Review in: JOURNAL
OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY 42/4
Review door: H. Van Dyke Parunak
Ezekiel 21–37: A New Translation with
Introduction and Commentary. By
Moshe Greenberg. AB 22A. New York: Doubleday, 1997, 372 pp., $39.95.
Serious expositors will welcome the appearance
of the second volume of Greenberg’s commentary on Ezekiel (the first appeared
in 1983). Like the first, it combines rigorous philological and historical
scholarship with an epistemological stance that challenges modern orthodoxy in
ways often consistent with evangelical presuppositions. Readers should study
the introduction to vol. 1 for a discussion of the methodology that supports
both volumes. Five characteristics of his work will be of interest to readers
of JETS.
First, Greenberg’s primary burden is the
exposition of the Masoretic text (MT). He recognizes that this text is often
problematic but argues that it is more reliable than reconstructions, and thus
the fundamental artifact with which the expositor must be concerned. He always
tries to give the reader a meaningful translation and exposition of the MT,
while responsibly listing and often discussing both versional variants and conjectural
emendations. For instance, the absence of 36:23bb–38 in the earliest Old Greek
manuscript and irregularities it exhibits in other witnesses has led some to
consider it a latter addition. Greenberg discusses the question in some detail,
finally arguing that the section fits both the local structure of the passage
and the general tenor of the 6th-century prophets and should be retained.
Second,
the exposition draws a wide net across the interpretive spectrum. Greenberg interacts
not only with the modern interpreters, but also with premodern interpreters of
the Hebrew text. He draws heavily from the rich expository traditions of
medieval Judaism, and also from John Calvin “as manifestly utilizing the
Hebrew” (p. 24), while remaining thoroughly modern in his technical approach to
the text.
Third,
unlike many moderns, he finds no need to view the individual prophet (in this
case, Ezekiel) as a mask worn by a school. That the oracles may have been
collected and arranged in their present form by others than Ezekiel, he has no
doubt. But in his mind, the attribution of those individual oracles to Ezekiel
the son of Buzi is a claim to be accepted unless explicitly disproved, rather
than doubted until explicitly verified. This orientation, implicit in vol. 1,
is defended explicitly in the brief preface to vol. 2.
Fourth,
Greenberg is sensitive to structural concerns and a holistic interpretation of
the text as coherent literature. For each paragraph of text he offers a
translation, a section entitled “Comment” dealing with text, lexicon, grammar
and parallels, and another section entitled “Structure and Themes.” He does not
attempt a comprehensive analysis of symmetric structures in the text, but is
sensitive to the thematic grouping and arrangement of paragraphs and how that
arrangement contributes to the development of the overall message, in the
tradition of Cassuto.
Fifth,
evangelicals must understand that though his presuppositions are conservative, his
approach within those presuppositions is rationalistic, not apologetic or
harmonistic.
The
accuracy of Ezekiel’s prophecies is one of the more challenging issues that the
book offers to those who confess the infallibility of the Scriptures. For
instance, some understand the oracle of the 27th year promising Egypt to
Nebuchadnezzar (29:17–21) because he “had no wages” from his campaign against
Tyre to admit the failure of the earlier oracles promising that he would
conquer Tyre (e.g. the oracle of the eleventh year, 26:3–14, in particular
26:12). Under the founding terms of the prophetic order in Deut 18:15–22, such
an admission is tantamount to denying that one is a true prophet. Greenberg
devotes no energy to harmonizing 29:17–21 with either 26:12 or Deuteronomy. By
his reading, many of Ezekiel’s prophecies did fail, and the prophet was willing
to issue quite candid “amendments” bringing things up to date. Greenberg cites
with approval Freedman’s observation that “Ezekiel didn’t agree with the
assessment of the Deuteronomist about how to tell the difference between true
prophets and false prophets” (p. 617). In fact, he takes the existence of these
amendments (and their retention even when, in the view of some moderns, some of
them failed) as prima facie evidence
of the faithfulness of the book’s editors to preserve Ezekiel’s oracles as
given rather than recasting and recreating them to suit the objectives of a
“school of Ezekiel.”
In
reading a classic, one is participating in a conversation with the author and
other readers. We evangelicals who wish to engage this conversation in the
context of the Bible frequently find our experience dampened. Some
conversational partners agree so closely with our own views that we are not
stretched by the conversation. Others differ so widely from our presuppositions
that meaningful dialog is impossible. Greenberg’s two volumes on Ezekiel offer
evangelicals an understandable conversation that will enrich our understanding
of the text, respectfully stretch our assumptions about it, and leave us eager
for the promised third volume.
H. Van Dyke Parunak
Industrial Technology Institute,
Ann Arbor, MI
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten