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.
62 Albert L.A. Hogeterp
as a non-sectarian parabiblical text, in view of the absence of any identifiable
sectarian community terminology and the use of the tetragrammaton (13) This
pre- or non-Qumranite characterization of Pseudo-Ezekiel has been argued by
many scholars (14). At the same time, the composition was apparently of
interest to the Qumran community as ‘adopted text’, in view of the late first-
century BCE dates which have been palaeographically assigned to the other
Pseudo-Ezekiel manuscripts (15). The importance of Pseudo-Ezekiel as
‘adopted text’ has been compared to that of Jubilees or the Animal Apocalypse
in 1 Enoch 85-90 by Strugnell and Dimant in their preliminary publication of
data about this composition (16). More recently, Dimant observed about
Pseudo-Ezekiel that origin, background, and ‘precise relationship to the
Qumran com-munity’ is “still a matter of debate†(17).
Pseudo-Ezekiel’s classification among ‘parabiblical, pseudo-prophetic
texts’ denotes the hybrid character of the text, incorporating both biblical text
and elaboration on the biblical text. Pseudo-Ezekiel has also been taken to be
a specimen of the observer’s category if not genre ‘Rewritten Bible’ with
regard to the latter prophets (18).
II. 4QPseudo-Ezekiel and the Biblical Text of Ezek 37
1. 4Q385 2 // 4Q386 1 i // 4Q388 7
For the sake of discussion, reconstructed text and translation of the
fragment which introduces the prophecy of the dry bones in Pseudo-Ezekiel,
as edited by Dimant, are quoted below (19).
4Q386 1 i (// 4Q385 2 2-10, 4Q388 7 4-7)
top margin
˚mç ta w[bha rça larçym µybr ytyar hwhy hrmaw] 1
µdsj wmltçy hkh[w wyhy ytm hlaw ˚bl ykrdb wklyw] 2
w[dyw larçy ynb t[a hara yna yla hwhy rmayw vacat 3
(13) The tetragrammaton is extant in 4Q385 frg. 2 lines 3-4, 8-9; frg. 3 (olim frg. 12)
lines 2-4; frg. 4 (olim frg. 3) lines 4 and 7; 4Q386 1 ii 2-3 and 1 iii 1; 4Q385b 1; 4Q388 frg. 7
(olim frg. 8) line 6; as edited in DJD 30.
(14) STRUGNELL and DIMANT, “4Q Second Ezekielâ€, 45-58 at 57-58; PUECH, La
croyance des Esséniens en la vie future. 2, 605: “pourrait être préqumrânienne, mais cela
reste à démontrer†and n. 2 with reference to the article by STRUGNELL and DIMANT; J.J.
COLLINS, “Review: É. Puech, La croyance des Esséniens en la vie futureâ€, DSD 1 (1994)
246-252 at 251: “clear indication of sectarian provenance is lacking, and indeed the original
editors, Strugnell and Dimant regarded the text as ‘pre-Qumranian’â€; ID., Apocalypticism in
the Dead Sea Scrolls, 124-128 on 4Q385 under the rubric ‘Resurrection in Scrolls That Are
Not Clearly Sectarian’; GARCÃA MARTÃNEZ, “The Apocalyptic Interpretation of Ezekiel in
the Dead Sea Scrollsâ€, 176: “4QPseudo-Ezekiel does not show signs of having been written
by sectarian authorsâ€.
(15) DIMANT, DJD 30, 7-9.
(16) STRUGNELL – DIMANT, “4Q Second Ezekielâ€, 58.
(17) Dimant (“Resurrection, Restoration, and Time-Curtailingâ€, 529) makes these
observations about both 4Q521 and Pseudo-Ezekiel.
(18) See G.J. BROOKE, “Rewritten Bibleâ€, Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (eds.
L.H. SCHIFFMAN – J.C. VANDERKAM) (Oxford 2000) II, 777-781 at 779.
(19) DIMANT, DJD 30, 60-61.
FOLLOW US