Such are the positive grounds for holding that Ezekiel’s accounts of symbolical actions, whose actual performance is not specially mentioned (127 2418), make up a species of parables, whose subject was the prophet as representative either of Jahweh or of Israel (cf. the present writer’s art. ‘Zur Dentung der symbolischen Handlungen des Propheten Hesekiel’ in the Newe kirchliche Zeit- schrift, 1892, p. 650f.). The same conclusion, however, is supported by weighty considerations of a negative kind. For instance, is it credible that Ezekiel should literally have lain upon his left side for 390 days (4°), 7.e. for more than a year? Did the neighbours count the days? Or is it likely that he actually baked his barley cakes, using human excrement for fuel (4%)? These negative considerations have led even Smend (Kgf. exeg. Hdb. ‘ Hesechiel,’ 1880, p. 27) to the conclu- sion that ‘it is evident that such a transaction as that of 44-8 cannot have been literally carried out.’ Practically, the same standpoint is occupied also by Kuenen (Hist.-crit. Hinleitung, ii. p. 258f.), Toy (‘ Ezekiel’ in SBOT, 1899), and Hiihn (Die Messianischen Weissagungen, 1899, p. 160); and a similar judgment is passed by Frankenberg (in Nowack’s Hdkom., ‘Spriiche,’ 1898, p. 18). It may further be noted that Hos 1 and 3 are called ‘ parabola’ by Wenrich (De poeseos hebraice atque arabice origine, p. 152).
(8) Butin the most recent times there have been a number of exegetes who have held that all the symbolical actions mentioned in the Book of Ezekiel were externally performed. These scholars fall into two groups. The one group is made up of v. Orelli (in Strack-Zockler’s Kgf. Kom., ‘Hesekiel,’ p. 3) and Giesebrecht (Die Berufsbegabung der alttest. Propheten, 1897, p. 171), who both found their interpretation upon the appearance of literal- ness in the language of the passages in question. In particular, Giesebrecht simply asserts that ‘the symbolical actions of Ezekiel cannot be understood as mere figures.’ But this is no argu- ment.—The other group comprises the following scholars :—Klostermann, in his art. ‘ Ezechiel: Ein Beitrag zur besseren Wiirdigung seiner Person und seiner Schrift’ in SK, 1877, ,p. 391 ff. ; Aire Gautier, La mission du prophete zéchiel, 1891, p. 85ff.; Bertholet, in Marti’s Kurzer Hdcom.,
176 SYMBOL, SYMBOLICAL ACTIONS
RELIGION OF EGYPT
‘ Hesekiel,’ 1897, p. 24f.; and Kvraetzschmar, in Nowack’s Hdkom., ‘Ezechiel,’ 1900, p. v. They have come to this conclusion in consequence of accepting the hypothesis regarding the person of Ezekiel put forward by Klostermann in the above- named article. Hence it is necessary to examine this hypothesis, and to ask whether it can supply a ground on which to defend the view that the symbolical actions of which Ezekiel speaks were literally performed.
Klostermann’s theory is based on the assump- tion that the dumbness of Ezekiel (324-27 and 2425-27) was due to a temporary alalia from which the
rophet finally recovered (337%); and that his lonecontinued lying posture (44%) was the result of hemiplegia (l.c. pp. 417 f., 422). But to this hypothesis there are the following objections :— (a) The Divine command to the prophet to shut himself up in his house and keep dumb (3% °6), or to refrain from articulate lamentation (241% 27), and to lie upon his left side (448), must be inter- preted in the same manner as the command to shave his head and beard with a sharp sword (5!*), It is impossible to pick and choose amongst the various records of symbolical actions contained in the Book of Ezekiel. If, then, symptoms of dis- ease on the part of the prophet are to be dis- covered in Ezk 3*# 2416 and 448, all symbolical actions of which he speaks must be traced back to some disease of his, and we must be permitted to bring all the particular features of the narratives of 374 24168. and 4*8 into a causal connexion with some pathological habit of Ezekiel. But it may be asked whether, among other disordered inclina- tions, he had a fancy for using human excrement for fuel (4%). Did he at one and the same time suffer from temporary alalia and also have the peculiarity at one time of sighing (219), and at another time of crying aloud (v.!2)? If the Divine command to refrain from any articu- late lament for the dead (241%) is to be ex- plained by a temporary speechlessness, then the non-shedding of tears, which is enjoined in the same verse, must be derived from a bodily idiosyn- crasy of Ezekiel.—(8) It must be observed that in 34% Ezekiel speaks not of dumbness in general, but of keeping silence with any pro- phetic message. This is obvious from the single circumstance that, in order to carry out the injune- tion of silence, the prophet had to shut him- self up in his house—a course of action which would have been unnecessary if he had been suffering from temporary speechlessness. The same con. clusion follows, on the positive side, from the cir- cumstance that his silence is to evidence itself b his not coming forward as a reprover (3%), and that it is to come to an end when his God again makes disclosures to him (v.2’).—(y) If Ezekiel had suffered from temporary aa/ia, this could not haye been unknown to his neighbours, whose principal representatives used to assemble in his house (8! 14+ 201), But, in that case, a new attack of this dumbness could have had no symbolical meaning to them.—(5) It must truly have been a remark. able hemiplegia which compelled the prophet to lie for exactly 390+40, i.e. 430 days, and thus to furnish a parallel to the 430 years (Ex 12”) of Israel’s bondage in Egypt.—(e) If it was, as alleged, a bodily infirmity that prevented the prophet from articulate wailing (2475-27), he could, and no doubt would, at least have expressed his grief at his bitter loss by practising all the other mourning usages. But, as he did not do go, it is unmistakably plain that his neglect of the lament for the dead was due, not to a bodily indisposition but to a higher impulse. What a novel kind of alalia, by the way, which had its cessation fore- told (3% 2427) |