upon by Kuenen and Smend is that of the twenty-fifth year of the Cap- tivity; and at this date all critics agree the passage ( eh. xl.-xlviii.) must be placed. The only reason discoverable for holding that eh. i.-xxiv. were not composed before that year, or at least not before the destruction of Jerusalem, is the difficulty, on the contrary hypothesis, of getting rid of the supernatural or predictive element in prophecy. "One must allow," writes Smend, "that in eh. i.-xxiv. many a word stands exactly as Ezekiel spoke it; but, on the other hand, it is only literary :fiction when Jerusalem's downfall is represented as still future, as in eh. xiii. 2, etc., and xxii. 30, etc. The prediction is generally in the strongest way influenced by the fulfilment; step by step there meet us vaticinia ez eventu, as in eh. xi. 10 and xii. 12. The passage eh. xvii. is throughout anachronistic, and the section eh. xiv. 12 generally first thinkable after the destruction of Jerusa- lem" (' Der Prophet Ezechiel,' p. xxii.). Nor ca.n it be doubted that this conclusion is unavoidable if the premiss from which it is drawn be admitted, viz. that prediction, in the ordinary acception of that term, vaticinium pro eventu, is impossible. But a fair-minded critic must acknowledge that such a premiss is one to be proved rather than assumed, and that until demon- stration is produced it will not be possible to assent to the soundness of the inference that, because certain passages predict the downfall of Jerusalem and the captivity of Zedekiah, they must have been composed after those events. Besides, with what truthfulness could Ezekiel have represented himself as having been commanded by Jehovah to foretell the overthrow of the Judrean capital and the banishment of its king, if in reality Jehovah had given him no such instruction, and if in point of fact he, Ezekiel, had uttered no such predictions? And how could he, Ezekiel, have had the effrontery to state, in the opening of his book, that he had been directed by Jehovah to speak to the people with his (Jehovah't;) words, and yet in the body of his book show that he had written with his own? Clearly Ezekiel must in this case have been unmindful of Jehovah's charge, which he pro- fessed at least he had received, "Son of man, be not thou rebellious like , that rebellious house." I'' (2) As to the final collection and possible revision of Ezekiel's prophecies, there is no need to call in the assistance of any hand but the prophet's own, the seeming disorder, or" want of arrangement," of which Jahn complained being perfectly explainable without having recourse either to a perplexed "transcriber,'' or to Eichhorn's amusing supposition of a lazy editor, who, having found two separate prophecies of diverse dates, written by the prophet for the sake of economy upon the same book-roll, set them down as he found , them in juxtaposition rather than take the trouble to rewrite them. What- ever interruption of strict chronological sequence the book discovers is best accounted for as the handiwork of Ezekiel himself, who at times desired to group his prophecies by the subjects to which they related rather than by the dates at which they were spoken. If the book was first formed in the •twenty-fifth yearof the Captivity, B.c. 575 (eh. xl. 1), it was probably revised xxii ' INTRODUCTION TO
two yeare later, when the brief oracle concerning Nebuchadnezzar was added (eh. xxix. 17-21). (3) The canonicity of Ezekiel has seldom been impugned. Thnt it found a place in Nehemiah's collection of "the acts of the kings, and the prophets, and of David, and the epistles of the kings concerning the holy gifts" (2 Mace. ii. 13), may be assumed. It appeared in the translation of the LXX. which was issued B.c. 280. Josephus (' Contra A pion,' i. 8) numbers it among the sacred books that in his day were regarded as canonical, though he also speaks (' Ant.,' x. 5. 1) of Ezekiel having written two books instead of one-in this probably blundering, as he does in sending off the prophet to Babylon along with Jehoiachin rather than with Jehoiakim (' Ant.,' x. 6. 3) or confounding together Jeremiah and Ezekiel, the former of whom wrote two books (Hii.vernick); or alluding to the present Book of Ezekiel, which may then have been recognized as consisting of two parts or volumes ('Speaker's Commentary'). The Talmud (trans. 'Baba Ba.thra,' f. xiv. 2) recognizes •Ezekiel' among the books it specifies as constituting the canon. On account of seeming discrepancies between Ezekiel's law-giving and that of the Pentateucb, the canonicity of the former was for some time contested among the Jews in the last revision of the Jewish canon, after the destruction of Jerusalem (Deren- bourg, •Histoire de la Palestine,' p. 295); but, the difficulty having been removed, the book's right to a place in the canon was not disturbed, and was at length formally recognized in the Talmud (trans. 'Baba Bathra,' f. :xiv. 2). In the Christian Church Melito'e canon of the Old Testament (A.D. 172) and Origen's (.A..D. 250) both acknowledge it.
3. Its Style and Literary Characteristics. The verdict of Ewald will probably not be disputed by persons com- petent to pronounce an opinion on the subject, that as a writer Ezekiel " excels all former prophets in point of skill, beauty, and perfection of treatment"(' The Prophets of the Old Testament,' iv. 9). "It is true," adcle the above-named eminent authority, "his style, like that of most writers of this later period, has a certain amount of prolixity, often very involved sentences, a rhetorical copiousness and diffuseness; still it raTely (eh. xx.) carries these defects to the same extent as Jeremiah in his later years, but generally collects itself with ease and assumes a finished form •.•• Moreover, hie style is enriched with uncommon comparisons, is often at the same moment both charming and telling, fu~l of new turns and surprises, and often very beautifully elaborate" (ibid., p. 15 ). It frequently exhibits the most imposing sublimity of thought and expression in close combination with the severest and least ornate narration ( eh. i.-iii. ). At one time it revels in a profusion of images, which seem to pour themselves forth from a highly excited fancy (eh. xxvii.); at another time it con- descends to comparatively dry and uninteresting details ( eh. :x.l. 6-49 ), THI~ BOOK OF 'l'HE PTIOPIIET EZEKIEL. xxiii