¹ Fohrer, Georg, Die Hauptprobleme des Buches Ezechiel, Zeitschrift für alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, Beihefte 72, 1952, p. 91Google Scholar.

² The Problem of Ezekiel, University of Chicago Press, 1943, pp. 139 f.Google Scholar

³ An American Commentary on the Old Testament, American Baptist Publication Society, 1939.Google Scholar

⁴ See my Th. thesis, M., Major Critical Problems in the Book of Ezekiel, Pittsburgh-Xenia Theological Seminary, 1946, pp. 106–110Google Scholar; also my Ph.D. thesis, The Book of Ezekiel — the Original Prophet and the Editors, Duke University, 1947, pp. 297–318.Google Scholar

⁵ As almost a universal rule in the Hebrew Old Testament, the combination אדני יהזה is not original, the former word being introduced as a gloss and surrogate for the latter. Later, the Masoretes, who failed to understand this, vocalized both words; but in order to avoid repetitiousness they had to depart from their usual practice of supplying the vowels for adonai for the Tetragrammaton and employ in these cases those of elohim. In the present verse some Greek MSS fail to attest אדני.

⁶ LXX^A which reads αὐτοις would support the omission of לרעים. However LXX^B and the Vulgate might be cited in favor of the reading of לרעים without אליהם.

⁷ In the MT, “Their fat ye eat”; but the LXX's vocalization of חלב as “milk” seems more probable. Both sheep and goats as members of the “flock' are still milked in Palestine. From the sheep milk is made a mild and delicious white cheese either firm so as to require slicing or soft so that it can be spread.

⁸ In that case one should translate in harmony with this scansion:

Their milk ye drink indeed,

Their wool ye wear indeed,

The flock ye do not tend!

A common characteristic of the third member of a tristich line is to sum up the first two, rather than introduce a new parallelistic term.

⁹ But one must vocalize uvaḥ^azāqāh for MT uv^eḥozqāh, after the Greek.

¹⁰ If one adopts the 2/2/2 scansion, for the sake of regularity, he could omit the last word of verse 4, and translate:

The diseased ye strengthened not,

The sick ye healed not,

The broken ye bound not!

The banished ye restored not,

The lost ye sought not,

The strong ye oppressed!

That in any case the verse is to be read as tristichs rather than distichs is to be seen by the fact that the parallelism lies between the second and third and between the fourth and fifth clauses rather than between the third and fourth stichs as required by the distich division. An interesting commentary on this verse in reverse is. verse 16, which beginning with the next to the last clause of verse 4 proceeds in reverse order in building up the antitheses. It moves back into verse 3 singling out the one item suspected as an interpolation (perhaps by this editor) and then concludes with an antithesis to the final clause of verse 4.

¹¹ Cf. the placement of the maqqeph by the MT. Twenty MSS of Kennicott omit the sign of the accusative in verse 7 also.

¹² There is Greek testimony for the omission of אדני. Cf. also note 5 above. The introductory clause כה אמר יהזה is adjustable to metrical context as either a two-beat or a three-beat stich.

¹³ Restoring “my” (צאני) with Greek and Syriac.

¹⁴ Cf. 6:3 and 34:20. Literally this should be rendered, “Behold me, I myself”; but this overburdens the meter in English.

¹⁵ The author deeply appreciates the kind words of Irwin, W. A. in his article “Ezekiel Research since 1943,” Vetus Testamentum, Vol. III, No. 1, 1953, pp. 54–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar, in which he states (p. 66): “… his findings constitute the one serious threat as yet presented to my analysis.”

¹⁶ This interpolated material (reproducing in part the language of verse 10) is to be rejected on rhythmic grounds. Though the Hebrew is awkward, it might be translated: “Behold me! It is I myself; and I will require my flock and seek them.”

¹⁷ Or better, “flock” consisting of both sheep and goats; but the Hebrew has two words for flock here, whereas English has no synonym but the inaccurate “sheep.”

¹⁸ Jeremiah, Chronologically arranged, translated, and interpreted, Abingdon Press, 1954, pp. 296 f. The following translation is that of Leslie, with the italics my own. Independent of Leslie, I had already reached this interpretation of Jeremiah.

¹⁹ Cf. Herbert G. May in Interpreter's Bible, Vol. 6, p. 251: “The closest analogies of the passage are postexilic in date. … The diction and ideology, with the picture of the Davidic Messiah and the doctrine of the new covenant, point to the editor as most probable author.”

²⁰ The present poem is exceptional in that it consists entirely of tristichs. Ezekiel frequently varies his strophic and metrical pattern within a single poem.

²¹ For a poem with heavy glossing, see Brownlee, , “Exorcising the Souls from Ezekiel 13:17–23,” Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. LXIX, Part IV, 1950, pp. 367–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²² It is not the conservative character of conclusions which proves them correct, however, but the validity of the analysis and the correctness of the interpretations.

²³ The pre-exilic prophets afford many examples of poetic oracles of doom being later supplemented by poetic oracles of hope. The fact that the poetry continues throughout the chapter, with various degrees of glossing, does not prove the unity of the chapter. A similar situation of hope supplements to doom material exists elsewhere in the Book of Ezekiel.

²⁴ One searches in vain for anything in Ezekiel as directly relevant to the Exiles as Jeremiah 29. This is most strange if Ezekiel was all the while in the Exile. Only an editorial framework places Ezekiel in the Exile. All his oracles are addressed to Judaeans and Jerusalemites in the home country, to whom he was appointed as a watchman to warn them of approaching doom.

²⁵ Whereas we interpret the “shepherds” as civil rulers, perhaps this is a cultic term inclusive of false prophets as well. Cf. Isaiah 56:11.

²⁶ The translation distinguishes three-beat rhythm from two-beat by indenting the latter further to the right.

²⁷ This is a common editorial introduction, perhaps from Ezekiel.

²⁸ The vocative “Son of man” is here treated as an anacrusis. Metrical context determines whether it stands within or without the rhythmical lines.