John W. Olley Ezekiel a Commentary Based on Iezekiēl in Codex Vaticanus 2009

8/9/2019 John W. Olley Ezekiel a Commentary Based on Iezekiēl in Codex Vaticanus 2009

1/600


2/600

Ezekiel


3/600

Septuagint Commentary Series

Editors

Stanley E. PorterRichard S. Hess

John Jarick


4/600

Ezekiel

A Commentary based on Iezekiēl in

Codex Vaticanus

By

John W. Olley

LEIDEN • BOSTON2009


5/600

ISSN 1572–3755ISBN 978 90 04 17713 0

Copyright 2009 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing,IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated,stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permissionfrom the publisher.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted byKoninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly toThe Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910,Danvers, MA 01923, USA.Fees are subject to change.

PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Olley, John W. ( John William), 1938–

Ezekiel : a commentary based on Iezekiel in Codex Vaticanus / by John W. Olley. p. cm. — (Septuagint commentary series, ISSN 1572-3755) Includes bibliographical references and indexes. ISBN 978-90-04-17713-0 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Bible. O.T. Ezekiel—Commentaries. 2. Bible. O.T. Ezekiel—Criticism, Textual.I. Bible. O.T. Ezekiel. Greek. Septuagint. 2009. II. Bible. O.T. Ezekiel. English. Olley.2009. III. Title. IV. Series.

BS1545.53.O45 2009 224’.404877—dc22

2009014843


6/600

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements ................................................................................ viiAbbreviations .......................................................................................... ix

Introduction ............................................................................................. 31. Opening and Reading Ezekiel ..................................................... 32. Text and Provenance .................................................................... 7

3. The Translation of Ezekiel ........................................................... 124. The Language of Ezekiel .............................................................. 175. The Use and Interpretation of Ezekiel ...................................... 316. Divisions in the Text ..................................................................... 397. The Greek Text and Translation in this Commentary ........... 61

Ezekiel: Text of Codex Vaticanus and Translation ........................... 65

Commentary ............................................................................................ 229The Vision of God’s Glory (chs. 1–11) ............................................ 230Woe to Israel and Jerusalem (chs. 12–24) ...................................... 300Oracles Against Nations (chs. 25–32) .............................................. 409‘Lord Will Renew Israel’ (chs. 33–39) .............................................. 461Vision of Temple and Land (chs. 40–48) ........................................ 507

Bibliography ............................................................................................ 543

Greek Words Index ................................................................................. 561Modern Author Index ............................................................................ 563Scripture Index ....................................................................................... 567


7/600


8/600

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Writing on a text over two thousand years old and using a manuscriptover sixteen hundred years old lead to an awareness of countless scholarswho have gone before. There is a sense of wonder and gratefulness forall their endeavours and insights. Most are unknown while others arenamed through their writings as is evident in the bibliography. In somecases I have had direct personal contact and these I wish to acknowledge

with thanks.Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana provided digital images of Codex Vati-

canus (subsequently I have had access to the excellent 1999 facsimile edi-tion), La Fundación Pastor de Estudios Clásicos and the Spanish BibliotecaNacional supplied photographs of P.Matr.bibl.1 (portion of P967) whileDr Robert Daniel, Curator of the Papyrus-Sammlung, Institut für Alter-tumskunde, Universität zu Köln, enabled me to examine their portionsof P967. Librarians at Murdoch University and Vose Seminary in Perth,

The Dalton McCaughey Library, Melbourne, Moore College, Sydney andTyndale House, Cambridge have been most helpful, not only in providingaccess to their resources but in wider acquisition.

It has been my privilege to journey with Dr Ashley Crane in his PhDresearch on Ezekiel 36–39 (Murdoch University) and in the revising of thatwork for publication (Crane 2008). Drs. Katrin Hauspie and Patricia Turneralso have graciously supplied copies of their doctoral theses. Professor

Johan Lust has provided copies of much of his prolific writing on Ezekiel

and I look forward to the publication of his volumes on Ezekiel in BibliaHebraica Quinta and, with Katrin Hauspie, in La Bible d’Alexandrie. Duringthe early years of research for this work a Murdoch Special ResearchGrant enabled some travel, procurement of resources and the assistanceof Dr James Sparks in collating patristic material. In all cases my thanksdoes not necessarily meant that I have correctly used or understood thework of others. That is one reason for the citations so that readers cancheck for themselves!

My wife Elaine has been a constant companion through all this researchand writing. I could not have continued without her encouragement andpatience and together we give thanks to God for being able to contributeto the continuing hearing in diverse cultures of the word of the Lordthrough his prophet Ezekiel.


9/600

viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Finally I am grateful to Stanley Porter as Editor of the SeptuagintCommentary Series for the invitation to write this volume and for his

encouragement, suggestions and helpful feedback. To spend extensivetime with Ezekiel and his interpreters has enriched my life throughdeeper understanding of the God whose vision and whose judging andrestoring action dominates. ‘May his name be made holy’ and may allnations ‘recognise that I am Lord’.

John OlleyPerth


10/600

ABBREVIATIONS

A Codex Alexandrinus; British Museum, Royal 1 D.v–viii ABD The Anchor Bible Dictionary ANF Ante-Nicene Fathers (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark/Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 1950–51; reprint of 1866–1897; electronic edn.:Oak Harbour, WA: Logos Research Systems, 1997)

Aq Aquila translation

B Codex Vaticanus 1209 (for B*, Bc, Bi see Introduction §7.1)BDAG Bauer, W., F.W. Danker, W.F. Arndt and F.W. Gingrich, ed.,

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other EarlyChristian Literature (Chicago and London: University ofChicago Press, 3rd ed., 2000)

BDF Blass, F., A. Debrunner and R.W. Funk, A Greek Grammar of theNew Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1961)

BHS Biblia Hebraica StuttgartensiaBHQ Biblia Hebraica Quinta

Brenton Brenton, L.L., The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament withan English Translation

CCG Corpus Christianorum, Series Graeca (Turnhout: Brepols/Leueven: University Press)

Conybeare Conybeare, F.C. and St. G. Stock, Grammar of SeptuagintGreek

CTAT D. Barthélemy, Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament: Tome 3.DCH Clines, D.J.A. , ed., The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (Sheffield:Sheffield Academic Press, 1993–)

EVV English VersionsGCS Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei

Jahrhunderte (Leipzig/Berlin)GELS Muraoka, T., A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, Chie fl y

of the Pentateuch and the Twelve Prophets

HALOT Koehler, L., W. Baumgartner and J.J. Stamm, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, transl. and ed., M.E.J.Richardson

Lampe G.W.H. Lampe, ed., A Patristic Greek LexiconLEH Lust, J., E. Eynikel and K. Hauspie, ed., Greek-English Lexicon

of the Septuagint


11/600

x ABBREVIATIONS

LSJ Liddell, H.G., R. Scott, and H.S. Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon,9th ed. with Revised Supplement , 1996

LXX Septuagintms(s) manuscript(s)MT Masoretic TextMTA Aleppo CodexMTC Cairo Codex of the ProphetsMTL Leningrad CodexNA26/27 Nestlé-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece 26th ed. 1979/27th

ed. 1993

NETS The New English Translation of the Septuagint , edited byA. Pietersma and B.G. Wright (New York and Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 2007)

NIDNTT The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology,ed., C. Brown. 3 vols. (Exeter: Paternoster, 1978)

NRSV New Revised Standard VersionOG OG Greek text; used for references to Daniel to distinguish

from the (Theodotion) text that became standard LXXP967 Earliest extant Greek text of Ezekiel (see Introduction

§2.2.1)PG J.-P. Migne, Patrologiae Graecae (Paris)Q Codex Marchalianus = Codex Gr. Vatican 2125Rahlfs A. Rahlfs and R. Hanhart, Septuaginta. Editio altera (2006)SC Sources Chrétiennes (Paris: Cerf )Syh Syrohexaplar translationSym Symmachus translationTDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament

TDOT Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament Th Theodotion translationUBSGNT3/4 The Greek New Testament (United Bible Societies), 3rd ed.,

1975 (corrected 1983)/4th ed., 1993Z Codex Zuqninensus rescriptusZerwick M. Zerwick, Biblical GreekZiegler J. Ziegler, ed., Ezekiel (Göttingen LXX), 2nd ed., 1977

Abbreviations for biblical books, non-biblical writers and texts, and journals and series are as in The SBL Handbook of Style (Peabody: Hen-drickson, 1999).

In biblical citations, where LXX and MT or EVV diff er in chapter and/orverse numbers LXX details are given with the other in parentheses.

Lower case Roman numerals followed by BCE/CE denote centuries.


12/600

INTRODUCTION


13/600


14/600

INTRODUCTION

1 Opening and Reading Ezekiel

1.1 Opening Ezekiel

The book of Ezekiel commences with an amazing vision of the gloryof God and ends with an extended description of the new temple and

the presence of God. The oft repeated phrase that people, rebelliousIsraelites and the nations, will ‘know that I am the Lord’ or ‘know thatI have spoken/acted’ (around 80 times) points to the centrality of Godand his relationship to all peoples as a feature of the book. Especially inEzekiel there is concern that the name of God has been ‘profaned’ (13times in Ezekiel LXX), particularly among the nations, and so God is toact to ‘make holy my name’ (36:23).

This message is given at a time of crisis. As the book opens Ezekiel, apriest, is in Babylon amongst the group of exiles resulting from Nebu-chadnezzar’s defeat of Jerusalem in 598/97 BCE. But how is God’s glory tobe recognised by both Israel and the nations in the face of the unfaithfullifestyle of his people and the destruction that was to come in 587?

More than half the book makes for depressing reading of judgmenton the people for their behaviour, religious and social, with no escapefrom the message of personal responsibility. Vivid imagery with extendedmetaphors is intertwined with Ezekiel’s own personal experiences, allutilised in detailed argument in word and action. As presented in the

book, Ezekiel as a priest-prophet in exile deeply committed to God usesall his being, training and experience to address the crisis and to chal-lenge the people to recognise their culpability and the inevitable divine

judgment. No one else can be blamed for the destruction of Jerusalemand the desolation of the land. Destruction and exile of the people areGod’s judgment, and yet that very judgment has the corollary of the‘profaning’ of God’s name amongst the nations.

With news of the destruction of the city the message in the latter

part turns to hope: the gracious proclamation of new life, with completerenewal and restoration as God acts ‘for my name’s sake’ (36:23). Judgmentis not God’s final word: destruction has been a means of purification andleads to a renewed people and land. The detailed description of land andtemple that closes the book (chs. 40–48) affirms the certainty of God’spurpose of restoration.


15/600

4 INTRODUCTION

The book that opens with awesome description of the dynamic gloryof God and relentlessly announces the destruction of Jerusalem and

desolation of the land ends with a restored land and city enjoying eternalpeace. Here also aliens who choose to settle will have the same rightsand inheritance as native-born. No longer will God’s name be defiled—God’s glory is present.

1.2 The Journey of the Book

At no time has there been any question as to the status of the book ofEzekiel and it has stood alongside Isaiah, Jeremiah and the Twelve (Minor

Prophets). Jewish and Christian communities have turned to it to provideinspiration, instruction and understanding in a variety of settings, butthe relationship is dynamic as the text went through changes.

This commentary focuses on the reading of a major Greek manuscript,Codex Vaticanus (B), a copy made by Christians, probably in Alexandriain the 4th century CE, but later deposited and used in Caesarea. This wassoon after the Edict of Milan (313) when Christians in the Roman empirehad been granted full legal toleration and after Constantine had become

sole emperor (324).Quite diff erent had been situations surrounding earlier copies, in

Hebrew and Greek. Copies were used at Qumran and Masada by com-munities that had experienced religious and political oppression, fromlate second century BCE to the end of the second temple in 70 CE. Ezekielwas used to castigate religious opponents of the Qumran communityand was the basis of Pseudo-Ezekiel, expanding on hope for the futurewith resurrection of the righteous, defeat of enemies and peace in the

land. The opening chapter particularly was an impetus for much inter-testamental Jewish apocalyptic literature which also addressed times ofconflict between good and evil.

It is likely that Ezekiel was translated into Greek in Egypt around themiddle of the second century BCE. In Judea, after the hellenization crisisunder Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the uprising led by Judas Maccabeus,there was increasing Jewish independence from Syrian power under theHasmoneans but with conflicts between parties and powerful people.Meanwhile Alexandria under the Ptolemies “surpasse[d] all cities in sizeand prosperity” (Letter of Aristeas, 109) with Jewish communities based inthe north-east quarter, perhaps numbering around 180,000. Observanceof the Torah and affirmation of one God went alongside participationin hellenistic education and civic activities. Issues of relationship to


16/600

OPENING AND READING EZEKIEL 5

hellenistic culture were live (Feldman 1960; Fraser 1972; Sterling 1995;Tcherikover 1999).

Yet another situation was that of the first Christians. As they searchedthe Scriptures to understand and describe the significance of Christ andthe coming of the Spirit and of later persecution, Ezekiel was one resource,especially for the writer of the book of Revelation.

As with other Old Testament books there is variation in the Greek text,with issues of relationship with Hebrew texts. The earliest extant Greekmanuscript of Ezekiel, P967, was copied by a Christian community in Egyptprobably around the end of the second century CE. It is based on a Hebrew

text earlier than that of the traditional text known today (Masoretic Text,MT). B, at least a century later, shows evidence of revision of the Greekmaking it closer to MT which became standard probably at the end ofthe first century CE. It is impossible to know what changes were madeby the scribe or the scribal community and what were already presentin an exemplar. B however is pre-hexaplaric in character and there arestill significant diff erences, including places where MT has “additions”(or LXX “omissions”).

Around 235–45 in Caesarea Origen’s Hexapla gave a LXX text thatincorporated notes of diff erences between LXX and MT, with insertionsof “missing” sections. This led to texts incorporating such changesin diff erent ways as seen in A (5th century) and Q (6th century). Thetransmission of texts was in a context of ongoing controversies and dia-logue with Jews, doctrinal and ecclesiastical conflicts in the church, anddebates over exegetical methods (Blowers 1997), alongside persecutionfrom Roman authorities prior to Constantine. Amongst others, Origenwas imprisoned under Decius in 249 contributing to his death and there

was severe persecution under Diocletan around 303, with destruction ofchurches and burning of books.

Evidence for discerning how Ezekiel was read by the church in the earlycenturies comes mainly from scattered references or allusions in writingsby early church fathers (Neuss 1912; Allenbach et al. 1975–95). There isonly one extant Greek commentary prior to 500, that of Theodoret of Cyr(died ca. 460; PG 81, 807–1256), with no remains from earlier commentar-ies of Theodore of Mopsuestia and Eusebius (Guinot 1995a: 220).

Of Origen’s 25 volume commentary on Ezekiel (so Eusebius, Hist. eccl.6.32.1) only a fragment is preserved, on 34:17–19 in Philocalia XI, a col-lection of selected passages from Origen’s work made a century after hisdeath by the Cappadocians Gregory of Naziansus (d. 389) and Basil ofCaesarea (d. 379) (Robinson 1893: 60–61, also PG 13, 663–666; Lewis 1911:


17/600

6 INTRODUCTION

53–54). Alongside are his fourteen Homilies on Ezekiel, extant in Jerome’sLatin translation, and based on clusters of verses from chs. 1, 12–17, 28

and 44 and probably dated between 239 and 242 (Borret 1989, using the1925 text of Baehrens [GCS 33, pp. 318–454], replacing the earlier text inPG 13, 665–768). As a result of the medieval practice of catenae (“chains”),collections of fragments from ancient exegetes, there are Fragmenta (PG 13, 767–926) which may tally with either the commentary or homilies(Devreesse 1928: 1155; Nautin 1977: 87–89, 249, 57).

1.3 Reading Ezekiel—This Commentary

The translating and copying of a biblical text is never a mere scholarlyexercise performed in isolation from a community. Historical studiesprovide some details of the kinds of social dynamics and intellectualunderstanding that may influence translation and transmission. At thesame time the texts themselves provide evidence of changing interestsand concerns. For the various communities how might the book of Ezekielhave been read?

In this commentary the aim is to understand one text, B, that proved

to be influential. In asking what the text may have meant, and continueto mean, we will of necessity have to take into account the reading ofthe text in earlier periods, recognising tradition in exegesis. There arechanging audiences of which the following may be highlighted:

the putative audience in exile in Babylon and Jewish audiencesin the Persian period;

Jews in Alexandria around 150 BCE when Ezekiel is translated intoGreek;

Jews and Christians in the period of the New Testament;Christians in Alexandria and Caesarea in the early 3rd century(representing the pre-hexaplaric nature of the text of bothP967 and B); and

Christians in Alexandria and Caesarea in the 4th and 5th centuries,when B was copied.

Naturally it will not be necessary or even possible to distinguish betweenthese in the exegesis of many passages. Nevertheless at times, and insome key passages, diff erences may be evident, either from the text

itself or from external evidence of varying interpretation. There aremany excellent commentaries that focus on the first groups, and manymonographs and articles on the second. As the commentary is basedon B our focus will be on how the latter two groups may have read the


18/600

TEXT AND PROVENANCE 7

text (as distinct from the translator) and so we only consider the othersinsofar as deemed relevant.

There is no attempt to describe or analyse all text variants, Hebrewand Greek, or to determine a hypothetical Urtext as our purpose is notto explore text-history but to treat a given extant text with integrity asa text produced for and read by a community. Joyce comments, “as wesift the complex range of textual variants, we may indeed eavesdrop onthe conversations of interpreters in ancient time, as they wrestle withthe remarkable tradition which is that of Ezekiel” (2007: 49). Our purposeis to “eavesdrop” on the people involved with the production of B, with

variants and text history being discussed only when they may illuminateB and its interpretation. However to assist present readers in seeingand understanding diff erences in B when compared to modern biblicaltranslations, MT meanings will at times be mentioned as that traditionis the basis of modern English translations and also as the major criticaledition of LXX Ezekiel, that of Ziegler, the basis for NETS, often evidencesbias towards MT understanding.

‘Thus says Lord’ and ‘you/they will know that I am Lord’ is a messagenot only for Ezekiel’s hearers/readers. There is dynamic that enables thetext to be heard by new generations in changing contexts.

2 Text and Provenance

2.1 Hebrew Texts

The present Hebrew text represents the tradition preserved by theMasoretes (“traditionists”) at Tiberias. The Aleppo Codex (ca. 930 CE), now

at the Hebrew University, is the diplomatic text for the Hebrew UniversityBible (for Ezekiel, Goshen-Gottstein et al. 2004). Two other extant textsfrom the same tradition are the Cairo Codex of the Prophets (895,Lowinger 1971; Castro 1988), and the Leningrad Codex (1008, diplomatictext for BHS and BHQ).

Earlier Dead Sea material is very meagre, with only fragments fromseven scrolls, compared with discoveries of at least fragments from aroundtwenty scrolls of Isaiah, six of Jeremiah and eight of the Minor Prophets

(Ulrich 1999; for more details on Hebrew texts, along with versions, Joyce2007: 44–49). A thorough overview is given by Lust (2006c), editor of theforthcoming Ezekiel fascicle of BHQ.


19/600

8 INTRODUCTION

2.2 Early Greek Codices

Three complete, and one substantially complete, uncial manuscripts ofthe LXX of Ezekiel, together with fragments of four others, are extantfrom the first six centuries of the Common Era. Understandably pro-minence is given to B and A, since Codex Sinaiticus is missing Ezekieland B and A are the main basis for the text of Ezekiel in the much usededition of the LXX by Rahlfs (1935; revised, Rahlfs and Hanhart 2006).Significant has been the discovery last century of the earlier P967 andP988 (= PAnt 10).

Around 235–45 Origen compiled the magnum opus that came to be

called the Hexapla (τὰ ἑξαπλᾶ), giving transcriptions in columns: Hebrewtext, Greek transliteration, Aquila, Symmachus, LXX and Theodotion.The LXX column contained “corrections”, marked with the traditionalcritical signs of Aristarchus used at the library in Alexandria. Parts of theGreek not represented in the Hebrew were marked with an obelus (÷), butimportantly for subsequent LXX texts any lacunae in relationship to theHebrew were inserted from one of the other translations (particularlyTheodotion), marked with an asterisk (). These “corrections” were

often followed by subsequent manuscripts, with some texts classified asbelonging to a hexaplaric recension, e.g., Q (Ziegler 1977: 32–44; Metzger1981: 38; Fernández Marcos 2000: 204–22; Jobes and Silva 2000: 48–53).

Our main interest is in B with P967 as a precursor, but the later textsare occasionally referred to in the commentary and so a brief descrip-tion follows.

2.2.1 P967

The discovery and collation of this papyrus, containing Ezekiel, Daniel andEsther, spread over decades last century with the first portions announcedin 1931 as numbers IX and X of the Chester Beatty Papyri (Kenyon 1933,1937, 1938; Pietersma 1992). A larger portion was acquired by Scheideand deposited at Princeton University (Johnson et al. 1938). The bottomhalves of the Beatty leaves and other complete leaves were identified atCologne ( Jahn 1972; Daniel 2001) and further pages have been located inMadrid (Fernández Galiano 1970, 1971b). (See also Fraenkel 2004: 98–103,182–83, 228, 249, 334–35; Kreuzer 2008.)

The extant text covers most of chs. 12–48, with numbering on severalpages confirming that chs. 1–11 were part of the original codex. Fulldetails of textual variants are included in the 1977 edition of the GöttingenLXX Ezekiel (Ziegler 1977, with the Addendum by Fraenkel), althoughthe eclectic Greek text is still that of the 1952 edition. Based on the


20/600


uncial script style and miniscule notations on a few pages P967 is datedas late second or early third centuries CE (Kenyon 1937: viii–x; Johnson

et al. 1938: 5). The most startling features are that chs. 36–40 are in theorder 36, 38–39, 37 and 36:23b-38 is absent, features also evident in the6th century Old Latin Codex Wirceburgensis (Ranke 1871; Bogaert 1978;Lust 1981a, b). Recently van der Meer (2002: 148, n. 5) has drawn atten-tion to a long overlooked Coptic-Sahidic lectionary, Codex BibliothecaeBodleianae Coptico-Bombycinus (Erman 1880) which includes 36:16–23bα,the ending coinciding with P967.

The early pre-hexapla date, the diff erences in chs. 36–39 and other

“omissions”, and the text of Daniel being the original LXX version (asdistinct from the more common Theodotion) have created much interest.Reference may be made to major analyses by Gehman (in Johnson et al. 1938: 18–42, 73–79), Ziegler (1945/1948, 1953), Payne (1949), Lust (1981a)and Kreuzer (2008). In particular Lust has continued to argue that P967has as Hebrew Vorlage a recension earlier than that represented by MT(2002a: 384–93; 2002c: 20–31; 2003a). Block initially argued point by pointagainst Lust concluding that the major omission of 36:23b–38 was dueto parablepsis (1998: 337–43), but now (2007), in response to the cogentfurther analysis of Crane (2006, 2008), he has endorsed their position(see also Tov 1999 [1986], 2001b: 333–34). The strength of Crane’s lengthyinvestigation of a range of arguments is the combining of the chapterorder and the “omission”. (See further in §5.1.1.)

2.2.2 P988 (PAnt 10)1950 saw the publication of the Antinoopolis Papyri including number10, fragments of two leaves of Ezekiel 33–34, with a date “probably no

later than the fourth century” (Roberts 1950: 19–23). It is likely that P967and P988 have a common ancestor (Fernández Galiano 1971a; Fraenkel’saddendum in Ziegler 1977; Fraenkel 2004: 288).

2.2.3 B (Codex Vaticanus 1209)B has long been regarded as that manuscript “which on the wholepresents the version of the Septuagint in its relatively oldest form” (Swete1901–05: 1.xi–xii, quoting the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press).

With necessary qualifications in light of P967, B retains pride of placefor Ezekiel while showing evidence of some pre-hexaplaric revision and(in chs. 36–39) alignment with the dominant Hebrew text (Bogaert 1999:24–25). Further it is the earliest extant manuscript of the whole book ofEzekiel in any language.


21/600

10 INTRODUCTION

In the Vatican Library collection probably since at least around 1475,B has been accessible widely throughout last century in the quality

photographic edition of Mercati (Bibliotheca Vaticana 1907; Bogaert1999: 11–15; Canart 1999: 6). In celebration of the new millennium theVatican published a high quality colour facsimile edition, bound in parch-ment (Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana 1999a). The following summary ofthe form, script and history of the codex is based mainly on articles inthe Prolegomena volume of the 1999 edition (see also Fraenkel 2004:337–44).

The manuscript has three columns of lines around 16 letters, the

characteristics of the uncials leading to a dating of the writing of thecodex as the middle of the fourth century. The scriptio continua of the firsthand has neither breathing nor accents. Canart (1999: 5) follows Milneand Skeat in seeing Ezekiel as copied by the second scribe whose char-acteristics in Ezekiel include style for colophons and titles, beginning ofa new line for paragraphs with projection, contraction of πνεῦμα as πνα and characteristic spellings (e.g., ὅριον in Ezek 48:1 whereas the otherscribe frequently has ὅρειον) (Milne and Skeat 1938: 87–90). As with anymanuscript there are corrections, glosses and ornamentation that arevery difficult to date or locate. One scribe has gone over the text with“an astonishing ability” (Canart 1999: 5).

There is no explicit indication in the codex as to its origin or his-tory prior to arrival in the Vatican Library. After an OT book by bookanalysis of the relationship of B to other texts, Bogaert (1999) arguesfor Egyptian provenance, as does Pisano (1999) after examining the NT,while an extensive review of evidence led Skeat (1999) to argue stronglyfor Caesarea (see further Kirsopp Lake in Lake 1922: xii–xviii; Milne and

Skeat 1938: 87–90). All agree that the text is pre-hexaplaric and copiedconservatively. Whether originally copied in Alexandria (as seems likelyon balance) it soon became an important part of the resources in thelibrary of Caesarea.

2.2.4 A (Codex Alexandrinus; British Museum, Royal 1 D.v–viii)The four volume codex of both Testaments is so named because ofan Arabic note at the beginning written by Athanasius II, Patriarch

of Alexandria (ca. 1300), but its prior provenance is unknown. It waspresented to James I of England in 1625, although it first reached royalhands with Charles I whose arms are now on the cover, and has been inthe British Museum and now British Library since 1753.


22/600


The codex is generally dated in the fifth century with the text char-acterised by hexaplaric influence, many changes agreeing with MT.

Although it is commonly regarded as having been copied in Alexandria,McKendrick has pointed to other literary evidence suggesting Ephesus andpossibly then Constantinople (2003). Photographic facsimiles (Thompson1883; Kenyon and Milne 1936) are widely accessible, although Baber’sfacsimile type edition (Ezekiel in vol. 2, 1819) is useful due to possibleeff ects of deterioration in quality of the manuscript (further details inthe “Introduction to the New Testament and Clementine Epistles” volume[1909] of Kenyon’s facsimile series). (See also Fraenkel 2004: 221–26.)

2.2.5 Q (Codex Marchalianus = Codex Gr. Vatican 2125)A parchment codex of the Prophets from Egypt in the 6th century, Q waspurchased in 1785 for the Vatican Library, a previous owner having beenRéne Marchal (Swete 1914: 144–45; Fraenkel 2004: 346–50). Of great valueare its marginal notes, a major source of Hexaplaric material:

The margins contain a variety of ‘helps for the reader’ derivedfrom the researches of Origen. About seventy items of an ono-

masticum . . . stand in the margins of Ezekiel and Lamentations. . . .Hexaplaric readings . . . are written in tiny uncials by a hand notmuch later than the original scribe, and are keyed by a short wavyline standing over the designated word in the text. Prefixed tothese readings are α΄, σ΄, θ΄, signifying Aquila, Symmachus, andTheodotion respectively. Collectively the three versions are identi-fied as οἱ γ (Metzger 1981: 94).

The Vatican published a facsimile edition (Cossa-Luzi 1890) with accom-panying commentary (Ceriani 1890). Details, including information from

marginal annotations, are included in the critical LXX editions of Swete(1901–05) and Ziegler (1977).

2.2.6 Z (Codex Zuqninensis rescriptus)A fragmentary palimpsest, its value here is that the base text is 6th-8thcentury uncial Greek texts of fragments of Judges, Kings, Psalms, Ezekieland Daniel. Ezekiel is represented in ZV (Vat. Syr. 162) and ZVI (Vat. Syr.162 and Brit. Mus. Add. 14665), and is the earliest example of a Lucianic

(or Antiochene) text of Ezekiel, a recension so named by Jerome afterLucian (d. 312), founder of the exegetical school in Antioch (Ziegler 1977:7, 44–45; Fraenkel 2004: 356–58). Two characteristics are filling in ofgaps in the LXX text in respect to Hebrew, using particularly Symmachus,


23/600

12 INTRODUCTION

and interpolations to clarify or correct grammar (Fernández Marcos2000: 223–38). A complete transcription of the Greek text, with intro-

duction, is provided by Tisserant (1911) and details are included inZiegler (1977).

2.2.7 Other Ezekiel fragmentsOther early fragmentary texts are:

1. P922 [Oxford, Bodl. Libr., Gr. Bibl. d. 4 (p)], a 3rd/4th century hexaplarictext, found in Egypt in 1893/4. The sole part extant is a couple of frag-

ments from 5:12–6:3, a feature being inclusion of Origen’s diacriticalasterisk (Grenfell 1896: 9–11 [no. 5]; Swete 1914: 148; Fraenkel 2004:279);

2. P927 (Codex Vaticanus Gr. 2519, Codex Melphictensis rescriptus), a6th century text, with several fragments from Ezekiel. It is based onB with hexaplaric influence (Fraenkel 2004: 351).

3 The Translation of Ezekiel

3.1 Translation Technique and Literalness

While the LXX was read by many as Scripture, interpreted in its ownright, its origin remains as a translation with all the issues involved inthat single word: translation technique aff ects the nature of the Greekthat is to be read. The tension between being faithful in translationand communicating to the target audience was resolved variously bytranslators and later revisers and was recognised in the contemporary

Prologue of the Greek translation of Sirach (variety is still the case, forinstance, in modern English versions). This is apart from the “additionalburden of deciding what was original and at times attempting to makesense out of what seemed nonsense” (Jellicoe 1968: 314).

Language and style of the various LXX books and relationship to koine Greek and contemporary translation practices are much discussed (Jel-licoe 1968: 314–37; Turner 1970/1996; Harl in Dorival et al. 1988: 223–66;Tov 1999 [1987]; Aejmelaeus 2001; Pietersma 2001; Siegert 2001: 121–95,

and bibliographies therein; Sollamo and Sipilä 2001; Pietersma 2002). TheLetter of Aristeas is evidence of early apologetic for the faithfulness of theTorah translation. By extension one can project the same intention ofintegrity for the other books. Later text revision and new translations(Aquila, Theodotion and Symmachus) were all in the direction of equiva-lence to a Hebrew tradition.


24/600

THE TRANSLATION OF EZEKIEL 13

It is common to speak of a spectrum in translation from “free” to“literal”, a helpful analysis of “literal” being that of Tov (1997: 17–29):

(a) internal consistency in translation of “a given Hebrew word, element(e.g., preposition), root or construction”;

(b) representation of constituents of a Hebrew word;(c) word order;(d) quantitative representation (each element in MT rendered by one

equivalent element), as compared with the addition of clarifyingelements or omission of elements already expressed; and

(e) linguistic adequacy of lexical choices.

While the first four criteria can be expressed statistically, Lust cautionsnot to lessen the important qualitative investigation of aspects such asthe fifth criterion (2002a: 366–67). Further, a major focus of the Helsinkischool (Aejmelaeus 1987; Sollamo and Sipilä 2001) is examination ofgrammatical features to determine to what extent there is a “literal”following of Hebrew leading to “un-Greek” expression or whether thereis “faithful” rendering into “genuine Greek”.

For Ezekiel Marquis examined word-order variants (1986) and lexicalconsistency (1987), finding a high level of literalness for each sectionof the book (around 90%). Similarly the earlier Helsinki examination ofinfinitives (Soisalon-Soininen 1965) and semi-prepositions (Sollamo 1979)classified Ezekiel in the “most slavishly literal” group. This has beenqualified in the investigations of all MT books by Tov and Wright (1999[1985]) on the rendering of the preposition - (ἐν, etc.), the conjunction כי (ὅτι/διότι), the pronominal suffix ,-ו - (αὐτός/ἑαυτός), additions ofיו

prepositions in Greek and relative frequency of the particles δέ, μέν, οὖν and τε in relation to καί. They concluded Ezekiel was “ ‘inconsistent’ or‘indecisive’ ”, although they noted a book such as Ezekiel should be sub-divided for investigation (p. 235, n. 19). An example of subdivision varia-tion is statistics for ὅτι/διότι, complicated by diff erence between P967and the major uncials in that διότι is more common in chs. 1–25 in themajor uncials (ὅτι:διότι approximately 2:3) and less common elsewhere,but in P967 ὅτι predominates throughout.

Examination of lexical and grammatical aspects is a key part of thedoctoral thesis of Hauspie (2002; for one key phrase, see 2003b), whomore consistently takes into account variation between codices. Herinvestigation enables an important nuance of the term “literal” by provid-ing examples of ways in which the rules of the target language play animportant role and of variation amongst possibilities for equivalences.


25/600

14 INTRODUCTION

Overall, these results support the long-standing evaluation of Ezekielas being faithful to the Hebrew text. This does not mean the task of the

translator(s) was straightforward! Any translator or reviser (ancient ormodern) experiences multiple influences along with changes in under-standing and skill, while strict consistency in translation is not easy tomaintain even if it were a goal (as is known to be so only for the latertranslation of Aquila). Although the LXX Vorlage was not always as MT,it was substantially close to this text which has “many hapax legomenaand unusual formations” (Greenberg 1983b: 23). The translation’s literalnature and the difficulties faced have been recognized at least since the

extensive work of Cornill (1886: 13–109), with added details by Cooke(1936: xl–xlvii). The result is at times difficult Greek—Hauspie speaksof “grammatical horrors” (2002: 2), although she has also demonstratedthat at the same time many calques labelled “stereotypical” are in fact“correct Greek constructions”, although their frequency is much higherthan in “genuine Greek” (2008: 212–13).

3.2 Relationship to Other Books and Date and Place of Translation

Lexical equivalences, particularly for unusual words, have been adominant feature of investigations into the relative dating of translationsof individual books. Thackeray (1903a, b, c) linked Ezekiel with the

Jeremiah translators (similarly, Tov 1976); Seeligmann in examiningIsaiah saw a dependence upon Ezekiel (1948: 74–75), while Munnich’sexamination of Psalms concluded that Ezekiel followed Psalms (but

Jeremiah independent of Psalms), his summary table having the fixedrelative order Psalms, Ezekiel, Jeremiah (Munnich in Dorival et al. 1988: 96,

97, 111; compare Siegert 2001: 42–43, apparently overlooking Seeligmannin placing Isaiah earlier).The complexity of arguments, based on often limited data for each

item but with cumulative eff ect, is seen in the conclusions of P. Turner(2001, summarising with modifications her 1970/1996 doctoral thesis).She suggests the work was done in stages, firstly (A) chs. 40–48 withchs. 1–15—when they “came up against ch. 16, they took fright” (2001:291)—and 25–28 as an extended introduction, and then other material,(B) chs. 17–20, (C) ch. 16 with chs. 21–24, and (D) chs. 29–39, each stageinfluenced by available translation of other books. She concludes thatthe translation order was

Joshua, Samuel, Kings, I Chronicles and Canticles; Ezekiel A; Psalms;Ezekiel B; parts at least of the Twelve, Proverbs (xxv to) xxxi;


26/600

THE TRANSLATION OF EZEKIEL 15

Ezekiel C; Jeremiah and Lamentations; Ezekiel D; Isaiah; possiblythe bulk of Proverbs; and Ecclesiasticus (2001: 293–94).

While this daringly precise conclusion of necessity remains debatable—she uses Ziegler’s 1952 text as her base and is wary of P967 (1970/1996:vii–viii)—it has the advantage of pointing to the dynamic processof translation and demonstrating ways in which data suggestinginterrelationships are at times double-edged.

In determining a possible absolute date for the Ezekiel translation,comparison with hellenistic usage is relevant. P. Turner’s detailed com-parison with developments in hellenistic Greek leads to an identification

of “an absolute date of the Greek qua language to a period between 150to 50 BCE . . . [T]here was nothing incompatible with an Egyptian origin”(2001: 286). This fits with other clues as to the possible date and relation-ships of the Ezekiel translation. A terminus ad quem is late 2nd centuryBCE since translations of the prophets are known by the grandson of BenSira. Historical allusions in the Isaiah translation suggest its date andlocation to be around 140 BCE in Egypt (Seeligmann 1948; van der Kooij1981), while in the commentary section there will be discussed a number

of places where the Maccabean period fits the text (Lust 1985, 2003b;van der Kooij 2005, 2007; Crane 2008; Olley 2009). Thus for Ezekiel a datearound 150 BCE in Egypt seems most likely.

3.3 How Many Translators?

The first major exploration of the translators of the LXX was by Thackeray(1903a), arguing that, as for Jeremiah (1903b), Ezekiel had two translators,one responsible for chs. 1–27 (which he called Ezek α) and 40–48 ( γ),

the other for chs. 28–39 (β). He started with an observation that thecity Tyre was Σόρ ten times in chs. 26–27 but Τύρος in chs. 28–29 (seebelow for modification in light of P967) and then discerned a number ofdiff erences in phrases and especially in prepositions and conjunctions.The style of 36:24–38 (the section now known to absent in P967) wasquite distinct, with resemblance to Theodotion (1903a: 407–08, 1921: 38).Later, anticipating the conclusion of P. Turner (see previous section), hesuggested that “the unedifying chapter xvi was perhaps omitted by the

Alexandrian company, and the Greek in our texts is a later supplement”(1921: 38, see also 26).

Varying proposals continue, especially since the discovery of P967which “reduces to a considerable extent the body of evidence upon which(the two-translator hypothesis of Thackeray) was constructed” (Kase in


27/600

16 INTRODUCTION

Johnson et al. 1938: 72). Kase, followed by Ziegler (1953: 440), proposeda single translator responsible for the whole book, with a later revision,

mainly of the first part, to bring closer to (proto-)MT. Tov (1976) alsoargued for a single translator, but with the later revision being in β and γ,due to association with the Jeremiah and Minor Prophets translations.

The debate continues. McGregor (1985), beginning to use computerisedresources, returns to a view similar to Thackeray, but, like N. Turner(1956), with the second unit commencing at ch. 26 rather than ch. 28.His listing of word and phrase translations is extensive, including vari-ants. Even so, omissions or other interpretations of data argue against

his conclusions (Lust 1986b; Muraoka 1987; Marquis 1993).Analysis of grammatical features and lexical consistency continues,but the data remain inconclusive (Soisalon-Soininen 1965; Sollamo 1979;Marquis 1986, 1987; Hauspie 2002; Lust 2008). There is some diversitywithin much similarity, but the location of diversity is not consistent. Acomplication is uncertainty regarding the Vorlage in a number of places.Difficulties in evaluating the combination of high literalness and consis-tency along with diversity is seen in Marquis’s cautious comment that “acertain direction towards greater literalness in chapters 25–39 . . . may wellbe the motivation for, or the result of , a revision” (1993: 442, italics added).

The conclusion after a century of studies is that any commentary todaymust be alert to possible variations, but whether due to translator(s) orreviser(s), or to diversity and context-sensitivity by a single translator,remains hypothetical. At the same time, the wealth of data gatheredprovides resources that can be tapped in reading the text.

3.4 Translation, Text History and Readers

Related are questions of interpretation of the text. While it is expectedthat the translator be familiar with Hebrew, increasingly through timereaders would not. This would certainly be so in non-Jewish Christiancongregations, but possibly also in Greek-speaking Jewish communities.Thus, while the translator may have been thinking of Hebrew connotationsthis does not mean that readers necessarily will. It is possible that whilethe initial translation of the Torah was a “gateway to the Hebrew”eventually by the middle of ii BCE it had become “an independent free-standing replacement of the Hebrew”, reflected in the apologetic of theLetter of Aristeas (Wright 2006: 66), and so the Pentateuch is treated asa Greek work in its own right. It may be such a decline in knowledgeof Hebrew that was an impetus for the translation of Ezekiel and otherbooks, to provide a Greek version to stand alongside the Hebrew.


28/600

THE LANGUAGE OF EZEKIEL 17

While the translator obviously understood Hebrew, following it closelyin form, the text as received was read as Greek. As with English versions

in the Authorised Version tradition, especially the Revised Version (1885)/American Standard Version (1901), listeners/readers are able to toler-ate Hebraisms in both syntax and lexical usage without being aware ofHebrew and to gloss meanings in the light of context. Readers do thiswith many other language versions that have been translated by non-native speakers with inadequate understanding of the target language.Such readings are associated with an exegetical tradition reflected inliturgy, sermons and teaching. Further, in the case of the LXX in the

early centuries for Christians there was to varying extent associationwith Jewish communities.For a reader, issues of chronology of translation or the direction of

influence or diversity of translators/editors are irrelevant except insofaras they influence the form of the text that is read. This is discussed belowin §4.2.5. Our interest here is not text history per se, except where it mayprovide clues to possible reading traditions in understanding unusualgrammar or lexical usage.

While this commentary is based on B, it includes some comparison withP967 and MT to highlight possible theological and exegetical diversity.The significance of diff erences in P967 for chs. 36–39 is briefl y discussedin §5.1.1 and in the commentary on those chapters while a number of“omissions” in P967 will be consider in loc.

4 The Language of Ezekiel

4.1 Grammar Many grammatical features of Ezekiel are common to other books of theLXX, although at times more prominent in Ezekiel as it follows closelythe structure of its Hebrew Vorlage with frequent syntactic calques.

1. Most obvious is the prevalence of parataxis with καί:“Roughly speaking, it is true to say that in the Greek of the LXX there

is no syntax, only parataxis. The whole is one great scheme of clausesconnected by καί and we have to trust to the sense to tell us which is

to be so emphasized as to make it into the apodosis” (Conybeare §40).A corollary is the absence of the usual Greek balancing of clauses withμέν and δέ: μέν is absent in Ezekiel (and only 61x elsewhere in LXX, 12being in Job) , although δέ occurs 36x (3620x in LXX, more than half beingin the Pentateuch and Job). There is also, following Hebrew, frequent


29/600

18 INTRODUCTION

occurrence of sentences beginning with καὶ ἐγένετο, with the followingclause generally commencing with καί (71x, including 39x καὶ ἐγένετο

λόγος κυρίου πρός με λέγων), and other instances of καί introducing anapodosis (Aejmelaeus 1982: 126–38 analyses many and varied instancesin the Pentateuch, similar to Ezekiel).

Some parataxis is known in early Greek construction, but overwhelm-ingly the influence is Hebrew. The practice is common also in the NTand thus Christian readers would be accustomed to this practice, withrelevant contextual logical connections being understood. Where therewas ambiguity it is likely that exegetical traditions would develop (Zer-

wick and Smith 1963, §§450–465; Aejmelaeus 1982; BDF, §442; GELS, s.v.καί; Lust 2001c: 397–98).2. Constructions involving verbs include:The Hebraistic translation of the combination of infinitive absolute

with a cognate finite verb. In Ezekiel most of these (18 of 24) are trans-lated using a finite verb with the cognate noun in the dative, e.g., theopposites θανάτῳ θανατωθήσῃ (3:18, etc.) and ζωῇ ζήσεται (3:21, etc.)(Tov 1999 [1990]). “While we have to search for this idiom in classicalGreek [e.g., Plato, Crat . 385B, Phaedr. 265C, etc.], it thrusts itself upon usat every turn in the Greek of the LXX” (Conybeare, §61).

The 2 m s future, functioning as a jussive (weaker imperative), israre in Attic Greek but very common in LXX, especially in Ezekiel, forsubsequent verbs after an opening imperative, following Hebrew syntax(e.g., 4:1–13; 5:1–4; 6:2–3 in divine instructions to Ezekiel) (Conybeare,§74; BDF §362).

3. Hellenistic Greek was already blurring classical distinctions in useof prepositions. Some prepositional constructions in Ezekiel are:

A common Hebrew construction, describing possession or relationshipusing -ל with the person and the verb , is matched in LXX by similarהיהsyntax seen also in classical Greek with the dative and εἶναι (e.g., 45:10υγὸς δίκαιος καὶ μέτρον δίκαιον καὶ χοῖνιξ δικαία ἔστω ὑμῖν), althoughthe use of εἰς with the accusative (44 occurrences; e.g., 11:20 ἔσονταί μοι εἰς λαόν καὶ ἐγὼ ἔσομαι αὐτοῖς εἰς θεόν) rather than the Attic predicatenominative appears to be a Semitism (BDF §145, Lust 2001c: 309).

The use of ἐν with the dative, following the Hebrew - , as an instrument

of means (Conybeare, §§89–92, Hauspie 2002: 255–82; 2008: 209–211).4. For nouns and pronouns the following are noted:A characteristic Hebrew construction is the juxtaposition of two nouns

in the so-called construct-absolute relationship, the first noun (in theconstruct) never having an article, even if the combination is definite,


30/600


e.g., ר־יהוה ‘the word of Yhwh’. The combination is commonly repre-sented straightforwardly in Greek by the second noun being in the geni-

tive, but Semitic influence is seen in anarthrous translation of the firstnoun (in the construct). Such a syntactic calque is common throughoutEzekiel, e.g., 1:3 λόγος κυρίου, ἐν γῇ Χαλδαίων and χεὶρ κυρίου. This isespecially so in P967, with B and other later mss often having an article(Wevers 1951).

With pronouns attached to a verb or noun (in Hebrew as suffixes),Ezekiel commonly follows the Hebrew order with the pronoun following.However in B (but generally not in other mss, including P967) there are

instances where the pronoun precedes, including 9:10 μου ὁ ὁφθμός; 26:12σου τὰ τείχη; 28:2 σου ἡ καρδία; 34:6 μου τὰ πρόβατα; 35:6 σὲ διώξεται;37:27 μου ἔσονται λαός (Lust 2001c: 398).

The Greek patronymic style, giving father’s name in the genitive withthe article, is followed, not the Hebraic ‘son of ’ in 8:11 and 11:1, althoughυἱός without articles is used in the opening 1:2.

Other features will be noted in loc. in the commentary.

4.2 The Lexicon of LXX Ezekiel

4.2.1 Link with PentateuchAs expected the prior Pentateuch translation influenced all subsequenttranslations and several examples of vocabulary and phrases are given byTov (1999 [1981]). His 1999 revision however includes the observations ofLust (1997c) of a number of cases in which Ezekiel is less “Pentateuchal”than expected, even more so in P967, with subsequent copyists/revisers(as evidenced by B and A) moving in the direction of the Pentateuch.

Many of these items will be commented on in loc.

4.2.2 Relationship to Hebrew Vorlage and Hebrew In fluence on MeaningsMT Ezekiel is renowned for its difficult Hebrew and BHS has copiousemendations. In many instances it is apparent that the LXX translatoreither had a diff erent Vorlage or misread the Hebrew (e.g., metathesisof letters or misreading similar letters such as for ) or had problemsרmaking sense of difficult (corrupt?) Hebrew. For the vocabulary of

Ezekiel LEH see 120 instances based on a diff erent Hebrew. Referencemay be made to major commentaries where diff erences are discussedand evaluated.

A major issue in understanding biblical Greek is the relationship toHebrew lexical meanings. While there was a period when it was common


31/600

20 INTRODUCTION

to see the Greek as having the meaning of the (assumed) underly-ing Hebrew, scholars are now more cautious, seeing words as having

similar meanings to that known in classical and koine Greek, althoughwith possible influence of the biblical context leading to a particular ormetaphorical usage in a new context (Lee 1969; Olley 1979; Lust 1993;Hauspie 2003a, 2004). This is also to be the most likely approach of alater Greek reader.

The kinds of decisions that a lexicographer, translator or exegete mustmake in determining the meaning of a word or expression in the LXXand its relationship to Hebrew can be seen in the range of possibilities

categorised by Caird (1972 [1968]: 112 [455]):Well-attested Greek usage which adequately renders the Hebrew;Well-attested Greek usage which inadequately renders the Hebrew,

because the translator for reasons of his own decided to alteror improve the original;

Well-attested Greek usage which points to a misreading of theHebrew text or a variant reading;

The only or earliest surviving instance of a piece of current Hel-lenistic speech;

An instance of semantic change induced by the new associationswhich the Greek term has acquired by being placed in a Hebrewcontext;

A neologism . . . because the translator knew of no Greek equiva-lent;

A strained or unnatural usage, produced by mechanical methodsof translation;

A transliteration from the Hebrew;. . . Textual corruption in the Greek.

Obviously one Greek word or expression may come under diff erentcategories in various occurrences. Further, another category may beadded:

Well-attested Greek usage which inadequately renders the Hebrewbecause the translator understood the Hebrew in a Greek sense.

We have already noted the awkwardness of the Greek of Ezekiel,nevertheless all these categories are represented in Ezekiel. Further, asour focus is on the reading of the text, priority is given to seeking tounderstand the text in the light of Greek usage.

As expected some Greek words are Semitic loanwords know elsewhere.Some are simply transliterations, especially features of temple archi-tecture, jewellery and measures, and occasionally LXX has a toponym


32/600


where current scholarship would see a common noun. Most instancesin the latter two categories are unique to Ezekiel (shown below by *)

(Spottorno 1986: 78–80). An overview of the whole LXX is provided byTov (1999 [1979]) who elsewhere gives other details on transliteration(1999 [1973]). Unless specified Hebrew meanings in this commentaryare as in HALOT .

Semitic Loanwords:While Hebrew equivalents are given, the borrowing is broadly Semiticand often predates LXX, a result of the close interaction between cultures

from as early as the second millennium BCE (Tov 1999 [1979]: 167–70). Insome cases the form is closer to the Egyptian, which Hebrew and Greekhave borrowed ( Joosten 2007: 73–75).

Weights and measures: (ε)ιν, Egyptian liquid measure (4:11; 5x in chs.45–46), κόρος ‘kor’ (45:13), μνᾶ ‘mina’ = 100 drachmae (45:12), σίκλος ‘shekel’ (4:10; 45:12[3x]), οιφι (45:13, יפ ephah). (See further, commen-tary on 45:9–17.)

Precious stones and metals: ἴασπις ‘jasper’ (28:13), σάπφειρος ‘sapphire’(1:26; 9:2; 10:1; 28:13), χρυσίον, ‘gold’ (9x).

Other: παράδεισος ‘paradise, garden’ (Persian; 28:13; 31:8 [2x], 9), πάσχα ‘Pesach, Passover’ (45:21), σάββατον ‘sabbath’ (15x), σάκκος ‘sackcloth’(7:18).

Transliterations (common nouns in Hebrew):Words in an architectural context: αιλ*, αιλαμ, αιλαμμω*, αιλευ* [ελευ](especially in chs. 40–48); θαιηλαθα* (P967 θεε· αιλαμ) (40:7); θεε (ch. 40;13x), θεειμ* (40:12 [P967 θεε], 14, 16); θραελ (41:8).

Weights and Measures: γομορ (ch. 45; 5x). Hebrew has two measures, ḥomer , a dry measure = 10חמר יפ ephah, and ῾ omer , a measure forעמרcorn = 1/10 . Both are represented byיפ γομορ in LXX. (See further,commentary on 45:9–17.)

Other: χερουβ([ε]ιν) ‘cherub(im), cherub(s)’ (27x); μαναα 8x in chs.45–46 (P967 θυσία except 46:20) for ;’ ‘gift, off eringמנח σαδδαι ‘Shaddai’(divine name) (10:5); θαρσις ‘precious stone, topaz’ (1:16; a place-namein 27:16).

Joosten suggests that the Aramaic form of χερουβιν, μαναα, πασζχα—healso includes σάββατα—indicates that “they are not ad hoc transliterationsbut existed previously in Jewish Greek idiom of the [Pentateuch] transla-tors . . . Non-Jewish Greek readers would have been completely baffled bythese foreign elements” (2007: 75–76).


33/600

22 INTRODUCTION

Toponyms where Hebrew is probably a common noun:Αβανα* (20:29 [2x]), Αριηλ (43:15[2x], 16), Γε (39:12, 15), Γελγελ* (10:13),

Δαρωμ* (21:2[20:46]), Λαμωθ (27:16), Χορχορ* (27:16), Γαλ(ε)ιλαία (47:8).See commentary for discussion, including variants.

4.2.3 NeologismsNeologisms, i.e., new forms or combinations commonly based on otherGreek words and known only in LXX related literature, are helpfullyidentified as such in LEH, citing the detailed examination of Hauspie(2001a, 2004) and earlier discussions (see also list in Spottorno 1986:

81–84). They may also be recognised from the citation of LXX as earliestsource in the 1996 Revised Supplement of LSJ. [The 1968 Supplement wasmuch criticised for its treatment of LXX usage of words and its neologisms(Lee 1969; Hauspie 2004).]

Ezekiel has approximately 82 probable LXX neologisms, 22 being also inthe Pentateuch and 29 occurring only in Ezekiel (24 of these occur onlyonce). Significantly all are “formally purely Greek words which refer toknown, named realities . . . the Greek itself is the first source to define themeaning of the word” (Hauspie 2001a: 33). This argues against an earlierpractice of looking to the Hebrew to determine the meaning. Specificneologisms will be discussed in the relevant part of the commentary.

4.2.4 Lexical choices and shifts in emphases and nuancesConnotations of words diff er between languages, so that even where atranslation is “faithful” lexical choices create possibilities for diff erentinterpretations, not least in emphases or nuances. This is more so whena translator shows lexical variation. Two examples are given here as they

occur throughout the book, the first being the use of multiple Greekwords for a single Hebrew word, and the other a semantic field.

a. Swords and daggersThe single Hebrew חר ‘sword’ is translated by ῥομφαία ‘(long) sword’(45x), μάχαιρα ‘dagger’ (36x), ἐγχειρίδιον ‘hand-knife’ (3x) and ξίφος ‘rapier’ (2x). ξίφος is used in identical contexts in 16:40; 23:47, “a lover’ssword used to slay a prostitute” (Hubler 2007: 946). ἐγχειρίδιον is used

only in 21:8–10 with God as the subject drawing the ‘hand-knife from itssheath’, while in the first half μάχαιρα is only in 5:2, 12 of a “dagger I(Lord) will unsheathe”, and so the translation is lexically appropriate.

In the second half (chs. 26–39), however, the distinction betweenῥομφαία and μάχαιρα has theological significance. μάχαιρα is used of


34/600


the weapons used by nations, including Gog (34x), while ῥομφαία occursonly 7x in chs. 25–32, always referring to Lord’s ‘sword’ (in 32:11 the

‘sword of the king of Babylon’ has already been identified as ‘my sword’in 30:24), while in ch. 33 (5x) it is the ‘sword’ of judgment that is comingon God’s people.

b. Describing wrongdoingThroughout Ezekiel, as elsewhere in LXX following Hebrew, there is avariety of words for wrongdoing (and its opposites). Frequently the pluraloccurs, referring to deeds arising from the abstract characteristic.

While there are trends in translation equivalences, there is no consis-tency throughout the LXX (cf. the listing of possible equivalences givenfor each lemma in GELS). There is also considerable diff erence betweenequivalence patterns in the Pentateuch and those in Ezekiel. Commentsfollowing the table suggest ways in which this aff ects how Greek readersmight understand Ezekiel.

Term (as in B)EnglishTranslation

ProbableHebrewVorlage LXX verses Comment

ἀδικέω (1x) do wrong מעל

39:26 2Chr 26:16ἀδικία (38x) wrongdoing עֹון 3:18, 19 (+23x) Most common equivalent (70x;

only 4x in Pent.)ל ע

18:8; 24; 28:18;33:13

Deut 32:4; Job 34:32; Ps 7:4; 82:2;Zeph 3:5

? ה ע 21:32 (3x)

עׁשק

22:7, 29 Ps 62:11; 73:8. Most commonequivalent for the cognate verbis ἀδικέω (12x; Pent. 5x)

מרי

12:2 Only hereחמס 45:9 13x elsewhere (most common

equivalent)מעל

39:26 2Chr 26:16 יר 35:5

ἄδικος (3x) unjust צּדיק 21:8(3), 9(4) LXX interpretation diff ersל ע

33:15 Common equivalent

ἀδίκημα (3x) wrongdoing עֹון

14:10(2x)עולה 28:15

ἀδίκως (1x) unjustly ׁשקר

13:22 5x in Pss (= ἀδικία, 7x in Pss)δικαίος (17x) righteous, just קי צּד 3:20,21 (+11x)

צ ק 45:10(3x) מת 18:8 Exod 18:21; Jer 42:5; Zech 7:9.


35/600

24 INTRODUCTION

Table (cont .)


Probable

HebrewVorlage LXX verses Comment

δικαιοσύνη(24x)

what is right,righteousness

צדקה 3:20; 14:14, 20(+17x)

Normal

מׁשּפט 18:17, 19, 21 Prov 16:11; 17:23; Isa 61:8;Mal 2:17

צדק

3:20 Normalδικαιόω(5x)

put/be in theright

. piצדק 16:51, 52 Normal qalצדק 16:52 Normal

ׁשפט

44:24(2x) Only hereּבחן 21:18 Only here

ἁμαρτάνω (11x)

sin חט 3:21(2x) (+8x) Most common equivalent

ׂשנ 35:6 Only hereἁμαρτία (26x) sin חּט ת/

חט

3:20 (+21x) Most common equivalent

עֹון 28:18; 39:23;43:10

Second most common equiva-lent (63x; 26x in Pent.)

עלילה

36:19 Only here (in 14:22, 23; 24:14,ἐνθύμημα)ἁμαρτωλός (2x)

sinner רׁשע ? 33:8, 19 Most common equivalentelsewhere (67x).

ἁμάρτημα (1x) sinful act ? 18:10ἀνομία (47x) lawlessness,

lawless deedּתֹוע ה 8:6(2x), 9, 13,

17 (+20x)All in chs. 1–23, 40–48. is translated asּתֹוע ה ἀνομία elsewhere only in Jer 16:18. Mostcommon equivalent is βδέλυγμα (see below).

עֹון

29:16; 32:27;33:6, 8; 36:31,33

Elsewhereעֹון

has as equivalentἀνομία (54x; Pent. 7x), ἀδικία (45x; Pent. 4x), ἁμαρτία (63x;Pent. 26x).

רׁשעה

/ רׁשע

3:19; 18:20, 27;33:12(2x), 19

Only Isa 9:17; Zech 5:8. In Pent.ἀσέβεια is equivalent (Deut 9:4,5; 25:2).

חּט ת 18:21(2x);33:10

Only in Job 13:23; Isa 58:1; Lam4:6.

חמס

7:23; 8:17; 28:16 Ps 55:10; 74:20; Isa 53:9

ל ע

33:13, 18 Ps 53:2זּמה 23:21, 44 Lev 19:29; 20:14; Ps 26:10;

119:150; Hos 6:9 (most commonequivalent)

מה ּו ה ְ מ 22:5מֹוׁש

37:23ּדרך 20:30


36/600


Table (cont .)


Probable


ἀνόμημα (1x) lawless deed ּפׁשע 39:24 Also 1Sa 25:28; Ps 51:3ἄνομος (16x) lawless רׁשע 3:18(2x), 19(2x)

(+12x)14x elsewhere in LXX (mostcommon for isרׁשע ἁμαρτωλός [70x])

ἀνομέω (2x) be lawless עׂש

ּתֹוע

22:11 Cf. ἀνομία

. hifתע 16:52 Only here (most common equiv.

is βδελύσσω)ἀσέβεια (16x) impiety זּמ 16:43, 58; 22:11;

23:27, 29, 35,48(2x), 49

Only in Ezek

ּפׁשע 18:28, 30, 31;21:29

23x outside Ezek (mainlyProphets; none in Pent.)

חמס

12:19 9x outside Ezek (Ps 73:6 andProphets)

ּתֹוע 14:6 Only in Ezek

עֹון

33:9 Ps. 32:5ἀσεβέω (2x) act impiously פׁשע 18:31 8x elsewhere in Prophetsזּמ 16:27 See ἀσέβεια.

ἀσεβής (7x) ungodly רׁשע 33:8, 9, 11(2x),12, 14

Most common equiv. (136x;espec. in Job and Pss, only 6x inPent.)

? פׁשע 20:38βδέλυγμα(17x)

abomination ּתֹוע 5:9; 6:9, 11;7:3, 4, 8, 9, 20;33:29; 36:31

Most common equivalent (54xoutside Ezek, 26x in Pent.)

/ץ ּו ּק ִ ׁש

ׁשקץ

5:11; 8:10; 11:18,21; 20:7, 8, 30

21x outside Ezek, incl. Lev 9x,Deut 29:16

διανόημα/διάνοια (3x)

thought/thinking

ל ּו ּל ִּג 14:3, 4/ 14:4 Only Ezek

εἴδωλον (12x) idol ל ּו ּל ִּג 6:4, 6, 13 (2x);8:10; 18:12;23:39; 36:25;37:23; 44:12.

Also Lev 26:30; Deut 29:16; 2Ki17:12; 21:11, 21; 23:24.

מ 16:16 Only hereעליל 36:17 Only here

ἐνθύμημα (18x) imagination ל ּו ּל ִּג

14:5, 7 (+13x) Chs. 14–23; 44.10; only in Ezekעליל 14:22, 23; 24:14 Only in Ezek [ἐνθύμημα occurs

a further 6x in LXX, with5 diff erent Heb. equiv.]


37/600

26 INTRODUCTION

Table (cont .)


Probable


ἐπιτήδευμα (12x)

pursuit ּול ּל ִּג 6:9; 14:6; 20:7, 8,18, 39(2x)

1Ki 15:12

מעלל 36:31 Elsewhere 28x, incl. Deut 28:20.עלילה 20:43, 44; 21:29 Elsewhere 7x (Pss 4x)ּתֹוע ה

8:15 Only hereκακία (4x) evil, evil deed ר /הער 16:23, 57; 20:43;

22:12Common equivalence.

ה ער

16:37 Only hereκακός (3x) bad, harmful / רע רעה 14:22 (2x); 20:44 14:22 of God’s actionsκακόω (active)(1x)

harm . nifכׁשל 33:12 LXX: ‘harm’; MT: ‘make stumble’

κακῶς ἔχον(1x)

what is notwell

הֹולה 34:4 ‘what is sick/not well’

παραπικραίνω (20x)

embitter מרי

2:5, 6, 7, 8(2x);3:9, 26, 27; 12:2,3, 9, 25; 17:12;

24:3, 14(?); 44:6

“rebel” interpreted asמרה√ מרר“be bitter” (see commentary)

מרה 20:21מרד 2:3(2x)מרה ? 12:27

παραπίπτω(5x)

commit(transgression)

מעל 14:13; 15:8;18:24; 20:27

Following MT syntax LXX hasπαραπίπτω παράπτωμα ‘committransgression’

transgress ׁשם 22:4παράπτωμα (9x)

transgression ל ע 3:20; 18:26(2x) Only in Ezekמעל

14:13; 15:8;

18:24; 20:27

Only in Ezek

ּפׁשע 14:11; 18:22 Job 36:9πλανάω (10x) go astray ּפׁשע 33:12 Isa 46:8

תעה

14:11; 44:10, 15;48:11(2x)

32x elsewhere

נדח 34:4, 16 Deut 4:19; 22:1; 30:17פתה

14:9(2x) Job 5:2; Prov 1:10; Hos 2:16? 44:13

πλάνη (1x) error ּפׁשע 33:10 Prov 14:8; Jer 23:17; Jdt 1:11;Tob 5:14 and WisSol 1:12; 12:24

πονηρός (4x) evil, vicious רעה/ רע 11:2; 13:22;36:31; 38:10

Plus 5:17; 14:15, 21; 34:25describing θηρία ‘wild animals’.Most common equivalent.


38/600


In LXX Ezekiel the most common words are those whose stem is ἀνομ-,occurring 66x (compared to ἀδικ- 46x; ἀσεβ- 25x). A feature of Ezekiel is

its use to translate (26x) [elsewhere generally translatedתוע βδέλυγμα,an equivalence occurring only 10x in Ezekiel] and רׁשע (22x) [its morecommon equivalence elsewhere being ἀσεβ-, that equivalence occurringonly 6x, all in ch. 33]. The rendering of byתוע βδέλυγμα is mainly inchs. 5–7, preceding the use of ἀνομία from ch. 8.

Other idiosyncratic renderings of likely Hebrew equivalents areἐνθύμημα (18x), παράπτωμα (9x), διανόημα/ διάνοια (3x).

Thus a reader of the Greek receives greater focus on the ‘lawless’ nature

of the wrongdoing than is so for a reader of the Hebrew who has muchmore of the cultic ‘abominable’ impression [ תוע ‘is a comprehensiveterm for all sins of cultic impurity’ (Zimmerli 1979: 190)]. While ‘in Hebrewthe tô‘ēḇâ̱/ôt theme pervades the entire book of Ezekiel, characterizingthe sinful relationship of Israel/Judah/Jerusalem, including the priestsand Levites, to Yahweh, as well as its positive denouement’ (Preuss 2006:599), in Greek it is ‘lawlessness’ that pervades. Further there is moreemphasis on the twisted ‘thoughts’ through the use of ἐνθύμημα andδιανόημα/ διάνοια.

However, there is also the idiosyncratic rendering of byזמ ἀσεβ- (10x),with the more common ἀνομ- only twice. All instances are in contextsof loose sexual behaviour, describing unfaithfulness in the people’srelationship with God. Possibly ἀσεβ- words were chosen to highlight‘impious’ behaviour, i.e., attitudinal and relational rather than simplylegal. ,( is used in the Pentateuch only in Lev 18:17; 19:29; 20:14 (2xזמall describing improper sexual behaviour. LXX has ἀσέβημα n 18:17 butἀνομία or ἀνόμημα otherwise.

These ‘wrongdoing’ words (in both LXX and MT) are almost entirelyused only for the behaviour of God’s people. In the Oracles against theNations (chs. 25–32), and referring to Gog (chs. 38–39), there is onlyἀδίκημα (28:15), ἀδικία (28:18), ἀμαρτία (28:18), ἀνομία (28:16; 32:27),and πονηρός (38:10). The focus in Ezekiel is on the sins of Israel and herleaders rather than those of other nations who attack her.

4.2.5 Lexical Variation in Translation Equivalents—and Readers

The concern in this commentary is with the Greek text and its readers.It would be most unlikely that later readers, especially Christian readers,would be aware of issues in Greek-Hebrew equivalents and would seek tomake sense of the Greek text as it stands. The distinction between “thetext as produced and the text as received” has been recognised for at least


39/600

28 INTRODUCTION

a century (Pietersma 2006: 6). Nevertheless traditions in understandingmay be present: readers sense when a familiar word is being used in an

unusual way and adapt accordingly to a meaning that makes sense.In §3.3 the debate over the activity of diff erent translators or revisers

was summarised. It was there noted that one factor examined is variationin translation equivalents in diff erent sections. Also involved is evalua-tion of “literalness” which can be related to consistency in translationequivalences and syntax. From the perspective of readers diff erences caninfluence reading in various ways:

1. Where the same Greek is used for diff erent Hebrew, readers may moreclosely associate relevant passages. There may be links with passageswith similar vocabulary or phrasing outside Ezekiel and indeed, thesemay have been associated in the mind of the translator/reviser/copyist. They may also strengthen, through similarity in expression,exegetical association of passages that in Hebrew are linked con-ceptually (e.g., πνεῦμα ζωῆς in 1:21; 10:17; 37:5; βάσανος in 3:20; 7:19;16:52, 54).

2. On the contrary, where diff erent Greek is used for the same Hebrew,passages that may have been associated for a Hebrew reader may notbe so readily linked or diff erent nuancing applied [e.g., the progres-sion, πτοηθῶσιν “be terrified” (2:7), ἐνδῶσιν “give up” (3:11), ἀπειθῶν “disobey” (3:27), for .[” “cease doingחדל

3. Some variation will be simply stylistic and probably not noticed byreaders. As an analogy, how many readers of English Bibles notice dif-ferences in language between the Gospels, e.g., “sea” or “lake” to referto Galilee, or “Simon” and “Peter”, or “Calvary” and “Golgotha”?

Specific instances will be described in the commentary.For further discussion on lexical matters, including variations, in

addition to recent lexicons (GELS, LEH, LSJ) reference may be made toextensive lists and analyses in Thackeray (1903a), Herrmann (1923), Cooke(1936: xlv–xlvi), Kase (in Johnson et al. 1938), Turner (1956), McGregor(1985), Lust (1986b), Spottorno (1986), Muraoka (1987), Marquis (1993),P. Turner (1970/1996, 2001) and Hauspie (2002).

4.3 Distinctive Features of Ezekiel

Two literary features setting Ezekiel apart from other books are thefrequency of the phrase, ‘They will know that I am Lord’ or similar, andthe form of the divine name.


40/600


4.3.1 ‘Knowing’ The verbs γινώσκω/ἐπιγινώσκω occur in B 86x (58x/28x; 11:12 is not in

B). ἐπιγινώσκω is only in chs. 1–25 (intertwined with γινώσκω, 13x inthis block).

They are often followed by stylistic variants, διότι or ὅτι. The varietyhowever is much greater in B (similar in A and Q) than in P967, one ofthe factors which has fed into the debate as to the number of translatorsand location of a reviser’s work (see §3.3).

Almost entirely reference is to recognizing/acknowledging God, hishaving spoken and/or acted, or his prophet (the only exceptions are

10:20, ‘I knew they were cherubs’; and 32:9, Israel led ‘to a land you didnot know’):

‘Know that I am Lord’: 64x.‘Know that I Lord have spoken’: 5x (5:13; 6:10; 17:21, 24; 37:14).‘Know that I Lord have . . .’ (another verb): 9x [14:23 (without

κύριος), 17:24; 21:4, 10; 22:22; (25:14;) 35:12; 36:36; similarly39:8].

‘Know me’/‘I will be known’/‘my holy name will be known’: 4x(35:11; 38:16, 23; 39:7).

‘Know that you are a prophet/that a prophet . . .’: 2x (2:5; 33:33).

In the phrase, ‘know that ἐγώ (εἰμι) κύριος ’, in B (also A, Q) εἰμι appearsonly in 7:6 and throughout chs. 28–39. Strikingly it occurs in 35:12although there is a following verb. This pattern is seen in P967 from ch.26 on (includes 26:6 and 37:14, another location with a following verb).The only instance in these chapters in B where εἰμι is not present is 36:38,part of the section added later in proto-Theodotion style.

Such ‘knowing’ is always in the future, apart from Lord ‘being known’

to Israel in Egypt [20:5 (where γνωρίζω also occurs), 9, 12].While every instance is preceded by a description of some word or

action of God, there are several instances where a summary follows thephrase: ‘know that I am the Lord who (ὁ + partic.) . . .’ (3x) or ‘when (ἑν +infin.) . . .’ (14x; 38:8 is exceptional in having ὅταν with aorist subjunctiveverb). Theologically and practically significant is that consistently God isknown through his revelatory actions, in judgment and restoration, seenby others. This is a contrast to the mystical visionary or inward reflective

approaches to knowledge of the Other (Zimmerli 1982).In 47 instances the phrase is indirect, ‘they will know’, but the 2nd

person (sing. and pl.) ‘you will know’ occurs 30x (25x in chs. 1–25 and4x in ch. 34).

While, as expected, Israel—‘house of Israel’, Jerusalem, ‘the mountainsof Israel’, ‘people of the land’, ‘prophets’, ‘survivors’—‘will know’ (51x),


41/600

30 INTRODUCTION

there are around 32x where it is nations who will know: 17:24, πάντα τὰ ξύλα τοῦ πεδίου; 21:4, 10, πᾶσα σὰρξ; chs. 25–32, 16x in ‘Oracles against the

Nations’ (incl. 28:23; 29:6; see commentary); ch. 35, 5x, Edom; chs. 36–39,8x τὰ ἔθνη. In chs. 25–32, 35 the ‘nations’ knowing comes through God’s

judgment on them, but in chs. 36–39 the major focus is on their knowingthrough the total restoration of Israel—spiritual and moral, physical andpolitical, with destruction of unrepentant opponents.

Part of the process is Israel herself coming to see the link between‘Lord’ and being ‘the house of Israel’: two of the instances of ‘know thatI am Lord’ continue ‘and that you are the house of Israel’ (20:38–39)

or ‘their God and they are my people, the house of Israel’ (34:30). Thenations coming to ‘know that I am Lord’ is inextricably linked with thelife of Lord’s people.

4.3.2 The Divine NameA characteristic of Ezekiel MT is the frequent combination יהוה דני (‘Lord YHWH’; English versions ‘Lord GOD’ or ‘Sovereign LORD’), seen alsoin the fragments of Ezekiel texts from the Dead Sea. Equivalent locationsin Greek manuscripts show a variety including in B (ὁ) κύριος, κύριος κύριος, κύριος (ὁ) θεός (τοῦ Ισραηλ), and Αδωναι κύριος.

In Ezekiel MT, of 217 instances (74% of instances in whole MT), mostoccur in divine speech formulae יהוה ’ ‘thus says Lord YHWHכה מר דני (122x) and יהוה נ ם דני ‘says Lord YHWH’ (81x), together with all fiveinstances of direct address to God (4:14; 9:8; 11:13; 21:5; 37:3). This con-trasts with instances of the combination elsewhere in MT.

In B these instances are matched diff erently throughout the book:

chs. 1–11 chs. 12–25 chs. 26–39 chs. 40–48

κύριος 20 78 42a 1κύριος ὁ θεὸς 15b

κύριος (ὁ) θεὸς τοῦ Ισραηλ 1c 1d

κύριος κύριος 13e 42Αδωναι κύριος 2f

a In addition 2 instances where B has no noun.b κύριος ὁ θεός in chs. 43–44 (6x) but κύριος θεός in chs. 45–48 (9x). κύριος ὁ θεός is alsoin 35:15 where MT has simply .יהוהc 4:14; also 4:13 where MT has simply .יהוהd 43:18; in addition 44:2, matching MT.e Also 20:38 where MT has . Of the 14 instances of the doubling, only 3 are in 12:1–20:37יהוה(12:10; 13:20; 14:6) but 11 in 20:38–25:17.f In 36:23b–38, an example of the diff erent Greek of this block.


42/600

THE USE AND INTERPRETATION OF EZEKIEL 31

McGregor (1985: 213–58) has extensive tables showing the occurrenceand form of the divine name in several manuscripts of Ezekiel, while

Olley (2004, with references cited there) provides further discussion andexamination of the trends in the manuscript history.

Throughout Ezekiel, κύριος is predominantly anarthrous (‘Lord’ in thetranslation), with only 17 instances with the article (‘the Lord’): 8:12, 16;11:15, 25; 20:1; 30:3; 33:17; 43:24; 45:1, 4, 23; 46:4, 12, 13, 14; 48:9, 14. It isdifficult to see any reason other than scribal variation.

Again, for the reader of B concern is with the text as is, the relation-ship to MT and other mss and debates over diff erent translators being

to most an unknown. What might be observed is the added weight givento divine speech through the increased doubling in moving through chs.12–39, followed by the divine ascription in the combination κύριος (ὁ)θεὸς in chs. 40–48.

5 The Use and Interpretation of Ezekiel

5.1 Jewish Interpretation

The manuscript tradition of LXX Ezekiel alongside later Jewish Greektranslations is evidence of ongoing dialogue and debate between Christiansand Jews, including exegetical interaction (Stemberger 1996). Accordinglya brief overview of Jewish use of the book of Ezekiel highlights issuesthat may be significant in Christian interpretation, whether such be inharmony or conflict.

5.1.1 The resurrection of 37:1–14: P967, MT and Pseudo-Ezekiel

The earliest (re-)interpretation of Ezekiel for which there is textualevidence (as distinct from necessarily speculative proposals for literarydevelopment of the book, e.g., Zimmerli 1979: 68–74; and overview ofapproaches by McKeating 1993: 30–61) is related to chs. 36–39, especiallythe interpretation of the vision of the Valley of the Dry Bones (37:1–14)and the time and nature of the resurrection.

P967 has the Valley of the Dry Bones vision after the defeat of Gog, andhence ch. 39 describing the fate of Gog and those with him is followed by

ch. 37, that of Israelites, leading into chs. 40–48. The MT order has thebattle with Gog after the promise of restoration. Modern consensus isthat the original understanding, with either order, was that Ezekiel wasaddressing people in exile who felt all hope of return and renewal wasgone and so the resurrection is national and political, including spiritualrenewal, and thus taking place in history (e.g., Zimmerli 1983: 264–66).

8/9/2019 John

John W. Olley Ezekiel a Commentary Based on Iezekiēl in Codex Vaticanus 2009

Documents

Transcript of John W. Olley Ezekiel a Commentary Based on Iezekiēl in Codex Vaticanus 2009