One of the passages of Josephus to which we have referred has occasioned much controversy and many conjectures, because he seems to affirm that Ezekiel had written two books of prophecies (^Ant. x, 5, 1). According to tlie ordinary and, indeed, as it would seem, necessarj' interpretation of this passage, Ezekiel was the Jiist who wrote two books respecting the Baby- lonian captivity. The question then arises. Has one of his books been lost, or are the two now joined into one ? The former supposition has been maintained by some in order to account for certain professed quota- tions from the prophet Ezekiel of passages which are not found in his writings at present. Thus Clemens Romanus (1 -E)j. ad Cor. c. 8) refers to such a passage, which is given more at length by Clemens Alexand. {Predagog. i, 10). Thus, again, Tertullian (De came Christie c. 23, )). 394, ed. Seniler) says, " Legimus ajMd Ezechielem de vacca ilia quaj peperit et non peperit." Other instances may be seen in Fabricius {Codex Pseud- epigraj^hus V. 7"., 2d ed., p. 1118), and quoted from him by Carpzov (^Introd. pt. iii, p. 208). Both these critics, however, agree that the most probable explanation of such references is that the}' were derived from Jewish tradition. The latter hypothesis, that our present book was originalh' two, the second containing the last nine chapters, has received the support of very manj' critics (see Le jMoyne, T'ana Saci-a, ii, S32 ; Carpzov, Introd. p. 208). This vie\v, however, is not without serious difficulties. There is no evidence that the book, as at present existing, was ever considered two ; and the testimony' of Josephus himself, that only twcutj'-two books were received as sacred (Contr. Apii>n. i, 8), ap- pears quite opposed to such a supposition, since in whatever way the division of the Old Testament into twenty-two books is made there cannot be two out of the number left for Ezekiel. Eichhorn {Eiideitung, iii, 140) maintains that it is Jeremiah of whom Josephus speaks, a position to which we should at once assent if we could with him consider the words oq TrpwTOQ as
EZEKIEL, BOOK OF
433
EZEKIEL, BOOK OF
equivalent to o ci£ TrpwroQ. If this is what Josephus meant, we must suppose some corruption of his text. Beclcer omits the ut;.
III. Interpretation. — The latter part of the book has always been regarded as very obscure. It will be seen, by the brief notices of the contents given above, that Iliivernick considers the whole to relate to Mes- sianic times. The predictions respecting Gog (chaps. xxxviii, xxxix) have been referred by some to Anti- ochus Epiphanes ; by others to Cambj'ses, to the Chal- daeans, the Scythians, the Turks, etc. Mr. Granville Penn has interpreted them of Napoleon and the French {The Prophecy of EzsHel concernln(j Goc/iie, etc., 1815). Sec Gog. The description of the Temple (chaps, xl- xliii) has been thought by many to contain an account of what Solomon's Temple was ; b}' others, of what the second Temple should be. (See Hiivernick's Commeih- tar iiber Ezechiel, Erlangen, 1813.) The best interpre- tation of these predictions is to be found in that of the eimilar ones of the Apocalypse. See Temple.
We cannot now enter into the difficulties of these or other chapters (for which we must refer to some of the commentaries mentioned below) ; but we will enu- merate, following Fairbairn, the four main lines of in- terpretation, viz., 1. The Historico-literal, adopted by Villalpandus, Grotius, Lowth, etc., who make them a prosaic description intended to preserve tlie memorj' of Solomon's Temple. 2. The Historico-ideal (of Eich- horn, Dathe, etc.), which reduces them "to a sort of vague and well-meaning announcement of future good." 3. The Jewish-carnal (of Liglitfoot, Hoffman, etc.), which maintains that their outline was actually adopted by the exiles. 4. The Christian-spiritual (or Messianic), followed by Luther, Calvin, Cocceius, and most modern commentators, which makes them " a grand complicated sj'mbol of the good God had in re- serve for his Church." Rosenmiiller, who disapproves alike of the literalism of Grotius, and the arbitrary, ambiguous allegorizing of others, remarks (Schol. in xxviii, 2(5) that it seems a useless task to attempt to refer tiiesa propliecies to distinct events, or to refer their poetical descriptions to naked fact. It is most safe to regard them, in accordance with the nature of allegorical representations and visions in general, as having a literal or material basis in the near past or future (i.e. recollections of Solomon's Temple, and pre- vision of hostile powers), which is made tlie vehicle of a higher and spiritual import setting forth the distant grandeur, glory, and triumph of the kingdom of God. See Double Sense (of Prophecy).
IV. Style.- — The depth of Ezekiel's matter, and the marvellous nature of his visions, make him occasion- ally obscure. Hence his prophecy was placed by the Jews among the "pTSSi (treasures), tliose portions of Scripture which (Hive the early part of Genesis, and the Canticles) were not allowed to be read till the age of thirty (Jerome, Ep. ad Eustach. ; Origen, Proem, homil. iv, in Cantic. ; Hottinger, Tkes. Phil, ii, 1, 3). Hence Jerome compares the " inextricabilis error" of his writings to Virgil's labyrinth (" Oceanus Scriptura- rum, mysteriorumque Dei labyrinth us"), and also to the Catacombs. The Jews classed him in the very highest rank of prophets. Gregory Naz. {Or. 23) be- stows the loftiest encomiums upon him. Isidore {De vit. et oh. Sanct. 39) makes him a type of Christ from the title "Son of Man," but that is- equally applied to Daniel (viii, 17). Other similar testimonies are quoted by Carpzov (introd. ii, 193 sq.). Tlie Sanhedrim is said to liave hesitated long whether his book should form part of the canon, from tlie occasional obscurit}', and from the supposed contradiction of xviii, 20 to Exod. XX, 5 ; xxxiv, 7 ; Jer. xxxii, 18. But, in point of fact, these apparent oppositions are the mere ex- pression of truths complementarj' to each other, as Moses himself might have taught them (Dent, xxiv, lo). Although, generally speaking, comments on this