It is also used to describe God stirring up the fire of his wrath (Ezek. 21.36) or ending a life with his breath (Job 4.21 LXX), and is used to describe the panting of the messenger in Nah. 1.15 (LXX only). In these cases, it seems closer to the meaning of (Jwoao) or eKcjwaau) in the LXX (see, e.g., Isa. 54.16; Ezek. 22.20-21; Sir. 28.12; 43.4). 47. Brown suggests that Jesus' act is 'evocative of God's creative breath in Gen ii 7.' Brown, John, vol. 2, p. 1022. 48. A.P. Ross, Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1988), pp. 122-23; see also Skinner, who sees the expression as

5. Allusions to Ezekiel in John: Minor Allusions

167

the first human thus suggests the theme of new creation. For Ezekiel, it is Israel that is re-created by God's power and Spirit; for John, it is the followers of Jesus who are re-created by that same power and Spirit.49 Jesus' action in breathing on his disciples may thus be described as a prophetic action, much like those performed by some OT prophets. A prophetic action is a performance by the prophet intended to communicate God's present or future action. Here, Jesus' act of breathing is portrayed as a prophetic action that announces the giving of the Holy Spirit. Jesus' act of breathing is closely tied to his commissioning of the disciples as his messengers (Jn 20.21-22). This commissioning fits into the Johannine theme of God sending Jesus: 'As the Father has sent me, I also send you' (Jn 20.21; cf. 3.17; 5.36; 17.18). However, the commissioning is loosely tied to the creation account. In Genesis, the newly created humans are commissioned as rulers over creation (Gen. 1.26-30; 2.19-20). Perhaps a more striking implication of John's allusion to the creation account is that Jesus takes God's role; in Genesis 2, God breathes on the man, while in Jn 20.22, Jesus breathes on the disciples. Jesus' role in the new creation thus echoes his role in the original creation: 'All things came to be through him; and apart from him, not even one thing came into being which has come into being. In him was life, and the life was the light of men' (Jn 1.34). Perhaps this forms an inclusio; John begins and ends with Jesus as the source of life, the agent of the first creation and the new creation (see also Jn 20.31).50 The allusion in Jn 20.22 to Ezekiel 37 is at least as important as the allusion to the creation account.51 Besides the verbal parallels (see the chart above), a few other pieces of evidence can be brought to bear to demonstrate the strength of John's allusion to Ezekiel 37. The criterion of repeated allusion52 is relevant: John has already alluded once to the dry bones oracle in Jn 5.25-28 (above), as well as to the 'two sticks' oracle which follows in Ezekiel (Jn 10.16; 11.52/Ezek. 37.19-25).53 The material in the preceding oracle (the 'new spirit' and sprinkling of water, Ezek. 36.2528) seems to have influenced John's use of water symbolism.54 T s equivalent for the "image of God.'" J. Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (ICC, 1; repr., 1956, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2nd edn, 1930), p. 57; see also G.J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15 (WBC, 1; Waco: Word Books, 1982), pp. 60-61. 49. Brown, John, vol. 2, pp. 1022, 1037; Morris, John, p. 747, fn 58. 50. 'Symbolically, then, John is proclaiming that, just as in the first creation God breathed a living spirit into man, so now in the moment of the new creation Jesus breathes his own Holy Spirit in the disciples, giving them eternal life.' Brown, John, vol. 2, p. 1037. 51. Beasley-Murray, John, pp. 380-81; Morris, John, p. 747, fn 58; Schnackenburg, John, vol. 3, p. 325. 52. See p. 12. 53. Seep. 115. 54. See pp. 172-73.

168

Echoes of a Prophet

Both Ezekiel 37 and Jn 20.22 are concerned with the giving of God's Spirit. Ezekiel explains the meaning of the raised dry bones in Ezek. 37.1314, 'You will know that I am the Lord when I open your graves... and I will give my Spirit in you, and you will live, and I will place you in your land.' Ezekiel pictures the despairing exiles as dead, in the tomb of Babylon.55 The restoration of Israel is pictured as the restoration of life, God's breathing life back into the dead body. Ezekiel takes the image of the creation in Genesis 2 and re-creates it. In Genesis 2, God breathes the breath (nBtttt/Trvori) of life into the lifeless man, making him a living being (rrn ED^/elc; i(ruxV (oooav). In Ezekiel 37, after the bodies are reconstructed, God (through the prophet) commands the winds to bring breath (mi/-rrv€U|ia) into the lifeless bodies and make them live (rrn/ €Cr|oav). By using the broader term for breath (rm/TTvetyia), Ezekiel is able to carry on an extended word-play (using all three of the meanings of m i / TTveujia)56 and connect the image to his 'new heart' theology. Ezekiel teaches that with the restoration from exile would come a new ability to obey God, empowered by God's Spirit (cf. Ezek. 11.19-20; 36.27; 39.29 (MT only)). The connection between the image of revivified dry bones and Ezekiel's theology of the new spirit can be seen in the parallel phrasing in the following chart: MT

Ezekiel

Translation of MT

37.6

I will put breath into you

m i a m nnn2i

37.14

I will put my Spirit into you

m i DD2 viroi

11.19

I will put a new spirit into them

36.27

I will put my Spirit into you

LXX 6G5GO) TTveOjia jiou elg \)[i6LQ57 SaSaa) TO nvevyux jiou

€l<; fyiag

]DK rrcnn mm araipu D:

TTveujia KOLIVOV 6C5OG)

kv ai)Tot<; TO iTveu|ia jiou SGOGG)

55. Eichrodt, Ezekiel, p. 510. 56. See also J. Breck, The Spirit of Truth: The Holy Spirit in Johannine Tradition, Vol. 1: The Origins of Johannine Pneumatology (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1991), p. 25. 57. The idea of God giving his Spirit has even influenced the LXX translator, so that Ezek. 37.6 becomes 'I will place my tTveiJ(ia (Spirit) in you' rather than the simpler 'I will put TTveO(ia (breath) in you.'

5. Allusions to Ezekiel in John: Minor Allusions

169

The parallel phrasing makes it clear that Ezekiel composed his image with the 'new spirit' theology clearly in mind. Ezekiel's image of the dry bones is thus a prophecy of national resurrection. The nation is currently dead in its despair: 'Our bones have dried up, our hope has perished, we are completely cut off (Ezek. 37.14). But Ezekiel promises that the nation will be physically and spiritually restored.58 God will not only return Israel to their land; he will also restore the covenant and ensure its permanence by giving his Spirit on his people. They will no longer break the covenant, because God's Spirit will be within them (Ezek. 11.19-20; 36.24-29; 37.23, 28). This giving of God's Spirit will permanently reverse their current state of moral and ritual defilement in a pagan land.59 John's allusion to the oracle of the dry bones allows him to proclaim a fulfillment of prophecy. Jesus was now giving the expected Spirit (Jn 7.3739). Jesus' prophetic action of blowing, combined with the uttering of the words 'receive the Holy Spirit,' seems intended to announce the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy. There are several elements in John's account that are suggestive of Ezek. 37.1-14. The fear of the disciples is perhaps parallel to the despair of Israel (Jn 20.19; Ezek. 37.11). The reversal of the state of the disciples seems also to echo Ezekiel 37 - their fear was turned to joy when they encountered their Lord, as God promised to turn Israel's despair into hope (Jn 20.19-20; Ezek. 37.11-12). John, like Ezekiel, plays on the meanings of Trv€ij|ia as breath and spirit - Jesus puts his breath and

58. Breck, Spirit of Truth, pp. 23-24. 59. The theme of impurity in the dry bones oracle is overlooked in most scholarship on Ezekiel, but was not overlooked by the LXX translator. His translation of Ezek. 37.1 'he placed me in the middle ofa field (iTe8iou), and it was full of human bones (ooxewv avGpooiTivcov)' is conformed (against the MT) in two places to the words describing the incurring of impurity in Num. 19.16, 'whoever touches, in the open field (TT^LOU), a slain or dead body, or a human bone (6OT€OD &V6PG)TTLVOU), or a tomb, will be unclean for seven days.' Thus the translator saw the image of dead bones as implying the unclean condition of Israel in exile. The translator's observation is likely correct. The oracle of the dry bones closely parallels the previous oracle, which begins by ascribing to Israel the 'uncleanness of a woman in her impurity' (Ezek. 36.17, alluding to Lev. 15.19-31). In both cases, the Law warns against God's wrath for allowing such impurity into the Temple (Lev. 15.31; Num. 19.20). This theme of ritual defilement likely also represents the actual situation during the exile. The ritual of cleansing for one exposed to a dead body involved water mixed with the ashes of the sin sacrifice, and could be prepared only in the Temple (Num. 19.17-19). With the loss of the Temple and the cleansing water, there was no hope of cleansing; any ritual defilement was permanent and brought separation from God's people (Num. 19.20). This explains part of the despair we hear in the saying, 'Our bones are dry, our hope has perished, we are cut off.' Perhaps 'we are cut off (laitw) is related to the ritual defilement and resulting separation; note the use of the nifal perfect of this verb elsewhere to describe separation from God or the assembly (Ps. 88.6; Isa. 53.8; see esp. 2 Chron. 26.21). The solution offered for this uncleanable impurity, in each of the three restoration oracles, is God's personal cleansing by his Spirit (Ezek. 36.25-27; 37.14; 37.23).

170

Echoes of a Prophet

the Holy Spirit on the disciples as one action.60 Perhaps most striking, Jesus acts as the agent of God in bringing God's Spirit on the disciples, just as Ezekiel, called the 'Son of Man,' acts as God's agent to bring breath and life on the dead bodies (Jn 20.21-23; Ezek. 37.4^10).61 Although John does not explicitly describe the disciples here as being resurrected in any sense, the giving of the Spirit implies the theme of new life.62 Although the role of the Spirit in restoration is not described in this passage, no description is needed; the giving of the Holy Spirit fulfills the expectations that are raised within the Gospel of John from the beginning of Jesus' ministry.63 Jesus was the one on whom the Spirit permanently remained, which would allow him to baptize others with the Holy Spirit (Jn 1.32-33; cf. 3.34). Thus when Jesus says 'Receive the Holy Spirit,' the reader knows that this is the Spirit that brings new birth (Jn 3.3-8), and allows true worship (Jn 4.23-24), genuine understanding (Jn 6.63), and communion with the Father and Son (14.16-20, 25-26; 16.13-15). Thus, John allows the culmination of Ezekiel's hopes to be the culmination of Jesus' ministry. For Ezekiel, the ultimate hope is that God will give his Spirit, cleansing his people and giving them the ability to obey (Ezek. 36.25-29; 37.14, 23). After the glorification of Jesus, Jesus announces the inauguration of Ezekiel's new spirit. This proclamation has perhaps the same function as the Lukan announcement of the 'new covenant in my blood' (Lk. 22.20). Luke uses language from the giving of the Mosaic covenant (Exod. 24.8) and from Jeremiah's prophecy of a new covenant (Jer. 31.31-34) to announce the inauguration of a new covenant between God and his people.64 John uses language from the creation accounts and from Ezekiel's prophecy of a new covenant for essentially the same purpose. John's understanding of Ezekiel is typical of some of his other uses of the OT that we have seen. First, John's allusion to Ezekiel 37 implies a new constitution of God's people. Ezekiel promised God's restoration and the 60. Brown notes that this is similar to the play on words between spirit and wind in Jn 3.8. Brown, John, vol. 2, p. 1030. 61. 'In the impressive vision of the valley of the bones, Ezekiel (xxxvii 3-5), addressed by God as "son of man," was told to prophesy to the dry bones... Now, another Son of Man, himself fresh from the tomb, speaks as the risen Lord and causes the breath of eternal life to enter those who hear his word.' Brown, John, vol. 2, p. 1037. 62. Schnackenburg, John, vol. 3, p. 325. 63. Breck, Spirit of Truth, pp. 23-24, 137; T.R. Hatina, 'John 20,22 in Its Eschatological Context: Promise or Fulfillment?' Bib 74, no. 2 (1993), pp. 196-219 (214); R.W. Lyon, 'John 20:22, Once More', AsbTheolJour 43, no. 1 (1988), pp. 73-85; J. Swetnam, 'Bestowal of the Spirit in the Fourth Gospel', Bib 14, no. 4 (1993), pp. 556-76. 64. Although Jeremiah describes the 'new covenant' (Jer. 31.31) and Ezekiel describes the 'new heart' and 'new spirit' (Ezek. 36.25-29), both ideas are essentially the same. Eichrodt, Ezekiel, p. 502.

5. Allusions to Ezekiel in John: Minor Allusions

171

giving of the Spirit to 'the whole house of Israel' (Ezek. 37.11). John, however, limits the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy to the disciples of Jesus. This matches John's use of Ezekiel 37 in John 5: there, the gift of new life is limited to those who listen to the Son. As with John's use of the shepherd and vine, here John suggests that God's people are now limited to those who believe in Jesus. Summary of John's Use of the Vision of Dry Bones. John alludes to Ezekiel's oracle of the dry bones twice. In the first instance, the language of the Son calling the dead from their tombs evokes Ezekiel's vision (Jn 5.2129; Ezek. 37.1-10). John sees Ezekiel's oracle as both about the gift of life that believers in Jesus experience now, and also about the final resurrection of all people. In John's second allusion to Ezekiel's oracle of the dry bones, John uses the language of breathing out the Spirit to evoke Ezekiel's interpretation of the vision (Jn 20.22; Ezek. 37.11-14). Here, John focuses on Ezekiel's prophecy of the giving of the Spirit, not the image of revivification. In both cases, John presents Jesus as the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy. John sees Jesus as bringing new life through the giving of the Spirit - as he will also bring about the final resurrection. John's use of this oracle can be usefully compared to the use of the same oracle in other works of the Second Temple period. Pseudo-Ezekiel, 4 Maccabees, and perhaps Sirach and 1 Enoch all understand Ezekiel's oracle of the dry bones as a description of the final resurrection.65 While the authors of those works were likely aware that Ezekiel interpreted the vision as a prophecy of the restoration of Israel and the giving of God's Spirit, they did not choose to focus on that interpretation. 4 Maccabees in particular seems to see the vision as primarily about the final resurrection. The Life of Ezekiel, however, has an understanding of the dry bones oracle that is similar in some ways to John's understanding. The author of the Life explains it thus: Ezekiel 'used to say this to them: "Are we lost? Has our hope perished?" And in the wonder of the dead bones he persuaded them that there is hope for Israel both here and in the coming age' (L/v. Proph. 3.12).66 Like John, the author of the Life thought that Ezekiel's vision referred to both the restoration of God's people and the final resurrection. Perhaps both John and the author of the Life of Ezekiel saw the vision itself as a reference to the final resurrection, and the interpretation of the vision as a reference to the restoration of God's people.

65. 4Q385 frag. 3 2.5-8 (see p. 70); 4 Mace. 18.17 (see p. 96); Sir. 49.10; 1 En. 90.4-5 (see p. 98). 66. Seep. 97.

172

Echoes of a Prophet 3. Water and the Spirit

John's connection of water with the Spirit is perhaps the most difficult material in John for which to establish OT parallels. The main reason for this difficulty is that water in John is more of a symbol derived from the OT than an allusion to particular OT passages. Allusions are intended to recall particular passages of Scripture. When a particular image or phrase has been the subject of allusions by several other authors, that image or phrase begins to cross over to the realm of symbol rather than allusion. Symbols are known more widely than the texts (or settings) from which they originally arose. Symbols may become part of ordinary, non-literary conversation, and may enter into religious ritual. In some cases, the symbol is used long after its original literary or religious setting is forgotten.67 It is difficult to pin down the precise source of John's use of 'water' because water is a symbol, not merely an allusion. Water had a symbolic function in Judaism (as it does in most religions) that would have been apparent even to an observer unfamiliar with the OT. For those familiar with the OT and literature of the Second Temple era, water could be a symbol for many ideas: life, cleansing, restoration, wisdom, God's Spirit, God's word, and God's provision.68 However, John does not draw on all of these possible meanings for water. Most of the symbolic occurrences of 'water' in John refer to cleansing, life, or the Holy Spirit. Thus, although John's uses of water symbolism do not show clear verbal parallel to particular OT passages, they do show affinities to passages in the OT that use water as a symbol for cleansing, life, or God's Spirit. To put it another way, the parallels between water in John and water in certain OT passages are often more conceptual than verbal. We will begin by analyzing the reference to water and the Spirit in Jn 7.37-39, then step from there to an analysis of water symbolism in Jn 3.5; 4.10-15; and 19.34. It seems best to begin with Jn 7.37-39 because it explains its water symbolism, claims an OT source, and seems to explain some of John's other references to water. A few other symbolic uses of water (Jn 2.7-9; 5.7; 13.3-17) will not be analyzed, since they show no direct connection to Ezekiel's use of water symbolism. a. The Tabernacles Saying (Ezekiel 47.1-12; John 737-39) There are a number of thorny exegetical problems in Jesus' summons to the thirsty at the Feast of Tabernacles. Two in particular, the placement of punctuation and the referent of the pronoun autoO in 7.38, must be 67. See Koester, Symbolism, pp. 1-21; W.-Y. Ng, Water Symbolism in John: An Eschatological Interpretation (StudBL, 15; New York: P. Lang, 2001), pp. 5-21. 68. See NIDNTT, s.v. 'Water' by O. Bocher, vol. 3, pp. 985-91; TDNT, s.v. 'uScop' by L. Goppelt, vol. 8, pp. 314-33.

5. Allusions to Ezekiel in John: Minor Allusions

173

addressed before we analyze the use of water symbolism. The various options for these two problems have an impact on the search for a possible OT source for Jesus' saying. First, there are two possible ways to divide the first part of Jesus' saying, found in Jn 7.37b-38: edv TIQ 6u|/a epxeoGco TTpog \xe KOCI TTIV€TG) 6 TTIOT€IJG)V elg €|ie KtxGax; e!TT€V t] ypa^ri... Punctuation A, as it is typically called, places a period after iriveco), resulting in the translation, 'If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. The one who believes in me, as the Scripture s a i d . . . ' This makes 6 irioxeuGov a pendent nominative, the topic (but not the grammatical subject) of the following KCCGGK clause. Punctuation B places a period after etc; 4|i€, resulting in the translation 'If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me, and let the one who believes in me drink. As the Scripture s a i d . . . ' With this punctuation, 6 TTIGTCUQV is the subject of mveua). On the whole, there seem to be more textual, grammatical, and stylistic reasons in favor of punctuation A. Punctuation A is supported by the earliest mss,69 as well as by patristic evidence both early and widely distributed.70 Punctuation A is more grammatically defensible, since it presents a standard usage of the KaGcog quotation formula, while punctuation B would require a use of that formula virtually unknown in the NT. 71 Punctuation A is also more in accord with John's style: the nominative absolute it requires is typical of John;72 it matches his tendency 69. $ 66 (AD 200) ^ 75 (AD 175-225) divide the lines in accordance with punctuation A, according to J.B. Cortes, 'Yet Another Look at John 7:37-39', CBQ 29 (1967), pp. 75-86 (77); Morris, John, p. 423 fn.; see also Schnackenburg, John, vol. 2, p. 153. In contrast, punctuation B has only the support of the Old Latin mss e and d (5th century). K.H. Kuhn, 'St. John VII. 37-8', NTS 4, no. 1 (1957), pp. 63-65 (64); C.H. Turner, 'On the Punctuation of St. John VII 37, 38', JTS 24 (1922-23), pp. 66-70 (69). 70. Origen, Athanasius, Didymus, Cyril of Alexandria, Ammonius of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, Cyril of Jerusalem, Eusebius of Emesa, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Hilary, Jerome, Augustine, according to Schnackenburg, John, vol. 2, p. 153. Most Coptic texts also favor punctuation A, according to Kuhn, 'John VII. 37-8', p. 65. The patristic evidence for punctuation B is mostly limited to translations of the fathers; for a listing, see Kuhn, 'John VII. 37-8', p. 64; Turner, 'Punctuation', p. 69. Some proposed witnesses to punctuation B only attest to the christological interpretation without giving clear evidence of either punctuation (e.g. Letter from Lyons, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus; used by F.J. Badcock, 'The Feast of Tabernacles', JTS 24 (1922-23), pp. 169-74 (174); E.B. Nestle, 'The Earliest Quotation of John 7:38, 39', ExpTim 23 (1911-12), p. 331). 71. Of the 62 NT uses of KaGwg quotation formulae, only one appears to begin a sentence, as punctuation B would require. This single exception (Rom. 8.26) is also the only instance where it is the response to a rhetorical question, which might explain its unusual word order (contra Lindars, John, pp. 298-99). 72. The normal parallels presented are Jn 1.12; 6.39; 8.45; 15.2; 17.2; see also Rev. 2.26; 3.12, 21 (D.A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), p. 325; Cortes, 'John 7:37-39', p. 79; Freed, Old Testament Quotations, p. 24; Z.C. Hodges, 'Rivers of Living Water - John 7:37-39', BSac 136 (1979), pp. 239^8 (241)). Some of these

174

Echoes of a Prophet

to start clauses with 6 TTioieuGov,73 and the use of 6 TTUTOIW to state the results of belief (rather than to place further demands on believers) is more consistent with John's use of 6 TTioieiW.74 The second problem in the Tabernacles saying is the referent of auxoO in the Scripture quotation, KaGcag dvav r| ypoufy(\, wcqioi 4K xf|<; KOikiaQ auxoO peuoouaiv u6atog (GOVTCX; ('As the scripture said, "Rivers of living water will flow from his belly'"). 75 Does the 'belly' belong to Christ or the believer? It may be more obvious to see the atkou as referring to the believer, since 6 TTLoieucov is the immediate antecedent,76 but the peculiarities of nominative absolutes may allow Christ to be the antecedent. A nominative absolute or pendent nominative is normally resumed by a pronoun in the proper case later in the sentence. However, M. Menken offers a number of examples of pendent nominative constructions in which there is no resumption, 77 and even an example in which the nearest pronoun clearly does not resume the pendent nominative.78 Thus it is possible that 6 TrioieuGw in Jn 7.38 is a pendent nominative, and that auiou does not resume the pendent nominative but refers to Christ. The context of an OT quotation makes this explanation more credible: quotations often disrupt syntax, especially pronoun

are pendent accusatives, and thus only give support for John's use of resumptive pronouns (Jn 8.45 may be merely a OIL clause with unusual word order, and does not help). The passages in Revelation are the most similar, containing nominative absolutes resumed with aircog. 73. Aside from the contested passage, 6 luoieutov never ends a clause, and most often is at or near the beginning (with the obvious exception of the rare oblique cases in prepositional phrases). There is also a Johannine tendency to start sentences with other substantival participles, as is pointed out by Carson, John, p. 324; Lindars, John, p. 299; M.J.J. Menken, 'The Origin of the Old Testament Quote in John 7:38', NovT 38 (1996), pp. 160-75 (164). 74. J.B. Cortes points out that 6 iTLoieuwv is used primarily to state the rewards of belief or to give confirmation of belief. Cortes, 'John 7:37-39', p. 81; see also Menken, 'John 7:38', p. 164. 75. A number of modern commentators assume that punctuation A must assign auiou to the believer, while punctuation B may assign auroi) to Christ. However, there are some ancient commentators who reversed this: Caesarius of Aries, Cyprian (Menken, 'John 7:38', p. 163), and the Coptic text M 604 (Kuhn, 'John VII. 37-8', p. 65). In addition, some modern scholars have also suggested alternate combinations. See J. Blenkinsopp, 'John VII. 37-9: Another Note on a Mysterious Crux', NTS 6, no. 1 (1959), pp. 95-98 (96); idem, 'The Quenching of Thirst: Reflections on the Utterance in the Temple, John 7:37-9', Scr 12 (1960), pp. 39-48 (46); Brown, John, vol. 1, p. 321; Carson, John, p. 324; Hodges, 'Rivers of Living Water'; S.H. Hooke, 'The Spirit Was Not Yet', NTS 9, no. 4 (1963), pp. 372-80 (373); Menken, 'John 7:38', pp. 160-75; Schnackenburg, John, vol. 2, p. 154. 76. Fee suggests this and several other reasons for seeing the believer as the antecedent of afaou. G.D. Fee, 'Once M o r e - J o h n 7:37-39', ExpTim 89, no. 4 (1978), pp. 116-21 (116-18). 77. Lk. 21.6; Acts 8.7; 1 Sam. 20.23; Isa. 19.17; Sir. 34.18; Philostratus, Vita Apolonii2.24. Menken, 'John 7:38', p. 166. 78. Xenophon's Historia Graeca 4.1.24. Menken, 'John 7:38', p. 167.

5. Allusions to Ezekiel in John: Minor Allusions

175

referent.79 Thus the sense of the quotation may be something like, '[For] the one who believes in me, as the Scripture said, "Rivers of living water will flow from his [Christ's] belly.'"80 Furthermore, Johannine theology makes it likely that OCUTOU refers to Christ. The immediate context suggests Jesus as the source: 'come to me and drink' (Jn 7.37), and 'those who believed in him were about to receive' the Spirit (Jn 7.39). Throughout John, Jesus is the source of the living water and the Spirit (Jn 1.23; 3.3435; 4.13-14; 15.26; 16.7; 19.34; 20.22), suggesting that here also, Jesus is the source of the water.81 This conclusion, that Jesus is the primary source of the living water, may help us in dealing with an even more difficult problem, the source of the quote. Elsewhere in John (as well as throughout the NT), introduction formulae such as 'As the Scripture said' always introduce recognizable quotations, usually of passages in the OT. In many cases, those quotations are somewhat different from the forms we currently have in the LXX or MT; but the source is usually still recognizable. Here, however, there is no known passage that Jn 7.38 quotes. Although numerous passages have been proposed,82 none of these passages has the same wording as Jn 7.38b. None have more than three of the five important words that Jesus uses (TToioqioi, KoiAia, peco, \J6GOV Can/). None have the phrase 'rivers of living water,' although some use 'living 79. The desire to quote with some accuracy led NT authors to maintain the original pronoun even when it did not fit its new context. For example, Jn 2.17 uses a second person pronoun to refer to Jesus, although the context calls for third person. In 6.45, the quote is plural, but Jesus' explanation uses a singular pronoun. In 10.34-35, the OT quote is a second person pronoun, and Jesus' explanation is in the third person. In 12.38-40, John uses 'our' to refer to Jesus. This phenomenon is not limited to John: cf. Mt. 26.31; Lk. 7.24; 19.46; 20.17, 41-43; 22.37. Similarly, Revelation contains numerous examples of misused cases, possibly because the 'author alludes to the LXX, retaining the same case-form (even though it now lacks concord in its new context), to signal his audience that he is quoting from the OT.' D.B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), p. 61 fn. This tendency for quotations to disrupt pronoun referent answers one of Fee's strongest objections to seeing Jesus as the antecedent of aircou (Fee, 'Once More - John 7:37-39', pp. 116-18). 80. Oepke offers a similar paraphrase, although he favors the believer as a referent. TDNT, s.v. 'Kpijimo' by A. Oepke, vol. 3, pp. 957-1000. 81. A number of scholars support the 'christological interpretation': Brown, John, vol. 1, pp. 320, 328; Carson, John, pp. 323, 324; Cortes, 'John 7:37-39', pp. 76-77; J.D.G. Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit: A Re-examination of the New Testament Teaching on the Gift of the Spirit in Relationship to Pentecostalism Today (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970), p. 187; Hatina, 'John 20,22', pp. 212-14; Hodges, 'Rivers of Living Water', p. 242; Ng, Water Symbolism, pp. 77-81; Schnackenburg, John, vol. 2, p. 154; J.E. Somerville, 'The Invitation to the Thirsty', ExpTim 15 (1903-04), pp. 77-79 (77-78); Swetnam, 'Bestowal of the Spirit', pp. 565-66. 82. My survey of literature on this passage yielded at least 29 proposed sources from the OT or other literature of the Second Temple period.

176

Echoes of a Prophet

water' or 'rivers of water.' Many of the passages that share some words with Jn 7.38 seem conceptually distant, suggesting that the verbal parallels are misleading. This difficulty results in a lack of scholarly consensus; it is difficult to find more than two or three scholars who agree on the source of John's 'quotation.' However, although there is no passage that Jn 7.38 quotes or even to which it clearly alludes, it is possible to see some connections between the use of water symbolism here and in some OT passages. In Jn 7.38, water symbolizes the Spirit, comes from Christ, and brings ultimate satisfaction to all who receive it. Thus we should look at OT passages in which water symbolizes the Spirit, comes from a messianic figure, and provides ultimate, perhaps even eschatological, blessings to those who receive it. Of course, it may not be that simple. Knowing John's tendency to describe Jesus with terms and images originally ascribed to God (for example, Jn 1.1; 10.14), we also need to consider passages that describe God as the source of the water or Spirit. And knowing that John often alludes to promises originally directed to Israel and appropriates them for the followers of Jesus, we will obviously look for OT passages that describe Israel as the recipient of the water or Spirit. Thus, OT passages that show the greatest affinity to Jn 7.38 are those in which God, or a messianicfigure,promises to give water, symbolizing the Spirit, to Israel. The setting of the saying at the Feast of Tabernacles may also help to identify the OT passages or ideas to which Jn 7.38 refers. Most agree that the summons to the thirsty should be understood in light of the water ceremony at the Feast of Tabernacles.83 The water ceremony likely had several meanings, as revealed by some of the traditional readings at Tabernacles.84 Some readings recalled the miraculous water from the rock

83. Primary sources on the Feast of Tabernacles and the water ceremony include Sukk. 1.1-2.4; 4.9; 5 . 3 ^ ; b. Sukk. 5.48b; 5.53a; 5.55a; Peshikta Rabbati 52.4.6; b. Megillah 31a; Josephus, Ant. 3.245-47; 8.100, 123; 11.154-57; 13.241-47, 372-73; 15.50; Philo, Spec. Leg. 11.213. The meaning of the ritual and its connection to Jn 7.37-38 have been discussed extensively: Badcock, 'The Feast of Tabernacles', pp. 169-74; Brown, John, vol. 1, pp. 321-27; A. Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (repr., Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1993, New York: Longmans, Green, 1896), pp. 582-91; Freed, Old Testament Quotations, p. 30; B.H. Grigsby, '"If Any Man Thirsts...":? Observations on the Rabbinic Background of John 7,37-39', Bib 67 (1986), pp. 101-08 (102-07); ISBE, s.v. 'Booths, Feast of by R.K. Harrison, p. 535; Hatina, 'John 20,22', pp. 214-15; Hodges, 'Rivers of Living Water', p. 247; ODJR, s.v. 'Hosha'na' Rabbah'; 'Shemini 'Atseret'; 'Simhat Beit Ha-Sho'evah'; 'Sukkah'; H.M. Knapp, 'The Messianic Water Which Gives Life to the World', HBT 19, no. 2 (1997), pp. 109-21 (111); Ng, Water Symbolism, pp. 77-78; IDB, s.v. 'Booths, Feast of by J.C. Rylaarsdam; Schnackenburg, John, vol. 2, pp. 138-39, 152-56. 84. b. Megillah 31 a and /. Sukk. 3 list traditional readings for Feast of Tabernacles, as well as Scriptures that were commonly associated with the Feast: Exod. 33.12; Lev. 23.33^4; Num. 29.12-34; Deut. 14.22-15.18; 33; 1 Kgs 7.2; 8.22, 54; Ezekiel 38; Zechariah 14. Other passages may have been synagogue readings during the festival.

5. Allusions to Ezekiel in John: Minor Allusions

111

in the wilderness (Exod. 17.1-6; Psalms 78, 105). Other readings recalled the promised eschatological waters (Isa. 12.1^4; 44.3). Especially important are the passages that describe the river coming forth from the Temple (Ezek. 47.1-10; Zech. 13.1; 14.8), since the pouring out of the water on the altar was thought to symbolize God's promised river.85 These passages, and others like them, have conceptual parallels with Jn 7.37-39. As many scholars have pointed out, there is no need to select only one of these meanings for the water symbol.86 The fact that the water ritual was associated with both the water from the rock and the water from the Temple87 suggests that John may intend more than one meaning for the water symbolism. That is, John sees both the water in the wilderness88 and the river from the Temple as symbols for the Holy Spirit. Other OT uses of water symbolism may be significant as well: water as wisdom, the rivers of Eden, and the cleansing water of purification rituals. However, since the focus of this work is on the use of Ezekiel in John, we will focus our attention on the passages that describe a river coming from the Temple. Thus, although the saying at Tabernacles may be related to water symbolism throughout the OT, we can say with some confidence that Jn 7.37-39 includes, as part of its symbolic meaning, a reference to the cleansing and life-giving river from the Temple. That image originally comes from Ezekiel, but the language in Jn 7.38 is likely also influenced by the wording in the versions by Zechariah and Joel.

85. T. Sukk. 3.3-12; see B.H. Grigsby, 'Gematria and John 21:11 - Another Look at Ezekiel 47:10', ExpTim 95 (1984), pp. 177-78; Grigsby, 'If Any Man Thirsts', pp. 105-06; Knapp, 'Messianic Water', pp. 116-17; Schnackenburg, John, vol. 2, p. 155. 86. D.C. Allison, 'The Living Water', St. Vladimir's Theological Seminary Quarterly 30, no. 2 (1986), pp. 143-57 (144-45); Beasley-Murray, John, p. 116; Carson, John, p. 328; Fowler, 'Influence', p. 149; Koester, Symbolism, p. 174; Menken, 'John 7:38', p. 168; Ng, Water Symbolism, pp. 77-78; Schnackenburg, John, vol. 2, p. 122. 87. T. Sukk. 3.3-10 describes the water from the libation flask as water from the river of Ezek. 47.1-12, and links this with the fountain of Zech. 13.1, the river of Zech. 14.8, and the waterlands of Isa. 33.21 (t. Sukk. 3.3-10). Then t. Sukk. 3.11-12 compares the water for the libation with the water from the rock in the wilderness (Numbers 21; Ps. 78.20; 105.41). T. Sukk. 3.13 then explicitly links the two ideas by combining a description of the Temple river with a passage on God's provision in the Exodus (Deut. 2.7). Finally, t. Sukk. 3.18 connects the water libation with the promises for rain in Zech. 14.17-18. 88. Although many passages about the water from the rock are proposed as the source of the wording in Jn 7.38, the description of the water from the rock in Isa. 48.21 LXX has some striking similarities. The LXX translator renders the description in the future tense, making it into a prophecy: 'And if they are thirsty (&i4npwoiv), he will lead them through the wilderness. He will bring out water from the rock for them; the rock will be split, and water will flow i u6wp), and my people will drink.'

178

Echoes of a Prophet

Ezek. 47.1 . . . water was coming out from the threshold of the Temple. 47.9 every living creature... Jn 7.38-39 As the scripture said, wherever the river/s (o^m/6 'Rivers of living water will flow m)Toqi6<;) go, will live, from his belly.' Zech. 14.8 . . . living waters will (myuoqiol €K if|<; KOiAiac; ctuiou flow (QeXevoemi u6a)p (cov) from Jerusalem, half to the eastern sea peuaouaiv uoauoc; (COVTCX;) This he said about the Holy Spirit, whom and half to the western sea... 8 9 those who believed in him were Joel 3.18 . . . all the stream beds of about to receive; for the Spirit was Judah will flow with water not yet, for Jesus was not yet (purioovToa uoara), and a fountain glorified. will come forth (eEtkevoexai) from the house of the Lord and water the valley of Shittim. The verbal parallels are not strong, but the idea of the river from Jesus clearly is related to the idea of the river from the Temple in Ezekiel, Zechariah, and Joel. In addition, the use of 'living water' and 'rivers' suggests some verbal parallel between Jn 7.38 and the OT passages. John's use of m)Ta|iol (rivers) may reflect an old tradition that Ezekiel's river split into two or more branches. The tradition may be based on the unusual use of the dual form D^ra in Ezek. 47.9 (not represented in the LXX).90 Ezek. 47.8 describes one river heading first 'to the eastern region' (ruimpn rr^arr^K) and then south to the Arabah and the Dead Sea. The phrase 'to the eastern region,' however, was somewhat ambiguous, since Tib^b} could refer to 'Galilee' or 'a region.'91 Thus the LXX translator saw the river as going to 'eastern Galilee' (d<; TTJV rcdiAmav TT]V 7Tpo<; avauoAac) and to Arabia, suggesting that the river split into two. Perhaps Zechariah understood Ezekiel as describing two rivers for one of the above reasons; when he abbreviated Ezekiel's vision, he described the waters as going to two seas (Zech. 14.8, LXX and MT). 1QH 16.17, alluding to Ezek. 47.8-9, describes the waters going to 'seas' (see p. 56), suggesting that the author of Hodayot also interpreted Ezekiel's river as branching into two. T. Sukk. 3.9-10, describing the connection between the water ritual and Ezekiel 47, 89. LXX: 'half to the first sea and half to the last sea.' 90. Allen suggests that the MT dual form D^m may be a corruption of D^m, 'their river' (i.e., the river from the waters) or that the text may have been influenced by the two rivers of Zech. 14.8 (Allen, Ezekiel, vol. 2, pp. 271, 274). The LXX translator did not render it as a plural, but seems to have seen it as branching into two rivers (Ezek. 47.8). 91. The LXX translator of Joel 4.4 similarly renders the phrase rwbs niWa bzi ('all the regions of the Philistines') as moa FodiAxua aXlofyvkuv ('all Galilee of the Philistines').

5. Allusions to Ezekiel in John: Minor Allusions

179

makes it explicit that Ezekiel's river goes to the Sea of Galilee, the Dead Sea, and the Mediterranean Sea.92 According to Levey, a few late rabbinic sources also describe the river of Zechariah and Ezekiel as going to the same three seas.93 Likewise, Targ. Ezek. 47.8 describes the river as going to both the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean Sea. With this array of evidence that Ezekiel's 'river' was interpreted as 'rivers,' it is not surprising that John's allusion to the Temple river would use the plural.94 The setting of the saying at the Feast of Tabernacles makes it likely that Jn 7.38 is supposed to recall (among other things) the river from the Temple. First, Zechariah 13 and 14 were part of the scripture readings at Tabernacles; thus, Zechariah's 'living waters' seems to be a likely source of inspiration for Jn 7.38. Second, the water ritual was perceived to be symbolic of the river coming from the Temple in Ezek. 47.1-12. T. Sukk. 3.5-9 explains that the Water Gate was so named because of its role in the water ritual, and because the river of Ezekiel and Zechariah wouldflowout through that gate (Ezek. 47.2).95 There are a number of important conceptual connections between Jn 7.38 and the three passages prophesying a river from the Temple. In order to understand those connections, we must explore the meaning of Ezekiel's vision, as well as its abbreviation in Zechariah 14 and Joel 3. The vision of the river falls in the middle of Ezekiel's description of a restored Israel, between the visions of a restored Temple and a restored land. Chapters 4042 describe the restored Temple. God returns to the holy place on his chariot (Ezek. 43.1-5), confirms his 'new covenant' with his people (Ezek. 43.6-12), and describes the affairs of the new, purified Temple (Ezekiel 4346). Ezek. 47.1-12 describes the river, springing from the inner courts of the purified Temple, and going out into the rest of Israel, transforming the land into a new Eden. Ezek. 47.11-48.35 then describes the tribal boundaries, in Jerusalem and throughout the Land, of the reconstituted 92. T. Sukk. 3.9-10 translates rbb* as 'east,' but it strangely interprets 'Arabah' as 'the Sea at Tiberias' (Galilee) and 'the eastern region' as the 'Sea at Sodom' (Dead Sea). It also describes the freshening of water in the Great Sea, not only the Dead Sea. The interpretation may represent an attempt to harmonize Ezekiel's account with Zechariah's. 93. Pirq de Rabbi Eliezer, ch. 51; Yalkut Simeoni on Ezek. #383 (47). Levey, The Targum of Ezekiel, p. 127, n. 8. 94. As far as I am aware, these pieces of data have not previously been gathered together. A few of the pieces have been analyzed separately. Brownlee pointed out the significance of the dual form of 'rivers' in Ezek. 47.9; Grigsby observed that t. Sukk. interpreted the river as going to Galilee; and Levey observed the connection between the interpretation of the river in the Targum and in other rabbinic material. W.H. Brownlee, 'Whence John?' in J.H. Charlesworth (ed.), John and Qumran (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1972), pp. 166-94 (186); Grigsby, 'Gematria'; Levey, The Targum of Ezekiel, p. 127, n. 8. 95. Grigsby, 'Gematria', pp. 177-78; Grigsby, 'If Any Man Thirsts', pp. 105-06; Schnackenburg, John, vol. 2, p. 155.

180

Echoes of a Prophet

nation. This placing of the vision of the river is crucial to EzekieFs message. The restoration of the people to their land comes only after the Temple is purified and God brings his glory back to the Temple.96 The defilement of the Temple - in Ezekiel, one of the causes of the exile (Ezek. 8-9, 22.26; 43.7-12; 46.6-14) - is now cleansed by the presence of God. The priesthood and the Temple cult are restored to their correct practices (Ezek. 43.6-9; 46.6-14). Only then does God's river come from the inner court of the Temple, through Jerusalem, and out into the land of Israel.97 As the land is physically restored, the people are also restored. The just reallocation of land to the tribes (Ezek. 47.11-48.35) is a picture of that restored society. No longer will they dispossess one another from the land that God has given them. Part of the inspiration for Ezekiel's vision is the creation account in Genesis. The renewing work of the river brings new life in the same fashion as God brought life to the world. Ezekiel 47 contains several clear allusions to the creation accounts: Ezek. 47.9 And it will be that every living creature that swarms (psriioK mn rasrb::)98 in every place where the rivers go, will live... 10 ... their fish will be very many according to kind (nrnb), like the fish of the Great Sea... 12 And on both banks of the river (^mn) will grow every tree for eating (tewrp-te).

Gen. 1.21 And God created... every living creature with which the water swarms (ITVO IBK ... mn rarte)

after their kinds (»nr»*?). Gen. 2.9 And from the ground the Lord God made grow every tree (fybs) that is... good for eating (bmnb)... 10 A river (inai) flowed out of Eden to water the garden.

96. 'All the preparation of the sacred place... is meant in the last resort to serve God's intention to allow life and healing to flow out from here into the land. This life and healing are to be effective precisely where unnatural disease and hostility to life are most obviously operative.' Zimmerli, Ezekiel, vol. 2, p. 516; see also W. Zimmerli, T h e "Land" in the PreExilic and Early Post-Exilic Prophets', in J.T. Butler, E.W. Conrad, and B.C. Ollenburger (eds), Understanding the Word (Festschrift B. Anderson; JSOTSup, 37; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), pp. 246-62 (258). 97. K. Stevenson points out that the river of Ezek. 47.1-12 and the altar of Ezek. 43.13-27 serve a similar function: 'The Altar cleanses the House of the effects of chaos, while the stream heals the land.' K.R. Stevenson, The Vision of Transformation: The Territorial Rhetoric of Ezekiel 40-48 (SBLDS, 154; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), p. 142. 98. The verbal parallels between the two passages are not as strong in the LXX, perhaps because the translator of Ezekiel was not familiar with the LXX of Genesis.

5. Allusions to Ezekiel in John: Minor Allusions

181

The river itself is reminiscent of the rivers of Eden, although there is little verbal parallel between the two descriptions of the rivers. Observing this parallel to the creation account is useful, because it allows us to observe that this vision has essentially the same meaning as the oracle of the dry bones (Ezek. 37.1-14). In both cases, Ezekiel uses imagery from the creation account to describe new life coming from God. Like the oracle of the dry bones, the vision of the Temple river is not primarily about physical restoration, but God giving his healing Spirit to his people. The theme of healing and life is clear in the vision: when the river reaches the stagnant water, the water 'is healed' (iznn/vyiaoti; Ezek. 47.8, 9). For water to 'be healed' means to become fresh, but the secondary meaning becomes more noticeable in this passage because 'will be healed' (1KDT1) is juxtaposed with 'live' (vn). 'The water will become fresh; so everything will live (TH iKB-n/Kai uyiaoci KCCI £r\oemi) wherever the river goes' (Ezek. 47.9). Since Greek does not use the same idiom for making water fresh, the LXX of Ezek. 47.8-9 appears to be entirely about waters that heal and make alive (i)Yidco€i TO uoorca... TO u6a)p TOUTO, Kal uyuxaei Kod Furthermore, the river teems with 'living creatures' (rrn WB3/*A | >X
182

Echoes of a Prophet

within you...' In this image, Ezekiel describes the restoration of Israel as a ritual purification. Israel was like 'a woman in her uncleanness' (Ezek. 36.17; see Lev. 15.19ff); thus the restoration is pictured as a cleansing ritual. To 'sprinkle clean water' (Dmntt D'tt .. .Tip-in; Ezek. 36.25) alludes to the ritual sprinkling of 'holy water' to remove various types of impurity (Lev. 14.5-7, 49-52; Num. 8.5-7; 19.9, 17-22). The phrase 'you will be clean' (Ezek. 36.25) is similar to the normal pronouncement in the Law for one who has finished the purification ritual (e.g., Num. 19.19). The fact that the Law usually describes this water as 'flowing' or 'living' water (D-D D"n/u6a)p C^v) is perhaps significant. Ezekiel does not use the phrase, but he clearly associates water with life in his description of the river from the Temple. Zechariah describes the river from the Temple as 'living waters,' suggesting that he saw the connection between Ezekiel's river and the purifying waters. Thus, Ezekiel used water as a symbol for the coming purification of his people; like Isaiah, Ezekiel associated that cleansing water with God's promise to give his Spirit (Ezek. 36.25-27; 39.29; Isa. 44.3; 32.15).100 Thus, Ezekiel has a somewhat consistent use of the symbol of water. For Ezekiel, water used in the Temple cult came to symbolize moral and spiritual cleansing, and thus God's promise to give his Spirit. Water was also a symbol of God's abundant provision, and especially of his ability to re-create and heal, as in the river from the Temple. The image of the river from the Temple appears to combine these ideas: water comes from God's presence, purifying, healing, and bringing life to the land and its people. Like Ezekiel's other symbols, water communicates both outward physical restoration of the land as well as a spiritual transformation of the people. When Zechariah and Joel make brief references to Ezekiel's river, they seem to include some of the same meaning. Zechariah describes a fountain that God will open 'for sin and for impurity' (Zech. 13.1), which seems to be the same as the 'living waters' that will flow from Jerusalem to the two seas (Zech. 14.8).101 Joel's vision also describes the presence of God in his Temple, and the resulting sanctification of Jerusalem and watering of the land (Joel 3.17-18). The water ritual at the Feast of Tabernacles also draws

100. As Ng points out, the connection between water and Spirit in Ezekiel 47 is not as strong as in other passages such as Ezek. 36.25-27 or Isa. 4 4 . 3 ^ ; but she also points out that the river only comes after God enters the Temple, suggesting the connection with God's gift of his Spirit. Ng, Water Symbolism, p. 168. 101. It is significant that John quotes from another passage in Zechariah that uses pouring language to describe the Spirit. When Jn 19.37 briefly quotes Zech. 12.10, 'they will look on him whom they pierced,' this is probably supposed to recall the beginning of the verse, 'And I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication, so that they will look on me [or him] whom they have pierced...'

5. Allusions to Ezekiel in John: Minor Allusions

183

on the hopes of God's promised physical and spiritual blessings, including the outpouring of his Spirit. Once the OT meaning of the river from the Temple is explored, the parallels to Jn 7.38 are clear. Jesus proclaims himself as the fulfillment of God's promise. The river from the Temple was God's promise to cleanse his people, bring them healing, new life, and a new creation. This promise would be accomplished through the pouring out of God's Spirit, pictured as a river of lifeflowingfrom God to all his people. John describes Jesus as the one who brings that renewing Spirit from God. John's transformation of the image fits what we have come to expect. First, John has made a close connection between Jesus and God by describing Jesus as the source of water. In the OT passages, God is the implied source of the river, and God is the one who gives his Spirit. In Ezekiel 47, the water only begins when God has returned to his throne in the Temple. By making Jesus the source of the living waters, John connects Jesus closely with God's work. Jesus is the agent who carries out God's promise of the living water from the Temple.102 This close connection between the work of God and Jesus is similar to the description of Jesus' role as God's shepherd in John 10 (see pp. 11718). There may be another, more elusive connection between Jesus and the source of the water in Ezekiel 47. The river begins as a trickle of water from the ]nsn of the Temple. This ]nen, normally translated 'threshold' or 'podium'103 is somewhat mysterious.104 The LXX translator of Ezekiel apparently read nnsft for ]nsa, and thus translated it as aT0pio<; (open place). The English translation 'threshold' may be influenced by the Vulgate limen. Whatever the word means, in Ezekiel, the ]ns?: is only occupied by 'the glory of YHWH' (Ezek. 9.3; 10.4, 18) and the 'prince' during his worship (Ezek. 46.2). We cannot be sure of how John interpreted the Temple vision in Ezekiel 47, but we might speculate that he saw the ]nSD, the source of the river, as the place for the glory of God and for the 'prince.' There are hints elsewhere in John that Jesus is the 'glory of God,' seen in the visions of

102. See also Koester, Symbolism, p. 161. 103. Eichrodt sees some significance in the source of the water from the podium, 'where the authorized representative of the invisible God took his stand'; Eichrodt, Ezekiel, P- 582; see also Zimmerli, Ezekiel, vol. 1, p. 224 (citing A.B. Ehrlich, Randglossen zur hebrdischen Bibel 5 (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1912); although see Allen, Ezekiel, vol. 1, p. 122 for opposing views. 104. "jnSQ only occurs in Ezekiel's description of the Temple (Ezek. 9.3; 10.4, 18; 46.2; 47.1), once in Zeph. 1.9, and in the description of the temple of Dagon (1 Sam. 5.4-5). In none of these occurrences are there enough clues to allow a description or even a definition of the

184

Echoes of a Prophet

Jacob, Isaiah, and Ezekiel.105 Ezekiel's future 'prince' is David (Ezek. 34.24; 37.25), although that fact is not mentioned in the descriptions of him in Ezekiel 44-48. John's two allusions to Ezekiel's 'Prince David' (Jn 10.1-30/Ezek. 34.34; Jn 11.51-52/Ezek. 37.25) suggest that John sees Jesus as Ezekiel's prince.106 Thus, John may have seen a messianic element in the source of the Temple river, since the ]nsn was reserved only for the glory of God and the prince of Israel - descriptions that John finds appropriate for Jesus. These connections are admittedly tenuous and speculative; but it is quite possible that a messianic or christological approach to Ezekiel would yield such connections.107 John's reasons for describing the water coming from Jesus' KOIAIOC (belly) are unclear. The difficulty of finding any Old Testament source for 'water from the belly' has led scholars to propose a variety of conjectural emendations, either of Jesus' words or of parallel OT passages, based on the Hebrew, Aramaic, or even Syriac.108 Although some of these are attractive,109 none have garnered wide support. It may be best to offer only some general observations. The use of 'belly' makes it clear that the lifegiving waters from the Temple come directly from Jesus, not from the altar where the water libation was poured out. Furthermore, the idea of water coming from Jesus' belly allows John to picture the fulfillment of this promise when the soldier 'pierced his side... and blood and water came forth' (Jn 19.34). This is probably intended to symbolize the connection between the giving of the Spirit (water) and Jesus' death (blood);110 the same connection that is made in Jn 7.39: 'For the Spirit was not yet, for Jesus was not yet glorified.' John's use of the water to symbolize the Spirit here is also verified by his citation of Zech. 12.10, which connects the

105. See comments on Jn 1.51, pp. 153-54, above. 106. See above, pp. 117-18. 107. John elsewhere hints at a connection between Christ and the Temple (Jn 1.18; 1.51; 2.21; 4.23-25). Thompson, The God of the Gospel of John, pp. 210-17. 108. See, for example, C.F. Burney, 'The Aramaic Equivalent of eK XV\Q KOIXIOLC, in Jn. VII 38', JTS 24 (1922-23), pp. 79-80; C.F. Burney, The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1922), p. 110; J.R. Harris and V. Burch, Testimonies (2 vols; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1916-20); A.S. Lewis, 'John vii. 38, 39', ExpTim 23 (1911-12), pp. 235-36; J. Marcus, 'Rivers of Living Water from Jesus' Belly', JBL 117, no. 2 (1998), pp. 328-30; Menken, 'John 7:38', p. 162; Schnackenburg, John, vol. 2, p. 156; C.C. Torrey, Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence (New York/London: Harper & Brothers, 1936), pp. 109-11. 109. For example, Joel Marcus repoints niy^'Ti wsnn ('from springs of salvation,' Isa. 12.3) as njJiErn "TI7QQ ('from the belly of Jesus'). Marcus, 'Rivers of Living Water from Jesus' Belly', p. 329-30. 110. Carson, John, p. 624; Ng, Water Symbolism, p. 84; Schnackenburg, John, vol. 3, p. 294; see also Brown, John, vol. 2, pp. 949-50; Koester, Symbolism, pp. 181-83.

5. Allusions to Ezekiel in John: Minor Allusions

185

pouring out of God's Spirit with the one 'whom they have pierced' (Jn 19.37).111 Several scholars see John's use of Ezekiel's Temple river as an implied claim that Jesus is the new Temple.112 That is, since the river comes from the Temple in Ezekiel, and from Jesus in John, Jesus points to himself as the Temple. This is certainly possible, especially since John refers to the 'temple of his body' in Jn 2.19-21. John's interpretation of the river as a reference to the Spirit produces slightly more of an emphasis on the water than the source; nevertheless, seeing Jesus as the Temple, the dwelling place of God, is a valid way to understand the saying in Jn 7.37-39. John's modification of the recipients of the water is typical of the changes to OT imagery that John makes elsewhere. In Ezekiel, the river comes from God's presence and restores the Land; likewise, most of the passages that associate the giving of the Spirit with water describe Israel as the recipients (Neh. 9.20; Isa. 32.15; 44.3; Ezek. 36.25-27; 39.29; Zech. 12.10; for the exception, see Joel 2.28-29). In John, only the thirsty who come to Jesus receive the river of living water. John now appropriates the promise originally given to the nation of Israel for the disciples of Jesus. Ezekiel's life-giving water from God would be available only to those who believe in Jesus (Jn 7.37). If Ezekiel's river is a metaphor for the new covenant, then the Tabernacles saying claims the new covenant only for those who believe in Jesus. Unlike the Good Shepherd discourse, John gives no hint here that the living water is available to Gentile believers. However, some scholars have seen a hint of such universalism in the setting of the Feast of Tabernacles and in the water ritual itself.113 Some understand the sacrifice of seventy bulls during the festival as a reference to the seventy Gentile nations, Israel sacrificing on behalf of the nations.114 Zech. 14.16-19, a reading at the Feast (t. Sukk. 3.18), looked forward to the day when every nation would send pilgrims to Tabernacles and thus receive the blessing of rain from God. Some even saw the river from the Temple as bringing life to the

111. John's description of the moment of Jesus' death in Jn 19.30, iTape8o)Kev TO nveuiia ('he handed over the spirit') may be a play on words, also designed to connect Jesus' death with the giving of the Spirit. 112. Busse, 'Die Tempelmetaphorik' p. 400; Grigsby, 'Gematria', pp. 177-78; Grigsby, 'If Any Man Thirsts', pp. 105-06. Hodges, using a more convoluted argument, sees the implication that the believer will become a part of the Temple. Hodges, 'Rivers of Living Water', pp. 245-46. 113. Morris, John, p. 123. 114. b. Sukk. 5.55b: 'R. Eleazar stated, To what do these seventy bullocks correspond? To the seventy nations.' Peshikta R. 52.7: 'The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel: "My children, I know that during all seven days of the Feast of Tabernacles you have been occupied with offerings on behalf of the nations of the earth.'"

186

Echoes of a Prophet

whole world, because of the interpretation that the river would go all the way to the Mediterranean.115 In summary, the saying in Jn 7.37-39 draws on two dominant uses of water symbolism found in the OT: the water from the rock in the Exodus; and the water that would come from the Temple. The wording and meaning of the saying is influenced by both images; here, we explored only the influence of the passages about the Temple river (Ezek. 47.1-12; Zech. 14.8; Joel 3.18). John's interpretation of that river as a reference to the outpouring of the Spirit may have resulted from meditation on the significance of water as the Spirit in several passages (Isa. 44.3; Ezek. 36.25-27; Zech. 12.10). In addition, EzekiePs river, when compared with Ezekiel's other restoration oracles, serves the same role as the giving of God's Spirit. John transforms the image by making Jesus the source of the water and believers in Jesus the sole recipients; this modification matches John's pattern of modifying OT images elsewhere (for example, the vine, the shepherd, and the manna). b. Born of Water and the Spirit (Ezekiel 36.25-27; Isaiah 44.3; John 3.5; 4.13-14) Our understanding of water as the Spirit in Jn 7.37-39 allows us to explore the related symbolism in Jn 3.5 and 4.13-14. In neither passage is it clear that water symbolizes the Spirit. However, John's clear explanation in Jn 7.39, that water from Jesus is the Holy Spirit, suggests that the water of Jn 3.3 and Jn 4.13-14 should be interpreted as the Holy Spirit. Once the 'key' of Jn 7.39 is applied to the earlier water passages, it becomes more apparent that water in John 3 and 4 makes the most sense as a symbol for the Spirit. In Jn 3.5, Jesus lays out the conditions for entering God's kingdom: 'Unless someone is born of water and the Spirit (u6aiog KOCL Trveunaucx;), he cannot enter the kingdom of God.' There have been a variety of interpretations of the phrase 'water and the Spirit'; Wai-Yee Ng gives an excellent summary of those views in her monograph on Johannine water symbolism.116 The epexegetical view holds that the phrase is a hendiadys; thus, water is the Spirit, and the birth spoken about here is birth by the Spirit. While the traditional translation 'water and Spirit' is acceptable, the epexegetical view suggests the paraphrase 'water, even the Spirit.' This view is the most likely for a number of reasons. First, the combination of the terms in one prepositional phrase, without distinct articles, suggests one birth, not two. Second, John's clear water symbolism elsewhere, 115. Levey, The Targum of Ezekiel, p. 127, n. 8; note also that 1QH 16.17 describes the river as going to 'seas without end.' 116. Ng, Water Symbolism, pp. 70-75.

5. Allusions to Ezekiel in John: Minor Allusions

187

especially in Jn 7.37-39, suggests that water should symbolize the Spirit. Finally, such a view has a long history of interpretation,117 and is commonly held by Johannine scholars today.118 This understanding of Jn 3.5 does not exclude the possibility of a reference to baptism; as Ng points out, the fact that symbols are often polyvalent allows water to refer to both the Spirit and the baptism by water that is associated with the Spirit.119 As with the use of water symbolism in Jn 7.37-39, the symbol of water in Jn 3.5 does not contain a clear allusion to any single passage in the OT. Instead, it uses water as a symbol for the Spirit in a fashion similar to water symbolism in several OT passages. As we have seen above, water is used as a symbol for the eschatological outpouring of God's Spirit in a number of OT passages. The two passages that make this connection the clearest are Isa. 44.3 and Ezek. 36.25-27. Jn 3.5 Unless someone is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Isa. 44.3 I will give water on the thirsty... I will pour out my Spirit on your offspring. Ezek. 36.25-27 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean... I will give you a new heart... I will put my Spirit in you.

The 'new covenant' theme of Ezek. 36.25-27 has already been explored above (pp. 168-170, 179); it is clear that Ezekiel uses a picture of the purification ritual to describe a new and total purification, not only from ritual uncleanness, but also from the tendency to disobey God's law.120 In John, this giving of God's Spirit may be associated with purity, but the primary reference is to 'the kingdom of God.' In John 3, birth by water and the Spirit is the prerequisite for entering the kingdom of God. Like other aspects of Jn 3.5, the meaning of this birth is debated. The full scope of this debate need not be retold here;121 what is important is that water and Spirit are related to the coming kingdom. The combination of the

117. Ng cites Origen (Comm. Io., Fragment 36) and Calvin (Commentary on John 1.10912) as earlier commentators who saw water as the Spirit in John 3.6. Ng, Water Symbolism, pp. 71-72. 118. G.R. Beasley-Murray, 'John 3:3, 5: Baptism, Spirit, and the Kingdom', ExpTim 97 (1986), pp. 167-70; Lindars, John, p. 152; Morris, John, p. 191, fn 30; Ng, Water Symbolism, pp. 74-75; Schnackenburg, John, vol. 1, pp. 370, 371, fn 75. 119. Ng, Water Symbolism, pp. 72-74. 120. Ezekiel's view of cleansing influenced the Qumran view of ritual baptisms, especially as seen in 1QS 3.7-9; 4.20-22; see pp. 51, 195-96. 121. See the commentaries for the various views: Barrett, John, pp. 208-10; BeasleyMurray, John, pp. 48-49; Brown, John, vol. 1, pp. 140-44.

188

Echoes of a Prophet

eschatological hope of God's kingdom with the birth by 'water and Spirit' is intended to remind Nicodemus (or the reader) of the expectation of the outpouring of the Spirit.122 As usual, John modifies the OT image. The expectation of many Jews would have been that one aspect of the coming messianic kingdom would be the outpouring of the Spirit, and all Israel would receive the blessing. However, Jn 3.5 makes the reception of the Spirit a prerequisite for entry into the kingdom. It suggests that when the messianic kingdom comes, many will be excluded; only those who receive water and Spirit will be admitted. Even Nicodemus, 'the teacher of Israel,' may be excluded if he does not experience the new birth. The idea of birth by the Spirit is also new with John; the OT passages describing the outpouring of the Spirit do not describe it as a new birth. In John 3, the topic of new birth has already been introduced (Jn 3.3); Jn 3.5 attaches the idea of the giving of the Spirit to the conversation by using the birth metaphor. Furthermore, the concept of new birth by the Spirit is consonant with the idea of new creation by the Spirit in Jn 20.22 (and hinted at in Jn 7.37-39). Water symbolism is resumed in John's next scene, the conversation with the woman of Samaria. There, Jesus promises 'living water' that will permanently quench thirst and become 'a spring of water flowing up to eternal life' (Jn 4.10, 13-14). In John 4, the connection between water and the Spirit is subtle. The water is associated with the coming age when God will seek those who worship 'in Spirit and in truth,' but the context does not make it clear that John is describing the outpouring of the Spirit. However, the use of 'living water' makes this passage strongly connected with Jn 7.37-39, where 'living water' is explicitly a reference to the Holy Spirit. There, as here, Jesus is the source of the Spirit; he gives 'living water' to the thirsty, and their thirst is quenched. In both places, the gift is limited to those who will drink the water. Furthermore, the phrase 'the hour is coming' (Jn 4.21; cf. 4.23) suggests that Jesus' promise of living water is tied to eschatological expectations, which would include the expectation of the outpouring of the Spirit. The three passages complement each other in their use of water to symbolize the Spirit. In John 3 and 4, the connection between water and Spirit is hinted at; in John 7, the symbolism is made explicit. John 3 and 4 describe the water as a prerequisite to entry into the kingdom (Jn 3.5) or for eternal life (Jn 4.14). In John 4 and 7, it is clear that Jesus is the source of the living water, while John 3 leaves it a mystery. Finally, John 3 seems to offer the new birth by the Spirit immediately; John 4 hints that it will be 122. Breck describes the OT understanding of water and Spirit as 'co-agents of the final purification and blessing.' Breck, Spirit of Truth, p. 152, fn. 50.

5. Allusions to Ezekiel in John: Minor Allusions

189

available soon ('I will give'; 'the hour is coming and now is'); and John 7 makes it clear that the Spirit will only be available when Jesus is glorified. The three passages also work together in describing the new messianic community. John 3 hints that many may be excluded from the kingdom, including the spiritually elite. Only those who receive the outpouring of the Spirit, and thus are reborn, will be admitted to the kingdom. In John 4, Jesus' offer of living water to the Samaritan woman suggests that many outsiders, including Samaritans and sinners, will be recipients of the Spirit, and thus members of the new worshiping community. Both John 4 and John 7 teach that only those who are spiritually thirsty, and who recognize in Jesus the source of the living waters, will have their thirst quenched. John's use of water to symbolize the Holy Spirit in John 3 and 4, as mentioned before, does not constitute an allusion to any single OT passage. Instead, it is part of John's overall use of water to symbolize the Spirit. This symbolism has affinities with the use of such symbolism in Ezek. 36.25-27 and Ezek. 47.1-12. In Jn 7.37-39 in particular, the image of the river from Jesus is related to Ezekiel's image of a river from the Temple. John 3 and 4 seem to primarily foreshadow the proclamation in Jn 7.37-39, and the fulfillment in Jn 19.34 and 20.22; their connection to Ezekiel is mediated through the central use of water in Jn 7.37-39. c. Many Fish (Ezekiel 47.9-10; John 21.1-11) The theme of water from the Temple is resumed on one other occasion in John, in the miraculous catch offish in Jn 21.1-11. Here, the allusion is not to the river itself, but to the many fish that swarm wherever the river goes. Since the time of Augustine, the 153 fish of the miraculous catch have been the subject of speculation. Augustine pointed out that 153 is a triangular number - the sum of the successive whole numbers from one to seventeen.123 Augustine suggested that seventeen signified the sum of ten, the number of commandments, and seven, the number of gifts of the Spirit {Homilies on the Gospel of John 7.10). Over the centuries, many other meanings for the numbers seventeen and 153 have been proposed. When J. Emerton wrote in 1958, he reported that a quick survey had uncovered eighteen previous symbolic interpretations.124 Emerton was the first 123. The Pythagoreans are usually credited with the discovery of triangular numbers, which they associated with mystical properties. However, triangular numbers were also studied in Babylon as early as the second millennium BC. Thus, it is possible (although not necessarily likely) that the triangular connection between 17 and 153 was known even by John and his audience. C.B. Boyer, A History of Mathematics (repr., 1991, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2nd edn, 1968), pp. 34^37, 54-55. 124. J.A. Emerton, 'The Hundred and Fifty-Three Fishes in John XXI.ll', JTS 9 (1958), pp. 86-89. All of these early interpretations, like Augustine's, relied on number symbolism, not gematria. Some church fathers saw the number as symbolic of the Trinity, or of the

190

Echoes of a Prophet

modern interpreter125 to propose instead the application of gematria, or number coding, to the numbers seventeen and 153.126 One name that has the numerical value seventeen is En-Gedi, •na (a = 3 , 1 = 4, *• = 10). A name that has the numerical value of 153 is En-Eglaim, D^atf (17 = 70, a = 3, h = 30, - = 10, B = 40). Proponents of this view thus hold that the '153 fish' is a reference to the prophecy of abundant fish in Ezek. 47.9-10, There will be very many fish... everything will live where the river goes. And it will happen that fishermen will stand beside it; from En-Gedi to En-Eglaim there will be a place for the spreading of nets; its fish will be of many kinds, like the fish of the Great Sea.' Although at least eight other gematriacal explanations have since been proposed,127 Emerton's is the only one that has gained any acceptance. B. Grigsby wrote two articles supporting Emerton's idea, although his various states of marriage or singleness, or of other topics unrelated to the context. Jerome cited the poet Oppian (incorrectly) as claiming that there were 153 species of fish in the world; thus the fish symbolize the world mission. Ross still sees this as the most likely meaning of the number (J.M. Ross, 'One Hundred and Fifty-Three Fishes', ExpTim 100 (1988), p. 357. See H. Kruse, 'Magnum Pisces centum quinquaginta tres (Jo 21,11)', VD 38 (1960), pp. 129^8 for the most complete description of patristic views; see Brown, John, vol. 2, pp. 1074-75 for a summary. Guilding is usually credited with the proposal that the number was an allusion to the 153,000 laborers who built the Temple in 1 Kgs 5.5 (Guilding, The Fourth Gospel and Jewish Worship, pp. 226-27), but that interpretation apparently existed at least by the 17th century, according to F. Pole, Synopsis Criticorum Aliorumque Scripturae Sacrae Interpretum et Commentatorum, vol. 4 (1712), col. 1311 (cited in Emerton, T h e Hundred and Fifty-Three Fishes', p. 87). 125. Emerton's work was independent, but Kruse discovered one obscure medieval use of gematria. Theophanes Cerameus (1129-52) used Greek gematria to connect the number 153 with PePeKxa. Kruse, 'Magnum Pisces centum quinquaginta tres (Jo 21,11)', p. 140. 126. 'Gematria' is a Hebrew word, perhaps derived from the Greek ypa\i\iMTeia, Yewfiecpux, or y a p ipia. Kruse, 'Magnum Pisces centum quinquaginta tres (Jo 21,11)', p. 139. 127. Ackroyd suggested that it rendered variant spellings of the Greek, not the Hebrew, for En-Gedi and En-Eglaim. Cardwell suggests a solution for the number 154 (including the extra fish on the fire!) that renders the word r||iepa, an early title for Christ. Kruse suggests Hebrew phrases meaning 'assembly of love' and 'children of God,' either of which adds up to 153. McEleney proposes a combined Greek-Hebrew code that rendered the word L%9, an acrostic for 'Jesus Christ, God.' Owen sees the solution as 'Pisgah,' the place of Moses' departure (thus connecting Jesus' departure with Moses'). Eisler (Orpheus - the Fisher, 1921, pp. 11 Off.; cited in Emerton, 'The Hundred and Fifty-Three Fishes', p. 88) sees it as a combination of 'Simon' and 'fish.' Owen cites a theory, without identifying the author, that combined the words 'Passover' and 'lamb.' P.R. Ackroyd, 'Gematria', JTh n.s. 10 (1959), pp. 153-55; K. Cardwell, 'The Fish on the Fire: John 21:9', ExpTim 102 (1990), pp. 12-14; Kruse, 'Magnum Pisces centum quinquaginta tres (Jo 21,11)', pp. 144-45; N.J. McEleney, '153 Great Fishes (John 21,11) - Gematriacal Atbash', Bib 58, no. 3 (1977), pp. 411-17; O.T. Owen, 'One Hundred and Fifty Three Fishes', ExpTim 100 (1988), pp. 52-54; J.A. Romeo, 'Gematria and John 21:11 - The Children of God', JBL 97, no. 2 (1978), pp. 263-64; P. Trudinger, 'John 21 Revisited Once Again', Downside Review 106 (1988), pp. 145—48; see also Brown, John, vol. 2, p. 1075; Bultmann, John, p. 549.

5. Allusions to Ezekiel in John: Minor Allusions

191

arguments primarily support the idea that Ezek. 47.1-12 is the source of the imagery, without clearly adding support for the use of gematria.128 More recently, G. Brooke has written a persuasive article that finds support for the connection of the numbers seventeen and 153 in the DSS. 4Q252 reworks the chronology of the flood in order tofiteverything into a 364-day year, matching the Qumran lunisolar calendar.129 The author adjusts the dating so that the ark comes to rest on the 153rd day of the year, which is the seventeenth day of the seventh month - in the middle of the Feast of Tabernacles.130 Brooke suggests that this is evidence for a connection between the two numbers in Second Temple Judaism.131 It is important to note, however, that 4Q252 does not mention the number 153; rather, it mentions the number 150, then describes the ark coming to rest on the third day after that, the 'seventeenth day of the seventh month.' Perhaps, Brooke suggests, there is some connection between the security of the ark, the waters of the flood, baptism (as in 1 Pet. 3.20-21) and the mission theme of Jn 21.1-11.132 Brooke also points out, in defense of Emerton's interpretation, that triangular numbers (and thus the mathematical connection between seventeen and 153) may have been studied by some Jews. Aristobulus, an Alexandrian Jewish philosopher of the second century BC, used mathematical arguments that revealed his familiarity with Pythagorean mathematics, and possibly with triangular numbers.133 Although there are likely some connections between Ezekiel 47 and John 21, it is important to note the problems with all gematriacal interpretations. First, solutions based on gematria are notoriously difficult to verify. As Koester points out, a number like 153 could be merely a detail to clarify how big the catch was, much as John gives the time of the lame man's illness as 38 to emphasize the severity of his affliction.134 When Jesus meets the woman of Sychar at the sixth hour, is this supposed to remind us of the time of Jesus'

128. Grigsby, 'Gematria', pp. 177-78; Grigsby, 'If Any Man Thirsts', pp. 101-08. 129. G. Brooke, '4Q252 and the 153 Fish of John 21:1', in B. Kollmann, W. Reinbold, and A. Steudel (eds), Antikes Judentum und fruhes Christentum (Festschrift H. Stegemann; BZNW, 97; Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1999), pp. 253-65 (254). 130. Brooke, '4Q252 and the 153 Fish of John 21:1', pp. 255. 131. Brooke also reminds us that one possible solution to the dating problem in John's Passion week may be due to the use of the lunisolar calendar. Thus, he suggests that John may have known the calendrical connection between the two numbers. Brooke, '4Q252 and the 153 Fish of John 21:1, p. 264. 132. Brooke, '4Q252 and the 153 Fish of John 21:1', p. 257. 133. Brooke, '4Q252 and the 153 Fish of John 21:1', pp. 261-62. Brooke also cautiously points out that Josephus saw connections between the Essenes and the Pythagoreans, and suggests that the use of number symbolism in the DSS may have been somewhat similar to Pythagorean number symbolism. 134. Koester, Symbolism, p. 120. Brown similarly points out that the use of the number provides 'an emphasis on the authentic eyewitness character of what has been recorded.'

192

Echoes of a Prophet

death, the time that Jacob met his bride at the well, or merely emphasize the woman's status as an outcast?135 Second, interpretations based on gematria should always be suspect, because any number of names can have the same numerical value. That is, the number 153 could refer to any Hebrew or Greek name whose letters add up to the value of 153 (as the numerous recent suggestions testify!). Third, there are no other clear examples of gematria anywhere else in John. For example, no modern scholar has proposed a meaning based on gematria for the '200 cubits' in the immediate context (Jn 21.8).136 Furthermore, in the NT, gematria is rare. The only passage for which there is general agreement on a gematriacal solution is the '666' of Rev. 13.18 - and there, the author draws attention to the number symbolism.137 With all these caveats, however, there is a grain of credibility in the idea that the catch of fish is intended to recall the fish of Ezekiel's river. As we discussed above (pp. 178-179), several ancient traditions concur that the river in Ezek. 47.8 goes to the Sea of Galilee. The LXX translates 'to the eastern region' as 'to East Galilee,' which would seem to describe the Sea of Galilee.138 In a different approach, t. Sukk. 3.9, interpreting Ezek. 47.8, concludes 'to the eastern region - this refers to the sea at Sodom... into the Arabah - this refers to the sea at Tiberias.' This interpretation is also found in some later rabbinic commentaries.139 Thus, the miraculous multiplication of fish predicted by Ezekiel was believed by many to include the Sea of Galilee.

Brown, John, vol. 2, p. 1076. Of course, some have seen number symbolism in the 38 years: Augustine saw the number as 'the perfection of the Law' (40), minus the 'twin precepts of grace.' Kruse, 'Magnum Pisces centum quinquaginta tres (Jo 21,11)', p. 132. 135. Koester, Symbolism, pp. 266-77. 136. Emerton was admirably cautious with his proposal, as revealed by some of his closing words: 'the other numbers in the fourth gospel are not, as far as I can see, to be interpreted by gematria.' Emerton, 'The Hundred and Fifty-Three Fishes', p. 89. 137. However, proponents of various gematriacal solutions in Jn 21.9 point out that gematriacal interpretations were common in the ancient world. Ep. Barn. 9.7-9 explicitly uses gematria to interpret Abraham's 318 men (Gen. 14.14) as a reference to Jesus and the cross. Irenaeus objected to the way in which the Valentinians used the number 888 to refer to Jesus (Adv. Haer. 2.24). Some also point to various examples of Jewish and Christian gematria in the Sibylline Oracles. Some scholars also suggest other passages in the Bible that use gematria, but these are not widely accepted: the use of 'fourteen' in Mt. 1.17 may be related to the value of the name 'David'; in Mk 13.14, 'abomination of desolation' may be equivalent to 'Titus'; and Jer. 25.26; 51.1, 41 may use gematria to conceal references to 'Babylon' and 'Chaldeans.' Cardwell, 'The Fish on the Fire: John 21:9', pp. 12-14; Kruse, 'Magnum Pisces centum quinquaginta tres (Jo 21,11)', pp. 139-40; McEleney, '153 Great Fishes', pp. 411-12; Owen, 'One Hundred and Fifty Three Fishes', pp. 52-54. 138. Considering the number of articles published on this topic, it is surprising that none have mentioned the destination of the river in the LXX. 139. Pirq. d. R. El. ch. 51 and Yal Sim. on Ezek. 383 (47) Levey, The Targum of Ezekiel, p. 127, n. 8.

5. Allusions to Ezekiel in John: Minor Allusions

193

Did John know about this tradition? It is a curious, although perhaps coincidental fact, that John is the only NT author to call the Sea of Galilee by the name used in the rabbinic literature, the Sea of Tiberias.140 It is called that in the immediate context (Jn 21.1).141 The only other time it is used is in John's version of the feeding of the 5,000 (Jn 6.1, 23) - by a startling coincidence, the only other place in John where fish are miraculously multiplied (Jn 6.9-11). It is quite reasonable, therefore, to conclude that John saw the miracle of the fish in Jn 21.1-11, and possibly the miracle of the fish in Jn 6.9-11, as a fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy. The particular connection between the number 153 and Ezek. 47.1-12 remains doubtful, however. Brooke's work with 4Q252 makes the hypothesis slightly more believable, but further evidence is needed to tip the scales from 'faintly possible' to 'likely.' There are a few smaller verbal parallels between Jn 21.1-11 and Ezek. 47.1-12 that might add weight to the conceptual parallel between the two passages. Jn 21.3 Simon Peter said, 'I am going fishing (aAieikiv).' 6 Then they cast, and they were not able to haul it in, because of the great number of fish (TOU T^GOIX; TQV ixeiW). 11 Then Peter went aboard and drew the net onto land, full of great fish (\xeoxbv IXGUGJV \xtyaXutv), 153.

Ezek. 47.10 And fishermen will stand there; from En-Gedi to En-Eglaim there will be a dryingplace for nets; and its fish (ot I X ^ O will be like the fish of the Great Sea, very many (irtfl9o<; noXb o(t>66pa).

Obviously, some of the verbal parallels are trivial. The two accounts share words for fish, fishing, and an emphasis on the quantity of fish caught; both accounts describe pulling nets onto land.142 Probably little should be made of these parallels; any two fishing accounts would likely use words for fish, fishing, and nets. The significant parallel is thus conceptual: both

140. Brown and Neirynck both suggest that John used Tiberias' to be more accessible to his Greek audience; but the use of the name in the rabbinic material suggests that Tiberias was also a Jewish designation. Brown, John, vol. 2, p. 1067; F. Neirynck, 'John 21', NTS 36 (1990), pp. 321-36 (327). 141. Grigsby first pointed out the connection between John's use of 'Tiberias' in Jn 21.1 and the name used in the Tosefta. Grigsby, 'Gematria', pp. 177-78. 142. As if there weren't enough speculative suggestions for interpreting Jn 21.1-11, here is another: 'Jesus stood on the shore' (eorn'Iriooix; el<; xbv alyi-odov) 'fishermen will stand from En-Gedi to En-Eglaim' (ourioovTai eKel uleelc, CCTTO AivyaSiv t^c, AivaYaA.i[i) where alyiaXov sounds like AivaYodifi. Thus, Jesus is the predicted fisherman!

194

Echoes of a Prophet

Ezekiel's river and Jesus miraculously produce fish where there were none before. This adds to the picture of the river of living water in Jn 7.37-39. There, Jesus was the source of Ezekiel's promised river (among other uses of water symbolism), providing the Spirit to his followers. In Jn 21.1-11, we have a further reference to Ezekiel's image. The fish predicted by Ezekiel are provided by Jesus, the source of the miraculous river.143 In both John and Ezekiel, the fish serve as a display of power; in Ezekiel, the fish are proof of the power of the river from the Temple, while in John, the fish serve as an example of Jesus' power. If the reader is intended to recall John's last allusion to the Temple river (Jn 7.37-39), then Jesus' power here is a manifestation, or perhaps a symbol, of the power of the Spirit. That is, if the rivers from Jesus symbolize the Holy Spirit, then the fish produced by those rivers are a result of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. As usual, however, John's image is limited to the followers of Jesus. Only Jesus' disciples - not the throngs of fishermen depicted by Ezekiel see and eat the miraculous catch offish (Jn 21.13). Furthermore, in John, the fish seem to acquire symbolic meanings not derived from Ezekiel. Many have seen the act of fishing in John 21 as symbolic of the mission of the church, much like the Lukan 'fishing for people' (Lk. 5.10). The disciples eat one of the fish with bread provided by Jesus; this at least symbolizes restored fellowship with him, and may also have eucharistic overtones.144 None of these symbolic senses is derived from Ezekiel.

4. Summary of the Use of Water as Spirit in John As I have emphasized before, John's use of water symbolism cannot be firmly connected to any one source in the OT. However, John primarily uses water to symbolize the giving of the Spirit through Jesus. Thus, John's use of water symbolism is related to, and perhaps dependent on, OT passages that use water as a metaphor for the 'new covenant' or for the giving of God's spirit (for example, Isa. 44.3; Ezek. 36.25-27; 47.1-12). John explains that his primary meaning for 'water' is the Holy Spirit in Jn 7.39; this meaning can probably be applied to other passages that use 143. Some early Christians may have seen the connection between Ezekiel 47 and John 21, even without the use of gematria. As Brooke points out, Jerome's comments on the 153 fish are found in his commentary on Ezekiel 47, suggesting he saw some connection (Brooke, '4Q252 and the 153 Fish of John 21:1' p. 258). J. Danielou reports that some early Christian art depicted Peter and John fishing at a stream that comes from the Temple. Such a painting suggests that the artist saw a connection between Ezekiel's river and the miraculous catch of fish. J. Danielou, Etudes d'exegese judeo-chretienne (Paris: Beauchesne et ses fils, 1966), p. 136, quoted in Brown, John, vol. 2, p. 1075. 144. Brown gives some evidence from early Christian art that fish was associated with the Eucharist. Brown, John, vol. 1, p. 247; vol. 2, p. 1100.

5. Allusions to Ezekiel in John: Minor Allusions

195

water symbolism, such as Jn 3.5; 4.10, 13-14; and 19.34. In John 3, new birth through 'water and Spirit' is the prerequisite for entry into the kingdom, suggesting that only those who received God's promised outpouring of the Spirit would be eligible for membership in the messianic kingdom. This association of water with the promised Spirit is reminiscent of the promises in Isa. 44.3 and Ezek. 36.25-27. In John 4, Jesus promises to give this water; his description of a new worshiping community, empowered by this living water, again suggests the fulfillment of the 'new covenant' promises of Isa. 44.3 and Ezek. 36.25-27. Jn 7.37-39 uses the imagery of the life-giving river from the Temple, in words drawn from Ezek. 47.1-12; Joel 3.18; and Zech. 14.8, to describe the outpouring of the Spirit on all who believe in Jesus. In the last two of these occurrences of water symbolism in John, it is clear that the water, the Spirit, will be available only after the death of Jesus. The fulfillment of this promise is seen, at least symbolically, in the flow of blood and water from Jesus' side in 19.34. The miraculous catch offish (Jn 21.1-11) may also symbolize the power of the river from the Temple, and thus of the giving of the Spirit through Jesus. Thus, the use of water to symbolize the Spirit in John is closely tied to Ezekiel's use of water to describe God's plans to purify and restore his people (Ezek. 36.25-27; 47.1-12). The DSS also use these two passages in Ezekiel, allowing for some useful comparisons between John's use of the water metaphor from Ezekiel and its use in the DSS. Hodayot makes several allusions to the 'new heart' covenant in Ezek. 36.22-32 (see pp. 48-50). The Hodayot allude to the words of Ezek. 36.22, 'not for your sake... I will act,' three times, each in order to describe God's motives in restoring his people (1QH 12.38; 14.10; 21.6-7). The use of the phrase suggests that the author believed that Ezekiel's 'new spirit' prophecies were beginning to be fulfilled, but only among the members of the Qumran Community. Shortly after the last use of the phrase, Hodayot makes a stronger allusion to Ezekiel 36 by describing the 'heart of stone' (1QH 21.10-11, 12-13; Ezek. 36.26). The author describes himself as having a heart of stone; since Ezek. 36.26 describes the replacement of the heart of stone with a heart of flesh, it is possible that the author of the Hodayot saw Ezekiel's promise as yet unfulfilled (see p. 50). The Community Rule seems to have a similar view of Ezekiel's promise in Ezek. 36.25-27 (see p. 51).145 1QS 3.7-9 describes the baptism of initiates into the Community using language drawn from Ezek. 36.25-27. The

145. Several scholars have pointed out similarities between the use of water in Community Rule and in John. Beasley-Murray, 'John 3:3, 5: Baptism, Spirit, and the Kingdom', p. 49; Breck, Spirit of Truth, p. 162; Brown, John, vol. 1, p. 140; Koester, Symbolism, p. 161; Lindars, John, p. 152.

196

Echoes of a Prophet

cleansing with water was associated with the purifying work of the 'Holy Spirit of the Community.' However, Community Rule alludes to the same words of purification in Ezek. 36.25-27 to describe the coming eschatological cleansing (1QS 4.20-22). The allusion to Ezekiel's 'new spirit' both for initiation into the Community and for its eschatological cleansing suggests that the author of Community Rule, like the author of Hodayot, saw Ezekiel's prophecy of restoration as already begun in the Community, but not yet completed. Clearly, both John and these two DSS authors believed that they were seeing the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy. John's Gospel portrays the promise as partially completed during the life of Jesus; the Spirit 'remains' on Jesus (Jn 1.32-33), but that Spirit will only be available once Jesus is glorified (Jn 7.39; 19.34; 20.22). John suggests an intermediate stage between the times when Jesus receives the Spirit and gives the Spirit: 'the hour is coming and now is' (Jn 4.23). This is similar to the intermediate view of the giving of the 'Spirit of the Community' in some of the DSS. One important difference between the use of water symbolism in John and the DSS is that the DSS focus on the purifying aspect of water and the Spirit (much like Ezekiel). In the passages we have examined in John, water is used as a metaphor for the Spirit, with less emphasis on the resulting purity.146 In John, the Spirit brings new life, like the river of Ezekiel 47.147 A more important similarity between John and the DSS can be seen in their use of the image of the Temple river. Hodayot 16 alludes to a number of OT passages that use water symbolism; one important allusion describes the Community as a plantation of trees, watered by a river (1QH 16.4-13/ Ezek. 47.12; see p. 56). The water from the river is described as 'living water', 'the fountain of life', and 'the waters of holiness' (1QH 16.7, 12, 13). Such titles suggest the same themes found in John's allusion to the Temple river (Jn 7.37-39). Both John and the author of the Hodayot viewed the river as God's life-giving power. However, in John, the river clearly refers to the Holy Spirit (Jn 7.37-39), whereas in Hodayot 16, the river seems to be associated with correct teaching (1QH 16.16, 21-22). In John, the river comes from Jesus and is available only to his followers; in Hodayot 16,

146. In Jn 13.3-17, water is used to symbolize moral cleansing. However, the meaning given for the washing (Jn 13.12-17) makes no mention of the Spirit. The use of water in John 13 seems to be somewhat distant from the uses in the other passages we have examined (Jn 3.5; 4.10-14; 7.37-39; 19.34); and it is perhaps more difficult to see connections to the use of water symbolism in Ezekiel. 147. Thompson points out that both Ezekiel 36 and 1QS 4.20-22 primarily compare the Spirit to waters of purification, whereas Isaiah 44 describes the Spirit as life-giving. Thompson, The God of the Gospel of John, pp. 166-67. The river of Ezekiel 47, perhaps somewhat dependent on Isaiah 44, also describes water as life-giving.

5. Allusions to Ezekiel in John: Minor Allusions

197

God places the source of the river, described as a 'spring of living waters' in the author's mouth (1QH 16.16). God also uses the author to dig out the path for the river and keep it clear of weeds (1QH 16.21-26). Thus, for both works, the river goes from the founder and to the followers. For both works, access to the river requires belief: 1QH 16.14 excludes the one who 'has not believed in the spring of life,' as Jn 7.39 promises the Spirit only to 'those who believed in him.' Finally, both works suggest the hiddenness of the river.148 Hodayot describes the 'secret spring' (1QH 16.5) and the 'hidden planting of truth' (1QH 16.10-11). In John, this theme is not explicit, but the river will only be perceived and enjoyed by those who come to Jesus. To summarize, both John and two of the DSS allude to Ezekiel 36 and 47 to describe God's promised restoration of his people. Both works modify Ezekiel's image of the giving of water and Spirit. Most notably, John and Hodayot both see the promise of Ezekiel as being fulfilled through a particular person, and only available to the followers of that one person.

148. As does Ezekiel: Zimmerli suggests that the growth from a trickle to a flood suggests 'the mystery of divine hiddenness.' Zimmerli, Ezekiel, vol. 2, p. 516.

Chapter 6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

In this chapter, I will summarize myfindingson the use of Ezekiel in John and in literature of the Second Temple era, and attempt to synthesize some conclusions about how these later works make use of Ezekiel. I will begin with a short summary, then expand below with examples of each tendency. John and the various works of the Second Temple era share some common tendencies in the form of their allusions. Most widespread in the literature surveyed is the tendency to combine related allusions. Most of the allusions are found in close proximity to thematically or verbally related allusions. That is, John and other authors of his period tend to use successive allusions to OT passages that share similar theology or wording. In many cases, related allusions are connected by distinctive 'catchwords' common to both passages. Similarly, many of the works examined have a tendency to resume allusions later in the same work. That is, the author makes an allusion to an oracle in Ezekiel (for example), and then later in the work, makes another allusion to the same oracle (although not necessarily to the same image or sentence). Another common tendency in form is the modification of language in allusions. Although this can be seen in some Second Temple works, it is clearest in John. In many cases, John modifies the wording from the OT passage in accordance with changes in the language (both lexical and grammatical). In other cases, John modifies the language of his allusions in accord with his own style of writing. Conversely, in some cases, John leaves allusions in septuagintal language, perhaps to draw attention to the source of his allusion. Allusions in John and in literature of the Second Temple era also have commonalities in how they interpret the OT. Most of the allusions examined demonstrate resonance - thematic similarities between the OT context of the allusion and the context of the allusion in its new setting. In most cases, allusions are intended to recall the entire passage from which the allusion is drawn. The author implies, but does not explain, thematic connections between the OT passage and his own material. The later author expects the readers to know the OT passage and make the connections. To put it another way, most of the allusions, in John and in

6. Summary and Conclusion

199

other works, demonstrate the author's attention to the context of the OT passage. Most of John's allusions to Ezekiel are intended to show how Ezekiel's restoration oracles, especially those involving the Messiah or the giving of the Spirit, are fulfilled through Jesus to his followers. The OT promises are thus redirected from Israel to the followers of Jesus. A similar tendency can be seen in some Second Temple literature. Most of the allusions to Ezekiel's restoration oracles suggest that these oracles will be fulfilled through a particular figure (such as Judas Maccabee or the Righteous Teacher), and that the blessings of such oracles will only be available to a particular group within Israel (such as the Community, the Maccabean supporters, or Jews who resist Hellenization). While John's allusions to Ezekiel have many parallels with allusions to Ezekiel in other literature, John's allusions have a few unique aspects. John alludes to a variety of oracles in Ezekiel, whereas most Second Temple works tend to allude to just one or two oracles. John's allusions strongly focus on Ezekiel's themes of life and the giving of the Spirit, themes that are mostly overlooked by Second Temple authors (the Community Rule is one exception). Finally, in several cases, John's allusions to Ezekiel suggest that Ezekiel was a sort of window on the rest of the OT for John. That is, John sometimes chose imagery from Ezekiel to communicate themes that can be found throughout the OT. 1. Tendencies in the Form of Allusions The most common tendency in the form of allusions, in John and in Second Temple literature, is the combination of allusions around common themes and words. In almost every case that we examined, it was possible to distinguish allusions to two or more OT passages. The OT passages are always connected thematically; in some cases, it was also possible to identify possible catchwords. The Good Shepherd discourse in John 10 combines material from the appointment of Joshua in Numbers 27 and the shepherding metaphor of Ezekiel 34. In both cases, the OT passage establishes the legitimacy of Israel's leader using shepherding language. It is possible that these two passages are also connected around the catchwords e^dcyw, eloaYO), upopaia, and m)i|ir|v (p. 111). In John 15, the image of the vine draws on ideas and language from Isaiah 5, Jeremiah 2, and Ezekiel 15, 17, and 19. All of these passages describe fruit-bearing (or its lack) and judgment on a vine; most also mention pruning and fire. It is possible that John connected Isaiah 5 and Jeremiah 2 by the catchword 'Soreq,' although that connection can only be seen in the Hebrew (p. 136); other possible catchwords include qiTreAxx; and KAr^oc ([4 fn 104]). Jn 1.51 combines allusions to the theophanies of Gen. 28.12 and Ezek. 1.1; no

200

Echoes of a Prophet

certain catchwords can be identified, although the angels in both visions ascend and descend (pp. 150-52). The description of new life, resurrection, and judgment in Jn 5.19-29 includes allusions to the 'dry bones' image of Ezekiel 37 (pp. 160-62) and to the judgment and resurrection language of Daniel 7 and 12 (pp. 163-64). The giving of the Spirit in Jn 20.22 primarily alludes to Ezekiel 37, but an allusion to the creation account in Genesis 2 may also be intended; ep^uoao) may be the catchword (pp. 165-67). Although the 'living water' saying in Jn 7.37-39 has connections to many OT passages, I argued that Ezekiel 47 and Zechariah 14 were likely sources for the image of a river from Jesus (pp. 179-80); wording from both sources can be identified in the saying. The combination of related texts was apparently a common tendency in Second Temple Jewish literature. Combination of texts or allusions is most noticeable in the DSS. CD 1.3^ combines Lev. 26.40 with Ezek. 39.23 using a phrase they share, ••m^KO -NBK ('[the treachery] which they committed against me'). Here, as in some other cases, the Damascus Document does not cite the catchwords with either allusion (p. 26). CD 19.33-35 combines allusions to Jer. 17.13 and Ezek. 13.9 with the phrase 'they will be written down'; the two passages describe judgment on the apostate, applied in the Damascus Document to those who leave the Community (pp. 63-64). Florilegium combines quotations of Psalm 1; Isa. 8.11; and Ezek. 20.18 (?), apparently using the catchword "]Sn, to admonish the readers to turn away from 'the ways of the fathers' (p. 33). Sabbath Songs primarily uses images from the throne vision of Ezekiel 1 and 10, but occasionally, related elements from Daniel 7; Isaiah. 6; or 1 Enoch 14 are included (pp. 45-46). Probably the most expansive combinations of allusions can be found in Hodayot 14 and 16. There, allusions to almost every OT image of water and agriculture are skillfully combined into psalms of thanksgiving. Positive images of plants and water are applied to the Community, and negative images are applied to the enemies of the Community (pp. 52-58). On a few occasions, the DSS combine images from Ezekiel with similar passages in the Law. For example, Community Rule's description of ritual cleansing combines elements of the promised eschatological cleansing from Ezek. 36.25-27 with terms used for ritual cleansing from Numbers 19 ([2 fn 50]). The Benediction combines elements from the covenant blessings of Deuteronomy 11 with elements from Ezekiel's description of the restored kingdom in Ezekiel 34 (p. 52). In both of these examples, the combination of the two passages in the DSS points to the connection that already existed between Ezekiel and the earlier passage. Other examples of combined allusions in the DSS could be given (see, for example, p. 66, 69). The tendency to combine passages can also be found in other Second Temple literature, although it is not as noticeable as in the DSS. The clearest example is the combination of OT theophanies in apocalyptic

6. Summary and Conclusion

201

visions. The visions of 1 Enoch 14, 39, and 71 use imagery from the theophanies of Isaiah 6, Ezekiel 1, 10, and Daniel 7 (pp. 82-85). The Animal Apocalypse of 1 Enoch 89-90 develops the sheep imagery of Ezekiel 34, but seems to include elements from the shepherding imagery of Zechariah 11 (pp. 89-96). Likewise, the description of the coming Davidic king in Psalms of Solomon 17 alludes to the descriptions of David as shepherd in Ezekiel 34 and Micah 5 (pp. 93-94). In its defense of the resurrection, 4 Maccabees 18 quotes from Deut. 32.29; Prov. 3.18; and Ezek. 37.3 (pp. 96-97). John's tendency to combine passages is thus typical of Second Temple literature. Like the Hodayot, John 15 combines agricultural imagery from a variety of passages; like 1 Enoch and Psalms of Solomon 17, John 10 combines pastoral imagery from two passages. The DSS seem to have a slightly more formal method of combination by catchwords; it is usually more difficult to identify particular catchwords in John and other Second Temple literature. This tendency to combine various Scriptures by means of common themes or words is consistent with the authors' views of the OT. All of the works that we have examined treat the Scriptures as authoritative words from God. Thus, although they were aware that various books were written at different times by different authors, all Scripture could be treated as the voice of God. They expected the voice of Scripture to be consistent, since it all came from God. When John combines the visions of Jacob and Ezekiel (Jn 1.51), he is demonstrating his belief that one God was the source of both visions and both books. Likewise, it was quite normal for John to combine images from Ezekiel 37 and Daniel 7 (Jn 5.1929); both visions came from God, and thus must have a consistent view of 'last things.' Another tendency we observe in the form of John's allusions is the tendency to return to an earlier allusion - to allude to the same oracle or passage more than once in his Gospel. John alludes twice to Ezekiel's 'dry bones' oracle (Ezek. 37.1-14), in Jn 5.25-28 and Jn 20.22. In the first allusion, John uses the image of revivification from Ezekiel to describe both new life and the final resurrection. In the second allusion, John's description of Jesus breathing out the Holy Spirit suggests a focus on Ezekiel's interpretation of the oracle (Ezek. 37.14). The Good Shepherd discourse in John 10 alludes to Ezek. 34; 37.19-24 (pp. 111-13); John returns to the language of gathering the scattered in Jn 11.51-52 (pp. 125-26), and again uses shepherding language in Jn 21.15-17 (pp. 131-32). The Tabernacles saying in Jn 7.37-39 promises the Spirit using an allusion to the Temple river of Ezekiel 47 and Zechariah 14. This promise is fulfilled symbolically by the water from Jesus' side in Jn 19.34; and the abundant catch offish in Jn 21.1-11 also pictures the fulfillment of the promise offish in Ezekiel 47. Perhaps John's portrayal of the abundant

202

Echoes of a Prophet

fish is intended to show a more literal fulfillment of Ezekiel 47, while the giving of the Spirit understands Ezekiel 47 symbolically. In two cases, John shows no clear resumption. John does not return to the promise of the opened heavens in Jn 1.51 (alluding to Ezek. 1.1). Nor are there any other references to the vine metaphor after John 15, although the concept of abiding continues. Perhaps the other three metaphors are resumed because of the importance of their themes in John's theology. The shepherd metaphor deals with the death of the shepherd for his sheep (Jn 10.11, 17-18; 11.51-52), a prominent theme in John. John's allusions to Ezekiel 36, 37, and 47 raise the themes of new life and the giving of the Holy Spirit, both of which are significant themes in John. The DSS also exhibit the tendency to return to allusions. On five separate occasions, the Damascus Document alludes to two parallel passages in Ezekiel 13 and 22 (CD 4.19; 6.17; 8.12-18/19.24-31; 19.35; 20.3-4). Both of these oracles use the 'wall-building' metaphor to condemn Jerusalem and its false prophets and priests. The Damascus Document alludes to these passages in Ezekiel to condemn the Pharisees, whom they regarded as the false prophets of Jerusalem (pp. 61-66). Community Rule alludes twice to the promise of eschatological cleansing in Ezek. 36.25-27. In 1QS 3.7-8, Ezekiel's language is used to describe the purification upon initiation into the Community; in 1QS 4.20-22, it describes a purification yet to come (pp. 50-51, 194-95). Sometimes, allusions to the same passage by different works in the DSS suggest that there was a continuous interpretational tradition in the Community about the passage in question. For example, A Sapiential Work, like the Damascus Document, alludes to Ezekiel 13 and 22 (p. 67; for other examples, see the chart on pp. 76-77). Besides the DSS, the only other work that exhibits this tendency is 1 Enoch. The three descriptions of God's throne room in 1 Enoch (likely by two authors) all contain allusions to Ezekiel 1 (see pp. 82-84). The tendency to return to an earlier allusion usually indicates the importance of that allusion in the later writer's work. In some cases, the repeated allusions are to the same oracle or passage in the OT book, not necessarily to the same sentence in that oracle. This suggests, although it does not prove, that John and many authors of the Second Temple era read the OT by oracles or passages; that is, they understood the OT in terms of literary units at the oracle or paragraph level. The tendency to later allude to a different part of the same oracle suggests that the author viewed each oracle as some sort of literary unity. The brief allusion is supposed to recall the context of the larger narrative unit. Finally, we observed a tendency to modify the language of the allusive material. There are a number of cases in which John modifies language from the LXX. In several cases, John updates septuagintal Greek in his allusions. For example, the allusion to Numbers 27 in Jn 10.3-4 replaces daaicoixo with aKouco; eiri TQ OTO|ion;i aikou with Tf|<; cj)G)vfi<; carcou; and npo

6. Summary and Conclusion

203

TTpoaohou ai)td)v with <E|iTTpoa0ev oarucov. All of these modifications are clearly in accord with changes in Greek usage (pp. 104-05). Jn 10.16, alluding to Ezek. 34.22; 37.19-22, replaces phrases like iroi|i€voc <EVOC and €0vo<; £v with |ita mufivri, elg m>i|ir|v, following the typical word order found in the Greek of the NT (pp. 112-16). The language of burning in Ezekiel 15 and 17 (KaxeoGlo), avcdloKG)) is replaced with the more typical NT KCCLG) in Jn 15.6. In other cases, the allusion was left in septuagintal Greek, perhaps in order to draw attention to the allusion. For example, the septuagintal phrase elc; ev in Jn 11.52 may draw attention to the allusion to Ezek. 37.21-27 (p. 126). In some cases, John modifies language to fit his own style rather than his own era. For example, the dual form oupavot, in Ezek. 1.1 becomes the singular in Jn 1.51, which is typical of John's style (p. 151). When John alludes to the raising of the dead in Ezekiel 37, he uses the Johannine |ivr||i€Loy instead of Ezekiel's typical |ivfp,a (p. 161). The LXX and most NT authors describe fruit-bearing with the phrase KapiTov mHeiv, Kap-rrov 6t6ovoa, or KapiTov c|)ep€iv. John only uses the phrase KapiTov c|)ep€iv, and so he modifies material from Ezekiel 17 accordingly (p. 143). It is difficult to compare John's tendency to modify the language of the LXX with modifying tendencies in Second Temple literature. For example, 1 Enoch extensively modifies the language of the shepherd metaphor, but the fact that 1 Enoch primarily survives in Ethiopic makes it difficult to examine the changes in the language. Psalm of Solomon 17 apparently uses the LXX, but stylistic modifications are not apparent. The DSS, of course, use an early Hebrew text. This study focused on the theological modifications in the DSS; it is possible that some of the stylistic modifications reflect an updating to later Hebrew, but that is beyond the scope of this study.

2. Tendencies in the Method of Allusions As discussed in the introduction, it is sometimes helpful to analyze an author's method, or perhaps mode, of interpreting OT texts. We observed three approaches to the OT. First, in some cases, a passage might be understood as a promise or prophecy to be fulfilled. The fulfillment might be pictured by the later author as already being fulfilled, or as yet to be fulfilled. Second, an element in an account might be understood as a model, or type, of a later event (typological interpretation). Third, a passage from the OT might be understood sapientially; that is, the OT passage provides categories or models for behavior or belief. Distinguishing between these three is not always useful, but occasionally some of the works that we examined give explicit cues that one or another approach is being used.

204

Echoes of a Prophet

Most of John's allusions to Ezekiel seem to fit into the category of fulfillment of prophecy. Ezekiel's promises of a new shepherd, of the lifegiving breath of God, and of purifying water from the Temple are all fulfilled in Jesus (pp. 133, 170-71, 195-97). Jesus' promise that the disciples would see 'heaven opened' does not fulfill a prophecy of Ezekiel, but does suggest the fulfillment of Joel's promise of the return of the spirit of prophecy (p. 155). The image of Jesus as the true vine only hints at the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy of the restored cedar (Ezek. 17.22-24; p. 147). For the last two, however, a case can be made for typological interpretation: Israel as the vine was a type, of which Jesus is the antitype; the visions of Ezekiel and Jacob were types of the visions that the disciples would see. The ambiguity in these two cases suggests that the threefold division of interpretational method is of limited value in understanding John. John's view, that prophecy was being fulfilled in Jesus, is similar to the view found in Psalm of Solomon 17 and the Animal Apocalypse of 1 Enoch. Both of these works use images derived from Ezekiel 34 to express hopes for God's deliverance of his people through his anointed leader. The Animal Apocalypse suggests that Ezekiel's prophecy of restoration was now being fulfilled through the Maccabees; Psalm of Solomon 17 is a plea for God to raise up the shepherd that he promised (pp. 86-96, 132-33). The distinction between methods of interpretation can be most clearly seen in the DSS, perhaps because some of the DSS explain the logic behind their interpretations. So, for example, the Damascus Document compares the coming 'visitation' to the 'first visitation' in a typological fashion (although none of the NT 'type' terminology is used). The present apostasy of Jerusalem mirrored the pre-exilic apostasy of Jerusalem; the coming judgment would recapitulate the destruction of Jerusalem. This typological understanding of Scripture is especially noticeable in the use of allusions to Ezekiel in CD 1.3-6; 7.14-15; and 19.11-13 (pp. 24, 27-28, 60-61). In other cases, Ezekiel provided prophecies that were being fulfilled in the Community. For example, the War Scroll saw Ezekiel's description of a time of reckoning in the wilderness (Ezekiel 20) as a prophecy being fulfilled in the Community (p. 30); and the Gog oracles (Ezekiel 38-39) as a prophecy yet to be fulfilled (p. 34). Finally, a number of Ezekiel's oracles were interpreted sapientially; so for example, Ezekiel's condemnation of the Jerusalem prophets as 'builders of the wall' provided the Damascus Document and Sapiential Work with epithets and accusations to level against the Pharisees (pp. 61-68). In some cases, those epithets also allowed the application of typology (p. 31). John's emphasis on the fulfillment of prophecies from Ezekiel thus has some parallels in Second Temple literature. The authors of 1 Enoch, Psalm of Solomon 17, and the DSS all believed that God's promises were being fulfilled. In most of these, the author identified particular ways that

6. Summary and Conclusion

205

Ezekiel's prophecies were being fulfilled, and particular people who were prime agents in the fulfillment. Obviously, for John, Jesus is the shepherd of Ezekiel 34, and the one who brings the prophesied Spirit of Ezekiel 36, 37, and 47. The recipients of these promises are the members of the messianic community: those who believe in Jesus. The situation in the Animal Apocalypse is similar: Judas Maccabee is the 'ram with the strong horn' who fulfills messianic expectations, including those of Ezekiel 34. The beneficiaries of his messianic reign are the 'lambs who could see,' those who resisted Hellenization under Antiochus IV. In Hodayot 16, the river from the Temple waters the 'eternal plantation' (the Community), which will grow up to cover the world. And although the DSS do not view the Righteous Teacher as the messiah, Hodayot 16 is clear that his mouth is the 'source of living waters' and that he directs the course of the river. Only those who heed his teaching are part of the plantation; all others will be washed away in the final judgment. In each allusion, we searched for resonance between the allusion and its new context. That is, we examined the use of the allusive material both in its original setting (in most cases, Ezekiel) and in its new setting in John or in Second Temple literature. In most cases, there were strong ties between the two contexts. It was rare for the later author to use an allusion without carefully considering the meaning of the passage from which the allusion came. In most cases, the allusion was applied to a new situation, or considered fulfilled in some person or community, but with consideration for the meaning of the source passage. Almost any of the allusions examined above, in John or in Second Temple literature, could serve as examples of this tendency. The Damascus Document on several occasions (CD 4.17-18; 8.12-18; 19.30-32, 34; 20.3-4; see pp. 61-69) alludes to the denunciation of Jerusalem's false prophets, priests, and rulers (Ezekiel 13, 22). Although the allusions focus on a few epithets ('wall-builders' and 'the one melted in a furnace'), the author of the Damascus Document sees multiple connections between the religious establishment of Ezekiel's day and that of his own. The author of Damascus Document applies Ezekiel's accusations to the current leaders of Jerusalem (especially the Pharisees): they mislead the people and give them a false sense of security; they fail to teach properly about the Sabbath and purity; and they oppress the poor and acquire their wealth. Numerous other examples could be given from the DSS; in general, the authors of the Scrolls apply Ezekiel's oracles of doom to the opponents of the Community, and apply Ezekiel's oracles of hope to the Community. Psalm of Solomon 17 has an expectation of the coming messiah that matches the expectations of Ezekiel 34 in several ways. Both passages describe God as the ultimate king, with David as his subordinate. The king rules over his people in entire submission to God. Liv. Proph. 3.12 is a good example of careful reading of Ezekiel 37. The author of the Life of Ezekiel sees the oracle of the dry bones as a reference

206

Echoes of a Prophet

to 'hope for Israel both in this age and the age to come' - an interpretation that considers both the metaphor and its interpretation in Ezekiel 37. There are exceptions to this careful attention to the original sense of OT passages. For example, the well-known interpretation of Amos 5.26-27 in CD 7.14-15 uses unusual exegetical tricks to completely transform Amos' description of judgment into a prophecy of the founding of the Community (p. 24). 1QH 8 and 14 contain several allusions to the cursed cedar of Ezekiel 31; the cursed elements are reversed and applied to the Community (pp. 54-56). Ps. Sol. 17.28, 41 alludes to the re-allocation of land in Ezek. 45.8; 47.21-22, but alters Ezekiel's meaning in order to exclude Gentile sojourners from the inheritance (pp. 94-95). The Animal Apocalypse alludes to the condemnation of the shepherds in Ezekiel 34, but transforms them from the kings of Israel to the kings of the pagan nations. John matches the general trend of Second Temple literature to pay attention to the contexts of the oracles to which he alludes. So, for example, John's allusion to the dry bones oracle ('he breathed on them'; Jn 20.22/Ezek. 36.9-10) is quite brief; but John clearly understands the whole oracle, since he connects the breathing with the giving of the Spirit and new life, as Ezekiel does. John's vine metaphor has the same central themes as the vine metaphors to which he alludes (from Isaiah 5, Jeremiah 2, and Ezekiel 15, 17, 19): faithlessness to God results in worthlessness and judgment; faithfulness results in usefulness to God. The Shepherd Discourse in John 10 first alludes to Numbers 27, using the appointment and acceptance of Joshua as a model of how Israel ought to respond to Jesus. John's allusions to Ezekiel 34 communicate the same message as the oracle: the leaders of Israel have been poor shepherds, but God is now appointing a new shepherd to restore his people. John does not use exegetical tricks in his interpretation of these allusions; rather, he suggests that Ezekiel's oracles are now being fulfilled in Jesus and his followers. 3. Messiah and Community In his study of Paul's allusions to the OT, Richard Hays makes the astute observation that Paul has more of an 'ecclesiocentric' than a 'christocentric' use of Scripture.1 That is, Paul often makes allusions to Scripture for the purpose of commenting on the nature of the Christian community. More rarely, Paul has a christocentric approach - that is, he interprets OT passages as references to Christ or the messiah. Hays briefly mentions the Gospel of John as an example of a more christocentric approach to the OT. In comparison to Paul, this is certainly true. However, this study of John's allusions to Ezekiel shows that many of John's allusions are both 1. Hays, Echoes, pp. xiii, 86.

6. Summary and Conclusion

207

christocentric and ecclesiocentric. In fact, in every major allusion that we have studied, John uses material from the OT to describe both Christ and his people. For example, the use of allusions to Numbers 27 and Ezekiel 34 in John 10 is primarily christocentric, but has ecclesiocentric emphases as well. The references to the legitimate appointment of Joshua (Numbers 27) and God's promised appointment of David (Ezekiel 34) make a claim that Jesus is the true and legitimate leader of God's people. John also uses material from Ezekiel 34 to condemn the current leaders of Israel for their treatment of the flock and for their rejection of Jesus (pp. 108-09, 116). However, John 10 has much to say about the sheep as well. Numbers 27 and Ezekiel 34 focus on the leader's role in leading the sheep; but John adds language that focuses on the need for the sheep to hear the voice of the shepherd, to know him and follow him (Jn 10.3^4, 14, 16, 27). Thus, those who do not believe in Jesus are not his sheep (Jn 10.26). Jesus' sheep experience the blessings of God's flock: good pasture and deliverance from the wolf, which are metaphors for salvation, abundant and eternal life, assurance of the Father's keeping, and Jesus' life given on their behalf (Jn 10.9-10, 15-17, 28). As suggested above, these comprehensive details about Jesus' flock suggest a redefinition of the people of God (pp. 124-31). This redefinition is first suggested by the new prime criterion for membership in the flock: belief in Jesus (Jn 10.26). The redefinition is made clear by the exclusion of some sheep who would consider themselves to be God's people, and by the inclusion of the 'other sheep,' which includes Gentile believers (Jn 10.16, 26; 11.51-52). I suggested that some of these aspects of the new flock were inspired by the descriptions of the purified flock in Ezekiel 34, as well as by the theme of ingathering found in Ezekiel and Isaiah (pp. 128-29). Thus, the Good Shepherd discourse uses the OT to describe both Christ and his people. The Vine discourse likewise has both christocentric and ecclesiocentric uses of the OT. When Jesus labels himself as the 'true vine,' he compares himself with what Israel ought to have been (Jer. 2.21; Isa. 5.1-5). 'True vine' may also refer to the messianic cedar that Ezekiel contrasts with the faithless vine, Zedekiah (Ezek. 17.22-24). But John 15 primarily uses its OT allusions to describe God's people. In Isaiah 5, Jeremiah 2, and Ezekiel's vine parables, God judges vines for their faithlessness and failure to produce the expected fruit of positive moral qualities. Ezekiel 15 points out that vine prunings (which represent faithless Jerusalem) are useful only for firewood. John 15 uses these pictures of judgment on fruitless vines to encourage faithfulness and fruitfulness. The passage promises that the OT images of fruitfulness for God will be fulfilled in the disciples if they remain in faithful communion with Jesus. In John 10, God's sheep were those who followed Jesus, the good shepherd; in John 15, God's fruit-bearing branches are those who remain attached to Jesus, the true vine.

208

Echoes of a Prophet

The call narrative of Jn 1.35-51 is full of titles for Jesus, suggesting that the promise of 'opened heavens' in Jn 1.51 is christocentric. Jesus' promise in Jn 1.51 makes a very high claim for Jesus: he was the object of the theophanies of Jacob and Ezekiel. Perhaps Jesus was the 'glory of God' that was seen in those visions (pp. 153-55). But the promise of such visions to the first disciples also has something to say about the people of the Messiah. Because they have acknowledged Jesus as the Messiah, the one predicted in the Scriptures, the Son of God and the King of Israel (Jn 1.41, 45, 49), they will be given the visions that only the prophets had seen. This at least suggests the blessings of insight given to Jesus' followers; it may also suggest the pouring out of the spirit of prophecy predicted in Joel 2.28-29 (p. 155). In Jn 5.19-29, Jesus is described as having the power to effect both new life and the final resurrection. The language is reminiscent of Ezekiel's 'dry bones' oracle: Jesus, like the prophet Ezekiel, is given the authority to raise the dead at the command of his voice. But there is an emphasis also on those who receive life: they are chosen by Jesus, they hear the Son and believe, and they receive eternal life (Jn 5.21, 24-25; pp. 160-62). Finally, John's use of Ezekiel's metaphors for the Spirit reveals both christocentric and ecclesiocentric aims. When Jesus breathes on the disciples in Jn 20.22, this recalls the restoration of life in Ezekiel 37 and its promise to give God's Spirit, as well as the creation of the first human in Genesis 2. Thus, John connects Jesus both with the prophet, who called the dead to life at God's command, and with God himself, who breathed life into Adam. The image of the Spirit as water that comes from Jesus (Jn 3.5; 4.14; 7.37-39; 19.34) alludes to Ezekiel's images of water in Ezek. 36.25-27; 47.1-12 (as well as several other related OT passages). There, water comes from the presence of God and from his Temple. Thus, Jesus is proclaimed as the one who fulfills God's promise to give the Spirit; Jesus brings God's life to his people. But again, these two images have much to say about God's people. Those who receive the breath are Jesus' disciples, who are commissioned as his emissaries; those who receive the 'rivers of living water' are the ones who are thirsty, who come to Jesus and believe in him. Thus, every allusion that we have examined in John follows a consistent pattern: it describes Jesus as the fulfillment of God's promises, or as the agent of fulfillment; and it describes the recipients of those promises as the followers of Jesus. That is, John appropriates images and promises from Ezekiel (and others) and shows how they are fulfilled through Jesus and to Jesus' followers. In every case, there is an implied redefinition of God's people. Ezekiel's images are directed at Israel: the lost sheep, the dry bones, and the withered land all symbolize the nation of Israel that God will restore. Ezekiel has a place for Gentiles in the new order (see especially Ezek. 47.21-23), but this element is not apparent in most of his oracles. In John, each of these elements is interpreted to mean the followers of Jesus.

6. Summary and Conclusion

209

Thus, Jesus gathers only his own sheep who follow him; the only dry bones to be raised are those who hear his voice; the only branches that bear fruit are attached to the true vine; and the only ones to experience the rivers of water (or the abundant fish!) are those who believe in Jesus. Comparison to Second Temple literature reveals that this dual emphasis on a messiah and his people is not unique; nor is it unusual for the messianic community to be exclusive. As mentioned before, the Animal Apocalypse predicts the coming victory of Judas Maccabee and seems to describe him as God's anointed king. The description of judgment makes it clear that not all Israel will be part of the coming kingdom. The 'blinded sheep,' those who submitted to Hellenization, will be thrown into the fiery pit, but the 'lambs who could see' come to life and dwell in a newly built Jerusalem and Temple. The longed-for messiah in Psalm of Solomon 17 is characterized by his inclusion of the righteous and his exclusion of Gentiles and Hellenized Jews. His rule is one of justice and equality for the people, and honor for God's law; these characterizations suggest the type of people who will be in his kingdom. The DSS passages that we examined did not have strong references to the Messiah, but the dual focus on the Teacher of Righteousness and his followers can be observed in Hodayot 14 and 16. The Teacher is the source of living waters, the farmer of God's plantation, and the engineer who directs the waterways from the Temple. This description is intended to call the members of the Community to faithfulness to the correct teachings as revealed by the Teacher. The one possible reference to the Messiah in the Hodayot also places him firmly within the Community: he is the Branch who will spring from the Plantation. It is not surprising that John and Paul, as well as 1 Enoch, Psalm of Solomon 17, and the Hodayot, are all interested in both the Messiah and his community. After all, the various messianic expectations are usually seen as a longing for a repair of the human condition. A pure focus on the Messiah would ignore his fundamental role: to bring God's deliverance and justice to God's people. Thus, almost every messianic interpretation of Scripture is likely to describe both the Messiah and his people. 4. Tendencies in Johannine Allusions We have already noted several important tendencies in John's allusions to Ezekiel and to other OT books. John often modifies the language of his OT material in accord with contemporary Greek or Johannine style; he usually combines allusions to related OT passages; he resumes the topics of his allusions later in the Gospel; and he uses OT passages with consideration of their original sense. Furthermore, John uses his OT material to describe Jesus as the fulfillment of OT promises, or as the agent of their fulfillment;

210

Echoes of a Prophet

and the allusions always redirect the promises from Israel to those who believe in Jesus. All of these tendencies have parallels in the use of allusions in Second Temple literature. But John's allusions have other tendencies that do not have a clear parallel in the allusive language of Second Temple literature. Many of John's allusions to Ezekiel are used to describe the giving of the Spirit. This is not a universal tendency, since the Good Shepherd discourse offers no hint of the giving of the Spirit. But in several of John's other allusions to Ezekiel, we see an emphasis on Jesus' role in the giving of the Spirit. The water from Jesus and the breath from Jesus, John's two most vivid depictions of the Spirit, both derive from (or at least show strong affinities with) Ezekiel's images of the giving of God's Spirit. The renewing breath of Jesus only makes one clear appearance (Jn 20.22), but the Spirit as water from Jesus has a sustained presence in John. The use of water symbolism in the conversations with Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman most likely refers to the Spirit (Jn 3.5; 4.14); the saying at Tabernacles is clearly about the giving of the Spirit (Jn 7.37-39); and Jesus' promise of the Spirit is likely fulfilled in the water from Jesus' side (Jn 19.34). The miraculous catch offish (Jn 21.1-11) also alludes to the river from the Temple, although the idea of the Spirit is not clear there. Even the promise to the disciples to see 'heaven opened' (Jn 1.51) suggests the promised Spirit, who will give the gift of prophecy. This significant use of imagery from Ezekiel suggests that John found in Ezekiel an understanding of the Spirit that was particularly suited to his own understanding of the Spirit given through Jesus.2 A related theme found in most of John's allusions is that of life. In some ways, this is closely related to Ezekiel's use of life. Ezekiel 37 pictures Israel as dry bones, but God brings them to life; the river of Ezekiel 47 brings life wherever it goes. John first alludes to the dry bones oracle in John 5 to describe Jesus' ability to give both spiritual and physical life: The Son gives life to whom he wishes' (Jn 5.21); those who believe in Jesus 'have passed from death into life' (Jn 5.24). When Jesus breathes on the disciples in Jn 20.22, this connects the giving of the Spirit with the giving of life, as in Ezekiel 37 and Genesis 2. Ezekiel's river heals and brings life; Zechariah's version calls it 'living water'. Jesus' giving of the 'rivers of living water' in Jn 7.38 thus connects the Spirit with God's life-giving power. As I suggested above (p. 180), Ezekiel also uses water to symbolize God's life-giving power and the giving of God's Spirit. Ezekiel's account of the restored sheep has themes of healing and restoration; in John's use of 2. Throughout this study, I have been careful to point out the important role of parallels to Isaiah and Jeremiah, among others; here, I only suggest that John's imagery for the Spirit has important affinities with Ezekiel's imagery of the Spirit.

6. Summary and Conclusion

211

Ezekiel 34, the good shepherd comes to give the sheep abundant, eternal life. John's limitation of Ezekiel's promises to those who believe in Jesus, and his emphasis on the theme of life in those allusions, suggests a connection to the purpose of John: 'these things have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, and that believing you may have life in his name' (Jn 20.31). In each allusion to Ezekiel, John wants the reader to see Jesus as the promised Messiah, and to see that the promised life is available to all who believe in him. Finally, we might offer a few comments on John's use of passages in Ezekiel that are themselves allusions to earlier passages in the OT. John 10 alludes to Ezekiel 34, which modifies earlier pastoral imagery found throughout the OT. Jn 11.52 alludes to Ezek. 37.21/28.25, both of which allude to the covenant promise to gather the scattered in Deut. 30.3. John 15 alludes to the judged vine of Ezekiel 15, 17, and 19, which is itself a modification of earlier vine imagery. The breathing out of the Spirit is an allusion to Ezekiel 37, which alludes to the breath of life in Genesis 2. The river of living water in Jn 7.38 alludes to Ezekiel 47, which in turn alludes to the creation account in Genesis 1-2. The use of water imagery in John 3, 4, and 7 is also related to the cleansing waters of Ezek. 36.25-27; which alludes to the water used in cleansing rituals in Leviticus 14 and Numbers 8 and 19. These connections suggest that John sometimes uses Ezekiel as his window on the rest of the Scriptures. Thus, although shepherd imagery can be found throughout the OT, John's shepherd metaphor relies primarily on Ezekiel 34. Although John's vine metaphor alludes to Jeremiah 2 and Isaiah 5, important aspects of John's metaphor (such as the individual branches and their judgment) are derived from Ezekiel 15, 17, and 19. For Ezekiel, the breath of God in Ezekiel 37 and the river from the Temple in Ezekiel 47 (including its fish!) are pictures drawn from Genesis and intended to communicate God's new creation of his people. When John uses both of those images, it suggests that he, like Ezekiel, sees the new covenant as a new creation, life-giving water and breath from God. Ezekiel uses the picture of ritual cleansing from the Law to describe God's promised inward cleansing and the giving of God's Spirit (Ezek. 36.25-27). John likewise sees water as the perfect image for the giving of God's Spirit, although the idea of purification by water is not as apparent in John's allusions to Ezekiel. The breadth of John's usage of Ezekiel also suggests how important the prophet was to the Evangelist's thought. Ezekiel has five major oracles of restoration: the restored flock (Ezekiel 34); the purifying water (Ezek. 36.25-27), the raised dry bones (Ezek. 37.1-14), the joining of the two nations under one king (Ezek. 37.15-28), and the new Jerusalem (Ezekiel 40-48). John alludes to all five of these restoration oracles, and may

212

Echoes of a Prophet

allude to the restoration of the vine in Ezekiel 17 as well. John does not use any other OT source so comprehensively. John's use of Ezekiel is also more comprehensive than the use of Ezekiel in most other works of the Second Temple period. Most of the other literature that we examined made reference to only one or two of EzekiePs oracles. The Damascus Document contains ten quotations from or allusions to Ezekiel, but these come from a narrower selection of Ezekiel's oracles.3 The Damascus Document primarily alludes to Ezekiel's oracles of judgment (especially Ezekiel 9, 13, and 22); the only oracle of restoration that the Damascus Document uses (not surprisingly) is Ezekiel's prophecy of a restored priesthood in Ezekiel 44. The fact that John uses all of Ezekiel's restoration metaphors suggests an aspect of his christology which is otherwise muted: John saw Jesus as the fulfillment of the promises of restoration in the OT. J.D. Huntzinger, in his study of Synoptic allusions to OT pastoral metaphors, concluded that the Synopticists had seen Jesus as 'the end of exile'.4 This study of John's Jesus suggests something very similar: Jesus is depicted with images taken from the restoration oracles of Ezekiel. John only makes a few references to Ezekiel's message of doom (the bad shepherds and false vines) - but these are targeted at the leaders of Israel. The fact that the Synoptic Jesus and the Johannine Jesus depict themselves as fulfilling the OT 'oracles of hope' is striking and suggestive. Although I have not until now considered the historical implications of John's claims for Jesus, it seems defensible to say that John's depiction of Jesus as the fulfillment of the 'oracles of hope' is closely related to the self-understanding of the historical Jesus. The study of allusions to Ezekiel in John has been fruitful in several ways. John, like other Jewish writers of his age, saw Ezekiel as a deep well of insight about God and his promises. Ezekiel had communicated God's promise to send his shepherd and his Spirit; for John, this made Ezekiel an important tool in his task of explaining Jesus. Although John's metaphors of water, breath, vine, and shepherd can be understood as they stand, it seems likely that John expected his readers to see that each of these metaphors connected Jesus with the Scriptures and, in particular, with Ezekiel's oracles of restoration. John's 'conversation' with Ezekiel produced images of Jesus that Christians have always treasured, images that are perhaps even more precious when their source is discovered. When John read Ezekiel, he knew that the prophet shared with him the experience of seeing the 'heavens opened'. Ezekiel, like

3. See p. 76. 4. J.D. Huntzinger, 'The End of Exile: A Short Commentary on the Shepherd/Sheep Metaphor in Exilic and Post-Exilic Prophetic and Synoptic Gospel Literature' (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Fuller Theological Seminary, 1999).

6. Summary and Conclusion

213

Isaiah, had 'seen his glory and spoke concerning him' (Jn 12.41). In the opened heavens, and in the words of Ezekiel, John saw Jesus, the good shepherd, the true vine, the source of living water, the one who breathes out life and Spirit.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Abegg, M., 'Exile and the Dead Sea Scrolls', in J.M. Scott (ed.), Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions (JSJ, 56; Leiden: Brill, 1997), pp. 111-25. Ackroyd, P.R., 'Gematria', JTS n.s. 10 (1959), pp. 153-55. Allen, L., Ezekiel (WBC, 28-29; 2 vols; Dallas: Word Books, 1990, 1994). Allison, D.C., T h e Living Water', St Vladimir's Theological Seminary Quarterly 30, no. 2 (1986), pp. 143-57. —Scriptural Allusions in the New Testament: Light from the Dead Sea Scrolls (Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins Library, 5; North Richland Hills, Tex.: BIBAL Press, 2000). Anderson, G.A., T h e Status of the Torah Before Sinai: The Retelling of the Bible in the Damascus Covenant and the Book of Jubilees', DSD 1 (1994), pp. 1-29. Atkinson, Kenneth, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon: Pseudepigrapha (SBEC, 49; Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2001). Badcock, F.J., T h e Feast of Tabernacles', JTS 24 (1922-1923), pp. 169-74. Barr, J., Old and New in Interpretation: A Study of the Two Testaments (New York: Harper & Row, 1966). Barrett, C.K., The Gospel According to John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 2nd edn, 1978). Beale, G.K., 'Revelation', in D.A. Carson and H.G.M. Williamson (eds), It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture (Festschrift B. Lindars; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), pp. 318-36. —The Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the Revelation of St. John (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1984). Beasley-Murray, G.R., John (WBC, 36; Waco: Word, 1987). —'John 3:3, 5: Baptism, Spirit, and the Kingdom', ExpTim 97 (1986), pp. 167-70. Berding, K., Poly carp and Paul: An Analysis of Their Literary and Theological Relationship in Light of Poly carp's Use of Biblical and Extra-Biblical Literature (VCSup, 62; Leiden: Brill, 2002). Bernard, J.H., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John (ICC, 29; 2 vols; New York: Charles Scribner and Sons, 1929). Beutler, J., 'Der Alttestamentlich-judischer Hintergrund der Hirtenrede in Johannes 10', in J. Beutler and R. Fortna (eds), The Shepherd Discourse of John 10 and its Context: Studies by Members of the Johannine Writings Seminar (SNTSMS, 67; London: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 18-32. Black, M., The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch (SVTP, 7; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1985).

Bibliography

215

Blenkinsopp, J., 'John VII. 37-9: Another Note on a Mysterious Crux', NTS 6, no. 1 (1959), pp. 95-98. —The Quenching of Thirst: Reflections on the Utterance in the Temple, John 7:37-9', Scr 12 (1960), pp. 39-48. Borgen, P., Breadfrom Heaven: An Exegetical Study of the Concept of Manna in the Gospel of John and the Writings ofPhilo (NovTSup, 10; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1965). Boyer, C.B., A History of Mathematics (repr. 1991; New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2nd edn, 1968). Brawley, R.L., 'An Absent Complement and Intertextuality in John 19:28-29', JBL 112(1993), pp. 427-43. Breck, J., The Spirit of Truth: The Holy Spirit in Johannine Tradition, Vol. 1: The Origins of Johannine Pneumatology (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1991). Brooke, G., '4Q252 and the 153 Fish of John 21:1', in B. Kollmann, W. Reinbold and A. Steudel (eds), Antikes Judentum und friihes Christentum (Festschrift H. Stegemann; BZNW, 97; Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1999), pp. 253-65. —'The Biblical Texts in the Qumran Commentaries: Scribal Errors or Exegetical Variants?' in C.A. Evans and W.F. Stinespring (eds), Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis (Festschrift W.H. Brownlee; Homage, 10; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987). —Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in its Jewish Context (JSOTSup, 29; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985). —'Ezekiel in Some Qumran and New Testament Texts', in J.T. Barrera and L.V. Montaner (eds), The Madrid Qumran Congress. Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18-21 March, 1991 (STDJ, XI, 1; Leiden: Brill, 1992), pp. 317-37. Brown, R.E., The Gospel According to John (AB, 29-29A; 2 vols; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966, 1970). Brownlee, W.H., 'Whence John?', in J.H. Charlesworth (ed.), John and Qumran (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1972), pp. 166-94. Bruce, F.F., The New Testament Development of Old Testament Themes (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1968). Bruns, J.E., 'The Discourse on the Good Shepherd and the Rite of Ordination', AER 149 (1963), pp. 386-91. Budd, P.J., Numbers (WBC, 5; Waco: Word Books, 1984). Bultmann, R., The Gospel of John (trans. G.R. Beasley-Murray, R.W.N. Hoare and J.K. Riches; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1971). Burney, C.F., 'The Aramaic Equivalent of k TIK KOIXIOL^ in Jn. VII 38', JTS 24 (1922-1923), pp. 79-80. —The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1922). Busse, U., 'Die Tempelmetaphorik als ein Beispiel von implizitem rekurs auf die biblische Tradition im Johannesevangelium', in C M . Tuckett (ed.), The Scriptures in the Gospels (BETL, 131; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997), pp. 395-428. Cardwell, K., 'The Fish on the Fire: John 21:9', ExpTim 102 (1990), pp. 12-14. Carson, D.A., The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991).

216

Echoes of a Prophet

—'John and the Johannine Letters', in D.A. Carson and H.G.M. Williamson (eds), It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture (Festschrift B. Lindars; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), pp. 245-64. Cathcart, K., M. Maher, and M. McNamara (eds), The Aramaic Bible (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1987-1992). Vol. 1A, Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis, trans. M. McNamara, 1992. Vol. IB, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis, trans. M. Maher, 1992. Vol. 6, The Targum Onqelos to Genesis, trans. B. Grossfeld, 1988. Vol. 11, The Isaiah Targum, trans. B. Chilton, 1988. Vol. 12, The Targum of Jeremiah, trans. R. Hayward, 1987. Vol. 13, The Targum of Ezekiel, trans. S.H. Levey, 1987. Charles, R.H., The Book of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2nd edn, 1912). Charles, R.H. (ed.), The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913). Charlesworth, J.H., 'The Pseudepigrapha as Biblical Exegesis', in C.A. Evans and W.F. Stinespring (eds), Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis (Festschrift W.H. Brownlee; Homage, 10; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), pp. 139-52. Charlesworth, J.H. (ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations (10 vols.; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1994^). —The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols; Anchor Bible Reference Library; New York: Doubleday, 1983-1985). Chilton, B.D., The Glory of Israel: The Theology and Provenance of the Isaiah Targum (JSOTSup, 23; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983). Chyutin, M., 'The New Jerusalem: Ideal City', DSD 1 (1994), pp. 71-97. Cortes, J.B., 'Yet Another Look at John 7:37-39', CBQ 29 (1967), pp. 75-86. Craigie, P.C., P.H. Kelley, and J.F. Drinkard, Jr., Jeremiah 1-25 (WBC, 26; Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1991). Dahl, N.A., 'The Johannine Church and History', in W. Klassen and G.F. Snyder (eds), Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation (Festschrift O.A. Piper; New York: Harper & Row, 1962), pp. 124-42. Daise, M.A., '"Rivers of Living Water" as New Creation and New Exodus: A Traditio-historical Vantage Point for the Exegetical Problems and Theology of John 7:37-39' (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Princeton Theological Seminary, 2000). Danielou, J., Etudes d'exegese judeo-chretienne (Paris: Beauchesne et ses fils, 1966). Davila, J.R., Liturgical Works (ECDSS; Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2000). DeConick, A.D., Voices of the Mystics: Early Christian Discourse in the Gospels of John and Thomas and Other Christian Literature (JSNTSup, 157; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001). Deeley, M., 'Ezekiel's Shepherd and John's Jesus: A Case Study in the Appropriation of Biblical Texts', in C.A. Evans and J.A. Sanders (eds), Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals (JSNTSup, 148; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), pp. 252-65. Dimant, D., '4Q386 ii-iii - A Prophecy on Hellenistic Kingdoms?' RevQ 18, no. 72 (1998), pp. 514^30.

Bibliography

217

—Qumran Cave 4 XXI: Parabiblical Texts Part 4: Pseudo-Prophetic Texts (DJD, 30; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2001). Dodd, C.H., Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965). Dods, M., The Gospel of St. John (Expositor's Bible, 43; 2 vols; New York: A.C. Armstrong and Son, 1903). Dunn, J.D.G, Baptism in the Holy Spirit: A Re-examination of the New Testament Teaching on the Gift of the Spirit in Relationship to Pentecostalism Today (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970). —'Let John be John: A Gospel for Its Time", in P. Stuhlmacher (ed.), Das Evangelium und die Evangelium: Vortrdge vom Tubinger Symposium 1982 (WUNT, 28; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1983), pp. 309-39. Durlesser, J.A., 'The Rhetoric of Allegory in the Book of EzekieF (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1988). Edersheim, A., The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (repr. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1993; New York: Longmans, Green, 1896). Eichrodt, W., Ezekiel: A Commentary (trans. C. Quin; OTL; London: SCM Press, 1970). Emerton, J.A., 'The Hundred and Fifty-Three Fishes in John XXI. 11', JTS 9 (1958), pp. 86-89. Evans, C.A., Word and Glory: On the Exegetical and Theological Background of John's Prologue (JSNTSup, 89; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993). Fee, G.D., 'Once More - John 7:37-39', ExpTim 89, no. 4 (1978), pp. 116-21. Fikes, B.A., 'A Theological Analysis of the Shepherd-King Motif in Ezekiel 34' (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1995). Fowler, William Glenn, 'The Influence of Ezekiel in the Fourth Gospel: Intertextuality and Interpretation' (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, 1995). Freed, E.H., Old Testament Quotations in the Gospel of John (NovTSup, 11; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1965). Fujita, S., 'The Temple Theology of the Qumran Sect and the Book of Ezekiel: Their Relationship to Jewish Literature of the Last Two Centuries B.C.' (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Princeton Theological Seminary, 1970). Garcia Martinez, F., and E.J.C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1997-1998). Goppelt, L., Typos: The Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New (trans. D.H. Madvig; Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1982). Grassi, J., 'Ezekiel XXXVII. 1-14 and the New Testament', NTS 11 (1964), pp. 162-64. Gray, G.B., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers (ICC, 4; repr. 1956; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1903). Grigsby, B.H., 'Gematria and John 21:11 - Another Look At Ezekiel 47:10', ExpTim 95 (1984), pp. 177-78. —"If Any Man Thirsts...":? Observations on the Rabbinic Background of John 7,37-39', Bib 67 (1986), pp. 101-08.

218

Echoes of a Prophet

Gruenwald, I., Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism (AGJU, 14; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1980). Guilding, A., The Fourth Gospel and Jewish Worship: A Study of the Relation of St. John's Gospel to the Ancient Jewish Lectionary System (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1960). Halperin, D.J., The Faces of the Chariot (TSAJ, 16; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1988). Hanson, A.T., 'John's Use of Scripture', in C.A. Evans and J.A. Sanders (eds), The Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel (JSNTSup, 104; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), pp. 358-79. Harris, J.R., and V. Burch, Testimonies (2 vols; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1916-1920). Hatina, T.R., 'John 20,22 in Its Eschatological Context: Promise or Fulfillment?' Bib 74, no. 2 (1993), pp. 196-219. Hays, R.B., Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989). Heil, J.P., 'Jesus as the Unique High Priest in the Gospel of John', CBQ 57, no. 4 (1995), pp. 729-45. Himmelfarb, M., Ascent to Heaven and the Christian Apocalypses (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993). —'Heavenly Ascent and the Relationship of the Apocalypses and the Hekhalot Literature', HUCA 59 (1984), pp. 73-100. Hodges, Z.C., 'Rivers of Living Water - John 7:37-39', BSac 136 (1979), pp. 23948. Hollander, J., The Figure of Echo: A Mode of Allusion in Milton and After (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981). Holm-Nielsen, S., Hodayot: Psalms from Qumran (AcTDan, 2; Aarhus: Universitetsforlaget, 1960). Hooke, S.H., 'The Spirit Was Not Yet', NTS 9, no. 4 (1963), pp. 372-80. Hultberg, A.D., 'Messianic Exegesis in the Apocalypse: The Significance of the Old Testament for the Christology of Revelation' (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2001). Huntzinger, J.D., 'The End of Exile: A Short Commentary on the Shepherd/Sheep Metaphor in Exilic and Post-Exilic Prophetic and Synoptic Gospel Literature' (unpublished doctoral dissertation;*Fuller Theological Seminary, 1999). Johnson, D.H., 'Our Father Jacob: The Role of the Jacob Narrative in the Fourth Gospel Compared to its Role in the Jewish Bible and in the Writings of Early Judaism' (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1992). Josephus (trans. H. St. J. Thackeray et al.; LCL; 10 vols; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1926-1965). Joyce, P.M., 'King and Messiah in Ezekiel', in J. Day (ed.), King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar (JSOTSup, 270; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), pp. 323-27. Jungkuntz, R., 'An Approach to the Exegesis of John 10:34-36', Cone 35 (1964), pp. 556-65. Kanagaraj, J.J., Mysticism in John (JSNTSup, 158; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998).

Bibliography

219

Kee, H.C., 'Messiah and the People of God', in J.T. Butler, E.W. Conrad and B.C. Ollenburger (eds), Understanding the Word (Festschrift B.W. Anderson; JSOTSup, 37; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), pp. 341-58. Kiefer, D.F., 'Ezekiel 34: An Exegetical and Theological Analysis of the Shepherd Motif with Special Reference to John 10' (unpublished masters dissertation, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1991). Knapp, H.M., The Messianic Water Which Gives Life to the World', HBT19, no. 2 (1997), pp. 109-21. Koester, C.R., The Dwelling of God: The Tabernacle in the Old Testament, Intertestamental Jewish Literature, and the New Testament (CBQMS, 22; Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association, 1989). —Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel: Meaning, Mystery, Community (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995). Kruse, H., 'Magnum Pisces centum quinquaginta tres (Jo 21,11)', VD 38 (1960), pp. 129^8. Kuhn, K.H., 'St. John VII. 37-8', NTS 4, no. 1 (1957), pp. 63-65. Lampe, G.W.H., 'The Reasonableness of Typology', in G.W.H. Lampe and K.J. Woollcombe (eds), Essays on Typology (SBT, 22; London: SCM Press, 1957), pp. 9-38. Levey, S.H., The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation. The Messianic Exegesis of the Targum (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1974). —The Targum of Ezekiel (Aramaic Bible, 13; Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1987). Lewis, A.S., 'John vii. 38, 39', ExpTim 23 (1911-1912), pp. 235-36. Lindars, B., The Gospel of John (NCB; Greenwood, S.C.: Oliphants, 1972). Lust, J., E. Eynikel and K. Hauspie, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (2 vols.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1992, 1996). Luzarraga, J., 'Presentacion de Jesus a la luz del A.T. en el Evangelio de Juan', Estudios Ecclesiasticos 51 (1976), pp. 497-520. Lyon, R.W., 'John 20:22, Once More', Asbury Theological Journal 43, no. 1 (1988), pp. 73-85. Marcus, J., 'Rivers of Living Water from Jesus' Belly', JBL 117, no. 2 (1998), pp. 328-30. Marshall, I.H., 'An Assessment of Recent Developments', in D.A. Carson and H.G.M. Williamson (eds), It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture (Festschrift B. Lindars; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), pp. 1-21. Mathews, S.F., 'A Critical Evaluation of the Allusions to the Old Testament in Apocalypse 1:1-8:5' (unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Catholic University of America, 1987). McEleney, N.J., '153 Great Fishes (John 21,11) - Gematriacal Atbash', Bib 58, no. 3 (1977), pp. 411-17. Meeks, W.A., The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology (NovTSup, 14; Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1967). Menken, M.J.J., Old Testament Quotations in the Fourth Gospel: Studies in Textual Form (Kampen, the Netherlands: Kok Pharos, 1996). —'The Origin of the Old Testament Quote in John 7:38', NovT 38 (1996), pp. 16075.

220

Echoes of a Prophet

Metzger, B.M., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2nd edn, 1994). Meyer, P.W., 'A Note on John 10:1-18', JBL 75 (1956), pp. 232-35. Morris, L., The Gospel According to John (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971). Moyise, S., The Old Testament in the Book of Revelation (JSNTSup, 115; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995). Nash, S.B., 'Kingship and the Psalms in the Fourth Gospel' (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Westminster Theological Seminary, 2000). Neirynck, F., 'John 21', NTS 36 (1990), pp. 321-36. Nestle, E.B., 'The Earliest Quotation of John 7:38, 39', ExpTim 23 (1911-1912), pp. 331. Newman, C.C., Paul's Glory-Christology: Tradition and Rhetoric (NovTSup, 69; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992). Newsom, C, 'Shirot Olat Hashabbat', in J.C. VanderKam and M. Brady (eds), Qumran Cave 4 (DJD, 11; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), pp. 173-401. —Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition (HSM, 27; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985). Ng, W.-Y., Water Symbolism in John: An Eschatological Interpretation (StudBL, 15; New York: P. Lang, 2001). Nielsen, K., 'Old Testament Imagery in John', in J. Nissen and S. Pedersen (eds), New Readings in John: Literary and Theological Perspectives (JSNTSup, 182; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), pp. 66-82. Nurmela, R., 'Prophets in Dialogue: Inner-Biblical Allusions in Zechariah 1-8 and 9-14' (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Abo Akademi (Finland), 1996). Odeberg, H., The Fourth Gospel: Interpreted in its Relation to Contemporary Religious Currents in Palestine and the Hellenistic-Oriental World (repr. Chicago: Argonaut, 1968; Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1929). Olson, D.T., Numbers (Louisville: John Knox, 1996). Owen, O.T., 'One Hundred and Fifty Three Fishes', ExpTim 100 (1988), pp. 52-54. Paulien, J., Decoding Revelation's Trumpets: Literary Allusions and the Interpretation of Revelation 8:7-12 (AUSS, 11; Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews University Press, 1987). Philo (trans. F.H. Colson et al.; LCL; 12 vols; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1929-1962). Quasten, J., 'The Parable of the Good Shepherd: John 10:1-21', CBQ 10 (1948), pp. 1-12, 151-69. Quispel, G., 'Nathanael und der Menschensohn (Joh 1 51)', ZNW 47 (1956). Rahlfs, A., Septuaginta: Id est Vetus Testamentum Graece Iuxta LXX Interpretes (Stuttgart: Priviligierte Wurttemburgische Bibelanstalt, 1935). du Rand, J., 'A Syntactical and Narratological Reading of John 10 in Coherence with John 9', in J. Beutler and R. Fortna (eds), The Shepherd Discourse of John 10 and its Context: Studies by Members of the Johannine Writings Seminar (SNTSMS, 67; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 94-115. Reim, Giinter, Das alttestamentliche Hintergrund des Johannesevangeliums (SNTSMS, 22; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974).

Bibliography

221

Robinson, J.A.T., The Parable of John 10:1-5', in Twelve New Testament Studies (SBT; Naperville, 111.: Alec R. Allenson, 1962), pp. 67-75. Romeo, J.A., 'Gematria and John 21:11 - The Children of God', JBL 97, no. 2 (1978), pp. 263-64. Ross, A.P., Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1988). Ross, J.M., 'One Hundred and Fifty-Three Fishes', ExpTim 100 (1988), p. 357. Rowland, C, The Influence of the First Chapter of Ezekiel on Jewish and Early Christian Literature' (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cambridge University, 1974). —'John 1.51, Jewish Apocalyptic and Targumic Tradition', NTS 30 (1984), pp. 498-507. Sandmel, S., 'Parallelomania', JBL 81 (1962), pp. 1-13. Schafer, P., The Aim and Purpose of Early Jewish Mysticism', in Hekhalot-Studien (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1988). — 'Merkavah Mysticism and Rabbinic Judaism', JAOS 104 (1984), pp. 537-54. —'New Testament and Hekhalot Literature: The Journey into Heaven in Paul and in Merkavah Mysticism', JJS 35 (1984), pp. 19-35. —Tradition and Redaction in Hekhalot Literature', JSJ 14 (1983), pp. 172-81. Schnackenburg, R., The Gospel According to St. John (trans. K. Smyth, C. Hastings, F. McDonagh, D. Smith, R. Foley, D. Smith and G.A. Kon; HTCNT; 3 vols.; New York: Herder and Herder, 1968-1982). Schneider, J., 'Zur {Composition von Joh. 10', ConNT 11 (1947), pp. 220-25. Schuchard, B.G., Scripture within Scripture: The Interrelationship of Form and Function in the Explicit Old Testament Citations in The Gospel of John (SBLDS, 133; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992). Scott, M., Sophia and the Johannine Jesus (JSNTSup, 71; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992). Segal, A.F., Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports About Christianity and Gnosticism (SJLA, 25; Leiden: Brill, 1978). Septuaginta (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1939-1983). Vol. 1, Genesis, trans. J.W. Weevers, 1974. Vol. 3.1, Numeri, trans. J.W. Weevers, 1982. Vol. 12.2, Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach, trans. J. Ziegler, 1980. Vol. 14.1, Isaias, trans. J. Ziegler, 1939. Vol. 15, Ieremias, Baruch, Threni, Epistula Ieremiae, trans. J. Ziegler, 1957. Vol. 16.2, Ezechiel trans. J. Ziegler, 1977. Sheehan, J.F., 'Feed my Lambs', Scr 16 (1964), pp. 21-27. Skinner, J., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (ICC, 1; repr. 1956; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2nd edn, 1930). Somerville, J.E., The Invitation to the Thirsty', ExpTim 15 (1903-1904), pp. 77-79. Soucek, J.B., The Good Shepherd and His Flock', Ecumenical Review 9 (1957), pp. 143-53. Steudel, A., Der Midrasch zur Eschatologie aus der Qumrangemeinde (4QMidrEschatab): materielle Rekonstruktion, Textbestand, Gattung und traditionsgeschichtliche Einordnung des durch 4Q174 ("Florilegium") und4Q177 ("Catena

222

Echoes of a Prophet

A") reprdsentierten Werkes aus den Qumranfunden (STDJ, 13; Leiden: Brill, 1994). Stevenson, K.R., The Vision of Transformation: The Territorial Rhetoric of Ezekiel 40-48 (SBLDS, 154; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996). Swete, H.B., The Old Testament in Greek According to the Septuagint (3 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1896-1912). Swetnam, J., 'Bestowal of the Spirit in the Fourth Gospel', Bib 74, no. 4 (1993), pp. 556-76. Thompson, M.M., The God of the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2001). Torrey, C.C., The Lives of the Prophets: Greek Text and Translation (JBLMS, 1; Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, 1946). —Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence (New York/London: Harper & Brothers, 1936). Trudinger, P., 'John 21 Revisited Once Again', Downside Review 106 (1988), pp. 145-48. Turner, C.H., 'On the Punctuation of St. John VII 37, 38', JTS2A (1922-1923), pp. 66-70. Turner, J., 'The History of Religions Background of John 10', in J. Beutler and R. Fortna (eds), The Shepherd Discourse of John 10 and its Context: Studies by Members of the Johannine Writings Seminar (SNTSMS, 67; London: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 33-52. Vancil, J.W., The Symbolism of the Shepherd in Biblical, Intertestamental, and New Testament Material' (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Dropsie University, 1975). Vander Hoek, G.W., 'The Function of Psalm 82 in the Fourth Gospel and History of the Johannine Community: A Comparative Midrash Study' (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Claremont Graduate School, 1988). VanderKam, J.C., 'Exile in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature', in J.M. Scott (ed.), Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions (JSJ, 56; Leiden: Brill, 1997), pp. 89-109. Vermes, G., The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (New York: Penguin Press, 1997). Vogelgesang, J.M., 'The Interpretation of Ezekiel in the Book of Revelation' (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, 1985). Wallace, D.B., Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996). Watts, J.D.W., Isaiah 1-33 (WBC, 24; Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1985). Wenham, G.J., Genesis 1-15 (WBC, 1; Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1982). Winsor, A.R., 'A King is Bound in the Tresses: Allusions to the Song of Songs in the Fourth Gospel' (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Graduate Theological Union, 1996). Wise, M., M. Abegg, and E. Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996). Woods, M.W., 'The Use of the Old Testament in the Fourth Gospel: The Hermeneutical Significance for Contemporary Biblical Interpretation' (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1980).

Bibliography

223

Woollcombe, K.J., 'The Biblical Origins and Patristic Development of Typology', in G.W.H. Lampe and KJ. Woollcombe (eds), Essays on Typology (SBT, 22; London: SCM Press, 1957), pp. 39-75. Yadin, Y., The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness (trans. B.R.C. Rabin; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962). Zimmerli, W., Ezekiel: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel (trans. J.D. Martin and R.E. Clements; Hermeneia; 2 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979, 1983). —The "Land" in the Pre-Exilic and Early Post-Exilic Prophets', in J.T. Butler, E.W. Conrad and B.C. Ollenburger (eds), Understanding the Word (Festschrift B.W. Anderson; JSOTSup, 37; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), pp. 246-62.

INDEX OF SCRIPTURE AND ANCIENT SOURCES Old Testament Genesis 1.21 1.26-30 2

28.13 40.10 41.40 49.27

180 167 55, 167, 168, 200, 208, 210, 211 165-166 54 54, 180 167 126 55 151 151 192 85 150, 154, 156 150-152, 154, 199 152 143 105 122

Exodus 15 15.10 17.1-6 19 24.8 26.24 33.12

55 57 177 156 170 126 176

Leviticus 10.10 14 14.5-7

66 211 182

2.7 2.9-10 2.9 2.19-20 2.24 3 7.11 8.2 14.14 17.3 28 28.12

14.49-52 15.19 15.31 23.33^4 26.25 26.40

Numbers 3.16 3.39 3.51 4.37 4.41 4.45 8 8.5-7 9.18 9.20 9.23 10.13 13.3 15.16 17.10 19 19.9 19.13 19.16 19.17-22 19.17-19 19.20 21 24.17 27

111, 182 169, 182 169 176 60 26, 133, 200

105 105 105 105 105 105 211 182 105 105 105 105 105 128 143 200,211 51, 182 51 169 182 169 51, 169 177 25 4, 11, 13, 100, 104108, 111, 114, 132, 149, 199, 203, 206, 207

27.16-23 27.16-22 27.16 27.17 27.19 27.20-21 27.20 27.21 29.12-34 31.21 33.2 33.38 34.5 36.5 Deuteronomy 2.7 11

13, 103105 106, 107 111 13, 103, 104 105 106, 108 106 105 105 176 51 105 105 105 105

11.14 14.22-15.18 15.1-18 16.18-20 17.14-20 17.19 19.15 21.5 24.10-22 30.3 31.17-18 32.20 32.29 32.39

177 52, 55, 200 52,57 176 124 124 124 124 105 105 124 126,211 26 26 201 96

Joshua 23.4

7, 12, 3<

226

Echoes of a Prophet

Judges 12.3

119

1 Samuel 5.4-5 19.5 20.23 28.21

183 119 174 119

2 Samuel 2.25 5.2 24.17

126 115 104

/ Kings 5.5 7.2 8.22 8.54 17.21 19.2

190 176 176 176 166 119

2 Kings 25.6-7

78

1 Chronicles 4.40 16.2 17.6 23.11 23.31

2 41 132 126 40

2 Chronicles 2.3 8.13 18.16 26.21 31.3

40 40 104 169 40

Nehemiah 9.20 10.34

185 40

Job 4.21

166

Psalms 1 1.1 1.3 2.9

19 23 23.2 29 77.20 78.20 78.23 78.70-72 78.71 80 [79] 80.1 [79.2] 80.8-11 80.9 80.10 80.11 80.14-15 [79.15-16] 82 88.6 96 97 99 103.15 104 105.41 148 150

137 7, 118 169 158 158 158 53 158 177 158 158

Proverbs 3.18

96, 201

Ecclesiastes 3.11

50

Isaiah 1.1 1.20 2.2-4 4.2 5

5.1-7 31, 32, 33, 55, 57, 58, 200 32, 133 55 95

158 11 2 158 115 177 151 132 115 54, 55, 137, 138 104 136 54 53 54

5.1-5 5.2 5.5b-6a 5.6

155 73 128 137, 148 24, 55, 135-137, 139, 148, 149, 199, 206, 207, 211 136, 137, 140, 141, 148 207 135, 136 24 137

5.7 6

6.1 6.2 6.3 6.10 7.17 8 8.11-13 8.11 8.14 10 10.2 11.1 11.6 11.11-16 12.1-4 12.3 13.21 19.17 24.17 24.18 27 27.6 28.13 28.14 32.15 33.21 40 40.5 40.6 40.11 41.14 43.14 44 44.3-4 44.3

48.21 49.9 53 53.8 53.10-12 5416 54.8 56.6-8 56.6-7

137 46, 79, 82, 153, 156, 158, 200, 201 152, 153 85 84 152, 153 59 32,33 31 31, 32, 58, 133, 200 31 55 66 137 122 125 177 184 73 174 61 151 55 53,54 62 62 182, 185 177 55 73 53 104 73 73 196 182 177, 182, 185, 186, 187, 194, 195 177 2 11 169 118 166 26 128 128

Index of Scripture and Ancient Sources Isaiah - continued 128 56.8 119 56.9-11 58.14 73 26 59.2 55 60 128 60.2-14 53 60.21 34,35 63 36 63.1-6 36 63.7-14 36 63.10 36, 104, 63.11 115 35, 36 63.12 36 63.14 151 63.19 122 65.25 34 63.12 Jeremiah 2

2.1-3.4 2.2-3 2.3 2.5 2.8 2.11 2.13 2.18 2.20 2.21-22 2.21 2.25 2.32-33 3.15 17 17.12 17.13 23 23.1^ 23.1 23.3 23.4 25.26 30.9 [37.9]

15, 19, 55, 135, 136, 139, 140, 148, 149, 199, 206, 207,211 135 135, 136 135 135, 136 136 136 136, 148 136 136 140 14, 135138, 148, 207 136 136 132 55,57 63 56, 63, 200 4,104,115 113, 132 115 125 93, 132 192 93

31.7-14 31.31-34 31.31 33.5 50.6 51.1 51.7 51.41 Ezekiel 1

1.1-3 1.1

1.3-4 1.4-28 1.4 1.5 1.10 1.13-14 1.13 1.15-21 1.15 1.16 1.19 1.20 1.21 1.22 1.24 1.26 1.28 3 3.2 3.12 3.14—15 3.22-23 3.23 4.4-6 4.4-5 4.9 5.11 5.13 6-10

125 170 27,63,170 26 115 192 69 192 42, 43, 44, 46, 68, 73, 78, 79, 80, 82, 84, 154, 155, 156, 158, 159, 200, 201, 202 46 79, 80, 81, 150-152, 155, 199, 202, 203 81 71 45,46 84 71 44 45, 85 85 45, 116 71 44, 152 45,46,152 152 44,82 44, 45, 82 44,82 45, 82, 85, 153 122 79,84 153 79 81 46,85,153 27 27, 33 116 27 73 150

6.10 7.11 8-9 8.1-18 8.3 8.4 8.12 9 9.1-2 9.2 9.3 9.4-7 9.4 10

10 10.1-3 10.4 10.6 10.9 10.16 10.17 10.18 10.19 10.22 11 11.15 11.16 11.17 11.19-20 11.19 11.21 11.22-23 11.22 11.23 11.24-25 12.13 13 13.1-23 13.9 13.9-16 13.10 13.12

227 73 37 180 60 82 153 60 59, 60, 61, 212 60 116 60, 183 60 59, 60, 74 27, 42, 43, 68, 79, 80, 155, 200, 201 43, 46, 47 71 183 44,82 45, 82 44 45 183 152 153 23,28 23, 27, 28, 33 27,29 29 29, 168, 169, 181 29, 50, 168, 29 29 152 29 29 78 61, 63, 64 65, 67, 68 202, 205 62 12, 27, 64 65, 200 61 12, 61, 62 64-65, 66 67

Echoes of a Prophet

228 13.13-16 13.14 13.15 14 14.7-8 14.7 15

15.1-8 15.4-6 15.4 15.7 15.8 17

17.1-10 17.6-10 17.7-8 17.8 17.9-10 17.11-21 17.13-19 17.13-15 17.15 17.19 17.22 17.22-24

17.22-23 17.23-24 17.23 17.24 18.31 19

62 67 67 128 128, 130 128, 129 16, 19, 55, 136, 140, 141, 142, 146, 149, 199, 203, 206, 207, 211 138 142 138, 141 138 139, 142 16, 52, 54, 55, 57, 68, 79, 140, 141, 142, 143, 145, 146, 147, 149, 199, 203, 206, 211,212 139, 143 144 142 143 141 139 139, 145 141 142 139 54, 72, 145 79, 143, 145, 148, 181, 204, 207 144 10 53,56, 143 56 181 16, 52, 54, 55, 57, 139, 140, 141, 142, 149, 199, 206,211

19.1 19.10-14 19.10 19.11 19.12-14 19.12-13 19.12 19.14 20 20.3-5 20.18-20 20.18 20.33-39 20.34 20.35 20.37-38 20.38 21 21.3 21.36 22 22.2 22.7 22.17-26 22.17-22 22.17-20 22.19 22.20-22 22.20-21 22.20 22.23-31 22.23-28 22.25 22.26 22.27 22.28 22.29 23.20 26 28.25 28.26 30 30.2-19

139 141 139, 143 54 141 139 10, 56, 142, 147 139 31,33,204 23 33 23, 32, 33, 58, 133, 200 30 30 30, 33, 75 30 30 52, 55, 57, 146 56 166 61, 65, 68, 122, 202, 205, 212 75, 122 66, 122, 128 61 64 68 126 65 166 67, 68 64 66 66, 122 65,66,180 66, 121, 122 65 66, 128 88 55 125, 126, 127, 128, 132,211 128 68 69

30.3-5 31

31.1-6 31.3-4 31.3 31.4 31.6 31.7 31.10 31.13 31.14 31.15 31.16 33-37 33.23-29 34

34.1-10 34.2 34.3 34.4 34.5-6 34.5 34.6-10 34.6

69 52, 53, 54 55, 57, 79. 146, 147, 206 72 56 54 53, 54 53 54 54 56 54,56 54 54 115 29 2,4,6, 11, 52, 74, 78, 86, 87, 88, 89, 91, 92, 93, 95, 96, 98, 99, 100, 103, 104, 105, 106, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 117, 118, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 149, 181, 199, 200, 201, 204, 205, 206, 207,211 92,93 120 114, 120, 122 92,93,113 122 88, 121, 122 92 114, 121

Index of Scripture and Ancient Sources Ezekiel — continued 34.7-11 88 114 34.7-10 34.8 88, 120, 122 88 34.10-11 114, 123 34.10 34.11-22 92 34.11-16 123 117 34.11 92, 125 34.12 130 34.13-15 34.13 105, 106, 114, 122 93, 109, 34.14 130 131 34.15 123, 125 34.16 34.17-22 92,93 123 34.17 93 34.18 34.20-22 88 93, 114, 34.22 122, 203 130 34.23-25 88, 91, 92, 34.23-24 93, 115, 126 2,93, 115, 34.23 116, 117, 118 52, 184 34.24 92 34.25-31 116 34.25-30 128, 130 34.25-29 52 34.25-26 88, 117, 34.25 122, 126, 131 52 34.26 122 34.27-28 93, 131 34.27 93 34.28-29 88, 114, 34.28 122, 131 52,58 34.29 93, 114, 34.30 128 114 34.31 184 34.34 36, 37, 49, 36 50, 51, 150, 195,

36.9-10 36.16-38 36.17 36.22-32 36.22-27 36.22 36.24^29 36.25-29 36.25-28 36.25-27

36.25 36.26 36.27 36.36 37

37.1-14

37.1-10 37.1 37.2 37.3 37.4^10 37.4 37.6

196, 197, 202, 205 206 163 169, 182 48, 195 48 27, 48, 49, 50, 52, 195 49, 169 170 167 50, 51, 169, 181, 182, 185, 186, 187, 189, 194, 195, 196, 200, 202, 208,211 51, 182 50, 195 51, 168 36 68, 70, 74, 78, 96, 97, 98, 100, 116, 150, 160, 161, 162, 163, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 200, 202, 201, 203, 205, 206, 208, 210,211 96, 163, 164, 169, 181, 201, 211 70, 162, 164, 171 169 96, 161 96, 161, 163, 164, 201 170 96, 160, 161 168

37.7 37.8 37.9-10 37.9 37.10 37.11-14 37.11-12 37.11 37.12 37.13-14 37.14 37.15-28 37.17 37.19-25 37.19-22 37.19 37.21-27 37.21-26 37.21-22 37.21 37.22-24 37.22 37.23 37.24-28 37.24-25 37.24 37.25-27 37.25 37.26 37.28 38-39 38

229 163 98 165 10, 160, 161, 164, 166 163, 165 70, 162, 164, 171 169 97, 161, 164, 169, 171 98, 160, 162, 165 168 10, 168, 169, 170, 181,201 163, 181, 211 116, 126 167 203 115, 126 126, 203 127 125, 127, 132 126, 127, 211 115 115, 127, 163 32, 33, 130, 169, 170 116 93, 163 115, 116, 118, 125, 127 131 35, 116, 126, 184 131 128, 169 26, 34, 35, 37, 129, 204 34, 35, 36, 37, 176, 204

Echoes of a Prophet

230 38.8 38.13 38.16 38.22 38.23 39 39.7 39.11 39.15 39.16 39.21-29 39.21-22 39.21 39.23

39.28 39.29 40-48 40-47 4(M6 40-41 40 40.1 40.46 43-46 43 43.1-7 43.1-5 43.3 43.6-12 43.6-9 43.7-12 44^*8 44-45 44 44.1 44.3 44.4 44.7-8 44.7 44.9 44.10 44.11 44.13-14 44.15-16 44.15 44.17-27

35 34 36 34 34, 36 27,35 34, 35, 36 37 37 37 26 36 26,34 23, 26, 27, 37, 38, 133, 200 36, 181 36, 168, 182, 185 37, 41, 42, 43,211 72 41, 150 41 37, 41, 68 41 39 179 42,43 47 44, 179 80,85 179 180 180 184 40 38, 39, 42, 212 40 40 85 39 129 129 31, 32, 38, 39 39,40 39 39 31, 37, 38, 39, 42, 62 39

44.17-20 44.22 44.23 44.24 44.25-27 44.28 45^8 45-47 45.1-6 45.8 45.13-25 45.17 46.2 46.6-14 46.18 47

47.1-12

47.1-10 47.1-7 47.1 47.2 47.3-5 47.8-9 47.8 47.9-10 47.9

47.10 47.11-48.35 47.12 47.13 47.21-23 47.21-22 47.21 47.22-23 47.23 48.8-22

39 39 66 39,40 39 40 88, 94 95 41 15,94,206 41 27,40 183 180 94 57, 129, 146, 150, 179, 180, 182, 183, 191, 194, 196, 197, 200, 201, 202, 205, 210,211 39, 172, 177, 179, 180, 186, 189, 191, 193, 194, 195, 208 177 56 178, 183 179 57 178, 181 56, 178, 181, 192 189, 190 56, 178, 179, 180, 181 193 179, 180 56, 181, 196 15, 94 209 15,94,206 94 129, 130 95 41

Daniel 4 4.8-9 7

7.9 7.10 7.13-14 7.13 7.14 7.18 7.22 7.27 8.17 12 12 12.1 12.2

53 53 79, 82, 84 85, 156, 164, 200, 201 82 45, 82, 85 153, 164 164 160 164 164 164 85 163 200 164 160, 163

Hosea 2.8 8.9 10 10.1-2 10.1

62 98 55 57 140, 144

Joel 2.28 [3.1] 2.28-29

155 185, 208

j

3.17-18 3.18 A A

4.4

Amos 5.26-27

9.11

1 7Q

i /y 182 178, 186, 1iyjQC 1 HQ

1 /O

23, 24, 25 33, 59, 75 206 25

Obadiah 1.1

155

Micah 2.12 4.4 5 5.1-3 5.4 [5.3]

125 73 149, 201 2

93

Index of Scripture and Ancient Sources Nahum 1.1 1.15 3.8-10

155 166 69

Zephaniah 1.9 2.9 2

183 57 55

Zechariah 5.1-3 10 10.3 11 11.1-17 11.3 11.15-17 12.10 13 13.1 13.7-9 13.7 13.8-9 14 14.8

14.16-19 14.16-17 14.17-18 14.21 Malachi 3.10

97 104, 149 115 104, 149, 201 113 89 2 182, 184, 185, 186 179 177, 182 2 59,60, 104 60 176, 179, 200, 201 177, 178, 182, 186, 195 185 128 177 95

143, 151

Apocrypha Wisdom of Solomon 7.25-26, 153 Sirach 13.17 18.13 24.12-22 28.12 34.18 43.4 44^9

122 87 146 166 174 166 79

46.12 47.3 49.8 49.10 49.8 50.8

98 87 79 96, 97, 98, 171 79, 80, 98 143

2 Maccabees 6-7

98

4 Maccabees 1.1 18 18.17

96 96, 201 96, 171

1.3-4 1.12-13 1.12 1.14 1.17 1.18 1.23 1.32-33 1.33 1.35-51 1.41 1.45 1.49 1.51

New Testament Matthew 1.17 1.21 3.16 7.15 9.36 10.16 19.2 26.31

192 107 151 122 11 122 126 175

Mark 1.10 6.34 11.17 13.14

151 11 109 192

Luke 3.21-22 5.10 7.24 10.3 19.46 20.17 20.41^3 21.6 22.20 22.37 24.1 24.2

151 194 175 122 175 175 175 174 170 175 161 161

John 1 1.1-3 1.1

137 153 176

2.7-9 2.17-21 2.17 2.19-20 2.19-21 2.21 3

3.3 3.3-8 3.5

3.6 3.8 3.13 3.34 3.34-35 4

4.10-15 4.10-14 4.10 4.13-14

4.14

231 167 128 121, 173 107, 150, 154 107 153, 157, 159, 184 175 170, 196 107 208 208 208 208 21, 150157, 160, 184, 199, 201,202, 203, 208, 210 172 150 175 154 185 184 186, 187, 188, 189, 195,211 157, 159, 188 170 172, 186188, 195, 196, 208, 210 187 170 157, 159 170 175 186, 188, 189, 195, 211 172 196 188, 195 107, 175, 186, 188, 195 188, 208, 210

232 4.21-24 4.21 4.23-25 4.23-24 4.23 5

5.1-15 5.1-3 5.3 5.5-9 5.5-6 5.7 5.8 5.16-18 5.17-23 5.17 5.19-48 5.19-29 5.19-20 5.21-29 5.21 5.22 5.24^-25 5.24 5.25-28 5.25-26 5.25 5.26-27 5.27-29 5.27 5.28 5.29 5.30-32 5.37 6 6.1 6.9-11 6.23 6.37-40 6.38 6.39 6.45 6.46 6.63

Echoes of a Prophet 150 188 184 170 188, 196 21, 134, 163, 165, 166, 171, 210 161 161 161 165 162 172 162 161 117 162, 163 161 200, 201, 208 162 171 161, 162, 164, 165, 208, 210 164 208 164, 165 160, 167, 201 162 161, 162, 163, 165 117 162 164 161, 162 163 117 117, 157, 159 161 193 193 193 165 117 173 175 157, 159 170

7-10 7-9 7 7.5 7.12 7.13 7.23-24 7.24 7.25-26 7.25 7.26-27 7.31 7.32 7.37-39

7.37-38 7.37 7.38-39 7.38 7.39 7.40-43 7.42 7.44-45 7.45-52 7.45-46 7.47-53 7.47-52 7.48 7.50-52 8 8.12-59 8.12-30 8.12 8.15 8.20 8.28-29 8.28 8.37-38 8.45 8.56 8.59

100, 103 107, 150 101, 188, 189,211 101 101 101 107 103, 107 101 108 101 101 101, 107, 108 107, 150, 155, 169, 172, 177, 185-189, 194, 195, 196, 200, 201, 208, 210 173 175, 185 178 174^179, 183, 210, 211 175, 184, 186, 194, 196, 197 101 117 101 107 101 121 101 108 108 101, 102 101 101 101 103, 107 101 101, 117 155 101 173, 174 153, 157 101

9-10 9 9.14-16 9.24 9.34 9.39-41 10

10.1-33 10.1-30 10.1-9 10.1-6 10.1-2 10.1 10.2-4 10.3-4 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.7-9 10.8-10 10.8-9 10.8 10.9-10 10.9 10.10-16 10.10

161 106, 121, 123 107 107 107 102 2, 6, 8, 11, 13, 100, 101, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 110, 111, 112, 113, 115, 117, 118, 119, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 131, 132, 133, 134, 145, 146, 148, 149, 183, 199, 201, 206, 207, 211 101 20, 100, 111, 184 13, 103, 106, 107, 111 103, 108 107, 111 104, 108, 120 124 203, 207 114, 115 105 120 108 114 110 109, 114, 120 130, 207 103, 105, 114, 130 111 109, 120

Index of Scripture and Ancient Sources John - continued 10.11 114, 118, 202 10.12-13 114, 121 10.12 122, 126 10.13-14 114 10.14 114, 115, 176, 207 10.15-17 207 117 10.15 110, 114, 10.16 115, 116, 122, 125, 126, 127, 130, 167, 203, 207 10.17-18 - 119, 202 117, 126, 10.17 130 117 10.18 117 10.24 117 10.25 10.26-29 165 10.26-27 110, 123, 124, 127, 130 114,207 10.26 111 10.27-30 104, 111, 10.27 114, 115, 207 132 10.28-30 117, 131 10.28-29 124, 131, 10.28 207 117, 132 10.29 117 10.30 175 10.34-35 118 10.36-38 117 10.37-38 118 10.38 11 112, 131 165 11.24-25 165 11.38-44 108 11.47-50 121 11.47-48 100, 110, 11.51-52 122, 125, 126, 127, 130, 163, 184, 201, 202, 207

11.52

12 12.10-11 12.16 12.19 12.24 12.38-40 12.40 12.41 13.3-17 13.12-17 13.21-30 13.36-37 13.37 13.38 14.16-20 14.25-26 15

15.1-10 15.1-3 15.1 15.2-3 15.2 15.4 15.5-6 15.5 15.6 15.7 15.13 15.21-25 15.22 15.24 15.26 16.7

114, 126, 127, 132, 167, 203, 211 156 121 155 121 143 175 152, 157 152, 213 172, 196 196 142 132 119 119 170 170 15, 16, 19, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 199, 201, 202, 207, 211 20, 100, 136 135, 136, 143 14, 140 141 135, 136, 142, 143, 173 136 136 136, 140 10, 141, 142, 147, 203 136 119 142 102 102 175 175

16.13-15 17.2 18.19-21 18.35 18.39-40 19.30 19.34

19.37 20.19-20 20.19 20.21 20.21-23 20.21-22 20.22

20.31 21 21.1-11

21.1 21.3 21.6 21.8 21.9 21.11 21.13 21.15-17

233 170 173 108 111 108 185 172,175 184, 189 195, 196 201, 208 210 182,185 169 169 167 170 167 10, 21, 107, 155 165-168, 171, 175 188, 189 196, 200 201, 206 208, 210 167, 211 132, 191 194 189, 191 193, 194 195, 201 210 193 193 193 192 192 21 194 100, 131 132, 201

Acts 7.56 8.7 20.29

151 174 122

Romans 8.26

173

2 Corinthians 12.1-7 158

234

Echoes of a Prophet

Colossians 2.16-19, 159

70-71 71 71.1-2 71.7 71.14^16 85-90 86.4 88.3 89-90

Hebrews 1.3 4.8 10.27 12.29

153 107 141 141

1 John 1.8 3.1 3.2 3.10 3.16 5.2 5.8

102 128 128 128 119 128 126

Revelation 2.26 3.12 3.21 4.1-11 4.1-4 11.2 13.18 21-22

173 173 173 156 158 110 192 42

Pseudepigrapha 1 Enoch 9.8-9 12.4^14.7 14

14.8-25 14.18-20 14.21 14.8-9 15-36 39-40 39 39.2-40 39.2 39.12-40.2 39.12 40 40.1-2 40.3 61

88 82 46, 47, 79, 83, 84, 158, 200, 201 79,81 82 83 82 81 79,83 201 81 79 84 84 47 84 84 47

89.14^-20 89.14 89.17-18 89.22 89.28 89.36 89.41-42 89.42-49 89.42 89.43 89.45-49 89.47 89.51-53 89.54 89.55 89.58 89.59 89.59-90.5 89.59-72 89.59-66 89.66 89.72 90.1-2 90.4-5 90.6-19 90.9-10 90.10-12 90.13-14 90.21-27 90.21 90.22-25 90.24 90.25-26 90.28-29 90.30-33 90.30 90.31 90.32

20 21

47,79 47

85 85

2 Baruch 10.8

109

88 88

3 Baruch 2

79

4 Baruch 4.4^5

109

4 Ezra 3.14

153

Jubilees 44.1

40

81, 84 79, 201 79,85 87,98

6, 86, 87, 90, 95, 96, 98, 133, 201 88 87 89 87 87 87 89 91 87 87 89 87 89 87 87 89

88,90

89 87 90 90 87 90

96,98,171 88 89 87 90 88 88

89,90 88 90 88 90 134 87

90,99,134

2 Enoch

20-21

79

Life of Adam and Eve 79 25 28 79 Lives of the Prophets 3 97 3.12 96, 97, 171, 206 Psalms of Solomon 17 6, 15, 18, 91, 92, 93. 94, 95, 96, 99, 133, 134, 201, 203, 204, 205, 209 17.1-3 92 17.4 92 17.5-20 92, 93 17.16-18 92 17.16 92 17.17 92 17.18 92 17.21-44 86,92 17.21 92, 93, 94 17.22-25 93 17.22 95 17.23 95 17.24 95 17.25 95 17.26 92 17.27 93 17.28 15, 93, 94, 95, 206

Index of Scripture and Ancient Sources Psalms of Solomon continued 17.29 95 17.32 91, 92, 95 17.34 92 17.35 95 17.40 93 17.41 15, 93, 94, 95 92 17.42 93,95 17.43 92 17.45 Testament of Levi 79 2 2.3-4 81 2.5 81 2.7-3.6 81 5 79 5.1 79,81 Testament of Moses 109 6.6 Testament of Zebulon 109 11.16-17 Apocalypsi » of Abraham 18 79,81 Ascension of Isaiah 47,79 6

Dead Sea Scrolls 1Q9 (Ezekiel) 22 1QH (Hodayot) 16, 48, 51, 1QH 74, 149 206 8 104 10.27 49 12.34-37 49, 50, 195 12.38 146, 148, 14 149, 206 49 14.3-9 49 14.5 49 14.7-8 27, 49, 50, 14.10 76, 195 49 14.14-19

14.14—18 14.14-17 14.15-16 14.15 14.16 15.26-27 16 16.2-24 16.4-21 16.4-13 16.5-21 16.5-20 16.5-7 16.5 16.7 16.9-10 16.10-11 16.12 16.13 16.16-24 16.16 16.17 16.19 16.20 16.21-26 16.21-23 16.21-22 16.22-26 16.22-24 16.22 18.12-17 18.12ff 18.21 20.11 20.32-21.18 21.6-7 21.6 21.10-13 21.10-11 21.12-13

52, 53, 76 49, 53, 54 147 72 147 148 146, 147, 148, 149 76 55 196 56 52 58 197 147, 196 147 197 196 196 58,86 148, 196, 197 178, 186 147 147 148, 197 148 196 147 50 147 86 58 29 50 49 27,49,195 50 76 50, 195 50, 195

1QM (War Scroll) 29, 204 1QM 37 1.1-6 30 1.1-2 23, 30, 1.2-3 33, 75, 76 40,76 2.3^ 27 2.4 41 3.11

235

7.4 10.1-12.18 11.1-7 11.8-9 11.9-10 11.14 11.15-18 11.15-17 11.15 11.18 12.11 15.2 15.13 16.1

41 36 35 37 36 35,76 36 34 36 37 37 37 37 37

lQpHab

109

IQS (Community Rule) 1.12 40 2.24 64 3.7-9 51, 187, 195 3.7-8 76, 202 64 4.1 4.20-22 51, 76, 187, 196 202 64 8.5 64 11.7-10 2Q24 (New Jerusalem) 76 2Q24 41 1.1 8,41 fr. 3 41 fr. 8 41 fr. 4 3Q1, 4Q73-75 22 (Ezekiel) 4Q174 (Florilegium) 4Q174 23,65 31 1.14-17 31 1.15-16 31 1.15 1.16-17 22,31 1.16 33,77 4Q252

191

4Q385-391 (PseudoEzekiel) 68 4Q385-391

Echoes of a Prophet

236 4Q385 1.1 1.2 1.2-3 2.1 2.2-3 2.3 2.4 2.5-8 2.5 2.8 2.9 2.10 3.3-6 3.5-6 3.7 4.9 4.11 4.12 10.3-4 12.3 12.4 fr. 65 4Q386 2.1-11 2.1 2.2 3.1-3 4Q391

69, 70, 71, 72, 77, 171 69, 72 72 69 73 73 70, 73 72 70 72 70,73 70 70 73 71 73 71 71 71 72 73 72 72 71,73 71,72 72 69 72

4Q400-407 (Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice) 4Q400-407 42 4Q405 158, 160 20.5-14 43 20.7-12 43-47, 77, 155, 156 20.7-9 46 20.8-9 46 20.8 46 20.9 46 71 20.10 20.11 46 20.12 46 4Q424 (A Sapiential Work) 4Q424 61, 66, 68, 202, 204 1.1 77 1.2 66 1.3 67

1.4-5

67,68

11Q4 (Ezekiel) 22 4QpNah (Pesher on Nahum) 109 1.11 11Q14 (Benediction) 52 11Q14 1.7 52,77 11Q17 (Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice) 11Q17 42 CD (Damascus Document) 1.2 26 26 1.3-2.1 204 1.3-6 1.3-5 26 1.3-4 23, 26, 27, 28, 76, 133, 200 1.4 38 1.5-6 27, 33, 76 62 1.14 3.10-20 38 3.10-11 38 3.12 28 3.16-17 23, 27, 28, 33, 50, 76 3.17 29,38 3.18 28, 29 3.19 29 3.20 38 3.21-4.6 22, 37, 76 3.21-4.2 37,38 3.21-4.1 28 3.21 22, 28, 37, 38, 39, 42, 62 4.2-4 38 4.4 38 4.5-21 61 4.5 38 4.17-18 61,62,205 4.19 61,76,202 4.20-21 39 6.1 66 6.2-11 65 6.5 24

6.6 6.11-21 6.15-17 6.16-17 6.17-19 6.17 6.19 . 7.14-19 7.14-15 7.15-18 7.18-20 7.18 7.21 8.1-9 8.3 8.12-18 8.13 8.18-19 8.21 10.17 11.3-4 12.11-23 13.14-15 19.5-6 19.7-14 19.7-11 19.9-10 19.11-13 19.13 19.16-23 19.24-31 19.24 19.29 19.30-32 19.31-32 19.31 19.32-34 19.33-20.27 19.33-35 19.33 19.34 19.35 20.3^ 20.11 20.12

66 66 66 66 66 65, 66, 76 202 24 24 23-25, 33, 204, 206 25 25 24 25 62 29 62, 76, 202, 205 63 63, 68 24 39 39 39 40 60 61 59 60 22, 60, 74, 76, 204 60 62 62, 76, 202 65 63 63, 205 68 65 63 63 200 12, 27, 63 24, 205 27, 64, 65, 76, 202 64, 65, 68, 76, 202, 205 29

24

Index of Scripture and Ancient Sources Masada Masld (Ezekiel) 22 Maslk (Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice) 42

Rabbinic Writings and Targumim

t. Sukkah 3 3.3-12 3.5-9 3.13 3.18 3.3-10 3.9-10 3.9

176 177 179 177 177 177 178, 179 192

Targum on Genesis 28.12 153

b. Megillah 31a

176

Menahot 13.18-22 14.5-6

109 109

Targum on 1 Samuel 109 2.17 109 2.29

Midrash Rabbah 44.22 153 154 49.3

Targum on Jeremiah 23.11 109 6.13 109 109 7.9 109 8.10

Peshikta Rabbati 176 52.4.6 52.7 89, 185

Targum on Ezekiel 144 17.22-24 179 47.8

Pirq de Rabbi Eleazar 192 51 Sukkah 176 1.1-2.4 176 4.9 176 5.3-4 b. Sukkah 5.48b 5.53a 5.55a 5.55b

176 176 176 89, 185

Yalkut Simeoni Ezek. 192 383 (47) Other Ancient Works Epistle of Barnabas 109 16.5 Augustine Homilies on the Gospel of John 189 7.10

237

contra Faustunt 12.26 152 Irenaeus Adv. Haer. 2.24

192

Josephus Antiquities 3.245-47 8.100 8.123 10.8.3§141 11.154-57 13.241-47 13.372-73 15.50 20.8.8§181

176 176 176 78 176 176 176 176 109 122 20.9.2§206-07 109 122 Origen Comm. Io. Frag. 36

187

Philo Agr. 79 4.17 Spec. Leg. II. 176 213 Philostratus Vita Apolonii 2,24

174

Xenophon Historia Graeca 174 4, 1, 24

INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS Abegg, M. 25,32,33,34 Ackroyd, P. 190 Allen, L. 34, 37, 87, 88, 116, 123, 129, 138, 143, 178, 183 Allison, D. 6, 7, 177 Anderson, G. 24 Atkinson, K. 91, 92, 93, 94 Badcock, F. 173, 176 Barr, J. 17 Barrett, C. 161, 162, 165, 187 Beale, G. 6, 7,9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15 Beasley-Murray, G. 4, 128, 155, 162, 167, 177, 187, 195 Berding, K. 10, 12 Bernard, J. 108, 109 Beutler, J. 101, 104, 118 Black, M. 91 Blenkinsopp, J. 174 Borgen, P, 157 Boyer, C. 189 Brady, M. 43 Brawley, R. 12 Breck, J. 168, 169, 170, 188, 195 Brooke, G. 24, 31, 32, 33, 62, 70, 191, 193, 194 Brown, R. 103, 107, 110, 116, 118, 119, 120, 121, 124, 127, 128, 150, 151, 152, 153, 155, 162, 166, 167, 170, 174, 175, 176, 184, 187, 190, 191, 193, 194, 195 Brownlee, H. 24, 83, 179 Bruce, F. 117 Bruns, J. 107 Budd, P. 106 Bultmann, R. 4, 190 Burch, V. 184 Burney, C. 184 Busse, U. 154, 185

Calvin, J. 117 Cardwell, K. 190, 192 Carson, D. 7, 17, 117, 173, 174, 175, 177, 184 Charles, R. 84, 89, 91, 109 Charlesworth, J. 83, 179 Chilton, B. 9, 10 Chyutin, M. 41 Cook, E. 32 Cortes, J. 173, 174, 175 Craigie, P. 136 Dahl, N. 157 Daise, M. 7 Danielou, J. 194 Davila, J. 43 DeConick, A. 157 Deeley, M. 100, 115, 117, 121 Dimant, D. 70, 71, 72 Dodd, C. 11, 103, 106, 123 Dods, M. 162 Drinkard, J. 136 Dunn, J. 157, 175 Durlesser, J. 1, 87, 88 Edersheim, A. 176 Eichrodt, W. 88, 114, 116, 117, 123, 138, 168, 170, 183 Emerton, J. 189, 190, 191, 192 Evans, C. 5, 8, 10, 14, 24, 83, 100, 103, 109, 133, 140, 150 Fee, G. 174, 175 Fikes, B. 2, 87, 92, 106, 114, 117, 118 Fowler, W. 2, 3, 5, 20, 150, 177 Freed, E. 2, 5, 13, 173, 176 Fujita, S. 2 Goppelt, L.

17, 172

239

Index of Modern Authors Grassi, J. 162 Gray, G. 106 Grigsby, B. 176, 177, 179, 185, 190, 191, 193 Gruenwald, I. 43, 79, 81, 83, 86, 157, 158, 159 Guilding, A. 117, 190 Halperin, D. 43, 45, 71, 79, 81, 83, 86, 156, 157, 158, 159 Hanson, A. 133 Harris, J. 184 Hatina, T. 170, 175, 176 Hays, R. 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 133, 206 Heil, J. 127 Himmelfarb, M. 159 Hodges, Z. 173, 174, 175, 176, 185 Hollander, J. 3, 13 Holm-Nielsen, S. 53 Hooke, S. 174 Hultberg, A. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 Huntzinger, J. 9, 10, 11, 88, 123, 212 Johnson, D. 6,7,154,155,157 Joyce, P. 18, 95, 116 Jungkuntz, R. 118 Kanagaraj, J. 43, 71, 79, 155, 157, 158, 159 Kee, H. 137, 146 Kelley, P. 136 Kiefer, D. 106 Knapp, H. 176, 177 Koester, C. 103, 107, 117, 119, 132, 150, 172, 177, 183, 184, 191, 192, 195 Kruse, H. 190, 191, 192 Kuhn, K. 173, 174 Lampe, G. 16, 17 Levey, S. 144, 179, 186, 192 Lewis, A. 184 Lindars, B. 7, 17, 81, 117, 154, 155, 173, 174, 187, 195 Luzarraga, J. 114 Lyon, R. 170 McEleney, N. 190, 192 McNamara, M. 153 Maher, M. 153

Marcus, J. 184 Marshall, I. 17 Mathews, S. 9 Meeks, W. 7,157 Menken, M. 2, 174, 177, 184 Metzger, B. 120 Meyer, P. 108 Morris, L. 119, 140, 142, 167, 173, 185, 187 Moyise, S. 7, 15 Nash, S. 7 Neirynck, F. 193 Nestle, E. 173 Newman, C. 153 Newsom, C. 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 Ng, W.-Y. 172, 175, 176, 177, 182, 184, 186, 187 Nielsen, K. 11, 118, 133, 141 Nurmela, R. 2 Odeberg, H. 157 Olson, D. 106 Owen, O. 190, 192 Paulien, J.

3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14

Quasten, J. 113 Quispel, G. 157 Du Rand, J. 100 Reim, G. 2 Robinson, A. 105, 107, 114, 120 Romeo, J. 190 Ross, A. 166 Ross, J. 190 Rowland, C. 2, 157 Sandmel, S. 4, 5, 14 Schafer, P. 159 Schnackenburg, R. 2, 117, 150, 162, 167, 170, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 179, 184, 187 Schneider, J. 107 Schuchard, B. 2, 15 Scott, J. 25,89 Scott, M. 139 Segal, A. 157 Sheehan, J. 132 Skinner, J. 166, 167 Somerville, J. 175

240

Echoes of a Prophet

Soucek, J. 101, 103, 108 Steudel, A. 31, 32, 191 Stevenson, K. 180 Swetnam, J. 170, 175 Thompson, M. 162, 184, 196 Torrey, C. 97 Trudinger, P. 190 Turner, C. 173 Turner, J. 104 Vancil, J. 2,88,111,123 Vander Hoek, G. 7 VanderKam, J. 22, 39, 40, 43, 62, 89, 90 Vermes, G. 28, 31, 42, 61, 67

Vogelgesang, J. 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 41, 42, 79, 81, 82, 83, 84, 158 Wallace, D. 175 Watts, J. 137 Wenham, G. 167 Williamson, H. 7,17,117 Winsor, A. 7 Wise, M. 32 Woods, M. 2 Woollcombe, K. 16, 17 Yadin, Y.

30,37,40,41

Zimmerli, W. 27, 34, 37, 38, 39, 62, 64, 89, 116, 123, 129, 141, 180, 183, 197