KARL-FRIEDRICH POHLMANN, Ezechielstudien: Zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Buches und zur Frage nach den altesten Texten (BZAW 202; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1992). Pp. ix + 274. DM 138.

In this volume Professor Pohlmann presents the results of ten years of research on Ezekiel that will eventually lead to his writing a new commentary on the prophet in the series ATD. In that series it will replace Eichrodt's commentary, which was translated into English as part of the Old Testament Library.

Pohlmann uses literary-critical and redactional methods to reconstruct a complicated picture of the book's origin. The present shape of the book is dominated by a favorable attitude toward the Golah group, the group taken to Babylon in 597 B.C.E. Consisting of portions of 3:25-27; 14; 17:22-24; 24:25-27; and 33:21-22, as well as portions of the visions in chaps. 1-3; 8-11; and 37:1-10 (almost all of chap. 1 is omitted), this redaction claimed Israel's kingship for a descendant of Jehoiachin, presumably Zerubbabel (p. 131). According to this. redaction, those who went into exile in 587 B.C.E. had no real place in Yahweh's future plans (14:21-23; 15:6-8). A later edition, particularly identifiable in chap. 20 and the latter part of chap. 36, redirected the book to those Israelites who lived in the diaspora.

Pohlmann unravels two earlier layers or editions, both written in the land of Israel, that were included in the Golah oriented redaction. The oldest materials in the book are a series of laments, composed shortly after 587, which express the authors' bewilderment over this catastrophe (19: 1-9, 10-14; portions of chaps. 23 and 31). The authors, presumably members of the upper class and affiliates of the royal court, believed that every order in the world had broken down (no connection between Tun and Ergehen), and therefore they did not see the events of 587 as Yahweh's judgment (p. 218).

A second stage in the development of the book was achieved by another group who so arranged materials that the divine announcement of judgment was followed by fulfillment. Many passages are assigned to this level, including chap. 11 (connected to 24:1-14); 14:1-20; 17:1-18 (pride goes before a fall); a sequence of texts 19 + 15:1-4 + 21:1-5; and 37:11-14 (which existed before 37:1-10 was composed). This prophetic book, in his judgment, could not have been composed until the community had had adequate time to reflect on the events of 597 (p. 252). Its announcement-fulfillment scheme was used in the Golah oriented redaction to show that the words and actions of the prophet working in the exile (1:1-3) had been fulfilled in 597, and therefore, that what he said about the Golah also had credibility. P. refuses to speculate on the question how the redactors of the Golah oriented book came into possession of the earlier Ezekiel materials.

Chapters 40-48 play no role in this reconstruction, since the idea of Israel contained in these chapters supposedly would have had no meaning for the redactors of the Golah oriented edition (p. 88). P. believes that the concept of an Ezekiel who worked among the exiles is not a sure starting point for exegetical efforts (p. 124). He would not exclude the possibility that there was a historical Ezekiel, but he despairs of being able to isolate any of that person's ipsissima verba. He denies that Ezekiel was, or could have been, at one and the same time visionary, preacher of repentance, announcer of judgment, watchman, and composer of poetic complaints (p. 253).

While I also believe it is impossible to say much about the person or personal history of Ezekiel (see my Ezekiel.' The Prophet and His Message [Columbia: University of South Carolina, 1988]), his words in large part do represent a plausible engagement with the events before and after 587 by a prophet-priest who had been deported to Babylon in 597. A great advantage of this more traditional approach is that it is able to interpret the words of the text in literary contexts provided by the ancient tradents. Despite the many brilliant insights in this monograph, one wonders, after all the rearrangements, deletions, and reassignments to new historical contexts, if there remains a text to be interpreted.

~~~~~~~~

By Ralph W. Klein, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago, Chicago,IL 60615