Far more prevalent, however, in Ezekiel is his peculiar use of symbols, his symbolical and allegorical representations. A circle of conceptions quite peculiar is opened to us in this respect by Ezekiel. The prophet places before us splendid visions, imposing by their majesty. His discourse moves on in richly executed various images; they resemble, as to form and contents, in many ways, the symbols of his contemporary Daniel (comp. ch. xvii.). The images often leave the reality disregarded, and are put together in bold fashion, image and matter of fact being not seldom mingled (comp. e. g. xvii., xxix.). In these symbols the whole has a colossal character, giving frequent intimations of the strong impressions made on the mind of the prophet in a foreign land in Chaldæa; which impressions are here, with powerful independent spirit, caught up and given back. The prophet shows from his mode of representing them, that he is still absorbed in these conceptions, filled and moved by them in the most lively manner. The discourse frequently maintains throughout a completely dramatic character, whilst the prophet pictures himself in his relation to Jehovah with the utmost fidelity to his internal experiences and views. On this account also, we find in Ezekiel a remarkably numerous collection of symbolical actions (see iv. ; v. 1 sq.; xii. 3 sq.; xxiv. 15 sq.), in which the prophet's liveliest participation in the circumstances of his vision is expressed in a peculiarly forcible manner, and which, much more decidedly than in any other of the prophets, show themselves to be occurrences taking place only in his own spirit. This mode of representation has often been regarded as an evidence of skill on the part of the prophet, and has been accounted for and explained on this assumption. The writer, it is said, has here overpowered the prophet; here one has to do with purely artistic productions. Now it is quite correct that a certain amount of skill is discoverable in this mode of representation; but to look upon this artistic impulse as the originating principle of such compositions is to mistake the essence of prophecy. Prophecy is rooted in quite other soil, and were it in this manner cultivated in the province of pure art, it would cease to be genuine prophecy, and would belong to the class of degenerate productions-spurious imitations of it. His skill as a writer is exhibited much rather in the thoroughly intuitive, full and true giving back of his inward conceptions in their immediateness and originality. The skill which is to be attributed to the prophet is the historical skill of the narrator of internal facts; a purely reproductive and not a y See De Wette, Einl. p. 318; Ewald, p. 210. sq.; comp. also Hitzig, Isai. Einl. p. xxviii. productive productive faculty, and in this he shows a master-hand. Erroneous views on this point, such as are found in De Wette (p. 317), fall to the ground of themselves when we cease to measure the prophets by the rule of an ordinary artist-a simple poet. On the other hand, this mode of representation, since it leads us directly into the inner world of the prophetical spirit, has a character full of mystery, often dark and enigmatical. The prophet delights in this style the more, because it attracts attention and inquiry, and because such a word strikes the heart more impressively. Ancient writers very frequently speak of this darkness of Ezekiel; they often were little able to reconcile themselves to the peculiarity of this mode of representation; they could not with sufficient vividness transport themselves into conceptions of this kind and apprehend them with sound historical feeling. Hieronymus designates the book of Ezekiel as 'scripturarum oceanum, et mysteriorum Dei labyrinthum.' The Jews ordained, on account of these difficulties, that no one should read it before he had passed his thirtieth year, and the wisdom of the Jewish schools could so little reconcile itself to some passages, that doubts appear to have arisen amongst some as to its canonical authority.a The style of the prophet, considered in general, has often been improperly blamed." Ewald (p. 212) has lately spoken of it very beautifully considered simply as a writer,' says he, this prophet shows great excellences, especially in this dismal period. His narrative has indeed, like that of most of the later writers, a certain lengthiness and extension, with sentences frequently much involved, and a rhetorical detail and diffuseness, yet it seldom dwindles down like that of Jeremiah; it readily recovers itself and usually closes beautifully. . . . Moreover the language is rich in unfrequent comparisons, at once attractive and striking, full of varied turns, and often very beautifully worked out. . . . Where the language rises higher to the delineation of the sublime visions, it exhibits a genuine dramatic vividness. It has also a certain evenness and repose, a quality which in general distinguishes this prophet from Jeremiah.' Ezekiel especially abounds in a multitude, of constantly recurring expressions and formulæ peculiar to himself, which for the most part are in the highest degree characteristic both of the prophet and of his times. To this class belong the constantly recurring formula by which the prophet is addressed, 'Son of man;' the designation of the people as a " (ii. 5, sq.; iii. 9; xii. 2, sq., &c.); the formula they shall know that I am the 6 * See Hieron, Prof. ad Ez.; Zunz, l. c. p. 163. a See especially Edzardi, ad tract. Avoda Sara, p. 487. Lord,' or the similar one they shall know that a prophet hath been among them' (ii. 5; xxxiii. 33); the formula of the vision 'the hand of the Lord came upon me,'' set thy face toward,' &c.; the specially frequent mention and assurance that it is Jehovah who speaks; the solemn introduction to the words of Jehovah' as I live, saith the Lord,' &c. The language, on the one hand, shows such a dependence on the ancient models as was prevalent at this time. The influence of the Pentateuch, in particular, gives a very strong colouring to it." On the other hand, the originality of Ezekiel is shown by a great number of expressions that do not occur elsewhere, which probably were in part first formed by the prophet. Moreover the language has sunk under the influence of the dialect of the people, and of Aramaisms. Ezekiel is in this respect analogous principally to Jeremiah and to Daniel, and presents, more than any of the prophets, grammatical anomalies and later corruptions.d IV. Though there is no dispute amongst modern critics in respect to the predictions having been recorded by Ezekiel himself, yet there is by no means a general agreement as to the manner in which the whole book originated, how it was collected and arranged. Jahn thinks that he remarks a certain want of order in the predictions, in as far as those directed against foreign nations are collected together, and the chronological arrangement is broken in upon by ch. xxix. 17 sq.; and also is not observed in ch. xxvi. 1; comp. xxix. 1; moreover ch. xxxv., xxxviii., xxxix. belong here. But to explain this arrangement, as Jahn does, simply from the 'accidental order in which the copyist or collector found them in his copy,' is quite impracticable. For in the first place nothing is explained by it, inasmuch as the question returns, how then and why in that original did the portions which have been pointed out stand in the order in question. Then also to assume an arrangement by accident' here, where precisely the putting together of that which is connected could furnish no difficulty, is in the highest degree precarious. Why should the collector have adopted precisely that arrangement which is thought by Jahn to be fit [i. e. the chronological,] and not much more probably have followed another more appropriate plan? Jahn, however, has not troubled himself to make a scientific inquiry in order to discover such a plan. Whilst Jahn contented himself with a certain discretion in the general assumption of accident,' Eichhorn seeks to define this accident more exactly. How arbitrarily from internal grounds he defines the time of single predictions appears from his Heb. Proph., pt. ii. and iii. In order to explain this imagined confusion, he takes refuge in the hypothesis of separate small rolls from which the whole has been collected together, whilst at the same time the law of parsimony obtained the preponderance over the proper connection of individual predictions with each other, and two predictions of very different periods were frequently written on one roll, purely from motives of economy. In the present state of criticism, this formerly cherished mode of explanation can only be regarded as belonging to the province of curiosities. For that the collector really had the design of putting together that which was related, and therefore looked at the contents, and not at a circumstance so entirely external, is too undeniable; is, indeed, not denied by Eichhorn himself, but merely explained by the new hypothesis, that the collector contented himself with the 'putting together of the single rolls,' thus saving himself the trouble of frequent transcribing! According to Bertholdt, the collector of the whole book found two old collections, ch. xxv.-xxxii. and xxxiii. 21-xxxix. ; but the remaining prophecies he met with only in separate parts, which he therefore endeavoured to put together in chronological order. This supposition, as also De Wette (p. 319) remarks, is wrecked by the circumstance that ch. xxxiii. stands in necessary connection with ch. xxiv. 27. Bertholdt says, 'In this chronological arrangement, the collector has naturally followed his own views and his own judgment as to where an oracle is to be placed, unless here and there the ancient tradition told him otherwise.' Had Bertholdt followed out more deeply these 'views,' and this 'judgment,' the truth of that 'judgment' would have appeared to him, and would have shown him on what an old historical 'tradition' it must have rested. With propriety, therefore, more modern critics have acknowledged, as De Wette (p. 318)," that the manner in which the collection of these prophecies is made is of such a kind that it might have been derived from Ezekiel himseif, so that at length even Ewald (p. 313 sq.) seeks to establish the publication of the book by the prophet himself, though in a peculiar manner. For this opinion the following reasons especially are decisive: a. The arrangement proceeds on a plan beautifully answering throughout to the contents of the predictions. A strictly chronological sequence, carefully marked by special superscriptions, is united with an arrangement according to the matter, as regards 8 Einl. iv. p. 1487, sq. h Compare also Knobel, Die Proph. d. Hebr. ii. p. 315. the 6 the predictions against foreign nations (ch. xxv.-xxxii.); whilst the predictions respecting Israel proceed onward in strictly chronological order. Such an arrangement, according to plan, leads us most fitly to the author himself, as engaged in the publication of the whole book. b. The predictions themselves stand in the closest internal connection, and indeed not only the separate predictions which have their origin from a definite common period, but also the separate sections. Each, as to its contents, refers to what goes before; only an earlier and very inattentive exegesis could have mistaken this beautiful organic relation (organismus), and thereby caused in various ways disadvantage to the understanding of the predictions themselves. What Ewald has advanced (p. 218), who would regard the passages xlvi. 16-18 and 19-24, as wrongly placed from some unknown cause,' would not prove anything against it; since it would be too unimportant an exception, even if his opinion were better supported than it really is (see the exposition of the passage). c. Finally, the manner in which Ezekiel sometimes at the close of his predictions appends a notice as an historical voucher (comp. xi. 24, 25), especially where it relates to the fulfilment of a prediction (comp. xix. 14; xxix. 17 sq.), is an argument that the prophet made such additions in collecting the whole; since the writing down of the individual prediction at all events took place much earlier than the publication of the whole book, but any other than the prophet would hardly venture to make such additions. Ewald has indeed put forward the view, that the recording of the predictions in the first instance took place subsequently, and that the whole then was formed from many portions (p. 207, 215 sq.). But for this assertion, satisfactory proofs are altogether wanting. The prophetic practice, especially at this time, of recording the predictions immediately, testifies to the contrary. Further, with regard to Ezekiel, the accuracy of the dates with which the separate sections are furnished, confirms this view. From these it is clear that it was the business of the prophet himself to preserve accurately the day on which he received his revelations, and in vain does Ewald (p. 207) labour to prove that the dates were roughly estimated.' (sic!) Finally, the peculiar tendency of Ezekiel, to set forth his visions with a remarkably rich detail, and to finish them even to the minutest touch, shows that the impression of the revelations received and of the rapture was yet too strong and fresh in the mind of the prophet for any considerable interval of time to have elapsed between the moment of the conception and that of the record; otherwise we must suppose a subsequent artistic iComp. Dan. vii. 1; Jer. xxxvi. See my Comm. on Daniel, p. xxviii. decoration, |