Albert L.A. Hogeterp, «Resurrection and Biblical Tradition: Pseudo-Ezekiel Reconsidered», Vol. 89 (2008) 59-69
Analysis of 4QPseudo-Ezekielb (4Q386) fragment 1 columns I-II reveals that this parabiblical Qumran composition stands in a more intricate dialogue with biblical
tradition than previously assumed. This article refines previous argument that contrasted the apocalyptic vision of resurrection in 4QPseudo-Ezekiela (4Q385)
fragment 2 to the prophetic vision of national restoration in MT Ezekiel 37 (/ MasEzek). 4QPseudo-Ezekielb 1 i-ii exhibits an apocalyptic vision which incorporates both resurrection for the pious in Israel and an eschatologized notion of restoration. Textual dialogue in Pseudo-Ezekiel together with textual tradition in Papyrus 967 attest to an eschatological reading of Ezekiel 37 constituting an early part of biblical tradition.
AN I MADVE R S I O N E S
Resurrection and Biblical Tradition:
Pseudo-Ezekiel Reconsidered (1)
Ezek 37,1-14 comprises a vision of return from exile and resuscitation of the
house of Israel in terms of revivification in a valley of dry bones. The biblical
narrative, as we encounter it in the Masoretic Text, the majority of Septuagint
manuscripts and a Masada biblical manuscript (2), makes the point that the dry
bones symbolically stand for the whole house of Israel (Ezek 37,11) which
will be joined together again. The symbolical story is related in Ezek 37,1-10,
while Ezek 37,11-14 explain this story in relation to the whole house of Israel
as prophecy of return to the land of Israel and settlement in the land.
While the biblical text of Ezekiel 37 has been taken to carry a
metaphorical sense, one case of manuscript evidence and several cases of later
interpretation in Jewish and Christian texts concern eschatological reading of
Ezekiel’s symbolical language (3). In Papyrus 967 of the Septuagint, Ezekiel
37 comes after Ezekiel 39 and directly precedes chapter 40-48. The evaluation
of this manuscript evidence and its different order of text led Johan Lust to
formulate the hypothesis that Ezekiel 37 did originally figure in an
eschatological setting, while the Masoretic Text would reflect a de-
eschatologising tendency in this respect (4). If this different order of text in
Papyrus 967 represents an early literary edition of Ezekiel (5), this could
(1) This essay is a reworked version of the paper which the author presented at the
Qumran Program Unit of the Society of Biblical Literature 2007 Annual Meeting on 19
November 2007 in San Diego.
(2) MasEzek comprises the Hebrew text of Ezek 35,11-15; 36,1-11.13-14.17-35; 37,1-
16.28; 38,1-4.7-8. Qumran fragments of Ezekiel (1Q9 (1QEzek), 3Q1 (3QEzek), 4Q73-75
(4QEzeka-c), 11Q4 (11QEz)) do not preserve (parts of) the text of Ezekiel 37. On the
combined Hebrew evidence for the book of Ezekiel in general, cf. M. ABEGG – P.W. FLINT
– E. ULRICH, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible. The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First
Time into English (San Francisco 1999) 407: “All of them and the traditional Masoretic
Text fairly uniformly attest the same textual traditionâ€.
(3) See 4 Macc 18,17; Apocr.Ezek.; Sib. Or. 2.221-226 and 4.179-82; Barn. 12,1;
Apoc.Pet. 4.7-9.
(4) J. LUST, “Ezekiel 36-40 in the Oldest Greek Manuscriptâ€, CBQ 43 (1981) 517-533.
Recently, ID., “Ezekiel’s Utopian Expectationsâ€, in A. HILHORST, É. PUECH, and E.J.C.
TIGCHELAAR (eds.), Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in
Honour of Florentino GarcÃa MartÃnez (JSJSup 122; Leiden 2007) 403-419 has reaffirmed
the argument of MT Ezekiel as later re-interpretation as compared to the Old Greek version
of Ezekiel in Papyrus 967.
(5) S.S. SCATOLINI APÓSTOLO, “Ezek 36, 37, 38 and 39 in Papyrus 967 as Pre-Text for
Re-Reading Ezekielâ€, Interpreting Translation. Studies on the LXX and Ezekiel in Honour
of Johan Lust (eds. F. GARCÃA MARTÃNEZ – M. VERVENNE) (BETL 192; Leuven 2005) 331-
357 leaves this matter open to debate. Cf. E. TOV, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible
(Minneapolis – Assen 22001), 333-334 who distinguishes between MT, Targum, Peshitta,