Yuri Kuchinsky

Greetings, friends,

These four chapters of Ezekiel, chapters 36-39, contain some of the most famous passages in his book, that are often quoted by Christian exegetes. They include God's promise of a new heart and a new spirit for his people, the apocalyptic battle against Gog of Magog, and Ezekiel's Vision of the Dry Bones.

There are many allusions in the NT to these passages. Especially the Book of Revelation, in its chapters 20-22, has clearly been influenced by them.

And yet, it looks like our traditional text of Ezekiel, based as it is on the Hebrew Masoretic text, does not really represent the original text of Ezekiel here...

There's now increasing evidence from the early manuscripts of Ezekiel that some rather late Masoretic editor had rearranged these chapters, and also inserted a long passage of Ezek 36:23c-38 (i.e. over 15 verses of text) at the end of Ch. 36.

So the original order of these chapters seems to have been as follows,

36 (minus 36:23c-38), 38, 39, 37.

In other words, this seems to have been the original order of these pericopes,

Ch. 36:1-15 (Regeneration of the Land); 16-23b (Regeneration of the People)
Ch. 38 (The two prophesies against Gog)
Ch. 39:1-20 (The third prophesy against Gog); 21-29 (Israel's Return)
Ch. 37:1-14 (Vision of the Dry Bones); 15-28 (The Two Sticks)

And further, following this whole section, the final part of Ezekiel begins (Ch. 40-48), describing his vision of the New Temple, and of the New Israel.

All this clearly has some important theological implications, although what they are may be debated... The bottom line is that we don't really know why these Chapters 36-39 had been rearranged, but rearranged they clearly were, since the evidence of our oldest manuscripts is really quite unambiguous here.

As to that long insertion of Ezek 36:23c-38, its primary purpose seems to have been to smooth the transition between the old ending of Chapter 36, and the Vision of the Dry Bones (that originally followed Ch. 39). Other than that, this newer passage of 36:23c-38 doesn't really introduce any original material of its own; it is basically a pastiche of various other passages of Ezekiel.


THE MANUSCRIPTS

What would be your reaction if somebody told you that a rather obscure 6th century Latin manuscript of Ezekiel contains the original text of this book?

Well, strange as it may sound, this seems to be precisely the case... Our rather obscure 6th century manuscript is the Latin Codex Wirceburgensis, that has been known for a long time already. Wirceburgensis (housed at the University of Wurzburg) has been edited by Ernst Ranke, and published in Vienna way back in 1871. This is what is known as an 'Old Latin' (i.e. pre-Vulgate) manuscript of the OT, although it is later in date than the Latin Vulgate.

Back in 1871, of course, nobody as yet thought that MS Wirceburgensis preserves the original text of Ezekiel 36-39. This realisation came much later, after the Old Greek Papyrus 967 of Ezekiel was published in 1937.

This is a Greek Septuagint Papyrus, and it dates to the early 3rd century CE. Only some parts of it had been published in 1937 by Kenyon, and then in 1938 by AC Johnson, et al. This Papyrus is also known as the Chester Beatty-Scheide Ezekiel Papyrus.

Finally, also some other parts of this same Papyrus had been discovered, and published in 1972 and, only then, the scholars realised that, just like the Wirceburgensis, P967 also features the Chapters 36-39 of Ezekiel in that very same 'archaic' arrangement as outlined above.

So, naturally, this already creates a very strong case that the text of Ezekiel, as we now find it in all of our standard Bibles, is just a late and re-edited version of this book.

The whole case for this has been made very competently by the Belgian scholar Johan Lust.

J. Lust, EZEKIEL 36–40 IN THE OLDEST GREEK MANUSCRIPT, CBQ 43 (1981) 517-533.

So this has been my main source for this article.

Lust presents a whole array of arguments for the originality of Wirceburgensis/P967 version of Ezekiel 36-39. They include linguistic arguments for the secondary nature of Ezek 36:23c-38 in both its Hebrew and Greek versions, the redactional arguments, and much more. It's an excellent article overall.

Lust concludes that the omission of Ezek 36:23c-38 in both Wirceburgensis and P967 could not have been accidental. Rather, the fact that this section is missing in both manuscripts has to be understood in relation to the sequence of Chapters 36-40 as we find it in these manuscripts (as I've outlined above).

Also, Lust demonstrates that Ezek 36:23c-38 is redactional in nature, and was composed as a transition between Chapters 36 and 37. The piece would have had no function in an earlier edition of the text, in which Chapter 37 followed 39, and not 36.

And yet, as I've recently discovered, now we have even more evidence to the same effect! This comes from the recent Dead Sea Scrolls research by the Israeli scholar Dr. Devorah Dimant.


THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS SUPPORT LUST'S THEORY (the DSS Pseudo-Ezekiel)

The Pseudo-Ezekiel, a Jewish apocryphal writing similar in style to the Book of Ezekiel, has been found at Qumran in a number of copies. It is in Hebrew, and its oldest copy (4Q391) is dated palaeographically to the late second century BCE.

(It seems that some citations from Pseudo-Ezekiel have been identified in various first-century Christian works.)

Dr. Devorah Dimant has studied this text, and recently published her results.

Qumran Cave 4, XXI: Parabiblical Texts, Part 4, Pseudo-Prophetic Texts, by Devorah Dimant. DJD 30. Oxford: Clarendon, 2001. Pp. 312. £70 (cloth).

According to Dimant, the themes and eschatological episodes as found in Pseudo-Ezekiel interpret biblical prophecy along the lines of Ezek 36-40. But the order of Pseudo-Ezekiel doesn't seem to follow the Masoretic Text. Rather, it seems to follow a variant sequence as reflected in the Old Greek Papyrus 967, and Codex Wirceburgensis of the Old Latin, namely, chs. 36, 38, 39, 37, and 40.

[See the review of her book by Timothy H. Lim,
http://sbl-site.org/Publications/JBL/JBL1231.pdf ]

So, my friends, this pretty well seals the case...

It looks like the full implications of this discovery are really quite significant, and they will need to be explored further later on.

For now, it is enough to note that this whole sequence of Ezekiel 36-39, being as it is full of Messianic implications, plays a very big role in both the Jewish and Christian Biblical exegesis.

It is clear that this re-editing had been done some time around the birth of Christianity... So how is it possible that the Jewish Masoretes had re-edited this whole sequence in such a radical way, and that the Christians also accepted this re-editing?

What was the purpose of this re-editing? Was this done in the context of the early Jewish-Christian polemics? (Lust, at least, thinks that this was possible.) And if so, then why did both the Jews and the Christians accepted the re-editing?

This whole case presents us with a fine puzzle, and a lot more work needs to be done to understand what's going on here.

Can this puzzle be solved at all? I sure hope so...

All the best,

Yuri.

Ben C Smith

Probably the same reaction that I would have if somebody told me that a rather obscure medieval Middle English gospel harmony contains the (most) original (extant) text of the canonical gospels.

Just kidding.

Seriously, though, I find all of this quite interesting, and wonder further if this rearrangement of the prophet Ezekiel has anything to do with the rearrangement of the prophet Jeremiah. I also wonder about the episodes in Judges 17-21, which are surely out of place where they stand, and which Josephus appears to reshuffle back into a more correct order, if you will.

In other words, I suspect that the Old Testament texts have been reformatted over the centuries quite a bit more than most of us are aware.

Ben.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Yes, Ben, I get your joke.

But of course the Magdalene Gospel is no joke; it is a real text... It is really the most original extant text of the canonical gospels! :Cheeky:

Thanks!

Yes, and J. Lust does mention the rearrangement of Jeremiah, as well, in his article. According to him, there's a "growing consensus" in the field that the LXX version of Jeremiah preserves the more original narrative order. (He cites here a 1979 study by E. Tov.)

And he also mentions a similar phenomenon with Daniel, adding that, again, P967 is the best LXX copy of Daniel.

Interesting...

A well founded suspicion!

I'm planning to add to my analysis soon, with some more info about this archaic sequence of Ezek. 36-39.

Cheers,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Dear friends,

Here's some information about the parallels between the Book of Revelation, chapters 20-22, and these Ezekiel passages.

It is interesting that, in Revelation, there are two scenes of resurrection. One precedes the final battle against Gog and Magog (Rev 20:4-5), and the other one follows upon it (Rev 20:12). So it is possible that John, the author of Revelation, knew both the early edition of Ezekiel, where the Vision of the Dry Bones followed upon the Battle Against Gog, and the later edition (now canonical).

(Or else, there's a possibility that the present edition of Revelation had been expanded at some later point to include the early resurrection scene of Rev 20:4-5.)

In the following article, Jan Lambrecht includes the info about Lust's theory.

=====quote======

Jan Lambrecht, FINAL JUDGMENTS AND ULTIMATE BLESSINGS: THE CLIMACTIC VISIONS OF REVELATION 20,11-21,8. Biblica 81 (2000) 362-385.

http://www.bsw.org/project/biblica/bibl81/Comm09m.html

Regarding 20,11-15 John is certainly
influenced by the books of Ezekiel, Daniel
and Isaiah.

-- Ezekiel

In Rev 20-22 John appears to follow the order
of Ezek 37–48 [7 -- see the Notes at the end]. A
fourfold structural parallelism can be noted [8]:

-- the resurrection of the martyrs (and all
Christians?) (Rev 20,4a),
-- the revival of the dry bones (Ezek 37,1-14);

-- the messianic kingdom (Rev 20,4b-6),
-- the reunited kingdom governed by the
messianic king David (Ezek 37,15-28);

-- the final battle against Gog and Magog (Rev
20,7-10),
-- the final battle against Gog of Magog (Ezek
38–39);

-- the descent of the new Jerusalem (Rev
21,1–22,5),
-- the vision of the new Temple and the new
Jerusalem (Ezek 40–48).

John's dependence on Ezekiel cannot be
denied, even though no parallel can be found
for the passage 20,11-15. However, not only
in 20,7-10, but also already in chapter 19,
John refers to Ezekiel's oracles against Gog.

J. Lust notes that most probably the order of
Ezek 37–39 was not yet stabilized during the
period in which the book of Revelation was
being composed. In the oldest manuscript of
Ezekiel, i.e., the recently discovered Greek
Papyrus 967 (late 2nd or early 3rd cent.), as
well as in the best manuscript of the Vetus
Latina, the Codex Wirceburgensis, chapter
37 follows chapters 38–39.

This [latter] arrangement would provide an
even more striking general parallelism
between,

-- Rev 19,17–20,10 (battle against the two
beasts and the dragon) and,
-- Ezek 38–39 (final battle against Gog of Magog),

and,

-- Rev 20,11-15 (judgment after resurrection) and
-- Ezek 37 (revival of the dry bones) [9].

Yet even without an appeal to this
different order, John's dependence on Ezekiel
remains certain [10]. The discrepancies, more
specifically the distinction between a first and
second resurrection and the millennial
kingdom in Rev 20, may be due to John's
dependence on later traditions and to his own
creativity.

[Footnote 7]
For the influence of Ezekiel on Revelation see A. VANHOYE, "L'utilization du livre d'Ezechiel dans l'Apocalypse", Bib 43 (1962) 436-473, and, especially for Rev 1; 4–5; 10 and 21–22, J.M. VOGELGESANG, The Interpretation of Ezekiel in the Book of Revelation (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation; Harvard University 1985). Vogelgesang highlights John's direct dependence on Ezekiel and, moreover, maintains that John modeled his work on that of Ezekiel (see, e.g., pp. 71-72).

[Footnote 8]
Cf. J. LUST, "The Order of the Final Events in Revelation and in Ezekiel", L'Apocalypse johannique et l'Apocalyptique dans le Nouveau Testament (ed.J. LAMBRECHT) (BETL 53; Leuven 1980) 179-183; ID., "Ezekiel 36–40 in the Oldest Greek Manuscript", CBQ 43 (1981) 517-533; VOGELGESANG, Interpretation, 64-66; BEALE, Revelation, 1012.

[Footnote 9]
Cf. LUST, "Final Events", 181-183. Lust guesses that John knew both editions of Ezekiel. See the balanced evaluation of this hypothesis by VOGELGESANG, Interpretation, 65, n. 87.

[Footnote 10]
One more reason is given by AUNE, Revelation, 1104: 'Since the names God and Magog occur only rarely in Jewish apocalyptic literature, John has very likely derived these code names directly from Ezekiel'.

=====unquote======

All the best,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Dear friends,

Here's the second part of my article, that includes some other evidence that the more ancient text of Ezekiel is preserved by these two unusual manuscripts. The article also considers various implications of this theory, including the theological meaning of these changes, as well as the question of when and where the changes may have been made. Also, more information is supplied about these manuscripts.

All the best,

Yuri.

--

(Part 2) The Archaic Text of Ezekiel 36-39

Chapters 33-39 of the Book of Ezekiel contain the oracles of Israel's salvation and restoration. In 33:21, Ezekiel learns about the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar's armies, as was previously predicted. Thereupon, he receives back his power of speech.

The material that follows contains some of the most famous passages in Ezekiel, such as the Parable of the Shepherds, the prophesies about the restoration of the Davidic monarchy, God's promise of a new heart and a new spirit, and the Vision of the Dry Bones. Also, there is the prophesy that the two kingdoms, Israel and Judah, will once again be united.

And, of course, there's also that famous apocalyptic battle against Gog of Magog -- the invader from the north -- during which Israel will be vindicated forever.

It is particularly the chapters 36-39 of Ezekiel that are of concern for us now. These chapters have been of great interest to Christian exegetes, and there are many allusions to them in the NT, especially in the Book of Revelation (chaps. 20-22).

The order of these prophesies of chapters 36-39 is certainly highly significant. As I wrote in my previous post, here's their order according to the 'archaic' text of Ezekiel,

Ch. 36:1-15 (Regeneration of the Land); 16-23b (Regeneration of the People)
Ch. 38 (The two prophesies against Gog)
Ch. 39:1-20 (The third prophesy against Gog); 21-29 (Israel's Return)
Ch. 37:1-14 (Vision of the Dry Bones); 15-28 (The Two Sticks)

So let us now examine this older sequence, and try to see what its implications are for the interpretative history of Ezekiel.

As J. Lust writes, it is pretty clear that the older order of these prophesies is a lot more logical and coherent overall, when compared to our mainstream version.

In particular, 36:8ff describes the peaceful restoration of Israel. And this was already prepared for by 34:27-28,

So, according to the archaic sequence (lacking chap. 37, as well as 36:23c-38), this situation of security also continues directly in chap. 38, which is still describing Israel's peaceful existence (employing the Hebrew word /labetah/, 38:8, 11). Importantly, they are dwelling in unfortified cities without walls (v. 11), which sets the stage for the final battle against Gog, that is to follow next.

But what we find in the later addition of 36:23c-38 is something rather different. Here, in 36:35, we learn that the cities of Israel had been "fortified", which directly contradicts 38:11.


A MORE APPROPRIATE PLACEMENT FOR 'THE VISION OF THE DRY BONES'

Also, as Dr. Lust notes, the Vision of the Dry Bones does fit in a lot more naturally after chap. 39 (i.e. its place according to the older sequence). In 39:11ff, the bones of the invading army of Gog are described as scattered in the field of battle, where they also provide the fodder for the birds of prey,

And, as Lust writes,

So, based on this older sequence, i.e. the Vision of the Dry Bones following the apocalyptic battle of chap. 39, the scene is set very fittingly for the last section of the Book of Ezekiel, the prophesies of the New Temple, and the New Israel (chaps. 40-48).

If we examine the canonical sequence, on the other hand,

And, in the same way, based on the canonical sequence of these pericopes, the transition from chap. 37 to chap. 38 is also somewhat problematic... Indeed, in our standard text, Israel's resurrection and reunification in chap. 37 leads directly to the final battle in chaps. 38-39. But, as Lust notes,

On the other hand, as we shall presently see, the final battle is clearly linked backed associatively with chapters 35 and 36 (in its shorter version).


OTHER SIGNS THAT, IN THE OLDER TEXT, CHAPTERS 38-39 FOLLOWED DIRECTLY AFTER 36:23b

And here are some other indications that, originally, the prophesies against Gog followed directly after Ezek 36:23b.

As Lust points out, the theme of sanctification of God's name is very important in the shorter version of chap. 36 (as we find it in our Old Greek and Old Latin texts of Ezekiel),

And yet, this significant theme is found again only in chaps. 38-39, while lacking completely in chap. 37, as well as in the later additions of 36:23c-38.

And this is what Lust says about the catchwords that happen to directly connect chapters. 35-36 with the prophesies against Gog,

As Lust explains, such stylistic associative links between neighbouring pericopes are the hallmarks not only of the Book of Ezekiel, but of the Hebrew Scriptures more generally. One narrative typically leads into another by the means of such common words and phrases. These biblical narratives customarily feature a multitude of word-plays and puns of all sorts, that only make sense in Hebrew, and are inevitably lost in translation.

And so, all this indicates still further that, in the older text of Ezekiel, the prophesies against Gog followed directly after Ezek 36:23b.


THE THEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THESE CHANGES

It can be assumed that, prior to 70 CE -- at the time of heightened apocalyptic expectations in Israel -- various Jewish apocalyptic groups recognised in Ezek 37 some sort of a prefiguring of the future bodily resurrection. Clearly, that's how the Christians read these passages from the earliest times onwards... For the early Christians, of course, these coming events have also been foreshadowed and confirmed further by the resurrection of Christ.

As Dr. Lust has shown, the sequence of end-times prophesies in the older text of Ezekiel was as follows,

The End-times Battle Against Gog --> The Promise of Resurrection (the Vision of the Dry Bones).

But, actually, we also find the very same sequence of apocalyptic events in the Book of Daniel 12:1ff. So perhaps this type of a sequence can be described as fairly traditional, and even conventional.

On the other hand, reversing the above sequence, as follows,

The Promise of Resurrection --> The End-times Battle Against Gog

tends to create a rather different picture. Such a reversal clearly seems to lessen the apocalypticism of these prophesies.

So it's as if the late editor of Ezekiel was saying, "First we have to wait for some clear signs of heavenly intervention -- for some amazing supernatural events to unfold -- and then we worry about taking up weapons against our political enemies."

According to the newer sequence, the promise of resurrection is no longer seen as the prize that will reward those who march off into battle against Israel's enemies, as it were...

And so, the current canonical sequence of these events -- i.e. placing Chapter 37, with its the Vision of the Dry Bones, before the great apocalyptic battle -- shows a tendency to root these expected events more firmly in the earthly, material world. The believers are now expected to wait patiently for God's intervention, rather than to try and force these events through their own actions.


THE FUNDAMENTAL MEANING OF THESE PROPHESIES OF CHAPTER 37

In any case, one also has to wonder if these prophesies -- however one arranges them, and wherever one really places our Chapter 37 -- were ever intended to prefigure the bodily resurrection, as such... After all, rather than an allegory of resurrection, one can just as well read Chapter 37 as an allegory prefiguring the regeneration (or restoration) of Israel right here in the material world.

Indeed, we can observe that, within this chapter, the Vision of the Dry Bones is followed immediately by the prophesy of the Two Sticks... The joining of these was, of course, meant to symbolise the coming union of Israel and Judah, i.e. something that may sound, on the whole, like a rather prosaic political development, and a bit of a let-down coming hard on the heels of such a grand and exalted event as the bodily resurrection...

As I see it, this prophesy of the Two Sticks, following, as it does, so closely upon the Vision of the Dry Bones, more or less demands that we interpret the former prophesy as an allegory of restoration of Israel right here in the material world, rather than as a promise of a supernatural event to come.

Also, we should note that, all through these passages, the figure of the Messiah does seem to be rather conspicuous by its absence... It doesn't really seem like these had ever been intended as Messianic texts, properly speaking (in spite of the best efforts on the part of the Christian interpreters, especially, to treat them as such).

Indeed, nowhere in Chapter 37 can one discern the figure of the Royal Messiah, who would come to restore and unify Israel. The central figure in this chapter is the prophet, himself -- and, generally, in the biblical tradition, the prophets are not really seen as being invested with any great political power. Here, in Chapter 37 (and throughout the Book of Ezekiel) the prophet is certainly a fully human figure, albeit working under the direct instructions from the Almighty... It is he, the Prophet Ezekiel, who, on heavenly instructions, joins the sticks together, so that they form one stick in _his_ hand.


POSSIBLE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THESE EDITORIAL CHANGES

The question may now be asked, How can we explain this major re-editing of chaps. 36-39 from a historical perspective? Can some specific date be suggested for these editorial activities?

To begin with, I think it is generally pretty clear that this re-editing had been done by the Jews. Otherwise, if Christians would have originated it, it is very hard to believe that the Jews would have ever accepted it.

Also, in my opinion, it is rather unlikely that this re-editing came about because of Jewish-Christian controversies in regard to the correct interpretation of Ezekiel (as was suggested by J. Lust)... Indeed, let us assume that the older version of this text was dominant in the first century CE, and also that the Christians were somehow using it to their advantage. Well, in such a case, if the Jews decided to re-edit these Ezekiel chapters (in response to the Christian efforts to appropriate them for their own use), it is pretty clear that it would have been the Christians, then, who would refuse to accept such a politically-motivated Jewish re-editing!

And so, my current working hypothesis is that this major re-editing of Ezekiel's chapters 36-39 was purely an internal Jewish matter, and did not have any direct relationship to the rise of Christianity... Nevertheless, I still see this re-editing as probably taking place just around the time when Christianity was born. And its purpose seems to have been to lessen the apocalyptic expectations, then widely prevalent in Israel.

From such a perspective, the fact that these two unusual manuscripts of Ezekiel -- the Old Greek Papyrus 967, and the Old Latin Codex Wirceburgensis -- still preserve the archaic text can be simply seen as an indication of the relative lateness of these changes in the manuscript tradition of Ezekiel.

Johan Lust doesn't say in his article whether P967 is considered as a Christian or a Jewish text. But now, I've looked this matter up, and found that the scholars indeed see P967 as a Christian manuscript. And MS Wirceburgensis can also be assumed to be a text that was produced and copied by the Christians.

And yet, in my opinion, just because our two divergent manuscripts of Ezekiel have been copied and preserved by Christian scribes, this, by itself, does not yet bespeak any sort of a special theological agenda on the part of those who preserved this archaic text. After all, they could have simply been copying some exemplar manuscripts that they thought were the best they had access to, without trying to make any sort of a particular theological statement of their own.

Indeed, in this case, it looks like the Christians somehow managed to preserve an earlier text of Ezekiel... And yet, I think it is still possible that those who were doing this were not really fully aware of what it was that they were doing... In other words, this whole situation could well have been something of a historical accident.

But also, we must consider numerous other indications that the Septuagint text of the Jewish Scriptures often preserves the earlier text. Very often, the Septuagint readings are also supported by the Samaritan Pentateuch, and by various other versions, such as the Aramaic Targums, and various Latin texts, including the Vulgate OT.


THE QUESTION OF DATE

So, is it possible to identify more precisely the time frame of this major re-editing of the Book of Ezekiel? In my opinion, the best guess would point to the time following the defeat of the first Jewish nationalist rebellion in 70 CE.

The terrible shock of this defeat, and of the destruction of the Temple, and the city of Jerusalem, may well have provided sufficient motivation for the remaining Jewish religious leadership in Israel -- or possibly in other lands nearby, such as Syria -- to produce such a re-editing.

On the other hand, if we try to move the time frame of this re-editing even later, i.e. after the Jewish defeat of 135 CE, then one has to wonder how and why the Christians would have accepted such a re-editing as wholeheartedly as they did. (After all, they had accepted the re-edited text as their mainstream manuscript tradition of Ezekiel).

So the best candidate for the historical context of these editorial changes seems to be Israel shortly after 70 CE. Definitely, this is the Jewish religious centre that had enough authority to undertake such a re-editing... The fact is that these changes _had_ been subsequently accepted widely by the Jewish communities around the world, so we must assume that they were introduced under the auspices of a very influential Jewish religious authorities of some type.

It is widely believed that, after the defeat of 70 CE, some sort of a rabbinical academy was founded under the auspices of Rabbi Yohannon ben Zakkai in Yavneh, a small coastal town in Israel.

Actually, Dr. Eugene Ulrich has argued in the past that this academy (or perhaps assembly) of Yavneh played some sort of a role in standardising the Jewish Scriptures (although it must be noted that there is not all that much solid evidence in this area). His views are summarised and discussed by Steven J. Koster, in his article, NEUSNER'S PHASES OF JEWISH HISTORY -- SECTARIANISM & CANONIZATION: QUMRAN TO YAVNEH, in Stromata 2004 [Vol. 45],

(PDF file)
http://www.calvinseminary.edu/pubs/stromata/str45-1.pdf

As Koster writes,

So it is quite possible that an authoritative rabbinical assembly at Yavneh (or a similar such assembly) decided to introduce these editorial changes, perhaps along with some others, as well.


REVELATION 20 AND EZEKIEL'S PROPHESIES

It is clear that the climactic prophesies of the Book of Revelation, chapters 20-22, depend on these passages of Ezekiel that we have been considering. This has been analysed more fully by Jan Lambrecht (Jan Lambrecht, FINAL JUDGMENTS AND ULTIMATE BLESSINGS: THE CLIMACTIC VISIONS OF REVELATION 20,11-21,8. Biblica 81 (2000) 362-385). [As I noted previously, see the link I've supplied.]

He sees a "fourfold structural parallelism" between these two writings. Especially the prominence of the final battle against Gog in both works is a case in point.

It is interesting that, in Revelation, there are two scenes of resurrection. One precedes the final battle against Gog and Magog (Rev 20:4-5), and the other one follows upon it (Rev 20:12).

The fact that John, the author of Revelation, predicts the final resurrection _after_ the final battle against Gog is certainly quite interesting; this indicates that he may well have been reading the archaic text of Ezekiel, and derived this idea from it.

The fact that there are two resurrections in Revelation parallels rather curiously our two versions of the text of Ezekiel. Is it possible that John, the author of Revelation, knew both of these versions?

(Also, perhaps there's a possibility that our canonical text of Revelation had been expanded at some later point to include the early resurrection scene of Rev 20:4-5.)


MORE ABOUT THE WIRCEBURGENSIS AND P967

It needs to be noted that neither the Wirceburgensis nor P967 are continuous manuscripts. They are both fragmentary texts, and contain numerous lacunae.

The Wirceburgensis had been published by Ranke in the following edition, that seems to be quite rare,

Ernst Ranke, PALIMPSESTORUM WIRCEBURGENSIUM: ANTIQUISSIMAE VETERIS TESTAMENTI VERSIONIS LATINAE FRAGMENTA (Vienna, 1871).

Here is the list of what remains of this manuscript as far as the text of Ezekiel goes,

Ezekiel
xxiv. 4-- 21,
xxvi. 10-- xxvii. 4,
xxxiv. 16-- xxxv. 5,
xxxvii. 19-- 28,
xxxviii. 8-- 20,
xl. 3-- xlii. 18,
xlv. 1-- xlvi. 9,
xlviii. 28-- 35;

Now, in regard to P967, this text has been published in parts over many years. Considerable material about it is actually available online at the following URL, with the links to all of its pages!

http://ldab.arts.kuleuven.ac.be/deta...heID=LDAB+3090

Description of P967 (in German), including the bibliography,
http://www.uni-koeln.de/phil-fak/ifa....html#ezechiel

All available Ezekiel pages of P967,
http://www.uni-koeln.de/phil-fak/ifa...bildereze.html

As Lust writes in his article, the comparison of our Old Greek and Old Latin texts of Ezekiel shows that, of all the existing Old Latin manuscripts of Ezekiel, Codex Wirceburgensis stands the closest to P967. And yet, Wirceburgensis does not directly depend on P967, since the Latin text lacks numerous omissions by parablepsis, quite common in P967. Thus, although much later in date, it seems like, in many respects, Wirceburgensis preserves a more pure text of Ezekiel.

It is clear on the whole that both these manuscripts ultimately derive from one and the same very early version of Ezekiel in Hebrew.

All the best,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Now, I have also found this webpage on the Wirceburgensis MS,

http://ldab.arts.kuleuven.ac.be/deta...heID=LDAB+8828

According to it, Wirceburgensis is a Christian MS, possibly coming from Italy, and now it is dated in the 5th century CE.

For the Wirceburgensis, there seem to be no plates available on the Net.

While I've already done quite a lot of work in NT textual criticism over the years, in comparison, I'm relatively new to the OT textual criticism. Now I'm finding that there are some interesting parallels in both fields, but also some big differences.

One difference seems to be that OT textual criticism is a much more obscure field of study... We can also judge this by how few comments this thread got so far -- just one comment!

I thought before that NT textual criticism was really the preserve of very few, but the number of people who know anything about OT textual criticism seems to be even smaller!

Cheers,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Dear friends,

Here are some of my additional thoughts about the OT and NT textual criticism.

In particular, here are some differences and similarities between the OT textual criticism, and the NT textual criticism, as they are currently practised.


SOME OF THE DIFFERENCES

-- With the OT, there's no doubt as to the original language of these writings; it was Hebrew (with a few short Aramaic inserts).

But, with the NT, there's still a lot of doubt as to the original language of at least some of the gospels. Matthew is the most likely to have been originally written in a Semitic tongue (either Hebrew or Aramaic, or both).

-- The one most obvious difference between the OT and NT textual criticisms is that the modern scholarly editions of the Hebrew OT are distrustful of the eclectic method, while our modern editions of the Greek NT embrace it wholeheartedly.

In other words, the scholarly editions of OT print one manuscript only as their main text, and all the variants are consigned to the footnotes (also known as the Apparatus). The editors simply select one medieval Hebrew manuscript that is seen as the best (in practical terms, it is either the so-called "Leningrad Codex", dating to 1005 CE, which apparently still hasn't been renamed as "St. Petersburg Codex", or the 11th century Aleppo Codex), and print it as their main text.

But, on the other hand, the scholarly editions of NT print as their main text what is known as an 'eclectic text' -- a text that is not found in any one existing manuscript. The 'eclectic text' is what the editors _think_ the text should read. Hence, understandably, there's a large potential for abuse, and for political and doctrinal manipulation. (Myself, I think the current eclectic text of the NT is highly problematic, to say the least... And almost all of that political and doctrinal manipulation had been done back in the 19th century by Westcott & Hort -- the text hardly changed since then.)

The truth is that the NT scholars simply don't have any one Greek manuscript of the gospels that they see as the best. So, understandably, this creates some problems.


SOME OF THE SIMILARITIES

-- Most NT scholars study the Greek text only (and its translations). Most OT scholars study the Hebrew text only (and its translations). But it's very likely that, both for the OT and for the NT, the minority -- and mostly ignored -- manuscript traditions often preserve the earlier versions of texts.

For the OT, these minority manuscript traditions are the Samaritan Torah, the Septuagint (as well as the similar Latin and Aramaic translations), the Cairo Geniza texts, and now the Dead Sea Scrolls. It seems like there are various political considerations that make the value of these alternative manuscript traditions quite controversial, and their study somewhat unpopular. (To be sure, the study of the Dead Sea Scrolls is not really controversial, and yet their real value for our understanding of OT history is still somewhat controversial.)

For NT gospels, the important minority manuscript traditions, that are but rarely considered by the mainstream scholars, are the Old Syriac Aramaic manuscripts, the Old Latin manuscripts, the Greek Codex Bezae, and the Diatessarons. And yet, it's very likely that these alternative traditions often preserve the original text of the gospels a lot better than the mainstream Greek texts (either Byzantine or Egyptian).

So this is what I've been mostly focusing on in the last few years, the earlier text of the gospels. It's out there, but hardly anybody is willing to look for it, unfortunately...

Paradoxically, it looks like both for the OT and the NT, quite often, we see some of our old translations preserving the original text better than the manuscripts in the original language. This is quite an interesting subject in itself!

Any comments?

Best regards,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

For those interested, here's where the latest contribution from Dr. J. Lust re: the editorial arrangement of Ezek chapters 36-39 can be found,

Adrian Schenker, ed, The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible: The Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered, Atlanta/Leiden: Society of Biblical Literature/Brill, 2003

A review of this book can be found here,

http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetai...Page=3176,4023

This review by Ian Young is very interesting, in its own right... This whole volume seems well worth reading!

Cheers,

Yuri