Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T18:49:48.917Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ezekiel 8:17: A Fresh Examination

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 August 2011

Nahum M. Sarna
Nahum M. Sarna
Affiliation:
Jewish Theological Seminary of America New York
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The theological crisis in Judea occasioned by the destruction of the Temple in the year 587 B.C.E. left its indelible imprint upon the contemporary literature. The conflict between the popular belief in the inviolability of the House of God and the stark reality of the national catastrophe raised fundamental questions about the nature of God and divine justice. The books of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Habakkuk, in particular, bear repeated testimony to the pervasive urgency of the problem. Once the inevitability of the fall became an ineradicable conviction in the prophetic consciousness, the need for an explanation became no less imperious than if the disaster were already an accomplished fact.

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 57 , Issue 4 , October 1964 , pp. 347 - 352
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1964

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 On the theological crisis, see J. Bright, A History of Israel (1959), pp. 311f., 315ff.; Y. Kaufmann, Toledoth, III, 369–92; The Religion of Israel, ed. Greenberg (1960), pp. 401–09; 426ff. The situation was not dissimilar from that confronting Christianity at the fall of Rome, on which see S. Dill, Roman Society in the Last Century of the Western Empire (1958), pp. 59–73.

2 For the imaginary nature of chaps. 8–11 see Kaufmann, Toledoth, III, 499–505; The Religion of Israel, ed. Greenberg, p. 430.

3 Cf. chaps. 6–7 (esp. 7:23); 16 (esp. 36,38); 18 (esp. 5ff.); 22 (esp. 2–4, 6–7, 9, 12f., 25, 27, 29); 23 (esp. 37,45,49); 33 (esp. 25f.); 36 (esp. 16–18).

4 On the variants חםם/˝דםים in Ezek. 9:9, see the remarks of Kimchi and Minḥhath Shai, ad loc. Note, also, 7:23, in which both terms are used. On the general question of synonymous variants in MT, see S. Talmon, Textus, I (1960), 144–84.

5 Gordis, R., JTS 37 (1936), 284–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kaufmann, Toledoth, III, 484, n.6; The Religion of Israel, ed. Greenberg, p. 429, n.8 have convincingly refuted the cultic explanation of the passage. L. Koehler, Lexicon (1948), p. 259, s.v. הרוםז, has included the baresma association, despite the overwhelming arguments against it brought by Spiegel, S., HTR 24 (1931), 298–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar; JBL 54 (1935). 152–59– See further n.10 below.

6 Spiegel, JBL 54 (193s), 157, n.33.

7 Cf., 5:8, 11; 8:18; 9:10; 16:43; 20:15, 23, 25; 21:22; 24:9. See further note 9 below.

8 On this point, see further in connection with the interpretation of םפאֿלא

9 Cf., also, 11:21; 22:31; 36:19, and n.7 above.

10 See above, n.5. It should be noted that the cultic explanation is supported neither by the versions (on which see G. A. Cooke, Commentary, ICC [1937], ad loc.) nor by the medieval Jewish commentaries (for a summary of which see E. Ben-Yehuda, Thesaurus, III, 1350, n.1). Saggs, H. W. F., JTS, N.S. 11 (1960), 318–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who sees in the phrase a reference to a ritual gesture connected with the sun-cult, has brought no effective arguments in favor of a ritual interpretation and has virtually ignored those against it.

11 C. Gordon, Ugaritic Manual (1955), 20.529. This root has been ignored both by Charles-F. Jean, Dictionnaire des Inscriptions Sémitiques de L'Ouest (1954), and by his reviser, J. Hoftijzer (1960).

12 Samaria Ostracon 12, 2–3.

13 Probably to be read הידמז; see M. Noth, Die Israelitischen Personennamen (1928), p. 242, No. 438.

14 Ibid., p. 176 and n.3.

15 Koehler, Lexicon, p. 260, II הדמז, III דמז.

16 Ibid.; Tur-Sinai, Ha-Lashon veha-Sefer, I (1954), 51; Encyclopedia Biblica [Hebrew], II, 933.

17 Ben-Yehuda, op. cit., III, 1363f., n.6; T. H. Gaster, Expository Times 48 (1936–37), 45; U. Cassuto, Commentary to Exodus (1954), ad loc; Koehler, op. cit.; F. M. Cross and D. N. Freedman, JNES 14 (1955). 243.

18 Freedman, ibid., note 6; Tur-Sinai, op. cit.; Commentary to Job [Hebrew] (1954), p. 297.

19 Tur-Sinai, ibid.

20 Ibid. I would also suggest Ps. 119:54 ךיקח יל ויה חודמז as another example, translating, “your statutes were a (source of) strength to me.”

21 J. Aistleitner, Ignace Goldziher Memorial Volume, I (1948), 223; U. Cassuto, The Goddess Anath [Hebrew] (1953), p. 46; Gordon, op. cit.

22 Anat II (= VAB, β), lines 14–15, 28, 34–35.

23 Ibid., lines 21–22.

24 Since ḏmr in the Ugaritic texts is always singular, it would be regarded as a collective.

25 With the use of דודג in these passages, cf. the inscription of Azitawadda of Adana I, l.15 ʼšm rʻm bʻl ʼgddm. “evil men, gang-leaders.”

26 Cf. Amos 2:6–7; 5:11–12; 8:4–6; Micah 2:8–9; 3:2–3, 10; 6:10–12; 7:2–3. Incidentally, the prophets are describing what was known in India as “thuggee.”

27 See n.3.

28 Cf. Num. 30:15 םןיֿלא םןימ with Ps. 96:2 םןיל םןימ 2 Sam. 18:4 דעש דיֿלא with Prov. 8:3 םידעש דיל; 2 Kings 21:16 הפל הפמ with Ezra 9:11 הפֿלא הפמ; Ps. 104:29 ןובושי םדפע ֿלאו with 146:4 וחמראל בשי; 1 Chr. 9:25 תעֿלא תעמ with Mishnaic תעל תעמ (e.g., M. Giṭṭin III. 8).

29 Note the further analogy of v. 5 ומעז ילכ with Ezek. 9:1 ותחשמ ילכ, 2 ועפמ ילכ

30 For a thorough elucidation of the rabbinic traditions about the “corrections of the Scribes,” see S. Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (1962), pp. 28–37, esp. 33.

31 Symmachus, Aquila, Peshitta and Targum, all read םפא.

32 Cf. Ezek. 18:6 םיההֿלא with v. 15 םירההֿלע.

33 With Ezek. 8:17 ינםיעכהל, cf. Jer. 32:30, םיםיעכמ, 32 ינםיעכהל.