Resurrection and Biblical Tradition 61 several columns. In Pseudo-Ezekielb, the line of thought may therefore be analysed through successive columns. Further scrutiny of this evidence should yield a re-evaluation of the parabiblical character of Pseudo-Ezekiel in relation to its ‘apocalyptization’ of Ezekiel 37. Since columns 1 and 2 of Pseudo-Ezekielb fragment one elaborate on parts of Ezekiel 37, while it is less clear how column 3 relates to the biblical book of Ezekiel (10), I will focus most attention on these first two columns. Only the phrase about the land’s desolation in 4Q386 column 3, line 5 may constitute an element of thought that can be traced back to the same framework as columns 1 and 2. Before turning to close reading of Pseudo-Ezekielb’s relation to the biblical text and its theological perspective, some observations need to be made about the literary setting of Pseudo-Ezekiel. I. The Literary Setting of Pseudo-Ezekiel According to D. Dimant, stylistic and literary connections between Pseudo-Ezekiele, palaeographically dated to the last quarter of the second century BCE, and the other Pseudo-Ezekiel manuscripts (4QpsEzeka-d), palaeographically dated to the second half of the first century BCE, point to the unity of the composition. The composition of Pseudo-Ezekiel has been dated by Dimant to the mid-second century BCE, in view of the early palaeographical dating of Pseudo-Ezekiele (4Q391) as well as literary and traditio-historical considerations (11). The unity of composition in 4QpsEzeka-d and 4QpsEzeke may further be inferred from similar dialogue forms in 4Q391 frg. 36 as well as in 4Q385 2, 4Q386 1 I-II and 4Q388 7. The early date of composition yields a setting to the text which antedates the establishment of the Qumran community according to any Qumran origins hypothesis (12). The pre-Qumranite date of the text also corresponds to the pre- or non- Qumranite characterization of its contents. Pseudo-Ezekiel is usually described (10) Dimant (“Resurrection, Restoration, and Time-Curtailing”, 534) argued that 4Q386 1 i-iii reproduce “the thematic sequence in Ezekiel 37-39. However, it seems to me unclear how “cols. II-III (= 4Q386 1 ii-iii) (should) follow Ezek 37,15-38,24” (p. 534). Column III of 4Q386 1 rather comprises imagery, such as a ‘cup in the Lord’s hand’ (1 iii 2) in relation to Babylon, which could be related to other parts of Ezekiel, such as Ezek 23,31-34 and subsequent chapters which mention Nebuchadnezar, king of Babylon. M. BRADY, “Biblical Interpretation in the ‘Pseudo-Ezekiel’ Fragments (4Q383-391) from Cave Four”, in M. HENZE (ed.), Biblical Interpretation at Qumran (Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature; Grand Rapids, MI 2005), 88-109 at 98 instead compares 4Q386 1 iii 1 to Jeremiah 51,7 and 25,15-29. (11) See DIMANT, DJD 30, 7-90 (‘Pseudo-Ezekiel’) at 7-16, who relates the historical background of Pseudo-Ezekiel to “circumstances of the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-164 BCE)” and compares its exegesis to that in Daniel 12 and LXX Isaiah (p. 16). Cf. PUECH, La croyance des Esséniens en la vie future. 2, 605, 616. (12) The establishment of the Qumran community was traditionally dated around the last third of the second century BCE on the basis of archaeological and historical arguments; see e.g. J.C. VANDERKAM, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today (Grand Rapids, MI – London 1994), 99-108 with reference to De Vaux’s periodization. However, recent archaeogical and historical discussion by J. MAGNESS, The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids, MI 2002), 47-72 and M.O. WISE, “Dating the Teacher of Righteousness and the Floruit of His Movement”, JBL 122 (2003) 53-87 considers a later date for the beginning of the Qumran period, between late second and early first century BCE, possible.