Encyclopaedia Biblica/Evilmerodach-Ezel

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Encyclopaedia Biblica
Thomas Kelly Cheyne and John Sutherland Black
Evilmerodach-Ezel
see Encyclopaedia Biblica for other articles, typographic issues, links to PDF copies, and public domain status

Contents

EVIL-MERODACH[edit]

[B in 2 K.], oyA(M/\A&pAAA,x t A in J er -]> Aoyxoc [Jos. c. Ap. 120]), in Bab. Avcl-Maruduk, man of Marduk, 1 the son and successor of Nebuchad rezzar, king of Babylon, after a short reign (561-560 B.C., 2 see CHRONOLOGY, 25), was put to death by his brother Nergal-sar-usur (Berossus, cited by Jos. c. Ap. 120). Apart from a few contract -tablets (see KB 4200 ff.], no inscriptions of his reign have as yet been brought to light. One of his earliest acts was the liberation of Jehoiachin in the thirty-seventh year of his captivity, 2 K. 2627 (eveiavapuoax [A], fvi\ad/j.ap<a- Sa-x [L]) = Jer. 52 31 (ov\aifj.a8axap [B], -pax [Q], -\eSa/j.axo-p [N]). According to Berossus, Evil-Mero- dach reigned avo/Abis Kal dcre\y)s, which hardly accords with his benevolence in 2 K. (unless [see \Vi. AOF 2198 ( 99)] he had a political purpose in view), 3 and hence Tiele (BAG 457 464/1 ) suspects that the true rescuer of Jehoiachin was Nergal-sar-usur. All the days of his life (2 K. 2529*. Jer. 5233*5) would cer tainly apply better to a king who reigned four years than to one who reigned scarcely two.

1 Cp in Ass. Aram. nSlN (f em -)> servant, CIS 2, no. 64, and ynoC^ab. equivalent has Afanfttk-riiitmanni), it. no. 68.

2 18 years in Jos. Ant. x. 11 2 (a/SiAjiaSafiaxo?) is more likely a mistake for months.

3 Jerome (on Is. 14 19) mentions a tradition that Evil-Mero- dach had been thrown into prison by Nebuchadrezzar, and had there become friendly with Jehoiachin ; cp with this the tradi tion in Jos. (Ant. x. 11 2), where Evil-Merodach releases and honours Jehoiachin to atone for his father s bad faith. ,

EXACT, EXACTOR, EXACTION.[edit]

(1) Exactor is the usual Vg. rendering of the Heb. part, i^i nfgfs (v B JJi C P -^ ss - nag ", to overpower ). It is found also in Is. CO 17 EV (RVm. taskmaster, <R eirtVieoTros), Job 397 AVmg- (EV driver ; <f>opoA6yos), Dan. 11 20 RV (AV raiser of taxes ; TVTTTMV [S6( av /Jao-iAe ws, cod. 87] trpaa-diav [S. /Sao-tAeias 13AQJ), Zech. 98 104 RVmg. and RV (AV op pressor, it\a.vv<av). In Ex. 87, etc., nogei is rendered task master (pyoiui/CTT|s), in Is. 8 12 9 4 [3] 1424 (wpotxrajp, airai.Tuv \irrfi9ojf x c - a )> Kvpieucras, aTrairiii ) EV has oppressor, in Job 3 18 AV oppressor, RV taskmaster (^opoAoyos, as in 39 7). See TASKWORK, TAXATION.

(2) For nrij. gfrftfSt/i, Ezek. 45 gt, EV exaction, EVmg. has, better, Heb. expulsions, i.e., evictions. has KO.TO.- bwameiav.

(3) On Nii S, utassii, and N ^J, naXa (Dt. 15 if. Neh. 7 io/. 1031 [32]), cp USURY and LAW AND JUSTICE.

(4) On npoiKTuip ((B in Is. 812; EV oppressor ), Lk. 12 58 (RVig. exactor, EV officer ; cp Lk. 3 13, npaa-a-fre, AV exact, RV extort ), see TAXATION.

EXCOMMUNICATION[edit]

1. Meaning in Gospels.[edit]

This Latin word of late origin (it is not found in the Vulgate) is conveniently used to denote (temporary or permanent) exclusion from the ecclesiastical community as distinguished from civil penalties of an analogous character. It need hardly be said that the later procedure of church excommunication developed out of NT germs, though Roman theologians give ex positions of fundamental biblical passages which are not always critically sound. It is equally obvious that the NT germs of later usages stand in close relation to the practice of excommunication among the Jews in the time of Christ. It is to this Jewish practice that reference is made in Lk. 622, where from the useof three distinct terms (a.(pop i<F(ii(Tiv, 6veidi(rtj}crif, eKfidXwcriv rb 8t>o/J.a) some have found a reference to as many different grades of ex communication, 1 but where really (see Weiss) only one is intended, viz. , exclusion from religious and social intercourse ; see Jn. 922 1242 162 (diroffvvdywyos) and cp SYNAGOGUE. In Mt. 1815-17, too, only one kind of ban is presupposed ; its application, however, is to be preceded first by a gentler, then by a graver admonition, which reminds us forcibly of the similar procedure customary among the later Jews (see Ardkhln, it>l> ; Mishna, Ma.wth, lio).

It is noteworthy that this passage stands just before the much-discussed passage on BINDING AND LOOSING (?>. 18). We can, however, more easily imagine Jesus actually uttering v . 18 than TV. 15-17, which seem plainly to represent the later practice of Jewish Christians. Let him be to thee as the cSvi/cos (RV the Gentile) and the publican are the words which describe the punishment of the convicted sinner. Here there is a possibility that the sense of the original saying has been missed. In the Palestinian Aramaic the term used would be K^ S, which may no doubt be rendered Gentiles, but only because Gentiles were misbelievers ; the word really means heretics or infidels (cp Levy s and Jastrow s Lexx. ; Schiirer, TLZ 99, col. 168^).

1 On the three Jewish grades of excommunication see Ham burger, KE dcs Judentkums, s.v. I!. urn ; and cp Weber, Jiid. Theol. i42/

2 See Redpath. Exfios., 1898 t., pp. 287-290. Ramsay s illustration of i Cor. 5 5 by the language of curses by which pagan Corinthians consigned their enemies to destruction by the powers of the world of death (Exp. / . 10 59) is hardly to the point, .for Satan was not an independent supernatural being.

2. In Pauline Epistles.[edit]

Passing to the undoubtedly Pauline epistles we find most probably two recorded instances of church discipline. In i Cor. 63-5 we read that resolved, as representing Christ's spirit, to give over a certain offender against morality to Satan (alluding apparently to Job 26) a in the presence of the assembled church, he himself being spiritually present among them. Physical death he expects to be the consequence of this act (cp i Cor. 11 30) ; but the object is the good of the offender, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. In 2 Cor. 2 6-n, it has been customary to suppose that exclusion from church privileges was all that the offender actually suffered, and that this was not permanent. Weizsiickcr s exposition of the circumstances, 1 however, makes it extremely probable that an entirely different case is referred to, and that the offence was of a totally different order. The Church had at first sympathised with the offender, who had in some way injured the apostle ; but in consequence of a letter from Paul the majority resolved to rebuke the offender. It was no doubt some question of party intrigues against the apostle. There is no reason to think that the expression dvdOefM fj.apavada (i Cor. 1622) is a formula of excom munication as was supposed by Calvin and other reformers (the words were held to be synonyms, like d/3/3a o irar-fip).

The view need not be discussed. It is contradicted by the prayer at the end of chap. 10 of the Didache :

EASeVoj \opis KO.\ TrapfASeTio 6 KOCTJUOS
OVTO?.
Ei TIS aytos, pve <7$wei TIS OVK eari, jieTai/oeiTto.
Mrtn v ft \tL-nu

Still no doubt the prayer for the Lord s parousia did suggest to- the apostle a thought of vengeance. To refuse to love the Lord Jesus made a man anathema ; when the Lord came, this sentence would be executed.

The Gk. avoBefia (anathema) is not to be taken as suggesting excommunication (this would be importing later ideas [see Suicer, Tlu-s., s.v.} , observe that in Gal. 1 8* it is an angel that is spoken of). The same remark applies to Rom. 9 3 i Cor. 12 3. "Ayaflen-a is synonymous with Kardpa and eTrtfcarapaTos.

3. In Pastoral Epistles.[edit]

In the Pastoral Epistles the rules of exclusion from fellowship have become more precise, and the offences punished by it are no longer merely moral. Again we hear of offenders 'delivered to Satan' (i Tim. Izo) ; but it is that they may be taught not to blaspheme (cp 2 Tim. 82 2 Pet. 2io-i8). The rights of a presbyter are defined ; an accusation against him is not to be received, unless there be two or three witnesses ; but there is to be public reproof of all who sin (i Tim. 5ig/. ). In Tit. 3 10 a man that is heretical (see HERESY, 2) is to be avoided (irapaiTov; so render in 2 Tim. 223; cp RV 2 Macc. 231), but only after a first and second admonition. That the aipfcreis or factions referred to had a theological colouring, is clear from 2 Jn. 10, and that they might even be dangerous appears from 3 Jn. 9/. , where Diotrephes who affects pre-eminence (6 <pi\oirpurrevwv) is said not to admit the writer to fellow ship ; fit punishment is threatened for him. T. K. c.


EXECUTIONER[edit]

The OT has no special word to denote the person who executes the sentence of capital punishment. The words rendered executioner in EV refer more naturally to (royal) bodyguards.

1. raa tabbah (from roc, Ass. tabdhu, to slaughter ), is in i S. f>23f. rendered cook ; cp COOKING, i). In Gen. 3736 39 1 403./7 41 10 12, the D rGEn if of the Pharaoh, and in 2 K. Iv&jff. Jer. 399^, the Q natp ZTI of Nebuchadrezzar is in EV captain of the guard. So also jrnrtrai (Arioch) in Dan. 2 14 (EV i K- chief of the executioners, except in Jer. chief marshal ); cp WRS, O J JCftl, 262, n. i. (B in these passages has apytju.ayetpos, apxi6eo>iO(iuAa, apxiSeoTiiuTJJs.

2. T3, Karl, 2 K. 11 4 igt, RVmff- See CARITES.

3. (TTre/couAaToip (Lat. speculator or speculator, a pikeman, halberdier), Mk. 627 RV soldier of the guard. The word is found also in late Hebrew.

1 . (/. Age, I 349-353]

EXILE[edit]

(Is. 20 4 RV, Ezek. 12 4 n RV, Ezra 835 RV). See CAPTIVITY.

EXODUS[edit]

I. Historical (1-8).

  • Two hypotheses (1-4).
  • JE's account (5-6).
  • Manetho (7).
  • Naville (8).

II. Geographical (10-15).

  • Starting-point ( 10).
  • Sea-passage (11-14, 16).
  • Early physical geography (15).

Bibliography ( 10).

1. Two rival hypotheses.[edit]

The interest of a legend which has long been mistaken for history and which has coloured the life and thoughts of a great people is hardlv less than that of the facts themselves. Even if it were certain (i} that only a section of the Israelites (the Rachel-tribes) sojourned in the land of Egypt, and made its Exodus from it, or (6) that the true land of o lsD from which the Israelitish Exodus occurred, was not Egypt (Mist-aim) at all, but a N. Arabian land called Musr or Musri (so Wi. ; see MIZRAIM, 26), it would still, on account of the generations that have fed their inner life upon it, be a thrilling tale which, tells of the hardened heart of the Pharaoh, of the escape of the Hebrew bondmen, of the passage of the Red Sea, of the purifying trials in the wilderness. In this article we shall call the former (a) the conservative, the latter (6) the advanced hypothesis. Cp ISRAEL, 2 /. The con servative hypothesis is at present that most favoured by biblical critics.

2. Conservative hypothesis.[edit]

There is thought to be an antecedent probability that the Israelites, as well as Hebrews, found temporary admission into the NE. of the Egyptian territory. They would, of course, come from Canaan. That there were Israelites in that country at an early date we now know from the Israel-stele discovered in 1896 by Flinders Petrie. It may have been in Merneptah s time, or it may have been even earlier, that the catastrophe poetically described by the Egyptian king occurred, when the people of Isiraalvfas laid waste, so that their crops were not, and so that, various cities of Canaan also having been punished, Haru (Palestine) became a widow i.e., helpless^ for Egypt. 1 The names 1 Ishpal and Yakbal ( Y-sa-p- a-ra and Y--k-b-d-ra^) in the name-list of Thotmes III. (nos. 78, 102) also appear to some critics to show that before that king s reign tribes having these names (which certainly look like Joseph-el and Jacob-el) had lived in Palestine, and given their own names to localities. It is conceivable that these Israelites, Josephites, or Jacobites, or some portion of them, being nomads, had sought admission into Egypt under pressure of famine, and had sojourned there, and had been treated at length with severity by the Pharaoh, though the statement respecting Pithom and Raamses (Ex. ln) is not without difficulty. It must be admitted, however, that references to Mer neptah s stele and to the names Ishpal and Yakbal can be made only with much reserve. The phrase the people of Isiraal is very difficult (one would like to be able to read Joseph-el or Jezreel ), and the meaning of Ishpal and Yakbal is by no means free from doubt (see JOSEPH i. and ii. , i ; and JACOB, i).

3. Stade's theory.[edit]

According to Stade ( Die Entsteh. des Volkes Israel, Akad. Reden und Abhandlungen, [ 99], 97-122) it is likely that the Hebrew tribes had sought P a ^ ture for their flocks to the s - of the Wady Tumllat, and that so a part of them had come under the power of the Egyptian authori ties ; likely too that the Israelites had cause to com plain of a misuse of this power. The Egyptian authorities may, of course, have imposed a corvee upon them. The part of the Hebrew tribes which remained free from Egyptian oppression probably wandered as far as the true Sinai (E. of the Elanitic Gulf), and these Sinaitic nomads formed a confederacy under the protection of the god of Sinai ; the liberated Israelites joined them at Kadesh. To the Kadesh tradition (see KADESH i. 3) Stade attaches great importance.

In the OLZ (May, June, July, 99), Winckler criticises this view as mere theological rationalism. The charge might equally well be brought against C. Niebuhr, who is no theologian. Experience; however, has again and a& proved that popular traditions are sometimes more truthful than critics had supposed. 'Rationalistic' conjecture is not out of place in the prolegomena of history, and here it has the advantage of keeping the student in some degree of sympathy with the Israelitish writers and the Jewish readers of the narrative of the Exodus.

1 See Six Temples at Thebes (Flinders Petrie), 1897, which contains a chapter with a translation of the Merneptah inscrip tion by Spiegelberg. See also W. M. Miiller, Anmerkungen, and Naville, Les dernieres lignes de la stele mentionnant les Israelites (an attempt to reconcile the stele with Exodus). Rec. de trail, xx. ( 98).

2 WMM As. u. Eur. 162^

4. Winckler and Beke.[edit]

Winckler s theory mentioned above in i has an additional claim to consideration from the fact that the Englishman Dr - c - T - Beke, in his Origines Biblicce > vo1 - > - maintained as long ago as 1834 that the Misraim of the Hebrew tradition of the Exodus was not Egypt, but some district lying to the N. of the Sinaitic peninsula. He also held that the Red Sea crossed by the Israelites was the Gulf of Akaba, and that Horeb or Sinai lay to the NE. of the head of that Gulf. His work did not escape the notice of Ewald, but failed to exert any deep influence. Winckler s kindred theory, proposed in 1893, was formed in complete independence of Dr. Beke. To accept it, as it stands, is hardly possible ; but a modifica tion of it, which will suit the requirements of biblical criticism, lies close at hand. 1 The existing evidence (which cannot here be discussed) leads to the conclusion that the N. Arabian Musur coincided with or included the district of Kadesh, and this is just the district which forms the scene of some of the most important patri archal legends, though later scribes disguised Misrim (Musur) as Misraim (Egypt), or even fell into deeper error still (see KADESH i. i ; MIZRAIM, 2(6); cp MORIAH). We cannot avoid the impression that there were Israelitish tribes in the N. Arabian Musur who were never in the Musur of Egypt. What were the relations between the Rachel-tribes in Egypt and the Israelites in Musur, and any other kindred associations that there may have been elsewhere, we are at present unable to say definitely. We do, however, seem to see that an Egypt-tradition and a Musri-tradition have been fused together. T. K. C.

5. JE s account.[edit]

We now turn to consider certain suggestive points in JE's account of the Exodus. There is a remarkable parallelism between JE s narrative of the journey from the Red Sea to sinai (Ex. 1622-1827), and the continuation of the march from Sinai to Kadesh (Nu. 102 9 -20). The visit of JETHRO (q.v.) and the appointment of the judges to lighten the labours of Moses were probably once placed later (by E) in connection with the legislation at Horeb. The defeat of Amalek in Ex. 17 has geographical difficulties, and the account seems to be based upon Nu. 1440^, where it is obviously more original (see Bacon, Trip. Trad. 93). Similarly the gift of Manna (Ex. 16) and the striking of the rock at the waters of Meribah (ib. 17) are probably connected, in the one case, with Massah (between Taberah and Kibroth-hattaavah), and, in the other, with Kadesh (see MANNA, 3 ; MASSAH AND MERIBAH). In every instance the episodes bear the appearance of having been inserted from later stages of the journey where they more naturally belong. Ex. 1622-27 is the only old fragment remaining, and here the covenant, after a journey of three days, reminds us of the three days journey in the request to Pharaoh (Ex. 3i8 63), and finds a parallel in the three days journey in Nu. 10s3. 2 The oldest account of the journey from the Red Sea to Sinai is thus reduced to a minimum.

1 Not, however, such a modification as Jensen s (TLZ, 4th Feb. 1899). The region S. of Palestine may have been called D "1XD> thinks this scholar, because it was often under Egyptian rule. This fails to do justice alike to the biblical and to the Assyriological data.

2 After leaving the yam-Suf<h (RED SEA) Israel journeyed at once to the wilderness of SHUR (?.v.). Note that in v. 25 ?HW and CSpp remind us of Massah and Kadesh (En-Mishpat); see MARAH.

6. Musrite tradition.[edit]

Passing over the Decalogue and Covenant at Sinai we resume JE at chaps. 24, 32-34. Now the episode of the golden calf can not well be older than the reign of Hezekiah, and points indeed to a date later than 722 (Addis) ; it may with considerable probability be ascribed to E, cp EXODUS ii., 3 [viii. ]). There was therefore no need in the old narrative for any renewal of the covenant, or for the intercession of Moses in 33 f.

That chap. 33 f. is composite is generally admitted, and it remains to consider the fragments that are left after the omission of those passages which are necessarily of an editorial nature. It is highly probable that we have here the traces of an old theophany and law-giving of greater antiquity than the theophany and law-giving at Sinai-Horeb (3ft 20 ff.), the scene of which was not Sinai, but Kadesh (see KAUESH i. 2). Fortunately this old tradition is not quite a torso. Although we can find no narrative of which it may be the continuation (see above, 5 end), it seems possible to trace it further step by step to Hormah and Beer (i.e., Beer-sheba, or Beer-lahai-roi?), and finally (in Judg. 1 16) to the city of palm-trees (cp the S. Judasan name Tamar) ; see KADESH i. 3. Details of this journey are missing, 1 with the exception, perhaps, of the oldest features in Nu. 16, where the revolt against the authority of Moses (v. 13) presupposes a very early stage in the journey of the Israelites. It at once suggests itself that this tradition is of Calebite origin (cp EXODUS [BOOK], 3 [ v -]) ar) d this is borne out by (a) the prominence ascribed to Caleb in the oldest passages of Nu. 13 f., and (i>) the close relationship which, as the genealogies reveal, subsisted between Judah, Caleb, the Kenites, etc. -one tradition (a late one, it is true) actually con nects Moses family with Caleb (see MIRIAM, 2). We seem to have, therefore, distinct traces of a Calebite wandering from Kadesh northwards into Judah, the commencement, perhaps, of that northerly migra tion which took place in the time of David, and was continued, still later, in exilic times (see CALEB, $/. ). 2 The evidence, however (see KADESH i. i), leads to the conclusion that the limits of Musri and the district of Kadesh coincided. 3 The Calebite tradition, therefore, knew of an Exodus from the land of Musri. s. A. c.

7. Manetho.[edit]

Reference has often been made by writers to Manetho's narrative of the expulsion of the lepers under a priest of Heliopolis called Osarsiph (cp. Jos. c. Ap. 126-127). The critical value of this narrative, however, is very slight. The reserve expressed by Kittel (Hist. 1.26 f.) is judicious ; the present writer prefers to leave Manetho s story entirely on one side. Not only is it manifestly influenced by the Jewish narrative, but it seems to imply an absurd confusion between Moses and the reforming Egyptian king commonly known as Khuen-aten 4 (Amenhotep IV.). As Meyer has pointed out, the name Me(r)neptah can never have become A/j.evu(j>is (the name mentioned in Josephus), and since the king called Amenophis by Mangtho (Jos. ) does really correspond superficially, in a religious respect, to Amenhotep IV., it seems arbitrary to prefer the [A.]/j.evf<f>t)r)s of Julius Africanus and Syncellus. 5

1 It is improbable that Nu. 11 can in any way belong to it.

2 Was David himself a Musrite? He was, at any rate, hardly a Bethlehemite, as the later tradition supposed (see DAVID, i, col. 1020, n. 2 ; cp also JUDAH).

3 If Musri bordered upon Edom, so did the district of Kadesh. Cp Nu. 20 i6b Kadesh ... in the uttermost of thy (Edom s) border.

4 Meyer, GA, 1 270 ( 226, end).

5 Cp, however, Ki., Hist. 1261.

6 In The Store City of Pithom ( 85); The Route of the Erodiis (Victoria Institute, 91).

7 L Exode des Hebreux, PSBA 20 277-288 [ 98].

8. Naville.[edit]

It was not unnatural for Naville 6 to hope that the view which places the Exodus under Me(r)neptah had been made approximately certain by his excavations. He has in fact shown that Rameses II., Sesonk I., and Osorkon II. have all left their names at Tell el-Mashuta, the true site of Pithom. The language of Me(r)neptah s inscription referred to above cannot, however, without a rather violent hypothesis, be reconciled with Naville s view. Lieblein is of opinion 7 that the biblical narrative of the Exodus and the events connected with it was redacted in the time of Rameses II. when Egyptian influences pre dominated in Syria, and that the Exodus really took place under Amenhotep III. This indeed cannot be granted ; but it is at any rate possible that the Hebrew tradition of the Exodus underwent a profound modification at that period, and even that in its original form the Misrim referred to meant, not Egypt (c^ifs), but the N. Arabian land of Musr or Musri. All that the Egyptian monuments discovered and studied by Naville prove is that the biblical narrative in its present form comes from a writer who had good archaeological information. In the second part of this article an independent attempt will be made to trace the route assigned to the B ne Israel on their departure from Egypt to keep a festival to Yahwe in the wilderness (Ex. 7i6 81 [7 26] lOg; cp 1235).

9. Historical Literature.[edit]

The literature is immense. Besides the Histories of Israel by Stade, Klostermann, Kittel, C. Niebuhr, and Wellhausen, see especially Ebers, Dtirch Gosen zum S //( Der Aufbruch and Der Auszug der Hebraer ); Maspero, Struggle of the Nations, 444 (he retains his opinion that the years following the reign of Seti I. offered favourable conditions for the Israelites to break away from their servitude, if the Israel of Me(r)neptah s description represents a tribe left behind in Canaan, after the majority of the Israelites had emigrated to Egypt ; otherwise the Israel of Me(r)neptah will be the bondmen who had escaped from Egypt in Me(r)neptah s reign) ; Petrie, Egypt and Israel, Contemp. Rev., May 1896, and Six Temples of Thebes ( 97); M Curdy, Hist., Proph. and Man., 1204 (the Exodus cannot have been till the time of the feeble successors of Rameses III., similarly Sir H. Howorth) ; Wiedemann, Le Museon, 17 ( 98), on the Israel-stele (the stele only proves that at some tune or other there existed a people of Israel which was in distress and had no [corn]) ; Orr, Israel in Egypt and the Exodus, Kxf>ositor, 1897^, pp. 161-177 (Amenhotep H-> tne Pharaoh of the Exodus, Hatsepsut, daughter of Thotmes I., the protector of the child Moses) ; cp C. Niebuhr s view that the accession of Thotmes I. is the latest terminus a quo for the oppression of the Hebrews \Gesch. 1 202]. T. K. C.

10. Supposed starting-point.[edit]

Thanks to the progress of Egyptology, we now know something of the topography of GOSH EN (q.v. ), although it is not yet easy to harmonise our knowledge with the biblical data. The route, however, to the S. , near the sea, remains hopelessly obscure. The OT narratives, un fortunately, presuppose that all geographical names are familiar to the reader. True, the eastern regions of N. Egypt must always have been well known to natives of Palestine; the geographical statements of the narratives must therefore be expected to be trustworthy. However, as the narratives now stand a mosaic of passages from various sources they give evidence of the confusion which inevitably arose in the process of weaving the passages together.

The Israelites began their march at (the city of) Ram[e]ses (Ex. 1237), which seems to mean the capital of Goshen where there was then a royal residence. Of the site of this RAMESES (q. v. ) we know nothing. The ruins of the modern Tell Abu Isleman at the western entrance to the valley of Tumilat would be the most suitable starting-point, since this has to be sought in the \V. of Goshen. Succoth is mentioned as the first halting place (Ex. 1237 1820 Nu. 33s/. ) , it seems to be the Egyptian Tuku. Whether Tuku signifies a city near P-atum, or a region near it, or the city P-atum itself, is a difficult question. If we could take Succoth as the name of the tract of land round Pithom which the Israelites would enter on the second day, or as that of a place in the neighbourhood of that Egyptian colony, the reference to it would cause no difficulty ; but the inscriptions on the sacred geography of Egypt dating from Ptolemaic times seem to identify Tuku and P-atum altogether. Now, Tuku certainly was situated where Naville excavated at Tell el-Mashuta. If this be so, we must suspect a mis understanding of the original source or sources, which would seem to have given Succoth and Pithom- Etham as names of the same place we say Pithom- Etham because PITHOM (q.v. ) is probably identical with the station called ETHAM (q.v. ), which was at the edge of the wilderness (Ex. 1820) i.e. , at the E. end of Goshen. The distance from the entrance of Goshen to Tuku or P-atum would be 26 m. (following the present line of railway). An average march of 13 m. a day would be all that could be assumed of a host hampered with much cattle. All highways run directly E. along the canal of Goshen.

11. Pihahiroth.[edit]

Afterwards, 'God led the people about" (13 18) and they turned (back) to encamp before Pihahiroth, between Migdol and the sea, before Baal-Zephon (142). Here the difficulties increase. The sites of Migdol (certainly not the large fortress so called in the NE. of the Delta) and BAAL-ZEPHON (q.v., 2) are quite unknown. As to Pihahiroth, we may venture to guess that, being near the Sea, it may correspond to the Serapiu of the Itinerarium Antonini, apparently the only city in that region (apart from the later Arsinoe and Clysma). All identifications, however, depend upon the locality of the passage through the sea. A southerly direction is implied by the turn ing ; but how far S. the locality is to be sought we have no means of determining, since it is not stated that the encampment by the sea marked a day's journey.

[Map to illustrate the article Exodus goes here]

12. Sea-passage at Suez?[edit]

1. Shall we, with most commentators, place the passage near the Present Suez (better Suwais [es - Suwes]), where the gulf is only two-thirds of a mile wide ? J Those who do so usually lay great stress on the fact that the straits are shallow, and are passable (it is said) at a very low tide, especially when there is also a N. wind. Certainly this would permit a rational explanation of the passage. It is doubtful, however, whether such arguments can be used. 2 Josephus gives us no help. In his time all conception of the situation of Goshen had been lost.

Hence to explain how the Israelite s could reach the Red Sea in three days, he made them march through Letopolis-Babylon (Ant. ii. 15 i)j.e., round the S. side of the Jebel Mokattam, the mountain on which the citadel of Cairo is built, on the most direct road to Suez through the Wadi et-TIh and through the Muntula pass. Nothing could be more at variance with the biblical data, especially as the turning back to the edge of the wilderness," and other details, are overlooked. Yet several scholars (Lengerke, Kutscheit, von Raumer, Shaw) have followed Josephus.

1 Of course the recent traditions about the well of Moses (see MARAH) do not come into consideration.

2 5 to 55 m. from the supposed site of Etham would be at least three days journey.

13. Or Serbonia ?[edit]

2. Another view has been strongly urged by Schleiden (Die Landenge von Sues, 58) and Brugsch (L Exode et ;es monum Egypt, ?S)- Both make the Israelites march along the shore of the Mediterranean. Brugsch places Goshen too far N. and leads the Israelites from Tanis-Zoan (i. e. , Rameses, he believes, for which equation he appeals to Ps. 78 12 43) to Daphnas ( = Etham = Hetam, accord ing to him). Pihahiroth he explains (translating as the Peshitta 1 and perhaps also the Targum did) as the mouth of the depths ([3d.pa.dpa.) i.e. , of the Sirbonian bog. Migdol he identifies with the Migdol mentioned in Jer. and Ezek. , which was 12 R. m. S. from Pelusium according to the itineraries, and Baal-zephon with the temple of Zeus Kasios on the Casius promontory, so that the Israelites would have passed through the bog to the dunes N. of the Sirbonis. (So, before Brugsch, Schleiden, who, however, placed Succoth and Etham correctly. ) This theory is wholly destitute of any solid basis ; the expression rpo^c;. Reedy Sea, occurs too often for the RED SEA (q.v. } to admit a new application to the Sirbonis. 2 The modern discoveries which have determined the position of Goshen, decide against it.

1 Later he tried to find in the name an Egyptian word kraut, depths ; but there is no such word.

2 The expression desert of Shur, Ex. 15 22 (E), is very vague and cannot be used as an argument either for the N. direction of the march or for the identification of ETHAM with the fron tier fortress Shur in the extreme NE.

14. Or midway ?[edit]

3. Recently, another view has begun to make way the view, namely, that the passage through the sea is to be sought for nearer to the eastern end of Goshen. Du Bois Ayme, Stickel, and Knobel, in a rationalising interest, thought of a point between the Bitter Lakes and the Gulf of Suez. They assumed that this sandy tract dried up quite recently, and that, in the time of Moses, it must have been very shallow, in parts even marshy. Dillmann and others admit a similar shallow connection between the Crocodile (Timsah) Lake and the Bitter Lakes. Naville (followed by Strack) assumed the Timsah lake itself.

15. Early physical geography.[edit]

All these modifications of the same theory are built upon the view that the ancient condition of the isthmus of Suez was very different from the present. There is no doubt among geologists that the Red Sea once extended not only to the Crocodile Lake but even to the Balah Lake, so that the Red Sea and the Mediterranean were completely connected (see map, cols. 1437/1 ). There is no evidence, however, that this state of matters continued down to historic times. The Egyptian inscriptions dating from the time of the Pyramids speak of the Great Black Water (kem-uer 1 ) in connection with the fortifi cations at the E. end of Goshen, 2 i.e. , it seems to have reached as far as the present Crocodile Lake. In dyn. XII. this Great Black Water is spoken of as an undrink- able (i.e. , salt) lake (/ ), so that there cannot have been a connected ^^ Under Ptolemy II. Philadelphus, the inscription of Pithom (ed. Naville) speaks of the Great Black Lake and the Scorpion Lake near Pithom as navigable and as connected with the Red Sea by the canal of Ptolemy II., which, evidently, was a mere restoration of the canal of Necho (EGYPT, 68) and Darius. The extant traces of this latter canal and the monuments of Darius along it (see GOSHEN, map) seem to show that about 500 B.C. the extent of the various lakes was not very different from what it is now (so Lepsius), and that the Timsah Lake was separated (under the name Scorpion Lake according to the Pithom stele, etc. ) from the larger salt lake in the S. The passage of Strabo (804) proves the existence of several bitter lakes, i.e., confirms the view that there was no connection with the Red Sea. 3 Consequently, other passages stating that it was at Heroonpolis that the Arabian Gulf began (Strabo, 836, tv /ctfXV T0 " ApapiKov KO\TTOH) seem to be based upon the artificial connections through which this harbour became accessible (cp Strabo, 769). 4

The possibility, indeed, that at an earlier period, such as the time of Rameses II., the lakes covered a larger area, or that they were even all connected with one another, is not to be denied. As we have already seen, however, the one Great Black Water mentioned circa 3000 B. c. , had long ceased to be a part of the Arabian Gulf. Naville then supposes the camp of the Israelites to have been at Pe-kerhet (?), 5 or the place called in the Itineraries Serapiu, which he seeks at the modern Gebel Maryam near the S. end of the Timsah Lake opposite Seih-Hana idik (Naville s Baal-Zephon). He places Migdol at the ruins, W. of the railway station, mis-called Serapeum by French engineers. All this is problematical ; but undoubtedly it would hardly be natural for the biblical narrative to pass over in complete silence the lake shutting off Goshen from the E. and interrupt ing the march of the Israelites. This theory of Naville would allow the turning aside of the march, though on a very limited scale. It would be more rationalising than any other theory, inasmuch as the Crocodile Lake, which is 5 to 6 miles wide in the N. near the modern Bir Nefishe, is in the S. , on the spot fixed upon by Naville, not more (in parts) than of a mile wide. It was only a marsh before the Suez Canal changed its. character, and it must always have been marshy, because the Nile reached it only irregularly. Whilst the salt-water of the other lakes does not allow the growth of reeds, the brackish water of this is covered with them, so that the name sea of reeds would be quite appropriate. J

1. [hieroglyphs]

2 Full references in WMM As. u. Eur. 39. -j Cp also Naville, Pithom^}, 26. See GOSCHEN.

3 Linant and Naville (26) claimed that these must have been mere ponds, different from the present lakes which were too large to be made sweet by the canal. Strabo s vague statement, however, is not to be pressed too literally. He speaks of several lakes ; at present also there are two different basins. Pliny (<3 165) calls them ainaros/onti!s(\)\)ut describes them as navigable.

  • Naville insists upon taking these expressions literally,

without consideration of the canal. The vagueness, e.g., of Josephus (BJ iv. 10 5 the Red Sea extends to Koptos !) has, however, to be remembered, and certainly we ought not to use the statement of Agathemerus (Geogr. Gr. Min., ed. C. Miiller, 2 475), who merely copies from Eratosthenes (see Strabo, 768) but changes the words describing the city of Heroonpolis as the place where navigation begins, making it the beginning of the Arabian Gulf. This misunderstanding cannot count as an argument.

" It is most probable that there was no such city. House (pe) or seat (si) of the (serpent) Kerh(ef) was the chief temple of Tuku at Tell el-Mashuta.

16. Lake Timsah.[edit]

After all, the probabilities seem most in favour of the Lake Timsah, although it would certainly rob the place of passage of all sea character. It is most reasonable to look for all the localities of the Exodus on or near Egyptian ground, and in the same narrow district in or near the valley of Tumilat ; but as long as the last three geographical names of the biblical narrative cannot be determined with certainty, this remains hypothetical.

T. K. C., 1-4, 7-9 ; s. A. c., 5/ ; w. M. M., 10-16.

EXODUS (BOOK)[edit]

  • 1. Name (1).
  • 2. Narrative.
    • a. Of P (2).
    • b. Of JE (3).
    • In Egypt( 3. i-iii)
    • Journey (iv.-vi.).
    • Lawgiving (vii. - viii.).
    • Primitive version (ix.).
  • 3. Laws.
    • a. In JE (4)
      • J s decalogue. ( 4 i.-ii.)
      • Chaps. 21-23 ( 4 iii.-v.).
    • b. In P (5).
  • 4. The Ode, Ex. 15 1-18 (6).
  • Bibliography ( 7).

1. Name and Contents.[edit]

The second book of the Pentateuch, which narrates the deliverance of Israel from Egypt, appropriately, bears in the Greek Bible the title Exodos (5o ^?c) or more fully 'Exodos from Egypt' (eSoAoc AITYTTTOY; see Ex -19 1 (5 BAFL ). 3 This passed over into the old Latin, and through the Vulgate into our own version. In Hebrew the book is commonly designated by its opening words, DiDf M^Nl, 4 r more briefly riiDB ! sometimes it is cited simply by number, *yp tffom (Sold, 36 . ).

The Book of Genesis closes with the death of Joseph at an advanced age ; Exodus continues the history from the same point (Ex. 167^). The grandsons of Ephraim and Manasseh (Gen. 5023) are contempor aries of Moses, the great grandson (Ex. 616^), or grandson (Ex. 2i Nu. 2659), of Levi. But though no great interval of time is supposed to elapse be tween the death of Joseph and the beginning of the oppression, 5 the character of the history undergoes a complete change. The twelve sons of Jacob with their children who went down into Egypt ( seventy souls ) have so increased in numbers as to be a cause of alarm to the Egyptians ; the narrative, which throughout Genesis preserves the form of a family chronicle, 6 now at once becomes the history of a people.

The contents of Exodus may be briefly summarised as follows : The oppression, the youth and call of Moses, 1-7 7 ; the Egyptian plagues, V 8-12 ; the escape of Israel from Egypt, 13-15 21 ; the way through the desert to Sinai, 1522-18; the covenant, with its fundamental laws, 19-24 ; directions for the construction of the tabernacle and the consecration of the priests, 25 31 ; the sin of the golden calf, renewal of the broken tables of the Law, 32-34 ; the making of the tabernacle and its furniture, 35-40. The book ends with the entrance of the glory of Yahwe, the visible manifestation of his presence, into the dwelling place which had been prepared for him (4034-38).

1 From these lakes, the strange name might have been trans ferred to the sea. See RED SEA for the difficulty of explaining the name. However, it is otherwise used only of the sea, never of the lakes (although the expression sea is known to be used of such small lakes as that of Galilee). See above.

2 Philo, Quis rer. div. heres, 4, and elsewhere ; see Ryle, Pliilo and Holy Scripture, p. xxii.

! Title of book in cod. A. The subscription in the same MS

is efoSos riai> viiav I<rpar)\ ef AiyuTrrou. ^ Origen in Euseb. HE 6 25. 5 On Ex. 12 40 f., see below, 2, and n. 5. 8 See GENESIS.

2. Sources : P.[edit]

The sources and the method of combination remain substantially the same as in Genesis (^ v-i 2 y ). Here also the Priestly stratum is easily recognised and separated.

To it belong: 1 Ex. 1 1-5 7* 13 14* 223(1/3-25 62-12 (13-30) 71-13 I92oa 2\b 22 85-7 i^a*i 16-19 [8 1-3 na*b 12-15] 88-12 (11 9 f. Rp), 12 1-20 28 37* 40 f. 43-51 13 i 2 20 14 i 2 4* 89* 15* 16-18 yiaab 22 _/C 26 27* 28* 29 16 1-3 6_/C(s) 9-131 16-24 (in the main), 31-36 17 ia 19 i 20. 24 15* i6-i8aa 25 i-31 isa 8429-35 35-40.

The characteristics of P appear throughout (see GENESIS, 2/.).

The narrative begins, by way of recapitulation, 2 with a list of the sons of Israel who went down into Egypt (1 1-5) ; in 6 14-25 a long genealogy is introduced to exhibit the lineage of Moses and Aaron (cp 26^). 3 A very brief account of the oppression {1 7 13 14 2 23/3-25) is followed by the call of Moses (in Egypt), the revelation of the name Yahwe (62-12), and the appointment of Aaron to be Moses prophet (7 1-7). The wonders wrought before Pharaoh by Aaron at Moses command (P in 7-9) assume the form of a trial of skill with the native magicians, who at first are able to do the same things by their arts, but in the end are completely defeated. The announcement of the last stroke, the death of the first-born, gives occasion to introduce directions for the observance of the Passover (12 1-13), to which are attached the ritual for the annual celebration of the Feast of Unleavened Bread (14-20), supplementary regulations for the annual Passover (43-51), and the law requiring the consecration of the first-born (13 if.). This is a good example of the method of the author, who always endeavours to connect the legislation with some occasion or circumstance in the history; 4 so that, in its primitive form and intention, P was not a Priests Code, but a history of the origin of the sacred institutions of Israel. The beginning of the migration (12 37*) leads to a chronological digression on the length of the sojourn in Egypt (40 f.). 5 The march to the shores of the Red Sea is next narrated (13 20 14 if.), and the miraculous deliverance there, the Israelites passing safely between walls of water on either hand, whilst the Egyptians pursuing them are overwhelmed (P in 14). Of the journey from the sea to Sinai we are told nothing except the names of the halting-places (16 i 17 i 19 if.).*

Arrived at Sinai, Moses ascends the mountain (24 15-18), where the plans for the tabernacle and its furnishings, and the ritual for the consecration of priests, are revealed to him (25-31 17). He returns to the people, collects the necessary materials, and constructs the tabernacle in exact accordance with the specifica tions given him (34 2q-40). 7

In combining P with the other sources, R does not appear to have omitted anything of consequence from this narrative, though he was constrained to make some transpositions. 8 We observe here, as in Genesis, the disposition to reduce to a skeleton the narrative of ordinary events (the migration, e.g. , to a list of stations), and to enlarge upon everything connected with religion and the religious institutions (see 12 f. 25^ 35 ff.}. Here also the existence of other and fuller historical narratives is to be inferred from the epitomes of P (see GENESIS, zf. ). The dependence of P upon these narratives is especially manifest in the account of the plagues, and of the crossing of the Red Sea.

1 In this table, as in the corresponding one in Genesis, the additions of Rp are not in general distinguished from P. An asterisk indicates contamination or redactional changes. NOldeke s analysis, Unters. z. Kritik des A Ts ^ff. ( 69), has been modified by subsequent critics (esp. Di., Jiil., and Kue.) only in minor particulars.

2 Cp (Jen. 5 if. 6 10 11 27 Nu. 3 2-4 etc.

" The present position of this genealogy is highly unsuitable ; w. 16-25 probably stood in P at an earlier point, perhaps before 62 ; m - *4f- seem to be taken from another catalogue, perhaps that in Gen. 46.

4 So in Genesis, the Sabbath, the Noachian injunctions, circumcision.

5 According to the Jewish Hebrew Text, 430 years ; according to the Samaritan Hebrew and , 215 years. See CHRONOLOGY, 4-

6 P s account of the murmuring of the people and. the giving of the manna, which now stands in chap. 16, must originally have had a later place in the narrative, since it supposes the existence of the tabernacle (10 34). See MANNA, 3.

? These chapters have been much expanded by later hands ; see below, 5.

8 The giving of the Decalogue, which is now related in 20 1-17 from another source, must in P have followed 25-31 (see 25 16 21). A fragment of this account seems to be preserved in 31 18, to which the sequel is 34 29^

3. JE.[edit]

The prophetic history which remains after the elimination of P is made up of the same two main strands, J and E, that criticism discovers in Genesis (see GENESIS, 4,ff.). The analysis, however, is more difficult in Exodus than in the patriarchal stories.

The use of the divine names loses much of its value as a criterion, since after Ex. 3 13-15 the name Yahwe is employed though not uniformly in E as well as in J ; clues derived from the narrative deny us their guidance in the Laws ; whilst other evidences of origin are often lacking. It is clear also that the author who united J and E (Rje), not only fused his sources much more completely than the last redactor of the Hexateuch (Rp), but also otherwise treated his material with a freer hand ; this is peculiarly evident in Ex. 4^ J In Exodus, moreover, the work of later editors of the Deuteronomistic school is more frequently to be recognised or suspected.

An exhaustive analysis which would assign every clause or verse to its author, leaving no insoluble remainders, is impossible. The utmost that we can expect to accomplish is to distinguish the main features of the parallel narratives ; and even in regard to these great uncertainty often remains. 2

i. Earlier Chapters. In 1-3, E is the chief source (J in 168-12 215-22 37/. 16-18 the last two passages transposed and much amplified by R JE , who also added 819 f. ). 3 Ch. 4i-i6 is by most critics regarded as substantially from J (13^-16 RJE). To J belong also 4 19-203 24-26, which probably followed 2233 (E in 18 and perhaps other verses; R JE in 27-31). Ch. 5-6 1 is in the main from J (manifest duplication in 5 1-5).

ii. The Plagues. a. (J). In the history of the plagues also J is the principal source ; in the plagues of frogs (8 1-4 8-150 [726-29 8 4-nfl]), of insects (820-32 [16-28]), and of murrain (9 1-7), there is no contamina tion ; in the turning of the Nile to blood (714-24), the hail and tempest (913-35), and the plague of locusts (10i-2o), E s version of the story has been united with that of J ; the plague of darkness alone (1021-23) is entirely from E.

In j s representation, Yahw& bids Moses 4 go to the Pharaoh, and demand in his name that Israel be allowed to go to worship him in the desert ; if the king refuses, Moses is to announce that at a certain time (the next day, 9s 18 10 13 ; cp 822) Yahwe will send a specified plague. 5 When this comes to pass, the Pharaoh sends for Moses and begs him to intercede with his God ; but as soon as the scourge is removed his fatuity returns ny 3 1 ? "13T1 is the standing phrase and he refuses to let Israel go. 6 The plagues fall upon the Egyptians only ; Yahwe does not suffer any evil to come near the Israelites, who dwell apart in the land of Goshen (822 94 6 26).

/3. (E). Compared with J, whose narrative is pre served in relative completeness, doubtless because it was the fuller and more vivid, the remains of E in these chapters are fragmentary. In E, the plagues are not merely announced by Moses and on the follow ing day brought to pass by Yahwe, but are wrought on the spot, under the eyes of the Pharaoh and his court, by Moses with his wonderful rod (7 ?b 923 10 12 130 ai/. ). l This difference leads to striking confusion where the two sources are combined, as in l-nff. Q^iff. (cp 18), and especially in 10 12 130 by the side of 13*. E thinks of the Israelites, not as occupying a district apart, but as dwelling in the midst of Egyptian neigh bours (3 2! 1023 11 2/. 12 3 5/).

1 We. C/7 6s./: 69 72 ; Jill. JPT 894 106; Kue. Hex. 8, n. ii.

2 For a survey of the analyses of the leading recent critics, see the tables appended to Holzinger, EM. i. d. Hexateuch, 1893.

3 In J the call of Moses probably followed his return to Egypt.

4 Aaron, who accompanies Moses but neither says nor does anything, was introduced by RJE from E.

5 The interview takes place in the palace ; the meeting on the banks of the Nile comes from E.

6 From J is probably derived the series of passages which represent the Pharaoh as trying to compromise with Moses, yield ing one point after another, but always stopping short of the un conditional permission which Moses demands (825 ff. {21 ff.\ 107-11 24-26). So Bacon, JBL 9i66^ ; Jiil. and Di. ascribe them to E.

iii. The Firstborn. The slaughter of the firstborn of the Egyptians is made the occasion, as in P, for the intro duction of directions for the observance of the Passover (1221-27), the Feast of Unleavened Bread (183-10), and the dedication of the firstborn (18211-16). These laws, though strongly deuteronomistic in conception and expression, seem to be based upon J. It may be conjectured that the same hand which amplified the pre scriptions transposed to this place laws which in J stood in a different connection (Budde). If this hypothesis be correct, J will have had in his account of the last plague only the command to the Israelites to mark their houses with the blood of a sheep or goat, that they might be passed over by the destroyer (1221-23). - The death of the Egyptian firstborn, and the vehemence with which king and people now urge the Israelites to hasten their departure, are described in the words of J ( 1229-34 38 f. ); of E is preserved only 1235/". , the last words of 37, then 1817-19.

iv. Crossing the Sea. In the account of the miraculous deliverance of Israel at the Red Sea, the beginning of the narrative is from J (14s f> 10-14 ; RJE m *3** ), who characteristically represents the passage as made possible by a strong east wind driving out the water (142i from i^n). In the last watch of the night Yahwe looks down upon the Egyptians and makes their chariot wheels stick ; seeing that God is fighting against them, they turn to flee (24 /. ), but perish in the midst of the sea (^b z&i). In E, on the contrary, whose version is followed by P, Moses with his rod divides the waters of the sea, which stand as a wall on either hand. The angel of God takes his station in the rear to protect the Israelites from their pursuers. When they have crossed in safety, Moses stretches out his rod and the waters close over the Egyptians (16* 190, perhaps part of 20). The song of Miriam (1620) also is from E. 3

v. To the Mount. In JE as in P, Moses leads the people from the shores of the sea to the Mount of God ( SlNAI, q.v. ), where Yahwe gives them laws and makes a covenant with them. In the composite narrative, however, there are traces of a different representation, according to which the Israelites went directly to Kadesh on the south of Palestine (15 22-2513). 4

In 17 2-7 we find them already at Meribah, that is KADESH (q.v., i, 2). 5 Amalek also (\~&ff.) is to be sought in the region of Kadesh rather than among the mountains of the Sinaitic peninsula (Nu. 1443 45 i S. 15 30). Perhaps we may recog nise in this a more primitive form of Judaean (or Calebite) tradition ; our oldest written sources, as is very clearly to be seen in Genesis, unite materials of diverse origin, whose dis crepant or conflicting representations they harmonise only superficially, if at all.*> See EXODUS i., 6.

It is not certain that J or E related anything which occurred between the crossing of the sea and the arrival at Sinai ; a redactor has filled this gap with doublets from a later point in the history (see EXODUS i. , 5 ; cp the miracle at Meribah in 1 7 *ff. with Nu. 20 \ff. ; the appoint ment of judges in 18 with Nu. 11 16 ff.}. 1 We may ascribe to J, 1522-250 17 i (the last words), 2 4, 5 and 6 in part, 7 ; to E the rest of 17 2-7 8-13 18 (with editorial additions, but not contamination from the other source).


1 This rod is used also at the crossing of the Red Sea (14 16), the smiting of the rock at Meribah (17 57^ Nu. 20 n), and the defeat of Amalek (17 zff., cp 5) all from E. In P the rod is in the hands of Aaron, who wields it at the bidding of Moses.

2 Observe that no directions are given for the eating of a paschal meal ; and contrast this with the very detailed directions for the use of the blood.

3 On the greater Ode of Victory, 15 1-18, see below, 6.

4 See We. Prol.W n%f. = Hist. of Israel, 342 f. [ 85]; art. Israel, in /TZ>( 9 >, 399 .X; cp Holzinger, Einl. nf.

5 Horeb, 176, is a gloss ; but see MASSAH AND MERIBAH.

8 Kuenen doubts whether any part of the narrative of events at Sinai is derived from J (Hex. 8, and n. 18).

7 On these chapters see NUMBERS, 2. Cp also the trans position of P in 16 noted above, 2, n. 6 (col. 1441).

vi. At Sinai. 1 JE s account of the giving of the law at Sinai and the events connected with it fills Ex. 192^-24 (except a few verses in 24), 31 18<*-3428. In con sequence of repeated and complicated redaction, these chapters present to criticism problems of extreme difficulty, for which we can hardly expect to find a complete solution. 2 In 19 the impressive prelude to the legislation, 3^-8, is from the hand of an editor; 3 30 9-19, though not free from editorial amplification and perhaps contamination, are in the main from E ; while 20-22 "25 belong to the parallel narrative of J (23 f. is a harmonistic addition by R JE ). 4

vii. fs Legislation. The sequel of J s account is to be found, not in 21-24, s but, with most recent critics, in 34. 6 This chapter stands in a very unsuitable place ; after 8234 881-3 (the peremptory command in both J and E to leave the Mount of God) nothing is in place but the actual departure from Horeb which both sources narrate in Nu. 10. Least of all do we expect fresh legislation such as is found in 34. On other grounds also it is certain that the present position of the chapter is due to one of the later redactors of the Hexateuch (see below, 4). In its original connection in J, the giving of the law was probably followed immediately by the command to take up the march to the promised land (82340); Moses beseeches Yahwe to accompany his people in person (88120 34g0 33 15^ i6) 7 and his request is granted ; thereupon Moses seeks a guide through the desert (Nu. 1029^), and they set out. 8

viii. E s Legislation. E s narrative in 19 (30 9-19 in the main) is also preliminary to the revelation of God s law ; the solemn ratification of the Law is described in 243-8. As we have found the legislation of J else where, it is natural to infer that 20-23 as a whole is the corresponding legislation of E ; 9 and this inference seems to be confirmed by the fact that various indica tions of affinity with E are discovered throughout these chapters (see below, 4). Closer examination shows, however, that the problem is much more complicated than at first appears. Ex. 20-23 contains two distinct bodies of laws: the Decalogue (20 1-17), and the so-called Covenant Book (21-23). These are not incompatible. We can readily conceive that the revelation of the fundamental precepts of religion and morals in the Ten Commandments should be followed by a more minute regulation of the civil, social, and religious life of Israel such as we find in 21-23 ; in the history of the law- giving, however, no connection is established between them. 10 Chap. 21 1 is without any antecedents in 20. Chap. 20 18-26 is composed of very disparate elements : 18-21 belong to the Decalogue narrative, but should prob ably stand before the Decalogue, immediately following 19 19 ; n 24-26 is a fragment relating to the regulation of the cultus, and, from whatever source it may have come, has nothing to do either with the Decalogue which precedes or with the civil and penal code which follows ; 22 23 superfluous after 4 seem to be from the hand of an editor ; in all these verses there is no reference to the Covenant Book, or to any further legislation. In 24 the continuation of the Decalogue narrative (12-14) and the ratification of the Covenant Book (3-8) stand side by side without any attempt to connect them. 1 In the subsequent narrative of JE (32-34) there is no mention of the laws of 21-23 or of the covenant of 243-8. Finally, Dt. even in its later strata knows no law given to Israel at Horeb except the Decalogue, which alone it recognises as the basis of the covenant (5 6 if. ; cp 4 10-14 9 7-10 5) ; while Josh. 24 (E) makes no reference to any earlier covenant or law. The inference that the Covenant Book did not originally form part of E s history of the transactions at Horeb seems inevitable. 2

1 On the subject of paragraphs vi. -viii., cp also LAW LITERATURE.

2 On the difficulties in these chapters see Kue. TJt.TI5ij6 ff. ( 81); We. C//84/: ; Bruston, Quatre sources, iff.

3 Perhaps with a basis of E (We.).

4 The thread is broken off at the end of 25.

6 Stahelin, Schrader, Kayser, We. (formerly), Del., West- . phal, Dr.

6 So Kue. (Th.T 15 164^ [ 8i]) ( We. (Cff, Nachtragc, 3277?!), Di., Bu., Co., etc.

  • Ch. 33 12-16 has been considerably enlarged by editorial

hands ; cp also 33 3 5 32 9 34 9^.

8 The passages in which Moses begs to be shown the glory of Yahwe (33 18-23 34 5-8) are perhaps secondary in J, or reclactional.

9 So, with earlier critics, Di., Jiil., Ki. ; see also Montefiore. JQR 8281 283.

10 For a synopsis of the critical argument, see Kraetzschmar, Bundcsvorstcllung, T\f-

11 So Kue. Th.T 15 190 ( 81); and independently Jul. JPT 8 312 ff. ( 82) ; the conjecture has been generally accepted.

There remains, then, the Decalogue and that strand of the following narrative which depends upon it, viz. , 20i8-2i (connecting with 19 19) 1-17 2412-1418* 31 18* ; the lapse into the idolatry of the golden calf, and its consequences, 32 1-6 3 15-20 (21-24?) 30-33 (perhaps partly secondary). Yahwe then in anger orders Israel to leave the holy mountain, and declares that he will not go with them (33 ia 36 4-6*). That this was the form in which E was current at the end of the seventh century, B.C., and in the first half of the sixth, is proved by Deuteronomy. As has been already observed, D knows no law given to Israel at Horeb but the Deca logue. The author of the comparatively late inter polation, Dt. 98-17 (18-20)21 lOio/ (the story of the golden calf and the broken tables of the law), read Ex. 24 12-14 18 31 18 S2 7 /: (3428?) that is, E with the additions of Rj E substantially as we do.

ix. More Primitive Version.- -There are, however, in E fragmentary remains of another, it would seem more primitive, representation. The most remarkable of these is 33 7-11, which tells us how Moses took a tent, which he called the Meeting Tent (i.e. , the appointed place to meet God), and set it up outside the camp at some distance. To this tent Moses re paired from time to time, and God spoke to him there out of the column of cloud which descended at its door. Thither others also resorted to consult the oracle. Joshua, Moses youthful assistant, remained constantly in the tent, as its keeper. In the narrative from which these verses are taken they must have been preceded by a description of the making of this simple tent, which was omitted by R P when he put in its place the great tabernacle of P; Dt. 10 3 5 still shows us where the passage stood. In the same connection, doubtless, stood an account of the making of the ark, to shelter which the tent was required (cp Nu. 1033-36 1444 [E], Dt. lOss) ; this also R P was constrained to omit in favour of P s Ark of the Testimony (Ex. 25 ioff. 27 iff. ). The directions for the construction of the altar of rude stones or earth, 2024-26, to which Dt. 27 6/. perhaps belongs, seem to be derived from the same source. These frag ments suffice to show that E once contained a fuller account of the origin of the Israelite sacra, and laws regu lating religious worship ; and it may safely be assumed that these things had in the narrative a place befitting their importance. That so little of this now remains is to be attributed in part, as we have seen, to its displacement by P in the final redaction of the Hexa- teuch ; but it is a not improbable hypothesis that it had been in considerable part supplanted at an earlier date by the Decalogue and the cognate narrative (the golden calf, etc.), which in this case must be regarded as a secondary stratum in E (E 2 ). To this question we shall return below ( 4).

1 Contamination of the text in both passages has resulted only in conflict.

2 Kue. TA.T15 igijf. (cp 18?), Hex. 13, n. 32 ; We., Bu., Co., Baentsch, etc.

3 Chapter 827-14 RJE; 25-29 a later hand. Some scholars ascribe the story of the golden calf to J ; so Di., Ki., and others.

4. Laws in JE.[edit]

i. Ceremonial Decalogue. Ex. 34 10-28 contains, as we have seen, the legislation of J. Its injunctions are exclusively religious : it forbids the worship of any other deity and the making of molten idols ; commands the observance of the three annual feasts and of the Sabbath, the sacrifice of firstlings and the offering of first fruits ; and prohibits certain rites which were probably associated with other cults. These laws are set forth as the terms of the covenant which Yahwe makes with Moses as the representative of Israel, and as such they are com mitted to writing by Moses (loijf. ). Ch. 34 10-26 thus presents itself as a counterpart to the Book of the Covenant (24?) which is contained in 21-23. In 34 28, however, we read that Moses remained forty days with Yahwe on the mountain, and he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten words. 2 From this it would seem that the commandments in 14-26 constituted J s decalogue, an older counterpart to the Ten Commandments in Ex. 20 1-17 Dt. 56-2i 3 (see DECALOGUE). Upon this theory, Si iff. contains J s account of the origin of the two tables of the law ; i b, and the words like the first in ia and $a, which represent these tables as designed to take the place of the tables which Moses had broken (32 19), are harmonistic addi tions by the redactor who introduced 34 in this place. Kuenen, on the other hand, contends that 1428^ had originally nothing to do with 10-27 ; they formed part of E s narrative, and the ten words are no other than E s decalogue (20 1-17). 4 Whatever view be taken of the relation of 28 to 27, the phrase the ten words, which collides with the preceding the words of the covenant, seems to be a gloss, introduced under the influence of the deuteronomistic theory that the covenant was made upon the Decalogue alone (cp esp. Dt. 4 is). 6 If this be the case, there is no direct evidence that the laws in 34 10-26 were originally just ten in number. It may be suspected that the words upon the tables which con nect 28 with 1-4 are also secondary, and that the original sequel of 27 was closely similar to 244a jf., if, indeed, it be not contained in those verses (Valeton). On the other hand, 34 4^, taking in his hand two tables of stone (D :aK nn 1 ? JB 1 , indefinite), seems to be original ; and it is perhaps on the whole more probable that the commandments of J also were inscribed on stone. Whether this is the oldest representation, and whether in the oldest Judaean tradition the commandments were given at Sinai or at some other place perhaps at Kadesh are questions to which no certain answer can be given. 6

ii. Character and origin. The laws in Ex. 34 10-28 are certainly older than the setting which represents them as the terms of a covenant made by Yahwe with Moses at Sinai ; and are the earliest attempt with which we are acquainted to embody in a series of brief injunctions formulated as divine commands the essential obser vances of the religion of Yahwe. We may safely assume that this collection of sacred laws was made at a Judasan sanctuary, and that it represents the ancient usage of the region. The age of the collection can only be inferred from its contents.

The three annual feasts which occupy the central place in the cultus are agricultural festivals, 7 and presume a people which has passed over to a settled life, to whom tillage is a chief concern. On the other hand, the idea of religion to which such laws as those that forbid the seething of a kid in its mother s milk, or the keeping of part of a sacrifice till the next morning, appear fundamental, is very primitive. 8 A still stronger in- dication of the antiquity of this legislation is the fact that the demands of Yahwe all have reference to the way in which he is to be worshipped. Religion seems to be as yet untouched by the prophetic movement whose burden was that what God demands is not worship but righteousness.

1 On the subject of 4, cp also LAW LITERATURE.

2 In the context, the subject must be Moses, not Yahwe.

3 This seems to have been first observed by Goethe, in 1773.

4 Th. 7" 15 186^". [ 81], Hex. 8, n. 13. See also DECALOGUE (literature).

5 Meissner, Kraetzschmar, and others. The name decalogue (ten words) is found only in this verse and in Dt. 4 13 104.

6 [See KADESH i. 3.]

The Sabbath also is an institution of a settled people.

8 It must be remembered, however, that such survivals of primitive religion, regarded as positive divine commands, are often carried along into much more advanced stages of develop ment, as Judaism itself best illustrates.


In the strongest contrast to the fundamental revelation of Yahwe's will in J is the decalogue of Ex. 20 1-17. On the Deuteronomistic elements in this document and on its relation to Ex. 34 io/. , see DECALOGUE, z. The narrative in Ex. 32 (golden calf) is inseparable from it, and is aimed at the religion of the kingdom of Israel ; the repudiation of its idolatrous cult which we find in Hosea is carried back to Horeb. This narrative, therefore, also belongs to the prophetic edition of E (E 2 ). The Decalogue seems to have supplanted the law given at Horeb in E r We may safely assume that this law was similar in character to that of J in 34io_^ ; and it is not improbable that fragments of it are preserved in 23 it,ff. Whether it constituted a decalogue must remain uncertain. 1

iii. Chapters 21-23. A law-book of a different character is contained in 21-23. 2 By its superscription it is a collection of mispdtim, that is judgments, judicial decisions, or norms ; and accordingly we find in 21 2-22 17 various titles of civil and penal law ; viz., slavery and manumission (2l2-n), homicide (12-21), torts (22-36 22s/), theft, burglary, etc. (22i-4), the liability of a borrower or bailee (7-15), seduction (i6f.). 3 In those titles which remain intact the laws are methodically arranged and formulated : first the general rule is given, then the particular cases which may arise under it, e.g.

When ( 3) thou buyest a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go free, without ransom. If (QX) he was single when he came into his master s possession he shall go free alone. If he was married, his wife shall go with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bear him children, the woman and the children belong to the master ; the slave shall go free alone ; etc. (21 -iff, ; cp also 28^).

This book of mispdtim (C BBSO) has unfortunately not been completely preserved ; some of the paragraphs are much mutilated, whilst other titles which we have every reason to believe were once contained in it are wanting altogether. Additions also have been made to it, which are recognised by their departure from the systematic form of the original work, in part also by the different nature of their contents. The character of this little code indicates considerable progress in civilization and in jurisprudence. It may be compared with the Laws of the Twelve Tables, and especially with the legislation of Solon (Plutarch, Solon), to which it is probably not much anterior in time. 4

1 See below. Attempts to restore the original decalogue of E have been made by Staerk, Dent. 40 ff., and Meissner, Dekalog, 33 ; cp Co. EM. (3, ), 40.

2 For the literature on the Covenant Book, see 7.

3 For a more detailed analysis, see Baentsch, Bundesbuch, i*ff.

4 See also Mosaicarum et Romanarum legitm collatio (early fifth century A.D.), ed. Th. Mommsen, in Collectio librarian juris antejustinitini, 3 ( 90).

6 No trace of this title remains in 21-23.

8 Bacon, JBL 1232; Baentsch, ^^f., Holzinger, Kraetz- schmar, and others.

Chap. 23, which contains only moral precepts and religious ordinances, is not covered by the title mispdtim in 21 1. Most scholars are of the opinion that 23, / together with the kindred verses in the latter part of 22, originally constituted a distinct part of the Covenant Book, which, like the laws in 34 and the decalogue in 20, was entitled simply The Words (d bdrlm) ; B cp also 196. In 243-8, in the ratification of the law, we read that Moses recited to the people all the Words of Yahwe (d bdrlm) and all the Judgments (mispatlm) ; the two together (fas and jus) cover the whole field of the divine law. It is not quite certain, however, that 24s is the conclusion of 21-23; if 20 18-21 originally preceded 20 1-17, as is now generally believed, 24s would naturally refer to the promulgation of the decalogue (the Words of Yahwe) ; and all the mis- pdtim would then be a redactional addition. 6 The question whether 21-23 was originally one collection of laws under the two heads, Civil and Penal (mispatlm), and Moral and Religious (d bdrlm), can therefore be decided only on internal grounds. In 2814-19 we find a group of laws relating to worship and religious festivals which are in the main verbally identical with those of J in 34 ; cp especially 2815-19 with 34 18-26. Closer examination shows that they are in situ in 34, and were brought over thence into 23 by a redactor. 1 This redactor, it must be supposed, having incorporated the substance of J s legislation in 23, omitted 34 from his compilation ; its restoration is to be ascribed to a later editor. 2 In 2820-33, which is as a whole the composition of a redactor, remains of an older text are preserved in 28-31 (cp Jos. 24 12 Dt. 720-22); and the same source perhaps underlies 20-22 25 26. In 22 18-23 13 we can recognise diverse elements : first, a few civil and penal laws, which differ from the mispdtim by their categorical form 3 e.g. , 22 18, Thou shall not suffer a witch to live, 19, Whosoever is guilty of bestiality shall be put to death, etc. Second, a collection of moral injunctions, which from their nature cannot have the sanctions of human law (2220-24 23i-34/. 6f. 89). Some of these resemble in form and content the second table of the decalogue ; others are manifestly akin to the deuteronomic legislation. Finally, inter spersed with these are religious ordinances (222g/. 31 [?] 2810-13). The different character of these laws, and still more the disorder in which they are, points to compilation ; the prominence of precepts of charity, and the deuteronomic motives and phraseology, indicate that the recension, if not the compilation itself, dates from the seventh century.

These facts make it very doubtful whether the author of the mispdtim in 21 2-22 17 is also the author of a corresponding collection of moral and religious precepts (d bdrlm) which form the basis of 22 17-2333. A more probable hypothesis is that 21-23 is the result of a process of accretion : to what was originally a hand book of civil and penal laws was added, first, perhaps from E s Horeb legislation, the main stock of 22 18- 23 13 ; then (probably by the same editor who added the parcenetic close) 2314-19, from 34 14^ (J).

Many attempts have been made to reconstruct the Covenant Book, eliminating interpolations, restoring by more or less extensive transpositions the order of the d bartm and the mispiltlm, and even supplying some of the gaps by comparison with Ex. 34 and Dt. 4 In this work of restoration several scholars have sought a formal regulative in the supposition that the laws were originally grouped in homologous decads and pentads. 5 This theory finds some support in certain paragraphs of the mispdttm; but the results hitherto attained by this method are not less widely divergent than those reached without such a criterion.

1 For a comparison of the two see Jul. JPTKyxtf. \ Briggs, Higher Criticism^), 190^". 229/1

2 Budde, ZA TIV 11 217^ [91].

3 Regularly in 2 sing. ; others in 2 pi. may be interpolations.

4 See Stade, GVI \(,Tf>/., n. ; Rothstein, Bundesbuch ( 92) ; Staerk, Dent. ( 94), yajjf.

B So Bertheau, Briggs, L. B. Paton, JBL 12 79^ [03].

6 Vv. i f., from whatever source they may come, obviously intrude here.

7 Pi., Bruston, Baentsch; Valeton, ZA T\\ r 12242^!; Staerk, Deut. 41 n. ; Kraetzschmar, Bundesvorstellung, 79.

iv. Ratification. Chap. 243-8 is the ratification by solemn covenant (see COVENANT, 6 [ii.]) of the legisla tion in 21-23, 6 which on this account is often called the Covenant Book. By most critics these verses, with the Covenant Book itself, are ascribed to E. They appear, however, to be composite ; 7 3 may have belonged to the decalogue narrative in its original form (see above, iii. ) ; in 4 the altar at the foot of the mountain and the twelve masseboth seem to be doublets ; the masseboth and perhaps the young men of Israel who act as sacrificers may be derived from the oldest stratum of E (akin to 33 7-11), in which, it may be surmised, these stones rather than a book were the monument of the adoption of the religion of Yahwe at Horeb (cp Jos. 24 26./ ) ; while 40 7 8 seems to be a later representation more nearly parallel to 34 27 with its original sequel, and may be attributed to a later recension of E as the close of its Covenant Book, or to Rj E . As a whole, 24s-8 seems to be meant to follow 21-23, and to be the work of the editor who incorporated J s commandments from 34, and gave these chapters their present form. Ch. 241^. 9-11 are derived from a very ancient source; there seems to be no decisive reason why this may not be E r J

v. Origin of Covenant Book. -The language of the Covenant Book shows some affinity to E ; and most recent critics think that it was incorporated in that work. 2 It cannot, however, have occupied in E its present position as a law given at Horeb (see above, 3, viii. ). Kuenen conjectured that it was originally the law given by Moses just before the crossing of the Jordan ; it filled in E the place which Dt. has in the present Pentateuch ; and when supplanted by Dt. was removed by an editor (R D ) to this earlier point in the history of the legislation. 3

If the view of the composition of these chapters taken above be correct, the problem assumes a somewhat different form : it would be the simplest hypothesis, that the redactor who inserted the Covenant Book here was also its compiler ; and the question for the critic would be, what were the sources from which this redactor drew his materials. For 23 nff. this question is already answered ; for the mispdtim we may hazard the surmise that in E they constituted a book of instructions for judges, which stood in immediate connection with 18 ; 4 for other parts of 22 18 ff. 23 it is probable that the original Horeb legislation of E (Ej) which was sup planted by the Decalogue, has been laid under con tribution ; in particular, it may be inferred that the group of laws noticed above (which in substance and form resemble the second table of the decalogue) are of this origin. Traces of this parallel legislation may perhaps also be discovered in 23 11, ff., where the text of J sometimes shows signs of contamination (Budde, ZATW Il2z8/).

5. P composite.[edit]

In 2 above, P was separated as a whole from JE. The more closely P is examined, however, the more plainly it appears that it is not the work of a single author - 6 It is rather to be compared to a stratum, the deposit of a considerable period, in which distinct layers are to be seen. This is nowhere more evident than in chaps. 25-31 35-40. Ex. 25-31 17 contain the plans for the tabernacle and its furnishings, and directions for the consecration of priests; 342g-40 Lev. 8/ relate, in almost the same words, the carrying out of these instructions. Such repetition is not found elsewhere, even in P, and would of itself lead us to suspect that the mechanical con formation of the execution to the command was the work of an editor rather than of the author. Critical investigation not only fully confirms this surmise, but also proves that even 25-31 is not all from one hand, or of one age.

i. Chaps. 25-31. Chaps. 25-29 37 belong, with in considerable exceptions, 7 to the main stern of P ; 2943-46 is a formal close. Chaps. 30 f. contain a series of paragraphs supplementary to 25-29 and demonstrably of later date.

The first of these paragraphs gives directions for making an altar of incense (30i-io). If the author of 25-29 had provided for such an altar, it would have been introduced with the other furniture of the Holy Place in 25, and must have been mentioned in 2t>3i-37 J 1 furthermore, the altar described in 17-ijf, must then have been in some way distinguished from the altar of incense, and could not be spoken of simply as the altar. This internal evidence is confirmed by the fact that in the ritual laws of P there is a stratum which ignores or excludes the altar of incense ; this is the case even in the liturgy for the day of atonement (Lev. 16 ; cp also Ezek. 41 22 44 16), and in certain rituals for the sin-offering (Ex. 29 Lev. 9f. ; see also 10 1<^ Nu. 16/).2 The incense altar thus becomes an important criterion in the further analysis of P.

1 Kuenen, etc. Others ascribe the verses to J (Di.), or to P.

2 Kue. Hex. 8, n. 12 ; Di., Jill. JPT 83057:, Bu. ZA TW ll2i5yC, Co., Ki., Kraetzschmar, etc.; see esp. Holzineer, EM. 177. Others assign the chapters to J ; so Kayser, We. (formerly), Del., Westphal, Dr.

3 Hex. 13, n. 32; so Co. Einl.Q. *) 68, etc. For a different hypothesis, see Holzinger, EM. 179.

  • Chapter 18 itself originally occupied a later position in the

narrative.

5 On this subject compare also LAW LITERATURE.

6 For the literature, see 7.

7 The passages suspected are 272oyC 28i3_/C 41 42_/I 2935-37 38-41 42-46.

In a similar way and with equal conclusiveness it is shown that the half-shekel poll-tax (30n-i6), 3 the anointing oil and unction of all the priests (22-33), tne bronze laver (17-21), and the formula for compounding the incense (34-38), are secondary-. Chap. 31 i-u presupposes the parts of 30 which are proved not to be original, and falls with them.

The injunction to observe the Sabbath (31 12-17) seems to be introduced here to teach that even sacred labours, such as the building of the tabernacle, do not suspend the Sabbath law a kind of reflection which itself suggests a late date. The language is not altogether like that of P, and has some suggestions of H ; the editor who inserted the paragraph here may have made use of a law which he found in another connection.

ii. Chaps. 35-40. In the account of the making of the tabernacle in 35-40, the paragraphs in 30 /. which we have recognised as later additions are all included, and are inserted in their natural and proper connection, the altar of incense with the other furniture of the Holy Place (3725-28), the laver with the great altar in the court (38 Sf. ), etc. Chaps. 35-40 are, therefore, not older than 30 /. Other indications make it probable that the whole detailed account of the construction of the tabernacle in exact accordance with the plans in 25^ is a still later addition to the original text of P. Chaps. 35-40 were not translated into Greek by the same hand as the rest of the book ; and material differ ences in content the altar of incense, e.g. , is still lack ing in and order 4 seem to prove that the final recension of these chapters was not yet completed when the Alexandrian Version was made. In its original form P probably related very briefly that Moses did in all respects as God had bidden him.

6. Triumphal Ode: Ex. 15:1-18.[edit]

The historian tells us in his introduction (15i) that the ode preserved in chap. 15 was sung by the Israelites on the shores of the Red Sea ; and until recent times it has been believed without question that Moses was its author. The poem celebrates, how ever, not only the destruction of the pharaoh s hosts in the sea (2-12), but also the safe guidance of Israel to the land of Canaan (13-18) ; 6 17^ which there is no formal reason for regarding as an interpolation speaks of the building of the temple (cp also 13^). It is evident, therefore, that the poem was composed after Israel was established in Palestine. Some critics (Ew., H. Schultz, Di. , Riehm) ascribe it to the age of David and Solomon, or even to the period of the Judges ; but the linguistic evidence, which is what is chiefly relied on as a proof of antiquity (see especially Di. ), is far from decisive. It is possible with greater probability to draw from it an opposite conclusion. 7 The other evidence is all against so early a date. The prose narrative in 14 is not dependent on 15, but the converse. The ode has no resemblance to the really old poems in the historical books (e.g. , Judg. 5 28.! Nu. 21). Its affinities are with Is. 12 and a group of historical psalms (78 105 106 114 77 11-20 118), and there seems to be no reason for regarding it as older than these. 1 Some scholars think that the poem in its present form is the amplification of an older brief, and probably genuine, song of Moses, which maybe preserved in 15i3-3j- others, with greater probability, regard it as the development of the motive suggested in v. 21. 3

1 The Samaritan recension actually inserts it after 2635.

2 On the other side see Del. ZKW 1880, pp. 113-122.

3 Cp Neh. 1033 [32] 2 Ch. 24e, from which it has been inferred that Ex. 30n-i6 is a novel later than 444 B.C.

  • A tabular exhibit of these differences in order may be found

in Kue. Hex. 6, n. 15, reproduced in Dr. Introd.$) 40 f. On the character of the Greek translations of these chapters cp Popper, and, on the other side, Klostermann, A eue kirchl. Z. 859^

6 See De Wette, Beitr. 2 216 [ 07] ; Reuss, Gesch. d. AT, 171 ; We. CrY(2) 79, cp Prol.Wwf., 359 / ; Kue. Hex. 13, n. 15; Jul. /PTS \iv4jff. ; for a synopsis of recent opinion, Holzinger, Einl. 233^!

6 The tenses in 13 are preterites (RV), not futures (AV).

It has been thought by many that the song was found in an old collection of poetry, perhaps the Book of the WARS OF YAHWE (q.v. ), and was incorporated by E in his history (Schr. , Di., Ki. , etc.). The latter hypothesis can hardly be accepted ; E s song at the crossing of the sea is v. 20 f. ; 1-18 is a rival composi tion. The references to Jerusalem and the temple are also against the supposition that the poem was in cluded in E. More probably it was inserted by R JE or a later editor. It is possible that it was taken from a poetical collection ; but equally possible that it was written for its present position (Jiilicher).

7. Literature.[edit]

(a) Commentaries : (See F. Brown, Commentaries on Exodus, Old Testament Student, Nov. 1886, pp. 84-92). M. Kalisch ( 55); A. Knobel ( 57); C. F. Keil ( 61, P) 7 8, ET, 66); J. P. Lan ?e ( 74, ET/76); A. Dillmann( 8o, (3) V. Ryssel, 97); H. L. Strack (94).

(b) Criticism: For the history of criticism see HEXATEUCH. i. General. E. Bertheau, Die sieben Gruppen HiosaischerGesetze in den drei mittleren Bitch, d. Pent. ( 40); J. W. Colenso, The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua, Part VI. ( 72); Th. Noldeke, Unters. z. Krit. d. AT ( 69) ; A. Kayser, Das vorexilische Bitch der Urgeschichte Israels und seine Er- weittrungen ( 74) ; J. Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexa- teuchs und der historiscken Biicher des A T, 89 (JPT, 7 6/); A. Kuenen, ThT 14 ( 80) 281-302 (Ex.16); ibid. 15 ( 81) 164-223 (Israel at Sinai, Ex. 19-24 32-34) ; A. Julicher, Die Quellen von Exodus 1-77 (80); Die Quellen von Exodus 7 8-24 1 1, JPT 8 79-127, 272-315 ( 82); B. W. Bacon, JE in the Middle Books of the Pentateuch, JBL^a ( 90), 161-200 (Ex. 7-12); ibid. 10* ( 91), 107-130 (Ex. 1-7) ; ibid. 11 b ( 92), 177- 200 (Ex. 12 3 7-17 i6); ibid. 12 a ( 93), 23-46 (Ex. 18-34) ; The Triple Tradition of the Exodus ( 94) ; K. Budde, Die Gesetzge- bung der mittleren Biicher des Pentateuchs, insbesondere der Quellen J und E, ZATIl 11 193-234 ( 91); Bruston, Les quatre sources des lots de I Exnde ( 83) ; Les deux Jehovistes ( 85) ; Les cinq documents de la Loi mosaique, ZA TW 12 177- 2ii ( 92); Kittel, Gesch. der Hebrfier, 1 ( 88), ET, History of the Hebrews ( 95).

ii. On the Laws. i. Ex. \1f. : ]. F. L. George, Die alteren judischen Feste ( 35) ; W. H. Green, The Hebrew Feasts ( 85, where references to the other literature will be found). 2. On the Decalogue : E. Meier, Die urspriingliche Form des Dekalogs ( 46) ; Datema, Der Dccaloog ( 76) ; O. Meissner, Der Dekalos: ( Inaug. Diss. ), 1893 ; C. A. Briggs, Higher Crit. of the HexS A \ 181 ff. ( 97); C. Montefiore, Recent Criticism upon Moses and the Pentateuchal Narratives of the Decalogue, JQR 11 251-291 ( 91). 3. On the Covenant Book : J. W. Rothstein, Das Bundesbuch ( 88) ; K. Budde, Bemerkungen zum Bundes- buch, ZA T\V\\ 99-114 ( 91); B. Baentsch, Das Bundesbuch ( 92) ; W. Staerk, Das Deuteronomium 32-57 ( 94) ; C. A. Briggs, Higher Criticism^), 211-232; L. B. Paton, The Original Form of the Book of the Covenant, /.Z?/, 12 79-93 ( 03) ; R. Kraetzschmar, Die Bundesvorstellung im A T 70-99 ( 96). Steuernagel, Der jehovistische Bericht iib. d. Bundeschluss am Sinai (Ex. 19-24 31 18-34 28), St. Kr. 1899, 319^ 4. On Ex. 25-31 35-40 : Popper, Der biblische Bericht uber die Stiftshiitte ( 62): Wellhausen, CAT- ) 137^; Kuenen, Hex. 6, n. 12 / 15; Dillmann, Ex. u. Lev. 354^, ( 3 ) 392 ff. ; cp Num. Deut. H. Jos. 635 ; W. H. Green, Critical Views respecting the Mosaic Tabernacle, Presb. and Ref. Rev. 669-88 ( 94) ; A. Klostermann Neite kirchl. Z. 8 48-77 228-253 298-328 353-383 ( 97).

See also J. Estlin Carpenter and G. Harfprd-Battersby, The Hexateuch, Oxford, 1900 (Analysis, synoptical tables of laws, etc.), and works on Introduction to the Old Testament, especi ally those of Kuenen, Holzinger, Driver, Cornill, Konig ; and on the History of Israel, especially Stade (1 634^!), and Kittel.

G. F. M.

1 We. Prol.W 359 " I Che. OPs. 31 ; Co. Einl.P. ) 6r.

2 Ew.. Di., Del., etc. Dr. thinks that the greater part of the song is Mosaic, the expansion being limited to the closing verses.

3 Otmar, De Wette, Co., Wildeboer, Che., Ki.

EXORCISTS[edit]

(eSopKiCTAl) were found by Paul at Ephesus (Acts 19 13 t). eopiao in renders y^jj- twice (Gen. 243, EV make to swear, Vg. adjurare ; i K. 22 16, EV adjure, Vg. adjurare) and r^K once [AL] (Judg. 172, AV cursedst, RV didst utter a curse, RV ng- didst utter an adjuration ).

The practice of casting out demons by spells is of remote antiquity. It was common both in and after the time of Jesus Christ, who undoubtedly cast out demons himself. There was this strong distinction, however, between the procedure of Jesus and that of his contemporaries that, whereas the latter were careful to use the names of supernatural beings to gain their end with the demons, Jesus cast out the spirits with a word, 1 by the spirit of God, by the finger of God ; how he suffered in consequence, is told in the synoptic gospels. In Mt. 108 Mk.SisG?^ Lk.9i Mk.l6i7 it is further said that both before and after his resurrection he gave authority to his disciples to cast out demons, and in Mk. 1617 (the address previous to his ascension) the great deeds which he prophesies are ascribed to the power of his name (ev rip 6^6/u.ari fjiov). If Jesus Christ made it a condition of successful exorcism that it should be performed in his name, he certainly did not mean the recitation of the name of Jesus as a spell. This however, was the procedure of the sons or disciples 1 of a certain Jew of high rank at Ephesus (see SCEVA) according to the narrative in Acts 19 13, who tried the plan (^irexfipTlffav) of using this potent name (cp Eph. 121) as a spell in preference to the strings of names of gods and demigods and angels which were common in exorcisms both in Asia Minor and elsewhere. What they are reported to have said was simple enough, and contrasts very favourably with the ordinary medley in Jewish and even sometimes Christian exorcising formulae. It was this, I adjure you (opKifa, not opuifo/jiev) by Jesus whom Paul preaches. Demons probably did not often address the exorcists in the tone adopted by the demon on this occasion. Jesus I recognise (ytyv uxr/cw), he said, and Paul I know (eTriora/aat) ; but who are ye?

The passage stands in connection with a reference to certain miracles wrought by or through Paul which hardly come up to our expectations (see 2 Cor. 12 12). The narrative rightly assumes that Paul did perform wonderful deeds, but certainly imagines wrong ones ; it is only accidental fancy s guardian sheath - of a belief in Paul s thaumaturgic powers (cp Acts 615). This juxtaposition is unfavourable to the historical accuracy of the account of the Jewish exorcists. Still, even if unhistorical, this account enables us to realise better the historical situation. Gal. 620 and indirectly 2 Tim. 813 show how prevalent magic was among the populations evangelised by Christ s disciples, and the whole para graph, Acts 19 13-20, gives a vivid-, even if partly im aginary, picture of this. The works of Justin Martyr further illustrate what we may call the two contending types of exorcism. Unfortunately there is not much difference between these types. Justin (Apol. 245) says that by the name of Jesus Christ who was crucified under Pontius Pilate demons who resist all other exorcism are cast out. He does not deny that a Jew may perhaps successfully exorcise a demon in the name of the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob (K.OLTO. rov 6eou A.j3p. K.T.\. ; Dial. 311 c. ); but he says that Jewish exorcists as a class had sunk to the level of the superstitious exorcists of the heathen (Apol. 245 B}, and the stories in Josephus (Ant. viii. 2s and BJ vii. 63) seem to confirm this statement.

Josephus asserts that king Solomon left behind an account of the various forms of exorcism, and in connection with this relates the strange story of Eleazar s cure of certain demoniacs in the presence of Vespasian ; he also says wonderful things respecting the herb Baaras. A book called the Testament of Solomon, full of marvellous demonology, still exists ; see M. R. James s paper in Guardian, isth March 1899.

It was an age of universal credulity ; but the influence of the life of Jesus Christ tended to preserve the early Christians from the worst failings of their Jewish neigh bours. Origen expressly says that not a few plain Christians (Idiurai), without any acquaintance with magical formulae, by prayer alone and simple adjur ations (/u6c77 ei xi? Ka l bpK&ffftnv aw\ovffT{pais) had proved the power of Christ over the demons (c. Cels. 7 334). Babylonian and ecclesiastical formulae of exor cism would be only indirectly illustrative, and need not be quoted.

See further, MAGIC, 2 b, 4 ; Jastrow, Rel. of Bab. and Ass. 269-273 ; Wessely, Efhesia Grammata ( 86) ; and cp DEMON, 9, etc. T. K. C.

1 The epithet ireptepxo/u.ei oi strolling (Jews), suggests that they were little better than travelling mountebanks.

2 Browning, Asolando.


EXPIATION[edit]

The rendering of nNDH in Nu. 8 7 RV (AV water of expiation ), and of "133 ( to make expiation ) in Nu. 8633 Dt. 8243. See SACRIFICE.

EYE[edit]

Dark, fiery eyes have always been to orientals an essential part of feminine beauty. An Arabian poet likens the glance of a beautiful woman to lightning from a heavy rain-cloud (Hamdsa, 558). Leah is less attractive than Rachel (Gen. 29 17), because she has lustreless eyes (so Kautzsch ; EV tender ; nisi, rakkoth ; dcr^ecets). In Canticles, the eyes of bride and bridegroom alike are compared to doves (4 1 5 12 ; on 1 15 see Budde). The iris with the pupil is the dove ; the water-brooks spoken of in 5 12 (where the figure is developed) are the whites of the eyes. The doves which the poet has in his mind are probably rock-pigeons (cp Cant. 214); these are gray or blue with black bands. The lover considers his passion the effect of the bright eyes of his beloved (Cant. 4 9) ; compare the Arabian poem already referred to, where it is said that if an armed man met such a glance as the poet has met he would be wounded mortally as by an arrow.

The power of an evil eye is not directly referred to. The evil eye (o<pda.\nbs irovrjpos) of Mk. 722 (cp Mt. 20 15) means no doubt either niggardliness, or envy, or (cp Ps. 33 19) malicious joy at the misfortunes of another, or lustfulness (cp Mt. 5 28). The ogling women in Is. 3 16 (rrnpirD. m sakkerolh] certainly had evil eyes. So, too, when Saul eyed David, it was not in order consciously to exert a baleful influence on the favourite of the people ; it was the involuntary expression of his jealousy and ill- will. The use of amulets (cptyn 1 ?, Ithdslm), it is true, can hardly be doubted, and one of the chief objects of an amulet was to guard the wearer against an evil eye. It was not, however, one of the aims of the biblical writers to contribute to Hebrew archaeology, and they and the editors of their works perhaps shrank from too much reference to popular superstitions. In Eccltis. 148-10 (RV) we have a full description of the evil eye, in the sense of jealousy and ill-will, -

Evil is he that envieth with his eye, 1
Turning away the face, and despising the souls [of men].
A covetous man's eye is not satisfied with his portion ;
And wicked injustice drieth up his soul.
An evil eye is grudging of bread,
And he is miserly at his table.

According to Hatch, 2 evil eye should rather be grudging eye, and this is his striking rendering of Mt. 622/ -

The lamp of the body is the eye.
If therefore thine eye be liberal,
Thy whole body shall be full of light,
But if thine eye be grudging,-
Thy whole body shall be full of darkness.

The rendering liberal for dyaOo? is in accordance with EV s rendering of Prov. 22 9 He that hath a bountiful eye (j JT^ia, tobh ayiri) shall be blessed ; but, as we have seen, it is not necessary to restrict the reference of an evil eye to niggardliness. That fine passage, Mt.622/C, is quite independent of the passages which precede and follow it ; indeed the Sermon on the Mount cannot critically be said to form a rhetorical or literary whole. The evil eye is really the harmful eye, and the passage is a warning against a spirit of self-absorption, unfriendliness, harm- fulness. We also read of eyes full of adultery (2 Pet. 2 14) and of lofty i.e., proud eyes (Ps. 131 1 Prov. 6 17 30 13).

Painting the eyes, or rather the eyelids, is several times referred to. Jezebel painted her eyes (lit. set her eyes in paint ) in order to receive Jehu in full state (2 K. 930); AV unfortunately substitutes face. The effect is strikingly described by Jeremiah : Though thou enlarges! ( Heb. rendest ) thine eyes with paint (Jer. 430 RV). Ezekiel, too, represents this as a part of the full feminine toilette (Ezek. 2840); cp PAINT. Prov. 625, however, Let her not take thee with her eye lids, probably refers to a winking with the eyes to attract the attention.

1 o fiaynaLvt

2 Biblical Greek, 80.

Eyelids and eyes can in fact be used synonymously. The expression Eyelids of the dawn (if dawn should not rather be read sun 1 ) in Job3g 41io[i8]is surely only a poetical variation of eyes of the dawn ; and in Prov. 425 let thine eyelids look straight before thee is plainly synonymous with let thine eyes look right on. We cannot, however, quite so easily account for these words of Ps. 114 :

Yahwe is in his holy palace ; Yahwe s throne is in heaven ;
His eyes behold, his eyelids try, the sons of men.

It is improbable that even the eyes could be said to try the moral state of men ; still less could the eyelids be said to do so. We must therefore look closely into the text, which may not have been accu rately transmitted. It is only a slight improvement to read in /. 2 with Baethgen,

His eyes behold [the world] ; 2 his eyelids try the sons of men ; for the difficulty connected with the word eyelids still remains, nor has even Duhm grappled with it. After a consideration of all the points involved, we decide to read thus: |vn 33 nrinn nrssn nai3 vyy i.e., his eyes watch the crushed, they view the race of the poor.

In the later literature the eye or eyes of God become the symbol of his providence and judicial watchfulness (Ps. 33i8 Prov. 163 Ezra 5s). The same emblem suggests the beautiful words of Ps. 321 4 Behold the keeper of Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps, side by side with which we may put the words of Dt. 32 10 He guarded him [Israel] as the apple of his eye (iry }itJ"N3 ; the apple of the eye being regarded as the most precious of possessions [see also Ps. 178 Prov. 7 2]). T. K. c.

EYE, DISEASES OF THE[edit]

1. General references.[edit]

Egyptian, Greek, and Brahmanical medical writings show the chief eye-diseases to have been ophthalmia (including all chronic effects to the lids, tear-ducts, etc. under the name of trachoma), cataract, and glaucoma.

There are niceties of diagnosis (e.g. , ripe and unripe cataract), as well as various treatments. Jewish references are, as usual, meagre. The Bab. Talmud (Shabbiith, io8/>-roga) treats sore eyes by applying wine, or fasting saliva (not on the Sabbath, unless to complete a cure begun the day before).

The biblical references are to the protection of the blind (Lev. 19n Dt. 27i8), or to persons or companies (Dt. 2828/. ) struck blind as a punishment (cp Herod. 2 in), or to cures of blindness. The strict criticism of ancient references by Hirschberg (Geschichtl. Reise eines Augenarztes, Leips. 1890) warns us against measuring the ancient prevalence of ophthalmia (trachoma) by its present extent, which is enormous in Egypt, and con siderable in other N. African countries and in Syria.

In Syria, Pruner (Krank. dcs Orients, 1847) found it most prevalent in all the coast towns, but also in Antioch and at Horns and Baalbek. In Jerusalem there is now a charity speci ally for ophthalmic cases. See further P. J. Baldensperger, PEFQ, Apr. 99, p. 154.

1 ina miswritten for Din (Che.). Note the Arabic phrase eyelids of the sun (Ges. Thes. 1003 a).

2 Inserting "I^n7 ; <S U , Theodoret, and Syr. Hex. have eU rrjv otKovjueVr)!/ ; the common text of (5, however, gives ei? TOV irevrjTO., i.e., n3~l3i which in 9io 10 18 7421 is worn down into -p. See Che. Ps.V) ad loc. , Duhm s criticism is tentative and unsatisfactory.


2. Tobit.[edit]

The Jewish case most fully narrated is that of Tobit. The texts (especially Jerome s in Vulg. ) differ so widely as to leave no doubt of variations and accretions in the telling of a folk tale. They agree that the malady was whiteness, \evKUfj.a (albugo), leucoma being the third ancient degree of opacities of the cornea, of which the lesser were macula and nubecula.

It had lasted four years, according to most texts, seven in another, eight in another ; Tobit is said to have been fifty-eight when it began. The cause assigned, droppings of a bird, when "he was asleep out of doors, is merely a picturesque explana tion of the whiteness ; ophthalmia is the common cause. The leucomata are dwelt upon pathetically as an affliction incurred in doing a pious deed ; actual or total blindness may be implied in Tobit s stumbling (11 10), but is not expressly mentioned in all texts.

Opacities of the cornea interfere with vision in pro portion to their central position opposite the pupil, their extent, density, kind of margins, presence in one or both eyes, etc. The whiteness is that of new scar- tissue, which is not homogeneous with the transparent tissue of the natural structure.

Saemisch ( Krankh. der Cornea," Handb. 4306) says that it is not rare to find a very slow spontaneous clearing of recent corneal opacities, especially in children, but that all applications to dispel the opacity of old scars are useless ; Beer, of Vienna (1847), claimed many good results in treating white flecks as distinguished from true scars.

There is a treatment which might pass popularly as an actual cure, especially in the many cases where the vision is only impaired viz. , to darken the white spots by a pigment so that they are no longer seen (as a blemish) against the black of the pupil or the coloured iris. The modern method is to tattoo the spot or spots with Indian ink. Hirsch (Gesch. der Augenheilk. 276) has found in Galen a treatment having the same object, viz., producing by a heated probe an eschar of the surface, rubbing in powder of oak-galls, and apply ing a weak solution of copper salt ; the copper ink so made on the spot would sink into the white tissue and render it permanently dark. Tobit s cure was probably of the nature of pigmentation. See TOBIT.

The text does not claim a miracle, Raphael s aid being given through ordinary means ; a radical cure by the medicinal action of gall (or anything else) is out of the question (Saemisch) ; and the actual removal or exfoliation of the white tissue, which the text may seem to claim, would only have resulted in leaving other white scar? behind.

From a fish of the Tigris, perhaps a sturgeon, the heart, the liver (not in all texts), and the gall are to be taken and preserved (65 : Oes dtr^aAuis) ; it is probable, from the subsequent use of the two former to make a smoke with aromatics added, that they had been calcined to charcoal (61682); the gall would keep only as evaporated and dried to a resinous mass, in which state it will keep for years. 1 The gall of a fresh water fish (sturgeon) differs from ox-gall in having its bile- acid nearly all taurocholic and its alkaline base soda. Whilst Raphael is sent to cure both Tobit and his future daughter-in-law, and the materials for both cures nre taken from the same fish, the gall alone is for the one, and the smoke of the heart and liver (probably calcined) for the other. The collocation of the text is so far suggestive, however, that one may read into it the omitted detail, viz. , that the charcoal had been used with the gall to make a permanent pigment, as Indian ink may be made, and that the cure had been of the same kind as that which is now effected by tattoo ing, the pigment having been applied either in that way or as in Galen s copper ink. (The nal 5ir%6eis 8ia.rpl\f/fi, being pricked therewith, he shall rub, of 118 may imply either needle puncture or a preliminary eschar. ) It is said that fish-gall has been used in Persia in modern times to cure corneal opacities (Bissell in Lange, ad loc. ) ; but the folk-lore is again fragmentary, and the scientific explanation wanting.

1 Ox-gall is so prepared for the use of water-colour artists, its effect being to make an emulsion of the carbon particles of lead pencil and fix them in the tissue of the paper. The emulsifying effect of adding ox-gall to lamp black in water is easily shown in a watchglass, a serviceable sepia being produced. There is also a physiological experiment which shows that ox-gall added to oil causes it to soak through a moist animal membrane.

3. In Gospels.[edit]

The other cases of blindness cured are miraculous (Jn. 9 1 Mk. 822 Mt. 927, and the case or cases at Jericho in the Synoptics). In the first two use is made of saliva, in the third there is only the touch of the hand, in the fourth only the word spoken (in two accounts). The use of fasting saliva (which is the more alkaline) for sore eyes occurs in all folk-lore, ancient and modern.

In the case at Alexandria given by Tacitus (Ffist. 48i), Vespasian took the precaution to learn from his physicians whether the man who solicited the exercise of imperial virtue were actually a curable subject.

In the circumstantially narrated case of Jn. 9i, the man was born blind. Strictly, that should mean some congenital defect of structure in the eyes, of which the varieties are many ; but one who had suffered from ophthalmia at birth, and had retained the more or less serious effects of it, would be classed also as born blind.

4. Paul.[edit]

The bodily infirmity of Paul, referred to by himself in Gal. 413-15, is best explained as an acute attack of ephthalmia. We may safely follow Weizsacker (Ap. Zeit. iii., 2, i) in assuming that he would not have written, 'ye would have dug out your own eyes to give to me', had not his infirmity been of the eyes. * The compliment to the Galatians, that they neither set at naught nor abhorred my bodily trial (Trfipafffibv, which is commonly used for a temptation or volitional trial), implies some malady at once exter nally shown, and repulsive in its nature. Ophthalmia might well be repulsive the eyes red, swollen, and rendering a whitish filmy matter, the tears overflowing, the eyelids blinking from the intolerance of light, and the face contorted by spasms of pain in the eyeballs and in the forehead and temples. All the while it is un attended by general fever (Pruner, I.e.). The medical diagnosis involves a point of grammar, the use of did, in Si &ffOtvtiav rrjs <rap/c6s. In poetry (see the Lexicons) it is used for duration e.g., Std. viiK.ro. and if it were allowable to give Sia this sense in NT the text of Gal. 4 13 would have the intelligible meaning right through bodily infirmity I preached etc., which would also be in keeping with the apostle s known zeal. The diagnosis of an acute attack of ophthalmia, throughout which he had preached (as it was not im possible to do), would enable us to assume some permanent after-effect (trachoma), such as would ex plain the references to his weak or contemptible presence, and perhaps his inability to recognise the high priest (Acts 23s). It is singular also that the tr/ooXoi/ r?7 (rapid of 2 Cor. 12? is the same word that is used of eyes as tormented, in Nu. 8855 <r/c6\07res fv rolj 6(f>da\iJ.oi$.

For Eyesalve, Rev. 3 18 (/coAAoupioi ), see MEDICINE.

c. c.

1 [Lightfoot s final opinion is that the disease was epilepsy, a view held also by Krenkel and Schmiedel (Gal. , in HC). Ramsay (Hist. Comm. en Gal. 4227?! ; cp St. Paul t/tf Traveller, O7./f) absents to all Lightfoot s conclusions except this final result, in place of which he proposes the view that Paul was afflicted by seizures of malarial fever, which, as the inscriptions show, was regarded in Asia Minor as due to the immediate action of God (cp 2 Cor. 127); its intermissions would have enabled him to preach from time to time and from place to place. Cp GALATIA, 27.]

EZAR[edit]

P> X), i Ch. 1 3 8 AV. RV EZER (q.v., i.).

EZBAI[edit]

rm* ; AZUBAI [B], -ooBe [N], A2 Bi [A], &CBAHA [I-], i Ch. 11 37)- A faulty reading. See PAARAI.

EZBON[edit]

(| 12> X, Sam. jlJDi N).

1. In genealogy of GAD, 13; Gen. 46 16 (0a<7oj3<u< [AD],-/ti [L]). In Nu. 26 16 the name has been corrupted to OZ.NI, and the family is known as the OZNITES ( JTtftn] ; v. 25, o^evei [B*], -avei [Bab], .aiw [AF], aav, 6 afavi [LJ)T T

2. b. Bela in genealogy of BENJAMIN (q.v., 9, ii. a); i Ch. V 7 (a.<re$<av [BAj, e<r<re. [L]). See BELA ii., 2.

EZECHIAS[edit]

RV Ezekias (ezeKi^c [A]), i Esd. QM = Ezra 10 15, JAHAZIAH.

EZECIAS[edit]

RV Ezekias (ezeKiAC [BA]). (i) i Esd. 943 = HiLKiAH, 7. (2) Ecclus. 48 17, RV HEZEKIAH [i].

EZEKIEL[edit]

(PNP.TITN p : T!T, -El makes strong, [BAQ], RZECHIEL], one of the four greater prophets.

1. Training.[edit]

The only trustworthy notice of Ezekiel from another writer is that in the editorial title to his prophecy (Is), in which he is described (probably) as the priest, the son of Buzi. Here Buzi possibly points for the origin of the prophet's family to some district near N. Arabia, or to the region of Gad (see Buz). 1 His priestly character comes out clearly enough in his book ; he was, in fact, a member of that Zadokite clan which toward the close of the seventh century was on the point of getting complete control of the worship of Yahwib in Palestine (see ZADOK, i) ; his whole tone is that of a man who belonged to the governing sacerdotal body.

The prophet s youth was probably spent in the temple at Jerusalem, where his education would consist chiefly in training in the ritual and moral law and in the history of his people ; whether the priestly youth then received specific literary training, we do not know. The two chief educational influences of his time were doubtless the cultus-centralisation of Josiah (see ISRAEL, 37 ff- ) and the teaching of Jeremiah ; Josiah s reform must have heightened the esprit de corps of the Jerusalem priestly college, and have paved the way for the com plete organisation of the temple-ministers, the new law-book (contained in Deuteronomy) furnishing the starting-point for detailed codification ; Jeremiah s teaching suggested broad prophetic views of the ethical- religious condition and needs of the nation. Ezekiel s writings show how greatly he was influenced by his older contemporary.

His home career was cut short in the year 597 by the Chaldean capture of Jerusalem and deportation of a large number of the people to Babylonia. In the account in Kings (2 K. 24io-i6) it is said that with king Jehoiachin and his household all the princes, warriors, and craftsmen were carried to Babylon. This statement cannot be taken literally, since it appears, from the book of Jeremiah, that a consider able number of princes and fighting men were in Jerusalem in Zedekiah s time ; but no doubt the deportation included many of the best people (Jer. 5228; cp ISRAEL, 41). There is no mention, either in Kings or in the book of Ezekiel, of priests among the exiles. The omission may be accidental ; Ezekiel at any rate was among those carried away. This appears from the fact that he dates his prophecies from the deportation of Jehoiachin (everywhere except inli) and that he calls it our captivity (8821). Possibly he was singled out by Nebuchadrezzar as a chief man among the priests, or as the representative of a prominent priestly family, though he was certainly neither chief priest nor second priest (cp 2 K. 25 18).

2. Chronology.[edit]

Ezekiel s age when he left Judrea can only be guessed at. His call to the prophetic office came in the fifth year of Jehoiachin s captivity (1 2), 592 BC., when he was possibly about thirty years old. 2 In this case his birth-year would be approximately 622 ; he may, however, have been older.

The thirtieth year of 1 i, given by him as the date of his prophetic call, cannot, as the text stands, refer to his age (Origen) ; that would be expressed in Hebrew differently (see Kings, passim). Nor was it the custom of the prophets or their editors to give the writer s age (see the prophetic books, fassim) ; the epoch is always a political or a national one the accession of a king, or an earthquake (Am. 1 i), or there is simply mention of the kings under whom the prophet prophesied. In Ezek. 1 1, then, the epoch is in all probability political or in some way national. The only event in Israelitish history of this date (622) is the introduction of the moral and ritual reform (Deuteronomy) by Josiah (2 K. 22). This is adopted by Targ. and Jerome. There is no reason, however, to suppose that it was a generally recognised epoch. Still less is there ground for taking the Jubilee year as the starting-point (see CHRONOLOGY, i, end); it was, as far as we know, never so used except for land-transactions. For other explanations see Carpzov, Intrcd. The supposition of a Babylonian reckoning (Scaliger) is in itself not unnatural if we consider Ezekiel s fondness for Babylonian ideas and customs, and the fact that the Jews after a while adopted the Babylonian names of months (see MONTH, 3).

1 Whether the Ezekiel mentioned in i Ch. 24 16 has any con nection with our prophet is uncertain (see JEHEZEKEL).

2 Josephus (Ant. x. 7 3) says that he was a boy when he was carried away ; but this is either a guess, or an unsupported tradition.

No appropriate Babylonian date, however, has yet been found ; the era of Nabopolassar, if it be a real era, begins according to the Canon of Ptolemy in 625, not thirty but thirty-three years before 592. It is possible that the number thirty in Ezek. 1 i is a very early corruption of five, or, conceivably, the alteration of a scribe who wished to bring Ezekiel's 'forty'(4 e) into accord with Jeremiah s 'seventy' (Jer. 25 n), and therefore makes the prophet's writing begin in the thirtieth year of the cap tivity (see Duhm, Bertholet). 1 Cp CHRONOLOGY, g i, col. 774.^

We must leave the question unsettled till the Baby lonian history and the Hebrew text have been cleared up. However this point may be decided, we may re gard it as reasonably certain that the prophet s active career extended from the fifth to the twenty-seventh year of Jehoiachin s captivity (29 17), 592-570 B.C.

3. Life.[edit]

Ezekiel s life in Babylonia appears to have been outwardly quiet and comfortable. The captives were settled at Tel-abib on the river Kebar, not far from the city of Babylon (see CHEBAR, TEL-ABIB). They formed a separate community, had their elders (81), engaged in agriculture (Jer. 29 5-7). and were probably left undisturbed on condition of paying a tax to the Babylonian government (cp Wilde- boer, Letterkunde, 206). Ezekiel was married, and had his own house ( 8 1 ) ; the death of his wife was made the occasion of a symbolical act of warning to the people (2415-24) ; there seems no reason to doubt the reality of the procedure.

After his call as prophet his life was spent in the endeavour to open the eyes of the exiles to the significance of current events, to make them see what the captivity meant, and to what a future they were destined. He had to struggle against the moral and religious levity of the mass of the people (8830-32), the torpor and idolatry even of the principal men (14 1-5), and the evil influence of the morally blind prophets and prophetesses (13). He was respected by the people as a predicter, and perhaps admired as an orator ; but the moral side of his teaching was not generally com prehended (8 1 14 1 8832). There was, however, a sympathetic kernel (2033-38).

In his last years, when Jerusalem had been destroyed and the popular excitement of struggle and hope had given place to the quiet of acknowledged defeat, Ezekiel gave himself up to contemplation of the new organisation of the nation, to whose speedy return to> its land he ardently looked forward (chaps. 40-48). This is the only indication of development of thought in his prophetic career ; he began as denouncer, he ended as consoler and organiser of his people. The turning-point in his work was the destruction of Jerusalem ; the worst accomplished, he set himself to build up. This general unity of thought may suggest that he was already a mature man when he began his prophetic work. When and how he died we do not know. 2

1 It is clear that the editor who inserted v. if. thought that the datum in v. i required explanation. Cornill prefers to regard v. i as a scribe s addition ; but the use of the ist pers. in w. i 4, and the obviously explanatory tone of v. zf., make the supposition improbable.

2 For traditions of his genealogy, miracles, tomb, etc., see Pseudo-Epiphan. De -nit. prof>h.\ Benj. of Tudela, //.; Cnrpzov, Introd. ; Hamburger, RE.

4. Historical place.[edit]

Ezekiel is a particularly interesting and important figure in the history of the OT religion, for the reason that he represents the transition from the prophetic to the priestly period. Both a prophet and a priest, he sympathised with, and did justice to, both tendencies of thought. In this respect he differs from Jeremiah, who, though a. priest, felt little interest in the ritual. Ezekiel, as prophet, was alive to the dependence of the people on the immediate word of God, to the necessity, that is, of a constant living contact between the mind of God and the mind of man ; but, as priest, he also saw that the people had reached a stage which demanded a more precise formulation of the law of worship. He lived on the verge of a great religious revolution the abolition, namely, of idolatry, and the establishment of the sole worship of Yahwi in Israel. The religious leaders of Josiah s time, both priests and prophets, had with true insight insisted on the necessity of centralising the worship at Jerusalem in order to destroy the corrupt local cults. Ezekiel carries on the fight for ethical monotheism, not only by denouncing the worship of other gods than Yahwe as the source of the national misfortunes, but also, more effectively, by furthering that strict organisation of the cultus which alone could train the people to the purer worship of the one God of Israel.

It would perhaps be going too far to say that Ezekiel saw the full historical significance of the principles which he maintained, or that he was wholly uninfluenced by desire to increase the importance and power of his order ; but it is fair to assume that, as a man of genius, he saw both the evil of his time and its remedy. He thus paved the way for the next great movement of Israelitish society. He was the last of the prophets prophetism accomplished its work in securing sub stantially the victory of monotheism. The writers who are massed under the name of the Second Isaiah are seers rather than prophets, and the post-exilian pro phetic books are only the last strains of an expiring impulse, without the spontaneity and power of their predecessors, and largely dominated by the priestly spirit. Ezekiel is both true prophet and true priest, and harmonises the two vocations ; in insisting on the ritual he does not cease to be a preacher of righteous ness, and he thus enables us to see that the priestly period is not antagonistic to, but only the continuation of, the prophetic period.

5. Character, style.[edit]

Ezekiel seems to "have been a bold, determined man, well fitted to deal with the humours of an obstinate people ( 34 -") showing no tenderness for his nation (his only exhibition of tender feeling is on the occasion of his wife s death, 24 16), vigorous and strong in word and deed (826 14 1-3 21 20 [25] and the play on his name in 38yi), lacking in fineness and discrimina tion. His favourite designation of himself as son of man (2i and passim) is intended to mark his sense of his own insignificance fn the presence of the divine majesty, and, because he regarded himself as simply the mouthpiece of God, he was unflinching before men. He seems, however, to have been profoundly discour aged at the outset ; for six years he did not speak in public, and at a later time he interpreted his silence as the result of a divine command (826).

Ezekiel s literary style resembles his character it is rich and vigorous, but lacking in simplicity and grace ; he . produces striking effects by the heaping up of particulars (16 20 23 27 29 etc.) and is especially powerful in denunciation (26 31 f. etc. ). His imagination is im petuous and titanic, but unchastened. There is great variety in the form of his presentation : he abounds in vision, parable, and allegory, has some of the finest examples of the Hebrew Kind ( lamentation, see LAMENTATION), and is fond of geographical detail. He has preserved several mythic figures. Some of his discourses certainly were written, pot pronounced (826). They all give evidence of careful literary com position ; in him the old prophetic oratory is rapidly disappearing.

Ezekiel shows a marked friendliness toward Baby lonia. He is the staunch advocate of Nebuchadrezzar (notwithstanding the king s idolatry) against Israel, Egypt, and Tyre. He borrows imagery (the cherub) from Babylonian architecture, and literary (and prob ably geographical) material from Babylonian books or men. It is not unlikely that his great scheme of temple- organisation was influenced by what he saw around him in Babylonia, and he possibly began the adoption of a part of the Babylonian material which is now found in Gen. 1-11. C. H. T.

EZEKIEL (BOOK)[edit]

  • Authorship, etc. (1-2).
  • Visions (3).
  • Text and canon (4-5).
  • Jeremiah (6).
  • Politics and ethics (7).
  • Division and contents ( 8-14).
  • Ethics, theology, etc. ( 15-20).
  • Ritual (21-22).
  • Other writers ( 23).
  • New constitution ( 24).
  • Bibliography ( 25).

1. Authorship and date.[edit]

Ezekiel's prophecies have come down to us in a relatively good state of preservation. They contain scribes' errors and expansions, and were probably revised by the prophet in his later years ; but there is no good reason to doubt that the book is from his pen. On this point no important doubts were expressed before the present century. 1 Zunz (Gottcsd. Vortr. 1832 ; ZDMG, 1873) places the work in the Persian period (in the sth century B.C.) on the ground of the non-mention of Ezekiel by Jeremiah, its non-prophetic specific predictions (Zedekiah [12 I2./], Zerubbabel [1722^)], the improbability of a prophet's drawing up a new constitution (40-48) soon after the destruction of the temple, the existence of material belonging to the post-exilic period (treatment of angels, 9yT ; mention of the late non-Jewish personages Noah, Daniel, Job ; use of the name Persia ), imitation of Jeremiah, employment of the era of the exile, linguistic resemblances to Job and later books, use of Pentateuch words, and Aramaisms. 2

These and similar considerations are by no means decisive. The nature of Hebrew prophetic and his torical writing makes the silence of Jeremiah intel ligible (Jeremiah himself is not mentioned in Kings), and Ezekiel was perhaps little known in Jerusalem in Jeremiah s time ; the reference to Zedekiah s blindness is not dated and may have been inserted in the revision, and Zerubbabel is not mentioned ; only before the Second Temple could such a constitution as Ezekiel s have been drawn up ; the angels in chap. 9 (if the personages in v. 2 be so considered) act much as those of Zechariah sixty years later ; Noah, Daniel, and Job were doubtless old-Israelitish heroes of tradition ; the name Persia may have been known in Babylonia in Nebuchadrezzar s time, though it is doubtful whether Ezekiel s Paras is our Persia (see PARAS) ; and the vocabulary of the book of Ezekiel does not differ from that of Jeremiah more than the different surroundings of the two men may naturally account for. 3 The Ara maisms are probably due to later scribes. On the other hand, the general tone of the book is different from that of the post-exilic prophets and particularly from that of Daniel it has nothing in common with them but an incipient apocalypse : Israel is struggling with idolatry, is to be chastised and purified, is in definite historical relations with certain nations. The religious and politi cal situations are the same in Ezekiel as in Jeremiah.

1 On the Talmudic tradition (Bab. Bathr. \\b~) that the men of the Great Synagogue wrote Ezekiel (where wrote may hint at editorial work by later scholars), see CANON, 19 f.

2 Zunz s arguments are repeated, with additions, by others. Seinecke (Gl 7 /, 1876) fixes the date of the book at 164 B.C. on the ground of imitation of Daniel ( Son of man ), and from the 430 (300+40) of Ezek. 4, which he reckons onward from 594 (5th year of the captivity of Jehoiachin). The 390 of MT is, however, to be corrected, after (6, to 190. Geiger (Urschr. p. 23, and Nachgelass. Sc/ir. 2 83) adopts Zunz s conclusions. M. Vernes (Du pretend, polyth. dts Hibr.), exagserating the arguments of Reuss, regards our book as a collection of fragments edited about 200 B.C. E. Havet (La modernite des proph.) identifies Gog with the Parthians, 40 B.C., and thinks that chaps. 40-48 were composed at the time when Herod con ceived the plan of reconstructing the temple. Chaps. 3Sf. are assigned by Wi. (AOF1 160 ff.) to B.C. 334-333. and 27 96-25(1 is considered by Manchot (JPT 14 423^?".) and Bertholet (Hesek. to be an interpolation.

3 On the vocabulary of Ezekiel see Zunz (op. cit.\ Smend (F.zecftiel,, Delitzsch (in the Baer-Delitzsch ed. of the Heb. text), Driver (Introd.*).

2. Supposed revision.[edit]

Some peculiarities of form and expression in the book are most easily explained by the supposition that the prophet in his last y ears revised his discourses, making alterations and additions suggested by subsequent events.

It is distinctly stated that the section 29 17-20 is such an addition. It is not impossible that the whole of the first part (chaps. 1-24, which precedes the fall of the city) is coloured by the (later acquired) knowledge of the capture of Jerusalem, though the general announcements of impending destruction (chaps. 4-7 12 etc.) may be simply proofs of the prophet s wise reading of the signs of the times. Specific predictions, as in 12 13 24 2, may be regarded as later insertions.

The unity of style may suggest a complete final revision.

The section above referred to, 29 17-20 (which recognises error in the preceding prediction, 2t> 12), shows, however, that the prophet was not greatly concerned to remove discrepancies from his text (Cornill), else he would have erased 26 12. How much of the earlier matter (chaps. 1- J4) was spoken or written, it is difficult to say. The prophet declares that he was dumb from his call till the reception of the news of the capture of the city (3 zdf. 33 22), yet he is also said to speak to the captives (1125 215(2049] 33 3oyC). The dumbness may mean that he did not address the people in public, but confined himself to conversation or discourse in his own house.

Ezekiel may have written notes of his discourses and afterwards expanded them. It is not necessary to suppose that he was very highly esteemed before the fall of the city ; with his greater fame and authority in his later years would come the occasion of careful literary revision. There seems no necessity to suppose that he really composed the book at the end of his life (Reuss, Kuenen). Whether the dates given to the various groups of predictions are trustworthy is disputed ( Kuenen ).

Some of the inscriptions in MT are clearly scribes errors. Kuenen observes that chap. 17 cannot belong to the sixth year of Zedekiah (such is the date given in 8 i) since Zedekiah had not then revolted, and that the reference to Egypt is not borne out by Jer. 27 3. This remark is pertinent if the date given at 8 i be held to reach to the next mention of date (20 i) ; and if the date does not go on, then chap. 17 and other sections must be regarded as undated. Kuenen would take the inscriptions as merely a setting inserted long afterwards by the prophet.

It is perhaps better to say that they represent a real chronology, but have suffered from scribal and other errors.

3. The visions.[edit]

Most of Ezekiel s visions seem to be without the definite psychological basis which may be recognised in such experiences as those of Amos 7 1-8. The pictures given in chaps. 1 8-10 40-48 are too elaborate for a moment of ecstasy they are, in their present form, the product of careful study and composition, based on Is. 6, on the prophet's knowledge of the Jerusalem temple, and on Babylonian monuments. Ezekiel in these cases used the vision as a mere literary form. For this reason doubt must attach also to the psychological reality of the vision of dry bones (chap. 37), though this falls more nearly in the region of possibility. It seems impossible to decide whether all the symbolical actions described by him were really performed. Some (12 1-7, going into exile, and 24 18, behaviour on the death of his wife) are simple enough for performance ; that of 4i-8 (siege of Jerusalem) presents serious difficulties (see the commentaries). 1

4. Text.[edit]

The MT is in bad condition. It is full of scribes' changes and additions, and is in some places unintelligible.

Examples are chap. 1 (which must be compared with and corrected by 10) 459 (390 for 190) 7 1-4, doublet of 7 5-9, 12 i-io 13 20 19 218-17 24 1-13 26 \T f. 27 28 11-16 8217-32 39n-i6 40-48 and many other passages.

For the correction of the text the most important instrument is <&, which, though itself abounding in errors, often offers or suggests the true reading. The Pesh. and Vg. are of less use, and the Targum is almost worthless for text-criticism. The other versions (Copt., Ethiop., Arab.) have some value for the establishment of the Greek and Syriac texts. For an excellent account of the versions see Cornill, Ezechicl.

One reason for the thoroughgoing revision which late Hebrew scribes made of the text of this book is probably to be found in the boldness of Ezekiel s expressions, which, it was felt, needed to be toned down or explained ; and there is, in addition, the general tendency of scribes to modify a much-read book in accordance with the ideas of their own times. The corruption of the text, however, while it obscures certain passages, does not affect the general thought of the book.

  • On the conjecture that Ezekiel was subject to epileptic

attacks see Klostermann, in St. Kr., 1877 ; but cp Valeton, Viertal Voorl., and Kuenen, Onderz.

5. Admission to Canon.[edit]

The book of Ezekiel was no doubt canonised along with the other prophetical books (see Ecclus. 498 and cp the prologue) when the second canon was made up (probably in the 3rd century B.C. ; see CANON, 39^), and its canonical authority has since been generally recognised by Jews and Christians. It is not directly quoted in the NT, but its imagery and its picture of the future are in part adopted in the Apocalypse (Rev. 42/". 6/. 208 21 12/". 16 22 1/). It did not, however, in early times entirely escape suspicion.

When in the first century of our era the necessity of fixing the canon led toasevere examination of the traditionally sacred books, I he attention of Jewish scholars was directed to the obscurity and apparent mysteriousness of Ezekiel s opening 1 and closing sections (chap. 1, called markaba the chariot, and 40-48), and these, as we learn from Jerome (Pref. letter to his Comm. on Ezek.), it was forbidden the Jewish youth to read till they reached the age of thirty years. More serious difficulty was occasioned by the discrepancies between Ezekiel s ritual scheme (chaps. 40-48) and that of the Pentateuch (Menach. 45 a) ; but these were satisfactorily explained, it is said (Shab. 13 b Ha.

13 a), by a certain Hananiah, who appears to have lived in the first half of the first century of our era.

Doubtless it was felt that difficulties of the kind just mentioned must not be allowed to set aside the strong evidence for Ezekiel s prophetic authority. 2

6. Dependencies on Jeremiah.[edit]

Ezekiel shows many points of contact with Jeremiah. This is probably in part the result of identity of surroundings and education ; but there seems also to be direct dependence. Ezekiel may well have been a hearer of Jeremiah in his youth, and have seen his writings or heard of his discourses after the deportation to Babylonia. He has in fact expanded certain of Jeremiah s texts ; possibly, however, the two prophets borrowed from a common source.

Cp. E. 3 3 J. 15 16, E. 3 17 J. 6 17, E. 7 14 27 J. 4 5-9, E. 13 J.

14 13-16, E. 13 10 J. 6 14, E. 16 51 J. 3 ii, E. 18 J. 31 29^, E. 20 J. 11 3-8, E. 24 16-23 J. 10 3-9, E. 29-31 J. 46, E. 34 J. 23 1-4, E. 36 26 J. 24 7, E. 37 24 J. 30 9, E. 38 15 J. 6 22.

7. Politics and Ethics.[edit]

Contents of the book. The central thought of the book is that Jerusalem (which at this time substantially comprised the nation in Judea) was hopelessly bad and doomed to destruction, and that the future of the people lay with the exiles in Babylon. This view (which was held by Jeremiah also) had a double basis, political and moral-religious. Politically, the two great prophets held that it was insane folly to oppose Babylon, and, in fact, it may seem to us absurd in a city like Jerusalem to defy the conqueror of Western Asia. A similar position was taken by the party which, in the siege by Titus, counselled submission to the Romans ; and the conduct of Jeremiah in this regard was not different from that of Josephus. The princes of Ezekiel s time took the same position as the Zealots of the Roman siege. In both cases the war -party denounced the advocates of submission as traitors : Jeremiah suffered for his opinion, Ezekiel was too far off to be assailed, more precisely, it does not appear from his book that the exiles took sides with one or the other party. At this distance of time it is hard to judge of the situation. The war-sentiment may have been really patriotic, and, considering the strength of Jerusalem (it had successfully resisted Sennacherib, 2 K. 1936), not necessarily mad, and it may be doubted whether the prophet is justified (17 16) in regarding Zedekiah as a traitor.

1 Chap. 1 furnished part of the machinery of the Kabbfdah.

2 The statement of Josephus (Ant. x. 5 i) that Ezekiel wrote two books may be based on a division of the present work into parts (1-39 and 40-48, or 25-32 may have been a separate book), or may possibly refer to an apocryphal work. The citations in Clem.Al. (Pied. 1 10) and Tertnllian (De Came Christi) point perhaps to an apocryphal Ezekiel-book, or to some collection of the sayings of the prophets. See Fabric. Pseudep. ; Carpzov, Introd. ; Wildeboer, Letterkunde.

As to the moral and religious side, there was, no doubt, ground for the dark picture of the city drawn by the prophets, though it is not to be inferred that Jerusalem was worse than other cities. From Amos downwards the prophets had held that the idolatry and the moral depravity of the people must call down punishment from the righteous God of Israel. In Ezekiel s time a catastrophe was plainly imminent it was looked on as the retributive dispensation of Yahwe. In that case, the withdrawal of a part of the people, their safe establishment in the conqueror s land, was to be regarded as an act of mercy from this saved remnant would come the renewed nation whose future was held to be guaranteed by the promise of Yahwe. Such is Ezekiel s position. Yet in the morally dull body of exiles around him he found much to condemn, and he therefore expected a sifting of this mass before the return to Canaan (2C>37/. ). Apart from this particular view his aim is the establishment of moral and religious purity in the nation.

8. Division of Book.[edit]

The book may be divided into two parts : the body of prophetic discourses (1-39), and the new constitution (40-48); or into the minatory and the consolatory (33_48).

If we omit chaps. 40-48 the discourses fall into three divisions : (i. ) those delivered up to the beginning of the siege (1-24) ; (ii. ) those directed against foreign nations, apparently while the siege was going on (25-32) ; and (iii. ) the consolatory pictures of the future (33-39).

9. Chaps. 1-24.[edit]

i. The first of these groups is (a few sentences excepted) wholly minatory. We have first, as general introduction, the history of the prophet s call (1-3). There is a magnificent theophany. Yahwe appears seated on a celestial chariot-throne, which is supported and moved by four creatures, each with four wings and four faces (man, lion, ox, eagle), the whole surrounded by a rainbow-like brightness ; the composite creatures (called cherubs in chap. 10), probably partly of Babylonian origin or suggested by Babylonian forms (a survival of primitive beast-worship) here symbolise the completeness of the divine attributes ; the whole appearance sets forth the majesty of Yahwe, and its presence in Babylonia is intended to indicate that the God of Israel had now taken up his abode in Babylonia with the exiles.

From the mouth of God the prophet receives his commission to act as moral and religious guide of the people.

His message is symbolised by a book-roll which he is ordered to eat (2 i-3 21) ; and, in view of the moral dulness of ihe exiles (cp Is. 6 7 10), he is further commanded to be dumb, that is, not to address the people orally (3 22-27) * " permission shall be given him to speak (see 24 27 33 22) ; his discourses were to be written, but not delivered. 1

His prophetic work begins with a series of symbolical actions (41-64), in which are dramatically represented the siege of the city, the famine, and the destruction or dispersion of its inhabitants ; in the following discourse against Jerusalem (65-17) this threat is stated and explained in literal terms. Similar punishment is pre dicted (6) for the mountains of Israel, with special reference to the rural idolatry, and a passionate denunciation (7) closes with the declaration that Yahwe will abandon the land to its enemies.

At this point the discourses are interrupted by a theophanic vision the object of which is to set forth clearly the fact that Yahwe no longer dwelt in his temple at Jerusalem, but had withdrawn himself so that it might be given over to destruction.

First comes (8) a. striking picture (in vision) of the idolatrous cults of Jerusalem, including the worship of the image of jealousy (see IDOL, i (c), 5), of Adonis (see TAMMUZ), and of the sun, this last cult being probably of Assyrian origin (in v. 17, instead of 'they put the branch to their nose' read 'they are a stench in my nostrils' ) ; then follows the v\ision of the smiting of the city (9) ; the prophet, or perhaps a scribe, here pauses (10) in order to identify the creatures of chap. 1 with cherubs (the text of the chapter is corrupt and difficult), the purpose being to point out that the divine presence of the vision was identical with that of the inner shrine of the temple ; and the vision closes (11) with a denunciation of the war-party in the city (w. 1-13) and a promise of restoration to the exiles (w. 14-25).

1 The section 3 22-27 may be a late addition by the prophet, a summing-up of his experiences as preacher ; but this supposition is not necessary.

With chap. 12 the minatory predictions are resumed. The prophet represents in symbols the exile of the people and the king (if. 1-16), and the famine of the siege (w. 17-20), and adds the assurance that the fulfilment of the threat is near at hand (vv. 21-28). Next comes a denunciation (13) of the prophets and prophetesses who divined for pay without regard to moral-religious principle, speaking false words of comfort to the people. To certain elders of Israel the prophet declares that idolaters and deceived prophets (men deceived by Yahwe himself) shall be destroyed (cp Lit. 13 1-5 [2-6]) ; and that good men in an evil land shall save only themselves by their righteousness (14) that is, there is no hope for Jerusalem. Alter comparing Jerusalem to a worthless wild vine (15), the prophet in an elaborate and striking allegory (10), an historical review, describes the city as an unfaithful wife, worse than Samaria and Sodom, yet ultimately to be united with them in the fear of Yahwe ; the crime of Sodom is said to be pride. This city, which he here in imagination exhumes, seems to represent for him the southern region, which had natural connections with Judah. He adds a denunciation of what he calls the treachery of king Zedekiah in turning from Babylon to Egypt, and appends a promise of national restoration (IT). In connection with this promise, in order that the exiles may not be deceived by false expectations, he declares, against the popular notion of the moral solidarity of the family, that they shall be judged individually, each man standing or falling for himself (18 ; cp Jer. 31 29 f. Dt. 24 16). A couple of laments follow (19), one for kings Jehoahaz and Jehoiachin, the other for the nation, after which comes a remarkable review of the national history (Heb. 20, EV 20 1-44), the prophet making the charge that from the begiiwiing Israel had been rebellious (a different view in Hos. 2 17 [15] Jer. 2 2). 1 As the end approaches, his words become fiercer : a prediction of the desolation of Judah and Jerusalem (Heb. 21 1-12, EV 2045-217), a dithyrambic (textually corrupt) ode of the avenging sword (Heb. 21 13-22, EV 21 8-17), a descrip tion of the march of the king of Babylon to Jerusalem, and the overthrow of Zedekiah (Heb. 21 23-32, EV 21 18-27), with an appended prediction of the destruction of the Ammonites who had gloried over Israel (Heb. 21 33-37, EV 21 28-32), and a detailed indictment of Jerusalem for her moral and religious crimes (22), the ethical and ritual being curiously mingled. A second elaborate allegory (23) describes the religious debauchery of Samaria and Jerusalem ; the careers of the two cities are represented as parallel, only Jerusalem is said to have excelled her sister in evij (a proof that the prophet saw no great difference between the religious constitutions of the northern and southern kingdoms). Finally he announces (24) that the king of Babylon has begun the siege of Jerusalem, and sings a song of vengeance on the city; at this juncture his wife dies, and he is commanded, as a sign, to make no mourning for her so shall the people s terrible punishment crush them into deadness of feeling.

10. Chaps. 25-32 : Foreign nations.[edit]

Here comes a pause. The prophet is waiting for the news of the fa11 of the city and in this interval is placed the second group.

ii. The prophecies against foreign nations (25-32).

Whether these were all (except 29 17-20) uttered at this time (as the prefixed dates declare), or were merely here massed for convenience of arrangement, we have no means of determining (see Kuenen, Onderz.C*) ii., 62). We may compare the arrange ments of similar prophecies in Isa. and Jer. (MT and ) ; it is perhaps intended to represent the humiliation of foreign nations as a natural antecedent to the exaltation of Israel (cp 35).

First to be dealt with are the Palestinian peoples Ammonites, Moabites, Edomites, . Philistines (25, in v. 8 omit and Seir ). The charge against them is purely political hostility to Israel and they are all threatened with destruction. The prophet speaks not from an ethical but from a simply national point of view, there being no reason to suppose that these peoples were morally inferior to the Babylonians or the Israelites.

1 Hosea and Jeremiah follow a tradition (not in accordance with the present Pentateuch narrative) which represents Israel as obedient in the wilderness (a sort of Golden Age). Jer. (2 7) makes the defection begin with the entrance into Canaan. Ezekiel (16 20) takes a unitary view of the history ; he finds the explanation of the nation s present hardness of heart in the fact that it had been rebellious from the beginning (cp. Acts 7 51).

11. Tyre.[edit]

Next comes one of the most splendid passages of the Old Testament, the prophecy against Tyre (26 1-2819), consisting of several discourses.

The ground of Ezekiel's fierce hatred of the great city is not clear - hardly commercial rivalry, as 26 2 has been understood to say, for Jerusalem had no great commercial ambition. A partial explanation is perhaps given in Jer. 27 1-", in which Tyre, along with other powers, appears as trying to entice Zedekiah into a revolt against Babylon a heinous crime in the eyes of both Jeremiah and Ezekiel. The point of view of these prophets was a twofold one ; on the one hand, they thought submission to Babylon the condition of peace for Judah (Jer. 27"); but, on the other hand, they held the destruction of the existing Judasan regime to be necessary for the national future of prosperity and revolt was the necessary antecedent to this destruc tion. How they harmonised these two points of view does not appear. A more general explanation of Ezekiel s position is that he regarded the rich and splendid Tyre as embodying an anti-Yahwistic cult and an anti-Israelitish civilisation, dangerously seductive for Judah ; a central prophetic principle was the untainted development of the native civilisation. We should naturally suppose that Babylon would be thought equally dangerous. It was not so. Babylon is only honoured and defended, and the reason of this is that every other consideration was swallowed up in the con viction that Nebuchadrezzar was the only hope of deliverance from the present evil. A few years later (Is. 47 1) the circumstances changed, and with them the tone of the prophets toward Babylon.

Ezekiel first describes the siege and capture of Tyre (26 ; cp 29 17-20), introducing an exquisite little kind or lament (v. 17 f.). On this follows the historically valuable description of the Tyrian commerce (27), the text of which is unfortunately in very bad condition. 1 Turning to the prince of Tyre (28), the prophet first taunts him for his inordinate pride, and predicts for him a shameful death (w . i-io), then represents him as having dwelt in the divine garden of Eden, under the protection of the cherub (so the Heb. text must be corrected), whence he was expelled for his pride. We apparently have here the Babylonian Eden- story, out of which that of Gen. 2f. was shaped by monotheistic transformation (see CHERI;B, 2). A prediction of destruction against Sidon is added, with a word of promise to Israel (28 20-26).

12. Egypt.[edit]

The next section (29-32) is devoted to Egypt, which, like Tyre, was an anti-Yahwistic power (opposed by the prophets from Hosea onwards) and an enemy of Babylon. The coming desolation of the land is described, with promise of partial restora tion, yet so that it should never again be a powerful kingdom (29i-i6), a prediction which was literally ful filled ; and it is added that Egypt should compensate Nebuchadrezzar for his ill-success with Tyre (29 17-20), which he may have captured (on this point we have not certain information), but certainly did not spoil (for early explanations see Jos. Ant.x.\\i, Co/it. Ap. 1 21, and Jerome on this passage of Ezekiel). Here again the prophet interjects a word of hope for his people (292i).

The picture of desolation is repeated in the next discourse (30) with interesting geographical details. The king is then represented (31) as a noble tree destined to be felled (in v. 3, read : behold, there was a cedar in Lebanon, etc.), and as the Nile monster at whose death darkness shall cover the land (32 1-16 ; but see DRAGON, i 4). Finally, in an eloquent dis course (32 17-32) the Pharaoh is brought down to Shed, where he lies among the outcasts, those who had not received burial rites.

1 Chap. 2796-25(1 is regarded by some critics as the insertion of an editor. Certainly, if this section be omitted, the remainder of the chapter will form a satisfactory unity (picture of Tyre as a lordly vessel, which suffers shipwreck); yet the geographical situation depicted is exilian, and the details are in Ezekiel s manner. The section was perhaps inserted by the prophet himself.

13. Chaps 33-39.[edit]

Turning now to Israel, after having announced the destruction of external enemies, the prophet proceeds to give a new picture.

iii. The new subject is the future restoration ; the occasion is the reception of the news of the fall of the city (33).

First comes a repetition of Ezekiel s commission as watchman (33 1-9 = 8 i7-2i)and of the principle of individual retribution (?/? . io-2o = 18); this latter is for the encouragement of the exiles who were oppressed by the fear that they were doomed to destruction on account of their sins (?>. 10), against which the prophet declares (looking to the return) that repentance will save them. When the news comes from the city, he points out the moral necessity of the desolation of the land, and deplores the levity of the exiles.

The first consolatory discourse (34) denounces under the figure of a flock the negligence and rapacity of the Judean leaders, and promises the people safe abode in a fruitful land united under a king of the Davidic dynasty (this was the natural ex pectation of the time, though the circumstances of the return made it impossible). The national feeling of the time comes out curiously in the appended announcement of the desolation of Edom (35) the destruction of Israel s hostile and hated neigh bour was held to be an essential feature of the restoration.

Next is promised a blessing on the soil (3(1) the land should suffer no more under the evil renown of famine Yahwe for his own sake would restore them ; for their unfaithfulness to him (worship of other gods) he had scattered them, and had thus lost honour among the nations, being seemingly unable to provide for his own people now he would show his power, his name should be accordingly revered among the nations, and he would give his people a new spirit of obedience which should save them from idolatrous defection.

The prophet goes on (37) to depict the national restoration under the figure of revivified dry bones (w. 1-14), and the everlasting union of the two branches of the nation, Judah and Ephraim, by the uniting of two pieces of wood into one piece (trv. 15-28).

The concluding discourse (38./) is a semi-apocalyptic picture of invasion and victory. At that time (circa 580) the Scythians had overrun north-western Asia, and an invasion of the Mediter ranean coast might seem certain this the prophet regarded as the last trial of Israel, ushering in the era of unclouded pros perity. 1 Ezekiel first describes (3S) the mustering of the forces of GOG (by command of Yahwe, wi>. 4-8, according to the correct translation), their attack on Israel (m>. 9-17), and their overthrow (vv. 18-23), whereby Yahwe s power should be made known to many peoples. The defeat is then described in detail (39) ; the land should be filled with their weapons and corpses, their dead should all be buried in the valley of Abarlm, in the mountains of Moab, E. of the Dead Sea (v. u, emended text), the event should be a lesson to the nations, and for Israel there should be no more captivity.

14. Chaps. 40-48.[edit]

iv. The last series of discourses (40-48) belongs to the picture of restoration ; but by its character it separates itself from the rest of the book. It is the constitution of the reconstructed state, the temple service being the central feature. Ezekiel spends no time on the political and moral sides of the national life these both were fixed by tradition ; he is concerned with the ordering of the public rites of religion, in which he sees possibilities of reform, his special point being to destroy the old royal control of the cultus, and make temple and temple -ministers absolutely independent.

He gives first a plan of the new temple (40-42), apparently a reproduction of the temple of Solomon (i K. 6_/C 2 Ch. 3yT), with the details of which he, as priest, would be familiar ; the text is, unfortunately, very corrupt. The vision of the Kebar here reappears (-13 1-9), the glory of Yahwe fills the temple (ZTV. 1-5), returning after having abandoned the old temple (8-10) ; and the royal practice of building sepulchres by the temple (natural when this was a royal chapel) is forbidden (43 6-9). The divinely given form of the temple and its service is declared to be the essence of public religion (mr. 10-12), and the altar and its con secrated offerings are described (vv. 13-27). After mentioning the peculiar use of the eastern outer gate (44 1-3) the prophet announces that the idolatrous priests of the rural shrines are degraded to the rank of subordinate non-sacerdotal ministers (henceforth known distinctively as Levites ), 2 and gives the law of the priests proper (nv. 4-31). A sacred territory is then marked off (45 1-5) in the middle of the land, 25,000 by 20,000 cubits (about -]\ by 6 miles or 12 by 10 kilometres) for temple, priests, and Levites ; south of this is the city (about ii miles or zj kilometres square, with territory on the E. and the \V.), and on the E. and W. sides the domain of the prince. Various pre scriptions follow : the oblations to be furnished by the people to the prince, and by him to the temple (439-17), the offering for cleansing the sanctuary (?; . 18-20), and for the Passover and the Feast of Tabernacles (7^ . 21-25), tne function of the prince in the public service (461-15; > n * *3 f- read he for thou ), the prince s control of his own property (reference to the deror or Jubilee-law) (vv. 16-18), places for boiling and baking the offerings (77 . 19-24). Further, the blot on the land, the sterility of the Dead Sea, is to be removed ; the prophet (47 1-12) sees a stream issue from the eastern front of the temple ; it runs into the sea, whose waters are then healed and abound in fish (only certain marshes remain for the production of salt) ; on the banks of the river grow fruit-bearing trees. There is nothing in the text to indicate that this was not intended in the literal sense. The boundaries of the land are then given (47 13-21), agreeing in general with Nu. 34 2-12 (cp Josh. 15-19); the Jordan forms part of the eastern boundary. It is added that resident foreigners (of course, worshippers of Yahwe) are to have a share in the land (47 22yC) ; this is an advance in liberality and in social organisation. The last chapter (48) gives the territories of the several tribes in parallel slips, seven on the N. and five on the S. of the central reserved territory (z>7 . 1-29), and the measurements and gates of the city (TV. 30-35), the sacred name of which is to be Yakive saiia/t, Yah we is there (cp Jer. 23633i6).

1 This section is regarded by Winckler as a composition of the time of Alexander the Great ; see above, col. 1460, n. 2. In that case, however, Alexander would be called King of Greece and would be treated not as an enemy but as a friend.

2 See LEVITES.

15. Ethics.[edit]

Moral and religious position. Ezekiel s writings state the principal ethical and religious problems and ideas of his time. His own opinions we may suppose to have been those of the most advanced priestly circle, though it may not always be possible to distinguish his individual views from the current opinion.

Ezekiel's ethical code is that of the prophets of high character as far as regards the relations between Israelites, or, we may probably say, between in dividuals (of whatever nationalities). All the main social duties are insisted on in 18 and 22. As to foreign nations, the prophetic code says nothing of duties toward them the social relations of the time had not created an international code. Ezekiel regards all nations hostile to Israel as morally bad and to be hated and given over to destruction. That his standard of judgment is not ethical, but political, is shown by the fact that he denounces Egypt and favours Babylon, the only difference between the two kingdoms being in their different relations to Israel.

It seems remarkable that the prophet shows no recognition of the greatness of the Egyptian and Phoenician civilisations. Another defect of his ethical scheme is his mingling of the moral and the ritual, as in 18 11-13 (where read has eaten [flesh] with the blood ), 22 6-12, in which the contempt of sacred things probably means a violation of the ritual law, and the humbling of an unclean woman is purely a matter of ritual. In 22 lof. reference is made to certain marriages namely with the wife of one s father, and with one s half-sister which, formerly legal (28.1622 Gen. 20 12), had been condemned by the advancing moral feeling in Ezekiel s time (cp Lev. 20 n 17). These things were wrong as violations of existing law ; but we demand a clear distinction between them and purely moral offences.

On the other hand the prophet s sharp exposition of individual responsibility (18) is an advance on the older view which held men responsible for the sins of their fathers or their social chiefs. This principle did not originate with Ezekiel : it is found in Dt. 24 16 and Jer. 3l29/i ; but he elaborates it distinctly, and no doubt did much to give it currency. It must be added that he seems to give it a special application to the exiles, on whom he wished (on the eve, he supposed, of departure from Babylon) to impress the necessity of individual preparedness ; nevertheless his words contain the universal principle. See ESCHATOLOGY, %2j r f.

16. Idea of God.[edit]

As regards purity of religious conceptions Ezekiel occupies a position midway between the old Israelitism and the later Judaism or the New Testament. With his higher prophetic thought are mingled survivals of the old ideas, and this admixture gives a curiously varied and picturesque character to his writing. In this respect he appears to fall below Amos, Isaiah, and Jeremiah a result for which his priestly training was doubtless in part responsible. His conception of God is in the main that of all the prophets. He is practically monotheistic ; he recognises no deity but the God of Israel, though from the paucity of his statements on this point (see, e.g., chap. 8) it is impossible to say whether he regarded other deities as having a real existence ; it is perhaps significant that in such passages as 3429 36 15 21 3921, in which demonstration of Yahwe s power to other peoples is spoken of, nothing is said of their gods. It seems probable that his opinion was that of Jer. 2n, that these gods were not gods.

Though Ezekiel has no definite formula of absolute divine omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence, Yahwe is for him practically unlimited in place, time, knowledge, and power, the universal lord and judge, fashioning the fortunes of all men and peoples, using, and putting up and down whom he will. This seem ingly universal conception is held along with the old tribal idea that the deity is attached to a definite place ; Yahwe, however, abandons for a time his doomed temple (1 28 10 19) and goes to Babylonia to remain till the new untainted temple shall be built (43 7). Yahwe is specific ally the God of Israel, and has no friendly relations with other nations (8430) ; he dwells in the land of Israel (3726/), and particularly in the temple (10), of his sole proprietorship of which he is jealous (437/. ).

The coexistence in Ezekiel s mind of these unhar- monious ideas is explained by the historical develop ment ; it was only gradually that Israel purified its religious conceptions, and Ezekiel s theology contains the germ of the later more spiritual view. The prophet probably thought of Yahwe as having definite human form (126); this pure physical anthropomorphism was an advance on the earlier theriomorphism (as in Egypt and Babylon) and formed the transition to the higher conception.

17. Yahwe's ethical character.[edit]

The ethical character ascribed by Ezekiel to Yahwe also shows diverse elements. In his relations with Israel, Yahwe is represented as inflexibly just, and as basing his judgments on moral grounds - he punishes his own people for their sins. This is the prophetic view which, though not confined to Israel, was most clearly an nounced by the Israelitish thinkers (Am. 32), and by them made a part of the world s religious thought. On the other hand, the Yahwe of Ezekiel lays great stress on ritual. In his dealings with other nations he has not risen entirely above the level of the old national god who cares only for his own people ; his treatment of Egypt, Tyre, and the other peoples is not morally discriminating. The curious statement of 20 25/1, that he gave Israel evil, deadly, and polluting laws, is apparently intended to account for the presence, in the earlier legislation, of prescriptions (as that of Ex. 13 12) to which objection was taken in the prophet s time ; these, says Ezekiel (in accordance with his conception of the divine absoluteness), were given by Yahwe as punish ment for the people s disobedience (cp Mt. 198). Ezekiel (differing in this respect from Hoseaand Jeremiah) does not ascribe to Yahwe tenderness. He generally repre sents him as animated against Israel and Jerusalem by fierce anger (see especially chaps. 5 and 20). Still, he says of him (1832) that he has no pleasure in inflicting death, but desires that sinners turn and live ; that is, he desires his people s good (34), but is angry at and rigorously punishes defection. A primitive feature in Ezekiel s portraiture of Yahwe s character is the desire for renown which he ascribes to him (809 8622^ 8823 etc.) : Yahwe acts for his name s sake, that is, that his name (himself) may be revered by the nations.

In this representation there is a well - developed con ception of divine absoluteness it is not for man but for himself that God acts (cp. the similar, yet discrepant, statements in Dt. 9 4-6 7 if. ) , and there is also the germ of a great moral and religious idea the conviction that the truth of the worship of Yahwe will be the salvation of the nations ; but in the prophet s mind this idea is obscured by excessive nationalism, the desire to exalt the national deity above all other deities, and so the nation above all other nations : he expresses no hope for the moral-religious reform of foreign peoples. In short, his conception of God has noble features dimmed by narrow national and low anthropomorphic elements.

18. Other beings.[edit]

He makes no mention of angels (unless the persons who are introduced in 9:2 are so to be regarded), of seraphim, or of evil spirits ; but the non- mention is probably accidental.

The spirit which enters into him (2 2) and lifts him up (3 12 14 83 1124) is (as in Jtidg. 14 19 i K. 22 21 2 K. 1 1<.) a member of the heavenly court, sent by God to do certain things beyond ordinary human power; in 392g its function is to im plant a new disposition in the mind (and here the expression pour out indicates the beginning of a transition to the sense of influence for the term spirit ). The cherub, to which Ezekiel several times refers, is of course no angel, but a figure of mythic origin, derived directly or indirectly from Babylonia. On the different representations of the cherub see CHERUB.

19. Man.[edit]

Ezekiel has the old- Israelitish view of the nature and destiny of man. He regards him as a free agent, capable of changing from bad to good, or from good to bad (18) ; of the conditions which may determine a man to be good or bad he says nothing, except that it is open to any one to consider the outcome of his ways (1828). Shfiol, the world of the dead (see 2620 8114-17 3- 17-32), is still without any trace of local division between the good and the bad (cp ESCHATOLOGY, io/. ) ; nor can it be said that any reference is made to the resurrection of the body, the description in 87 1-14 being figurative of the restoration of the nation to national life (so, explicitly, v. n). Man, according to the prophet, works out his destiny and finds his happiness or unhappiness in this world ; here God distributes rewards and punishments, awarding to nations prosperity or adversity, and inflicting on the wicked man the greatest calamity, premature death (18). Righteousness and sin are obedience and disobedience to the divine law, moral and ritual. Of the inward life, struggle against sin, love to God, the prophet says nothing (on 8626 see below) ; it is the outward side that is considered. The chief reason for this is that the nation, not individual man, was the religious unit of the prophets (as of antiquity in general), and for the nation there could be only the external test of goodness. Salvation was thus, both for the nation and for the individual, deliverance from the outward ills of life, and endowment with all things good. It includes forgive ness of sins, and its condition is obedience to the law. For obedience there is needed a disposition or deter mination of mind. Israel, having been rebellious, must have implanted in it a new purpose and will, a new heart, a heart of flesh (8626), yielding, sensitive to the divine will. Yahwe himself will do this. The same thing the prophet expresses by saying (8627) that Yahwe will put within the nation his spirit, a new spirit (v. 26), the reference being to the idea expressed in Gen. 2? that man s vital breath is breathed into him by God (cp 18, above). Heart and spirit are in the OT sometimes practically identical ; each expresses the whole inward being (cp ESCHATOLOGY, 12 igf. ). The prophet thus declares that Israel s inward nature shall be transformed in the respect that it shall hereafter have the will to obey. Though he has in mind directly only the statement of the fact that Israel will cease to be disobedient and become obedient (of which statement a natural Heb. form is that of 8626/1), yet in his con ception of transformation (as in Jer. 8133) we must see the germ of the NT idea of regeneration.

20. Future of Israel.[edit]

Ezekiel's representation of the future of Israel does not differ substantially from that of his predecessors. He expects the nation to be restored in peace to its own land, in which (after the struggle with Gog) it shall dwell for ever in prosperity under its kings. He says nothing of an individual human deliverer, there having been apparently at that time no prominent political figure either among the exiles or at home. He expects not an absolute theocracy but a royal government which shall respect and support the temple. A decided advance over earlier prophetic representations of the future is the more definite formulation of the idea of moral regenera tion mentioned in the preceding paragraph. The hope for the union of Ephraim and Judah into one kingdom under a Davidic king (37 15-28) was a natural one at the time the northern kingdom had long ceased to have a political existence ; the fulfilment of this hope was made impossible by political conditions which the prophet could not foresee, since in his day Persia had not yet come to the front. The messianic ex pectation proper did not arise till after his time. On his new constitution for the future kingdom see below, 24.

21. Interest in ritual.[edit]

Place in the history of the ritual. The development of the sacrificial ritual which had been going on from the beginning of the national history received a special impulse toward the end of the seventh century. This was, in the first place, the result of that general growth in culture which is, as a rule, attended by growth in organisation. Israel, with its high religious endowment, naturally advanced slowly and surely in the ordering of its outward religious life, <ua as Rome did in the establishment of political principles. There were, besides, two facts, one internal, one external, that probably helped on the movement in the generation preceding Ezekiel s active life. The first of these was that the practical triumph of monotheism gave the leading men leisure to turn their attention more fully to the needs of the national worship ; and some of these were accordingly not slow to take advantage of the favourable disposition of the young king Josiah, and to set on foot an attempt at centralisation. The other fact was the closer social contact with Assyria during the seventh century. Judah was an Assyrian vassal kingdom, the relation between the two powers was a peaceful one, and the less ad vanced in general culture would naturally borrow from the more advanced, especially as the Assyrians were Semites, and the Judreans felt nearer to them than to such a country as Egypt. Manasseh and his party adopted astral worship from Assyria (2 K. 21 3 23s), and the Yahwe -party, while protesting against these innovations, might get from their suzerain kingdom valuable suggestions for the better regulation of worship. Ezekiel belonged to the circle most interested in this movement, and from his writings we may form an idea of the changes which were proposed in his time ; these, we may assume, represent not only his individual opinions, but also the views of his circle.

22. Centralisation.[edit]

The first efforts of the reform party were directed toward the suppression of the rural shrines ; its programme is embodied in Dt. 12-26 a work which doubtless represents the ideas of the leading men of the year 621. The next step would naturally be the further organisation of the sacrificial cultus, a point on which D has very little to say (18 1-8). Its provisions were probably known to and accepted by Ezekiel ; the book may have been regarded as an authoritative but not a final statement of sacred law, and it forms the starting-point for the work of the succeeding generation. Little seems to have been done in the interval between the year 621 and the destruction of the city in 586 ; the energies of Jerusalem were absorbed by the political situation, and the leading prophet, Jeremiah, was not interested in the ritual (Jer. 722). It was in the quiet of the exile that the development of the ritual was carried on ; to this work Ezekiel seems to have devoted himself in the last years of his life. Cp LAW LITERATURE.

23. Ezekiel and other works on ritual.[edit]

The book of Ezekiel stands between Deuteronomy (=D) and the final priestly legislation (Lev. 1-16:27 Nu. Ex. 25-31 35-40 = P), and is in nearest relation with Lev. 17-26 (Law of Hollness = H ).i

With 18-20 of this last section (which is composite and of various dates) he agrees in the general conception of the position of the priest, the special sanctity of the sabbath (Ezek. 20 12 Lev. 1830), and the marriage law (Ezek. 22 \of. Lev. 1881519 20 ii ./I 17 f. cp Dt. 23 i [22301). On the other hand the sub sections Lev. 1721-2(5 in their recognition of priests as Aaronides (21 i), in their greater elaboration of the ceremonies of the feasts (23), and in their development of the jubilee (25), appear to be later than Ezekiel ; the earlier parts of H are probably con temporaneous with him, but they were added to in succeeding times.

1 See LAW LITERATURE.

The more particular relation between D, Ezek., and H is as follows :

i. Levites. in D (18i-s) all Levites are priests, in Ezek. (44 15) only Zadokites are priests, in H (21 i) only Aaronides.

ii. Priests. As to their general conduct, all the provisions of Ezek. (4417-27) are found in H (Lev. 21 22,t-i6) except the prohibition of woollen clothes and wine, and the command to act as judges, and H has many details not found in Ezek. D has nothing on this point except (17 o) the recognition of Levites as judges (an old institution). As to their support, D (18 1-4} is substantially reproduced in Ezek. (44 2p_/), but the latter adds a large gift of land for priests and Levites (45 48) ; this land-provision is peculiar to Ezek., but in Nu. 35 1-8 forty-eight cities are assigned to the whole tribe of Levi, and of these thirteen (Josh. 21 4) were for the priests; Ezek. s proposed arrangement proved, in fact, to be impracticable. H alone mentions the high priest (21 10).

iii. Offerings. D has no details. The offerings are of the same kind as in Ezek. and H, except that the latter does not mention the iis.lm ( guilt-offering, 2 K. 12 16 [17]); neither has the elaborate sin-offering of Lev. 10. H is more detailed than Ezek. in the description (22 17-28) of sacrificial animals.

iv. Feasts. D (16) has the three great festivals Passover, Weeks, Booths without sacrificial details; Ezek. (4621-25) mentions only the first and the third of these, but with details of the materials (the omission of the feast of weeks is no doubt due to an oversight), and adds a special ceremony of purification of the sanctuary on the first day of the first and the seventh months (45 18-20, according to the Gk. text). H (23) gives, besides the three, the ceremony of the sheaf of first-fruits, the feast of trumpets, and the day of atonement (the ritual details are given more fully in Nu. 28_/C).

The impression made by comparison of Ezekiel and H is that the latter represents in general a more advanced ritualistic stage ; but the differences between them are not so great as to require us to suppose that they are separated by a great interval of time. The main point is that Ezekiel expands the Deuteronomic scheme by a more precise formulation of the ritual.

The function assigned to the prince (peculiar to Ezekiel and never carried out ; see PRINCE, 2) is to be noted. The omission of mention of furniture (ark and cherubs) in the most holy place is strange, especially as the cherub and the palm tree are introduced as ornaments ; the omission is perhaps due to scribal error. Cp i K. 6 23-29, and the omission of the bronze altar in i K. 7 f.

24. New Constitution.[edit]

Though the scheme given in 40-48 is put in the form of a vision, its minuteness of detail shows that the prophet had in mind a plan of organisation to be actually carried out on the return of the the people to their land. It is all to be taken literally, even 47 1-12 for there is no exegetical ground for making a distinction between this section and the rest. The plan is an admirable one. Without en croaching on the proper functions of the state, it secures the absolute independence of the temple. The ministers of the sanctuary are to have their own lands and houses and revenues assured them by organic law ; the prince is a servant of the temple, subordinate in this sphere to the priests ; it is a genuine separation of Church and State, a provision which for that time was a necessity, if public religion was to have free course. The temple, the dwelling-place of Yahwe, is the centre of the national life (cp Hag. 2? Zech. 1 16 Mai. 3i) ; the people are to be morally and ritually righteous, but the full concep tion of ritual sanctity (as in Zech. I-lzof.) is not ex pressed. The other features of the scheme are less im portant.

The prophet reproduces the details of the temple of Solomon with a fidelity which shows not only that he attached great im portance to the visible centre of worship, but also that he had closely studied its architecture and its service. It is hardly possible to restore the temple completely after his indications ; but there is enough to show that the whole structure, includ ing the enclosure, was pleasing and possibly imposing (see TEMPLE). The physical changes in the land expected by the prophet (47 ; cp Zech. 144-10 Is. 6517-25 11 6-9) are not essential to his religious plan.

It is sometimes said that the measurements of the temple (42 15-20) and of the sacred territory (45 i) are geographically im possible, and that the prophet thus means to indicate that his scheme is an ideal one. The difficulty disappears when (with @) we read cubit instead of reed in 42 15-20, and, in accord ance with this, supply cubit in 45 i -6. The temple-enclosure will then be about 250 yards (or 225 metres) square, and might easily stand on the top of the hill, and the whole central reserved district (including the land of the priests and of the Levites and the territory of the city) will be about 7^ miles (or 12 kilometres) square. The physical changes described in 47 are not greater than those contemplated elsewhere in OT, and were not un natural according to the ideas which prevailed in Ezekiel s time.

25. Literature.[edit]

i. Criticism of Heb. text. Cornill, Ezechiel ( 86) (rich in material ; bold, sometimes rash, in emendation ; often happy in suggestion ; see 4 above) ; Siegfried in Kau. HS (critical notes to his translation) ; Gratz, P. tnendat tones, II. ( 93); D. H. Miiller, Ezechiel- Studien ( 95); Bertholet in Now.; Toy in SOT( <)g). [See also many articles on archaeological points in the present work.]

ii. Commentaries. Among modern writers see Hiivernick, 1843; Hitzig, 1847; P. Fairbairn, 1851; Ewald, 1868; Reuss, 1876; Currie (in Speaker s Comm.), 1876; F. W. J. Schroder, 1873 ; Smend, 1880; Keil, 2nd ed. 1882 ; A. B. Davidson, 1882 ; Orelli, 1888, 2nd ed. 1896 ; Bertholet in KH K, 1897 ; Toy, SBOT, Eng. ed., 1899; R- Kraetzschmar in Nowack s HK (1900).

iii. Other critical aids. Gratz, MIVGJ^ ( 74) ; Duhm, Theol. d. Propheten ( 75) ; Klo. in St. Kr. ( 77) ; Graf, Gesch. Biicherdes AB( 66) , Kuenen, Prophets and Prophecy^-]-]), and his art. in Modern Review X 84); Valeton, Jr., Viertalvoorlez. over prophet. desOV ( 86); Arndt, Die stelliing Ez. in der A T Prophet ie(%(>); L. Gautier, La mission I/H prophcte Ez. ( 91) ; Montefiore, Hil b. Lect. ( 92) ; Skinner, Ezek. (Expos. Bible) ( 95) ; Bertholet, Die Verfassungsentu ur/des Hes. ( 96). To these should be added, on Ezekiel s elegies, Bu. in ZA TIV, 82 and oi- 93 ; and, on the prophet s plan of a temple, Perrot and Chipiez, Hist, de fart, etc., where, however, Chipiez s restoration is highly imaginative.

EZEL[edit]

PTXH [with art.]), a name which has intruded itself by a misunderstanding into the narrative of David s parting from Jonathan, i S. 20 19 (Vg. , Luther, EV). <5 1! presents the unintelligible word Ergab (:rapi rd ep7a/3 ^/ceivo), 1 which reappears as Argab in v. 41 (A. dvtffTT) curb TOV apyap) ; MT in v. 19 has pxn, and in v. 41 a::. 2

Evidently pxrt, ^>mn, and ajj are all wrong. Not less evidently the true reading (instead of Smn, EV Ezel ) is preserved by . Hence Wellhausen and most critics restore i^>n a-nxn in -v. 19 and aj-ixn in v. 41 ; but there is no word ajnx (see below).

3riN, argab, has been held to mean cairn (WRS, OTJC, 81, and most critics) or heap of earth (Kittel in Kau. HS, Dr. Sam. 132, and Deut. 48). The latter sense is the more defensible, though it is scarcely appropriate. The existence of the word, however, is undemonstrated. It is true, the word pya/3 occurs again La I S. 6xi I J [B], where, however, it is a corruption of apyo [A], /3aepya<J" [ L], which is simply a gloss from the margin, (see COFFER), and in i K. 413 [A], where it represents 33"1N. Almost certainly the true reading is -)jnj?n i.e., the juniper-tree. Render vv. igf., and thou shall sit down beside yonder juniper-tree ; and I will choose (nj the three rocks as a mark to shoot at. Cp HEATH.

T. K. C.