Ezekiel 37

[Ahanu]

And so the conversation continues from another thread . . .

I don't see why not? Ezekiel describes all kinds of strange visions that could hardly have been familiar to his readers?

Of course he used language that was familiar to his listeners. Most people back then were illiterate, and so they wouldn't have read it. If you were an astrophysicist, would you explain astrophysics with your own language and concepts to a people steeped in mythological thinking? I don't think so.

I suppose RJM is referring to the following from Ezekiel as strange:

And when I looked, there were four wheels by the cherubim, one wheel by one cherub and another wheel by each other cherub; the wheels appeared to have the colour of a beryl stone. As for their appearance, all four looked alike—as it were, a wheel in the middle of a wheel. When they went, they went toward any of their four directions; they did not turn aside when they went ... And their whole body, with their back, their hands, their wings, and the wheels that the four had, were full of eyes all around. As for the wheels, they were called in my hearing, “Wheel.”

Are you sure it would have been strange to his listeners, however? What do you, as a person that doesn't live in the age of mythological thinking, find strange about it? Or, better yet, what do you think Ezekiel's contemporaries would have found strange about it? To me, it makes sense that his audience was already familiar with the resurrection concept after Zoroastrian influence.

I think the encyclopedia's probably wrong, because the dates don't match for a widespread belief in literal resurrection in Ezekiel's day – the article is well over 100 years old, there's been a lot of scholarship since then ...

Yes, there has been a lot of scholarship since then, but a lot of scholars are saying the same thing. See Jon D. Levenson, a professor of Jewish studies at Harvard and one of the most influential scholars in the field, who wrote in Resurrection and Restoration (which was published in 2006): "If resurrection were thought ludicrous, or impossible even for God, then it would be a singularly inappropriate metaphor for the national renewal and restoration that Ezekiel predicts, and the vision in Ezek 37:1-10 could never have succeeded in its goal of overcoming the hopelessness of the audience."

Jesus was preaching a resurrection, from the question of the Sadducees (Mark 12, Matthew 22, Luke 20), who didn't believe it.

Also we have comments in John (cf John 5) and Martha's response in John 11:23-27 "Jesus saith to her: Thy brother shall rise again. Martha saith to him: I know that he shall rise again, in the resurrection at the last day Jesus said to her: I am the resurrection and the life: he that believeth in me, although he be dead, shall live: And every one that liveth, and believeth in me, shall not die for ever. Believest thou this? She saith to him: Yea, Lord, I have believed that thou art Christ the Son of the living God, who art come into this world."


Indeed, but Justin and others weren't as versed in the history of the Hebrew Scriptures as we are today.

By "others," are you talking about all the Church Fathers? I am struggling to find one that disagrees with Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian. Is the tradition they were handed wrong? Also, are you also talking about New Testament authors like Matthew, who probably understood Ezekiel 37 literally too? “The tombs were also opened and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised” (Matthew 27.52; Ezekiel 37.12).

 

[Ahanu]

There's quite an in-depth article on the question of resurrection in Ezekiel 37 here.

I post the conclusion, which I think probably has it right. The article examines the Ezekiel of the Hebrew Scriptures, the pseudo-Ezekiel found in the DSS at Qumran (c200 BCE), and 'Targum Ezekiel' which also dates to earliest 350BCE but probably somewhat later. It was finally redacted about the 10th century CE.

"The few but crucial differences between the mt and the two extra-biblical texts indicate that there had been a paradigm shift sometime between the writing of Ezekiel and the later two texts. The time-line of judgment and its consequence in terms of punishment or resurrection of the righteous is always ambiguously stated in Ezekiel MT. The apocalyptic eschatology with its concept of judgment and resurrection of the righteous individual after death which is evident in Ps Ez and the Targum only became evident several centuries after the writing of the book of Ezekiel."

"Ps-Ez is the earliest witness to the interpretation of Ezek 37:1-14 as expressing the concept of resurrection in concrete terms as a reward for individual piety. In contradiction to the possible physical restoration of the earthly Temple which some saw as depicted by Ezekiel, the Targum avoids the anthropomorphism in the description of the Merkebah throne in Ezek 43, and makes subtle intimations that the successful replication in the future of the celestial abode of God is meant in a metaphorical sense. Both Ps-Ez and the Targum portray the connection of the Merkebah throne with judgment and eschatological resurrection; these two texts could only have gained clarity in this regard via later developments. This paradigm shift may well have been potentially under the surface of the Ezekiel text, but to interpret MT Ezekiel as expressing a hope or belief in actual physical resurrection would be a travesty of the wide-ranging and open-ended fruitfulness of the spirit in which the book of Ezekiel was written."
(bold emphasis mine)

Sorry, the link is not working for me. Do you mind posting the title of the article with the name of the author? Thanks.

 

[RJM]

suppose RJM is referring to the following from Ezekiel as strange:

And when I looked, there were four wheels by the cherubim, one wheel by one cherub and another wheel by each other cherub; the wheels appeared to have the colour of a beryl stone. As for their appearance, all four looked alike—as it were, a wheel in the middle of a wheel. When they went, they went toward any of their four directions; they did not turn aside when they went ... And their whole body, with their back, their hands, their wings, and the wheels that the four had, were full of eyes all around. As for the wheels, they were called in my hearing, “Wheel.”

Did you read the whole chapter (Ezekiel 10) in context?
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel 10&version=NKJV

You bought Ezekiel into the discussion. My point is that Ezekiel is one of the most visionary of the prophets. The valley of bones prophecy in context refers to the restoration of the Nation of Israel. It says so clearly in the chapter.

"Then He said to me, “Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel. They indeed say, ‘Our bones are dry, our hope is lost, and we ourselves are cut off!’ Therefore prophesy and say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord God: “Behold, O My people, I will open your graves and cause you to come up from your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel.

Ezekiel 37: 11-13

Individual personal resurrection is not the take-away point, imo

Whatever. I do believe that for a discussion about Ezekiel, it may be necessary first to read the Book of Ezekiel to get the context ...

 

[Thomas]

Sorry, the link is not working for me. Do you mind posting the title of the article with the name of the author? Thanks.

"To what extent is Ezekiel the source of resurrection of the dead in 4Q385 Pseudo-Ezekiel and Targum Ezekiel?"
Annette Evans

 

[Thomas]

To me, it makes sense that his audience was already familiar with the resurrection concept after Zoroastrian influence.

I think scholars argue it's too early to assume such a familiarity. Also it might evidence retro-fitting your ideas onto the past ...

The uniqueness of Ezekiel in introducing 'resurrection' imagery speaks for itself ... if the idea was widespread, his mention would not be so significant.

See Jon D. Levenson, a professor of Jewish studies at Harvard and one of the most influential scholars in the field, who wrote in Resurrection and Restoration (which was published in 2006): "If resurrection were thought ludicrous, or impossible even for God, then it would be a singularly inappropriate metaphor for the national renewal and restoration that Ezekiel predicts, and the vision in Ezek 37:1-10 could never have succeeded in its goal of overcoming the hopelessness of the audience."

Well it's an open question. But the point is the thrust of Ezekiel is national restoration, not individual resurrection.

By "others," are you talking about all the Church Fathers? I am struggling to find one that disagrees with Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian. Is the tradition they were handed wrong?

Were they handed a tradition of Ezekiel interpretation? I don't think so ... they read it but were not in touch with Jewish exegesis.

Also, are you also talking about New Testament authors like Matthew, who probably understood Ezekiel 37 literally too? “The tombs were also opened and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised” (Matthew 27.52; Ezekiel 37.12).

Besides Ezekiel 37 scholars also reference Joel 2:10, Isaiah 26:19, Nahum 1:5-6, Daniel 12:2.

Nevertheless, Matthew could have been noting the actual events post-crucifixion and highlighting them with OT references, which was common practice.

 

[Thomas]

Did you read the whole chapter (Ezekiel 10) in context?

Taken in context, the prophecy, as you say, concerns the restitution of Israel, not individual Resurrection. Reading it as the later is to take it out of context, which certainly one can do, but it wouldn't have been what his audience did.

Although the Zoroastrians bury by air exposure, the bones were collected and placed is ossuaries. It's quite likely that not all bones were collected, but to assume a 'valley of dry bones' must refer to Zoroastrain practice is not strictly necessary ... any battlefield would have been such?

You bought Ezekiel into the discussion. My point is that Ezekiel is one of the most visionary of the prophets. The valley of bones prophecy in context refers to the restoration of the Nation of Israel. It says so clearly in the chapter.

Yep.

Individual personal resurrection is not the take-away point, imo

The 'valley of bones' reference was not even in the Qumran copy of Ezekiel, the prophecy is even more clearly referenced as the restoration of Israel.

 

[RJM]

Taken in context, the prophecy, as you say, concerns the restitution of Israeli

Ok. I meant Ezekiel 10.

Nevertheless I accept the Zoroastrian influence. New for me. I think it may be overplayed. I don't think it can be used to explain gospel accounts of the resurrection of Christ ... and ... yeah ... I've not much else to say about it.

Thanks @Ahanu

Am enjoying the theological discussion between you and @Thomas as much if it as I can follow, lol

 

[RJM]

@Thomas
Sorry, I thought I was replying to @Ahanu in the above post #7
However it doesn't change the response

 

[Ahanu]

I think scholars argue it's too early to assume such a familiarity.

I think some scholars might argue along such lines.

Also it might evidence retro-fitting your ideas onto the past ...

It might not.

The uniqueness of Ezekiel in introducing 'resurrection' imagery speaks for itself ... if the idea was widespread, his mention would not be so significant.

Even if not widespread, the concept might have been familiar enough for Ezekiel's audience to understand the metaphor. It resonated with the audience because of existing beliefs.

Well it's an open question. But the point is the thrust of Ezekiel is national restoration, not individual resurrection.

I'm not sure how the distinction matters if the interpreter is arguing that the use of the metaphor implies actual acceptance in the belief of resurrection (even when it is not stated explicitly in the text), so I don't get why you and @RJM continue to harp on about context.

Were they handed a tradition of Ezekiel interpretation?

I assume some were. Seems to be a controversial issue.

I don't think so ... they read it but were not in touch with Jewish exegesis.

Of course some were familiar with Jewish exegesis. Clement of Alexandria was clearly familiar with Jewish exegesis (especially the works of Philo). Despite this familiarity, Clement interpreted passages like Ezekiel 37 through a Christian lens, similar to Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian and probably all early Christians. Even Origen, who was familiar with Jewish exegesis and the most intelligent of the early Church Fathers, followed the same line of thought.

Besides Ezekiel 37 scholars also reference Joel 2:10, Isaiah 26:19, Nahum 1:5-6, Daniel 12:2.

Nevertheless, Matthew could have been noting the actual events

Actual events? What actual events? I don't think Matthew was a news reporter. Matthew could have been noting what he thought were actual events, or he could have been thinking in terms of myth. I'm not sure.

 

[Thomas]

I think some scholars might argue along such lines.

OK

It might not.

OK

Even if ... might have been ...

OK. I tend to think not.

I'm not sure how the distinction matters ...

Really?

It's quite simple. If you read Hebrew exegesis of the Ezekiel here, he's talking about the reconstitution of Israel after the diaspora, not about physical resurrection. The valley of bones is an extended metaphor in that context – he hasn't suddenly introduced a revolutionary idea.

Of course some were familiar with Jewish exegesis.

Perhaps not as much as you might think.

Clement of Alexandria was clearly familiar with Jewish exegesis (especially the works of Philo).

Nigh-on totally dependent on Philo, from what I gather, and Philo's Judaism was very much through his Hellenic lens – he was not much appreciated by his contemporaries. Clement didn't read Hebrew – and perhaps neither did Philo, apparently. Clement got the analogical interpretation of Scripture from Philo, and I'm pretty sure Philo would not have read physical resurrection in Ezekiel. So Clement got that from elsewhere.

Clement interpreted passages like Ezekiel 37 through a Christian lens, similar to Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian and probably all early Christians.

Quite, so the read into the text stuff that's not intended by the original scribe, and were often unaware of the context in which the Scripture was written. That's my point.

Even Origen, who was familiar with Jewish exegesis .

Precisely, 'even' he, who learnt Hebrew to read the texts in the original, and discussed with Jews, but is not noted as a scholar of Hebrew exegesis, rather he just checked certain points with them.

Matthew could have been noting what he thought were actual events, or he could have been thinking in terms of myth. I'm not sure.

On that issue, I am.

 

[Ahanu]

Really?

It's quite simple. If you read Hebrew exegesis of the Ezekiel here, he's talking about the reconstitution of Israel after the diaspora, not about physical resurrection. The valley of bones is an extended metaphor in that context – he hasn't suddenly introduced a revolutionary idea.

Ezekiel's listeners could point to his resurrection imagery and think: "Hmm . . . the use of this imagery implies the actual resurrection of the dead, which we are already familiar with." That can't be ruled out by reading it in context.

Verse 14 seems to be particularly important during the century of Christ:

“'And I will put my spirit in you and you shall live and I will settle you upon your land and you will know that I, Yahweh, have spoken and done it' says Yahweh."

This spirit that gives life to the dead is later seen as a gift for the faithful that receive individual resurrection in some form as their reward. This in no way prevents national restoration as well. I suspect this is how Jesus (yes, the one that used Exodus 3.6 as proof text for resurrection), Paul, Matthew, and other early Christians understood Ezekiel 37: It not only referred to national restoration for them, but as implying something more too. In other words, I don't think is is an either/or dilemma as you present it (reconstitution of Israel, not individual resurrection).

Early Christians often connected spirit with resurrection, which isn't really mentioned much in the OT as far as I can tell. But it just so happens that Ezekiel 37 makes that connection.

 

[Thomas]

Ezekiel's listeners could point to his resurrection imagery and think: "Hmm . . . the use of this imagery implies the actual resurrection of the dead, which we are already familiar with." That can't be ruled out by reading it in context.

But neither can it be ruled in, with no other contemporary discussion of resurrection surviving.

I still suggest Christian teaching on the matter was founded on the resurrection of Christ, more than anything else.

 

[RJM]

I still suggest Christian teaching on the matter was founded on the resurrection of Christ, more than anything else.

Within just two years after the death of Jesus, according to Bart Ehrman:

"... the apostle Paul, who was talking about Jesus by at least the year 32 CE, that is, two years after the date of Jesus’ death. Paul, as I will point out, actually knew, personally, Jesus’ own brother James and his closest disciples Peter and John ..."

https://ehrmanblog.org/gospel-evidence-that-jesus-existed/

 

[juantoo3]

Of course he used language that was familiar to his listeners. Most people back then were illiterate, and so they wouldn't have read it.

This is erroneous assumption. The Hebrew alphabet is one of the earliest, and among the oldest still extant.

You may possibly be referencing the Dark Ages, when the Church took upon itself to keep the masses in ignorance.

 

[Ahanu]

This is erroneous assumption. The Hebrew alphabet is one of the earliest, and among the oldest still extant.

What does the age of the Hebrew alphabet have to do with literacy vs. illiteracy or the degree of literacy in a society? There is a material and economic reason for the existence of the scribal elite in Jesus' time. Literacy rates were low back then.

 

[juantoo3]

What does the age of the Hebrew alphabet have to do with literacy vs. illiteracy or the degree of literacy in a society? There is a material and economic reason for the existence of the scribal elite in Jesus' time. Literacy rates were low back then.

The Septuagint is contrary evidence, not only was the Jewish Bible available in Hebrew prior to Jesus, the Greek translation was ALSO available during the same period, which is the time you are referencing. Literacy was prevalent, certainly among the merchant class and above, and likely reached below as well.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Literacy was prevalent, certainly among the merchant class and above, and likely reached below as well.

Hmm .. not so sure about that.

 

[Ahanu]

The Septuagint is contrary evidence, not only was the Jewish Bible available in Hebrew prior to Jesus, the Greek translation was ALSO available during the same period, which is the time you are referencing. Literacy was prevalent, certainly among the merchant class and above, and likely reached below as well.

Most didn't even have a copy of the Jewish Bible. It was not cheap to make a copy. Today we have a copy of the Bible in every hotel; they did not have such a luxury since it was time consuming to produce and the materials to make one were not always readily available. That's one reason why most people only heard the Bible.

 

[juantoo3]

This matter has been argued before here, with me on your side. I am not easily swayed. Ask @RabbiO.

 

[juantoo3]

The Septuagint does not consist of a single, unified corpus. Rather, it is a collection of ancient translations of the Tanakh, along with other Jewish texts that are now commonly referred to as apocrypha. Importantly, the canon of the Hebrew Bible was evolving over the century or so in which the Septuagint was being written. Also, the texts were translated by many different people, in different locations, at different times, for different purposes, and often from different original Hebrew manuscripts.[8]

The Hebrew Bible, also called the Tanakh, has three parts: the Torah ("Law"), the Nevi'im ("Prophets"), and the Ketuvim ("Writings"). The Septuagint has four: law, history, poetry, and prophets. The books of the Apocrypha were inserted at appropriate locations.[3][4] Extant copies of the Septuagint, which date from the 4th century CE, contain books and additions[36] not present in the Hebrew Bible as established in the Jewish canon[37] and are not uniform in their contents. According to some scholars, there is no evidence that the Septuagint included these additional books.[38][9] These copies of the Septuagint include books known as anagignoskomena in Greek and in English as deuterocanon (derived from the Greek words for "second canon"), books not included in the Jewish canon.[39][10] These books are estimated to have been written between 200 BCE and 50 CE. Among them are the first two books of Maccabees; Tobit; Judith; the Wisdom of Solomon; Sirach; Baruch (including the Letter of Jeremiah), and additions to Esther and Daniel. The Septuagint version of some books, such as Daniel and Esther, are longer than those in the Masoretic Text, which were affirmed as canonical in Rabbinic Judaism.[40] The Septuagint Book of Jeremiah is shorter than the Masoretic Text.[41] The Psalms of Solomon, 1 Esdras, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, the Letter of Jeremiah, the Book of Odes, the Prayer of Manasseh and Psalm 151 are included in some copies of the Septuagint.[42]

The Septuagint has been rejected as scriptural by mainstream Rabbinic Judaism for a couple of reasons. First, the Septuagint differs from the Hebrew source texts in many cases (particularly in the Book of Job).[15] Second, the translations appear at times to demonstrate an ignorance of Hebrew idiomatic usage.[15] A particularly noteworthy example of this phenomenon is found in Isaiah 7:14, in which the Hebrew word עַלְמָה‎ (‘almāh, which translates into English as "young woman") is translated into the Koine Greek as παρθένος (parthenos, which translates into English as "virgin").[43]

The Septuagint became synonymous with the Greek Old Testament, a Christian canon incorporating the books of the Hebrew canon with additional texts. Although the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church include most of the books in the Septuagint in their canons, Protestant churches usually do not. After the Reformation, many Protestant Bibles began to follow the Jewish canon and exclude the additional texts (which came to be called the Apocrypha) as noncanonical.[44][45] The Apocrypha are included under a separate heading in the King James Version of the Bible.[46]

Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

It is unclear to what extent Alexandrian Jews accepted the authority of the Septuagint. Manuscripts of the Septuagint have been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, and were thought to have been in use among various Jewish sects at the time.[56]

Several factors led most Jews to abandon the Septuagint around the second century CE. The earliest gentile Christians used the Septuagint out of necessity, since it was the only Greek version of the Bible and most (if not all) of these early non-Jewish Christians could not read Hebrew. The association of the Septuagint with a rival religion may have made it suspect in the eyes of the newer generation of Jews and Jewish scholars.[33] Jews instead used Hebrew or Aramaic Targum manuscripts later compiled by the Masoretes and authoritative Aramaic translations, such as those of Onkelos and Rabbi Yonathan ben Uziel.[57]

Perhaps most significant for the Septuagint, as distinct from other Greek versions, was that the Septuagint began to lose Jewish sanction after differences between it and contemporary Hebrew scriptures were discovered. Even Greek-speaking Jews tended to prefer other Jewish versions in Greek (such as the translation by Aquila), which seemed to be more concordant with contemporary Hebrew texts.[33]

ibid

The oldest manuscripts of the Septuagint include 2nd-century-BCE fragments of Leviticus and Deuteronomy (Rahlfs nos. 801, 819, and 957) and 1st-century-BCE fragments of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and the Twelve Minor Prophets (Alfred Rahlfs nos. 802, 803, 805, 848, 942, and 943). Relatively-complete manuscripts of the Septuagint postdate the Hexaplar recension, and include the fourth-century-CE Codex Vaticanus and the fifth-century Codex Alexandrinus. These are the oldest-surviving nearly-complete manuscripts of the Old Testament in any language; the oldest extant complete Hebrew texts date to about 600 years later, from the first half of the 10th century.[33] The 4th-century Codex Sinaiticus also partially survives, with many Old Testament texts.[33]: 73 : 198  The Jewish (and, later, Christian) revisions and recensions are largely responsible for the divergence of the codices.[20] The Codex Marchalianus is another notable manuscript.

ibid