^{page 245 note 1} Shabbath 13b; Ḥagigah 13a; Menaḥoth 45a.

^{page 245 note 2} Epist. 53 ad Paulinum, Vallarsi, I, 277.

^{page 245 note 3} Migne, Patr. Lat. XXV, 17, preface to Ezekiel.

^{page 245 note 4} Ibid. 380, on Ezek. 40, 5.

^{page 245 note 5} Ibid. 376.

^{page 246 note 6} See Wilhelm.Neuss, Das Buch Ezekiel in Theologie und Kunst bis zum Ende des XII. Jahrh., Münister, 1912, where the patristic exegesis of Ezekiel is surveyed.

^{page 246 note 7} Rashi on Ezek. 45, 22.

^{page 246 note 8} I, 4.

^{page 246 note 9} Tractatus theologico-politicus, 1670, c. 10.

^{page 246 note 10} Ibid. c. 2, §49.

^{page 247 note 11} Freye Untersuchung über einige Bücher des Alten Testaments, von dem Verfasser der christlich freyen Untersuchung über die sogenannte Offenbarung Johannis, mit Zugaben und Anmerkungen hrsg. von Georg Johann Ludvig Vogel, Halle, 1771.

^{page 247 note 12} Correct accordingly the statement of Berry, George R., ‘The Authorship of Ezekiel 40–48,’ Journal of Biblical Literature, 1915, p. 17.Google Scholar

^{page 247 note 13} Orientalische und Exegetische Bibliothek II, pp. 1–58, Frankfurt a. M., 1772.

^{page 247 note 14} Ibid. p. 53.

^{page 248 note 15} Ibid. p. 57; cf. also Eichhorn, J. G., Einleitung in das Alte Testament, III³, Leipzig, 1803, p. 204.Google Scholar

^{page 248 note 16} Versuch einer Beleuchtung des jüdischen und christlichen Bibelkanons. Erstes Bändchen, Halle, 1792, pp. 95 ff.

^{page 248 note 17} Eichhorn in Allgemeine Bibliothek der biblischen Litteratur, Leipzig, 1792, IV, p. 273; see also Gottlob Wilhelm Meyer, Geschichte der Schrifterklärung, Göttingen, 1809, V, pp. 629 ff.

^{page 248 note 18} ‘Concerning the Author of some Poems ascribed to Ezekiel,’ in Volume V, London, 1798, pp. 189 f.

^{page 249 note 19} With the writer in the Monthly Review, XXIII, pp. 49 f., who first suggested that the poems of Is. 10 ff. could be ascribed to Daniel.

^{page 249 note 20} Gustav Hölscher, Hesekiel, der Dichter und das Buch, Giessen, 1924, pp. 5 f. One example may illustrate the author's method in dealing with one of the choicest pieces of poetry in the entire Bible, Ezek. 37. A poet of the rank of Schiller wanted to study Hebrew in order to be able to read the chapter in the original. Hölscher does not hesitate to declare some of it: “aesthetisch und logisch hässlich,” “nicht geschickt,” “schief,” “unschönerweise” (p. 175). Apparently he cannot enjoy reading a chapter refuting his theory.

^{page 250 note 21} Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden, Berlin, 1832, pp. 157–162.

^{page 250 note 22} ZDMG, XXVII, 1873, pp. 676–681, and 688 (in Gesammelte Schriften, Berlin, 1875, I, pp. 226–233, 241).

^{page 250 note 23} Urschrift und Übersetzungen der Bibel, 1857, p. 23, and Nachgelassene Schriften, Berlin, 1875, II, p. 83.

^{page 250 note 24} Das batanäische Giebelgebirge (Excurs über Ps. 68, 16), Leipzig, 1884.

^{page 250 note 25} Ibid. p. 4.

^{page 250 note 26} Die Echtheit des Buches des Propheten Ezekiel, MGWJ, XXIII, 1874, pp. 432 ff., 515 ff.

^{page 250 note 27} Göttingen, 1876, I, p. 138, and in detail II, 1884, pp. 1–20.

^{page 250 note 28} In the fifth year of the exile (Ezek. 1,2), that is in 594–593, the prophet predicts redemption after 430 years (4, 5 ff.), that is in 164–163 B.C., at which time the temple at Jerusalem will be purged of the abominations and freed of the humiliations imposed by Antiochus.

^{page 251 note 28a} A similar derivation is to be found as early as the ninth century in Judah ibn Kuraish, Risālah, ed. Bargès and Goldberg, Paris, 1857, p. 2.

^{page 251 note 29} Cf. Sirach 49, 8.

^{page 251 note 30} Histor.-krit. Einleitung in die Bücher des A. T., Leipzig, 1890, I, 2, p. 302.

^{page 252 note 31} Ibid. p. 305.

^{page 252 note 32} Précis d'histoire juive, 1889, p. 811.

^{page 252 note 33} ‘La modernité des prophètes,’ in Revue des deux mondes, August 1 and 15, 1889.

^{page 252 note 34} Altorientalische Forschungen, Zweite Reihe, Band I, 1898, pp. 160–171.

^{page 252 note 35} Ibid. III, Leipzig, 1902, pp. 135–155.

^{page 252 note 36} ‘Persönliches aus dem Hesekielbuche,’ OLZ, XXII, 1919, pp. 246 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 252 note 37} Erbt, ‘Eine Mond- und Sonnenfinsternis im A. T.,’ Ibid. XXI, 1918, pp. 176–180.

^{page 253 note 1} Above, p. 249, note 20; Hölscher, p. 33.

^{page 253 note 2} See the introduction to Torrey's’ Notes on the Aramaic Part of Daniel,’ in Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, XV.

^{page 253 note 3} Chicago, 1910, p. 288, note.

^{page 253 note 4} ‘Alexander the Great in the Old Testament Prophecies,’ Marti-Festschrift, p. 284, note.

^{page 253 note 5} Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Original Prophecy (Yale Oriental Series, Researches, XVIII), New Haven, 1930.

^{page 254 note 6} Deutsche Literaturzeitung, October 4, 1924, 1849 ff.

^{page 254 note 7} III, 1925, p. 415.

^{page 254 note 8} VII, p. 27, art. ‘Daniel’; cf. also Ibid. IX, art. ‘Ezra and Nehemiah, Books.’

^{page 254 note 9} For instance, in The Second Isaiah, a New Interpretation, New York, 1928, p. 28.

^{page 255 note 10} Pseudo-Ezekiel, p. 113; cf. also p. 83, etc.

^{page 256 note 11} Ibid. p. 5.

^{page 256 note 12} Ibid. p. 71.

^{page 256 note 13} Ibid. p. 6.

^{page 257 note 1} Shabbath 13b, etc.

^{page 257 note 2} Pseudo-Ezekiel, p. 15.

^{page 257 note 3} Epistle to Paulinus, Vallarsi, I, 277.

^{page 257 note 4} Pseudo-Ezekiel, p. 16.

^{page 257 note 4a} Ibid.

^{page 258 note 5} Sifre, ed. M. Friedmann, Vienna, 1864, p. 126b, reads: Eleazer b. Hananiah b. Hezekiah; but the copy before Tosafoth (Menaḥoth 45a, b) read: Hananiah b. Hezekiah. Similarly, a baraitha in Shabbath 13b attributes the composition of the ‘Megillath Ta'anith’ to Hananiah, while the scholion to the Scroll (ch. 12 end) names as its author Eleazar b. Hananiah.

On other grounds as well Grätz (Gesch. der Juden, III⁵, part 2, Excurs 26, p. 810) suggested the identity of the two names. The identification has been rather widely accepted: Jos. Derenbourg, Essai sur l'histoire et la géographie de la Palestine, Paris, 1876, p. 272; W. Jawitz, Toldoth Israel, V, p. 156; S. Krauss, in Hashiloah, VIII, Cracow, 1901, p. 109; Solomon Zeitlin, Megillat Taanit as a Source for Jewish Chronology, Philadelphia, 1922, p. 4; Dubnow, S., Weltgeschichte des jüdischen Volkes, Berlin, 1925, II, p. 474Google Scholar, and others. The date postulated by Isaac Halévy, Doroth harishonim, I, 3, 584 f. and by Louis Ginzberg, Jewish Encyclopedia, V, 316, leads to the same conclusion. I. H. Weiss, Dor dor we-dorshaw, I, p. 187, note, rejects the hypothesis of Grätz and reads Hananiah ben Hezekiah both in our passage in Sifre and in Mekhilta on Ex. 20, 8 (cf. his edition of the latter, Vienna, 1865, p. 77). B. Ratner, in Sepher hay-yobhel (of Sokolow), Warsaw, 1904, p. 511, collected a number of variants from later Hebrew traditions which corroborate the reading ‘Hananiah.’ But even if Eleazer be the son of Hananiah, the passage in Sifre is (to quote W. Bacher, Die Agada der Tannaiten, I, 22) “ein noch vorhandenes Beispiel dafür, wie Eleazar oder sein Vater die Widersprüche zwischen Pentateuch und Jecheskel ausglich.”

^{page 259 note 6} Berakhoth 55a; Ḥagigah 27a; Menahoth 97a.

^{page 259 note 7} See S. Krauss, in Hashiloah, VIII, 1901, p. 112: .

^{page 259 note 8} Menaḥoth 45a.

^{page 260 note 9} Pseudo-Ezekiel, p. 21.

^{page 260 note 10} Ibid. p. 15.

^{page 260 note 11} Deut. R. 8, 6 (on Deut. 30,12): Cf. also Shabbath 102a; Megillah 2b (on Lev. 27, 34): .

^{page 260 note 12} G. F. Moore, Judaism, I, chap, iv,’The Perpetuity of the Law’ (pp. 269 ff.); Ginzberg, Louis, Eine unbekannte jüdische Sekte, New York, 1922, pp. 305–306Google Scholar; Jacob Z. Lauterbach, “The Pharisees and their Teachings,’ in Hebrew Union College Annual, VI, p. 103.

^{page 260 note 13} From Ezek. 39, 15 several regulations are deduced for marking sunken graves. Yer. Sheḳalim I, 46a; b. Mo'ed Ḳaṭan 5a, cf. also Ibid. Tosaphoth v. stating admirably the issue in question: .

^{page 261 note 14} Sanhedrin 97a; Cant. R. 2, 13 and Pesikta R. xv (ed. Friedman 75a).

^{page 261 note 15} Cf. the locus classicus in Mishnah ‘Eduyyoth VIII, 7; also Friedmann, Seder Eliyyahu, preface, p. 24; Aptowitzer, V., Parteipolitik der Hasmonäerzeit im rabbinischen und pseudoepigraphischen Schrifttum (Kohut-Foundation), Vienna, 1927, pp. 103 f.Google Scholar and Joseph Klausner, 2d ed., Jerusalem, 1927, pp. 291 ff.

^{page 261 note 16} The sixteen other passages in the vast rabbinic literature are enumerated by Ginzberg, p. 304, note 1.

^{page 261 note 17} Menaḥoth 45a; cf. also Zeitlin, Megillat Taanit, pp. 73 f. and note 1 on p. 119.

^{page 262 note 18} Horayoth 13b: Cf. also Menaḥoth 85b (on 2 Sam. 14, 2):

^{page 262 note 19} ‘Erubin 54a, b (on Pr. 27, 18): .

^{page 262 note 20} Berakhoth 63b, etc.

^{page 262 note 21} See note 1, p, 245.

^{page 262 note 22} Torrey, Pseudo-Ezekiel, p 15, knows only of one reason given in the Talmud: he quotes, however, Moore, Judaism, I, p. 300, on “the interdict against the first chapter” of Ezekiel, dismissing it as a mere pretext: “it was hardly such a bugbear as this prohibition would make it. It is not likely that the picturesque imagery of the first chapter of Ezekiel has ever led any one into serious error “(p. 16).

^{page 262 note 23} Mishnah and Tosefta Ḥagigah II, 1; Yer. Ḥagigah 77a, b. Ḥagigah 13a, 14b; Seder Eliyyahu 31 (29), p. 162; cf. also Kiddushin 71a, Pesaḥim 50a, Yer. Yoma III, 40d.

^{page 263 note 24} Tos. Ḥagigah 11, 3, Ḥagigah 14b; Yer. Ḥagigah 77b; Cant. R. on 1, 4. See also Grätz, Gnostizismus und Judentum, Krotoschin, 1846, pp. 62 f.Google Scholar, 71 f., 77 f.

^{page 263 note 25} Ḥagigah 13a, bottom.

^{page 263 note 26} On other victims of the merkabhah see Yer. Ḥagigah 77a, and b. Shabbath 80b.

^{page 264 note 27} See Ginzberg, Louis, ‘Some Observations on the Attitude of the Synagogue towards the Apocalyptic-Eschatological Writings,’ Journal of Biblical Literature, 41, 1922, p. 136CrossRefGoogle Scholar; D. Neumark, , Warsaw, 1921, I, p. 44.

^{page 264 note 28} Mishnah and Tos. Ḥagigah II, 1.

^{page 264 note 29} Lev. B. 2, 8; Seder Eliyyahu R. 7 (6), p. 34, Yalkut Shime'oni on Ezek. 2, 1 (§340).

^{page 265 note 30} Cf. Siegfried Sprank, Ezechielstudien, Stuttgart, 1926, p. 36, who sees in Ezekiel, chap. 10, “eine priesterliche Spekulation über den Verbleib der Lade Jahwes”; see also Dürr, Lorenz, Ezechiels Vision von der Erscheinung Gottes im Lichte der vorderasiatischen Altertumskunde, Münster, 1917, p. 6Google Scholar; and Schmidt, Hans, ‘Kerubenthron und Lade,’ in νὐαριστἡρτον Gunkel-Festschrift, Göttingen, 1923, pp. 120–144.Google Scholar Both Sprank and Schmidt cite Jer. 3, 16 f. as another prophetic answer to the same problem.

^{page 265 note 31} Pseudo-Ezekiel, p. 14.

^{page 265 note 32} B. Duhm, Das Buch Jeremia, Tübingen, 1901, pp. 2 f., and especially Dr. Elias Auerbach, Die Prophetie, Berlin, 1920, pp. 107 ff. Cf. also P. Volz, Der Prophet Jeremia, 2d ed., Leipzig, 1928, p. 2.

^{page 266 note 33} See A. Geiger, Urschrift, 1857, p. 102, etc., and in his Sadduzäer und Pharisäer, Breslau, 1863 (see the summary of Geiger's views by Samuel Poznanski in Abraham Geiger, Leben und Lebenswerk, ed. by Ludwig Geiger, Berlin, 1910, pp. 356 ff.); also Wellhausen, J., Die Pharisäer und die Sadducäer, 2d ed., Hanover, 1924, pp. 45 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 267 note 34} See Finkelstein's, Louis original and stimulating article, “The Pharisees: their Origin and their Philosophy,’ in Harvard Theological Review, XXII, 1929, p. 188.Google Scholar

^{page 267 note 35} ‘Die gesetzlichen Differenzen zwischen Samaritanern und Juden,’ ZDMG, XX, 1866, p. 561Google Scholar, and , pp. 131 f. See also V. Aptowitzer, ‘Spuren des Matriarchats im jüdischen Schrifttum,’ Hebrew Union College Annual, IV, pp. 290 f.

^{page 267 note 36} Parteipolitik der Hasmonäerzeit, p. xxiii.

^{page 268 note 37} ‘Sadduzäer und Pharisäer,’ in Jüdische Zeitschrift für Wissenschaft und Leben, II, 1863, p. 22, and also ZDMG, XX, p. 566.

^{page 268 note 38} See S. Krauss (note 7, above), p. 114.

^{page 268 note 39} Documents of Jewish Sectaries: I. Fragments of a Zadokite Work, Cambridge, 1910.

^{page 269 note 40} Zadokite Fragment 4, 16 and Ezek. 14, 4–19; Zad. Fragm. 8, 12 and 18 and Ezekiel 13, 10; Zad. Fragm. 12, 12 ( in the sense of marriage) and Ezek. 16, 8; cf. Ginzberg, Unbekannte Sekte, p. 141, note 2.

^{page 269 note 41} Ginzberg, p. 193, note 1: “Die Schreibweise in unserer Schrift (11, 8) ist nach Ezek. 43, 11 zu erklären.”

^{page 269 note 42} See Aptowitzer, p. xxviii.

^{page 269 note 43} Ginzberg, pp. 19 and 367 f.

^{page 269 note 44} See Rudolf Leszynsky, Die Sadduzäer, Berlin, 1912, pp. 161 f.

^{page 270 note 45} Meyer, Eduard, Die Gemeinde des Neuen Bundes im Lande Damaskus, eine jüdische Schrift aus der Seleucidenzeit (Abhandlungen, Berlin Academy, 1919)Google Scholar, argues for a date about 170 B.C., while Ginzberg puts the origin of the schism under Alexander Jannaeus (103–76 B.C.). See also Bousset, W., Die Religion des Judentums im späthellenistischen Zeitalter (3d ed. by Hugo Gressman), Tübingen, 1926, p. 5, note 5Google Scholar, and Charles, R. H., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, Oxford, 1913, II, pp. 790 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 270 note 46} Pseudo-Ezekiel, p. 103.

^{page 271 note 47} Ibid. p. 102.

^{page 271 note 48} Ibid. p. 105.

^{page 271 note 49} Geiger, passim; see Poznanski (above, note 33), 357 ff,; Wellhausen, p. 72; Montgomery, James A., The Samaritans, the Earliest Jewish Sect, Philadelphia, 1907, pp. 72, 187 f.Google Scholar

^{page 272 note 50} Gaster, Moses, The Samaritans, London, 1925, pp. 8 ff.Google Scholar; Aptowitzer, p. xxviii and the sources he quotes: Kohn, Samuel, De Pentateucho Samaritano eiusque cum versionibus antiquis nexu, Lipsiae, 1865, p. 54, noteGoogle Scholar; Adolf Poznanski, Schiloh, ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Messiaslehre, Leipzig, 1904, I, p. 285; A. Cowley, ‘Some Remarks on Samaritan Literature and Religion,’ Jewish Quarterly Review, VIII, 1896, p. 572.

^{page 272 note 51} Gaster, pp. 138–139.

^{page 272 note 52} See above §1, note 11.

^{page 272 note 53} Gaster, p. 15.

^{page 273 note 54} Ibid. pp. 12 f.

^{page 273 note 55} Cf. Hölscher, pp. 11, 19: “Die im hebräischen Altertum vorkommende Ehe mit zwei Schwestern (vgl. Lea und Rahel) war später verboten (vgl. Lev. 18, 18). Man sieht das Hesekiel (23, 2) noch mit beiden Füssen auf dem Boden der antiken vorexilischen Religion steht … Auch hier ist ersichtlich, dass er von der prinzipiellen Sonderstellung Zions als allein rechtmässiger Kultstätte im Sinne des Deuteronomiums noch nichts weiss” — an argument which Hölscher cites for his postexilic theory of Deuteronomy, see his ‘Komposition und Ursprung des Deuteronomiums,’ ZAW, XL, 1922, pp. 161–255.Google Scholar

^{page 274 note 56} Mishnah Megillah iv, 9; Tos. Megillah iv, 34; Megillah 25b; cf. also Sanhedrin 44b and 104b.

^{page 274 note 57} Gaster, p. 15.

^{page 275 note 58} Ibid. p. 11. On some other parallels in Samaritan tradition to Ezekiel (28, 13 f. and especially chapter 47, the mystical river which descends east from Gerizim) cf. Montgomery, p. 238.

^{page 275 note 59} Pseudo-Ezekiel, p. 107.

^{page 276 note 60} Tractatus theologico-politicus, e. II, §7 and §49.

^{page 276 note 61} Shabbath 104a, etc.

^{page 276 note 62} Makkoth 24a.

^{page 276 note 63} See the dissertations, Job., à Marck, De vero sensu loci Ezech. xx, 25, Franequerae, 1675, and Alb. Joach. de Krakevitz, De Statutis non bonis Israeli a Deo datis, Rostochi, 1699.

^{page 276 note 64} Pseudo-Ezekiel, p. 90.

^{page 276 note 65} Conciliador, Leviticus, Quaest. 139, Amsterdam, 1650 (translated by E. H. Pindo, London, 1842, I, p. 229). See also A. J. de Krakevitz, p. 14: Ezek. xx, 25 “per interrogationem, quasi dicat, omnino bona (sc. statuta) ipsis dedi, si ea servassent, sicut Ezek. xxviii, 3: ecce sapiens tu per Daniele?” Cf. Pseudo-Ezekiel, pp. 88 f.

^{page 277 note 66} Berakhoth 24b; Megillah 32a.

^{page 277 note 67} As Hölscher did (p. 110), incurring the just reproach of Rudolph Kittel, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, III, 1, p. 169, note 2.

^{page 277 note 68} R. Kittel, p. 169.

^{page 278 note 69} Pseudo-Ezekiel, pp. 19–20.

^{page 279 note 70} Smend, Rudolf, Der Prophet Ezechiel, Leipzig, 1880, p. xxi.Google Scholar A. Bertholet, quoted by Torrey (p. 20), does not accept the thesis of Smend, citing a few reasons “gegen die Annahme einer einheitlichen Konzeption” (Das Buch Hesekiel, Freiburg i. B., 1897, p. xxii).Google Scholar Cf. also Böhner, J., ‘Die prophetische Heilspredigt Ezekiels,’ in Theol. Stud, und Erit., 74, 1901, pp. 177Google Scholar and 185, note.

^{page 279 note 71} It would be useless to register even the most important commentators. It may suffice to state that Torrey's own list of the principal works consulted by him contains not a single book published in the present century which has been able to explain the text of Ezekiel without the assumption of redaction. See Kraetzschmar, R., Das Buch Ezekiel, Göttingen, 1900, p. xiiiGoogle Scholar; Rothstein, D., in Kautzsch's Heilige Schrift, 4th ed., Tübingen, 1922, I, 871 f.Google Scholar; Herrmann, Johannes, Ezechiel, Leipzig, 1924, p. vii.Google Scholar Torrey's list can be easily expanded: Budde, Gesch. der hebräischen Litteratur, pp. 154 f.; Winckler, Altorientalische Forschungen, III, p. 135; R. Kittel, Gesch. des Volkes Israel, III, 1, pp. 149 and 160; Heinisch, Paul, Das Buch Ezechiel, Bonn, 1923, p. 18Google Scholar, who even declares that Ezekiel evidences no “planvolle Anlage” — not to mention Mowinckel, S. (Zur Komposition des Buches Jeremia, 1914, p. 4Google Scholar; cf. also Skriftlaerde, Ezra den, 1916, pp. 125 ff.)Google Scholar and Hölscher, who see in Ezekiel more redaction than original prophecy.

^{page 280 note 72} Pseudo-Ezekiel, p. 19.

^{page 280 note 73} Ibid. p. 23.

^{page 280 note 74} Mekhilta, Bo i b; Targ. Ezek. 1, 3.

^{page 280 note 75} Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, VI, p. 411, note 65. Compare Jehudah Halevi, Kusari, II, §§13 and 14.

^{page 280 note 75} a See note 74, above.

^{page 281 note 76} Mekhilta, Shirah 7, 40b; cf. also Tos. Sota 6, 11.

^{page 281 note 77} Pseudo-Ezekiel, p. 18.

^{page 281 note 78} Ibid. p. 14.

^{page 282 note 1} Das Buch Ezechiel, Göttingen, 1900, p. 1.

^{page 282 note 2} Ibid. p. 2.

^{page 282 note 3} Pseudo-Ezekiel, p. 63.

^{page 283 note 4} Ibid. pp. 22 f.; see also p. 108.

^{page 283 note 5} Ibid. p. 17.

^{page 283 note 6} Ibid. p. 23.

^{page 284 note 7} Ab uno disce omnes: Torrey explains some other literary problems in the Bible by similar camouflaging devices and pious frauds of the rabbis: see The Second Isaiah, p. 103 and note, proving that various sorts of ‘locking-devices’ and ‘dovetailing’ were “of course” familiar in Jerusalem.

^{page 284 note 8} Pseudo-Ezekiel, p. 22.

^{page 284 note 9} Ed. B. Ratner, Wilna, 1897, p. 115.

^{page 284 note 10} Pseudo-Ezekiel, p. 22.

^{page 284 note 11} Ibid. p. 18.

^{page 284 note 12} Ibid. p. 17.

^{page 284 note 13} Ideler, Hävernick, Grätz, Herrmann, etc.: in priestly circles the custom of dating after the Deuteronomic restoration “ist sachlich so verständlich wie möglich” (Herrmann, Ezechiel, Leipzig, 1924, p. 10)Google Scholar; similarly Grätz, MGWJ, 1874, p. 518, where the date is even adduced as a sign of Ezekiel's antiquity. I should add that the Damascene fragment (5, 5) sees in 622 B.C. a most decisive turning point, namely, the rediscovery by Zadok of the entirely forgotten law.

^{page 285 note 14} Historisch-kritische Einleitung, I, 2, p. 258.

^{page 285 note 15} Migne, P. L., XXV, 380.

^{page 285 note 16} Die grossen Propheten, Göttingen, 1915, p. 382.

^{page 285 note 17} Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel, Leipzig, 1912, V, p. 1.

^{page 286 note 18} Der Prophet Ezechiel, Leipzig, 1880, p. 7. See also Klamroth, E., Die jüd. Exulanten in Babylonien, Leipzig, 1912, p. 63.Google Scholar

^{page 286 note 19} Kraetzschmar, p. 122.

^{page 287 note 20} Lev. R. 2, 8; Seder Eliyyahu R. 7 (6), ed. Friedmann p. 34; Yalkut Shime'oni on Ezek. 2, 1.

^{page 287 note 21} See above, §3, note 29.

^{page 287 note 22} I follow in the main the text of Lev. R., seldom preferring a reading from E(liyyahu R.) or the Y(alḳut).

^{page 287 note 23} ‘šiṭṭa’ means here: ‘mode,’ ‘instance,’ ‘time,’ ‘vision’; cf. Samuel Japhe Ashkenazi in his commentary , Constantinople, 1648, p. 18a, who renders the term ‘šiṭṭa’ ; but idem, ed. Vilna, 1878, Midr. R. II, reads: . Jeḥezkel Feiwel in his (ed. Vilna) ib. states the disagreement between the midrash and Ezekiel most admirably:

^{page 287 note 24} , thus the version of Y, and according to also of E: he suggests the reading

^{page 287 note 25} Thus E and Y.

^{page 288 note 26} Z. W. Einhorn in his (ed. Vilna) notes that the versions in Lev. R. and E agree . He disposes of the difficulty by the ingenious hypothesis that the first ‘šiṭṭa’ refers to the entire chapter 1 of Ezekiel, and speaks of , while the second ‘šiṭṭa’ treats of the vision of the future temple accompanied also by a vision of the merkabhah, whence the quotation from Ezek. 43. But such an hypothesis requires an elaborate emendation of a text attested in different sources; moreover, it fails to explain why, instead of the customary brevity in citing the Scriptures, our midrash should quote in extenso four consecutive verses of the same chapter.

The earliest editions confirm the passage in question: see Tanna debe Eliyyahu, Venice, 1598, p. 11a; Midrash R., ed. Cracow, 1583, p. 167, and ed. Salonika, 1595, p. 137b (the ed. Constantinople, 1512, and Venice, 1545, does not yet include the section from E). The Yalḳut ed. Salonika, 1521, p. 108b; Venice, 1566, p. 88a and Cracow, 1595, ib. all read instead of , which is obviously a mistake or a mistaken correction of the lectio difficilior.

The editions quoted were consulted in the Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary, which has now, under the masterly leadership of Professor Alexander Marx, the greatest aggregation of rabbinic literature in the world. My thanks are also due to Mr. Isaac Rivkind on the staff of the library for his kind and able assistance.

^{page 288 note 27} See Midrash Tanḥuma, Ṣaw 14.

^{page 289 note 28} Cf. Gen. R. 5, which singles out the miracle and states that it occurred at Ezekiel's command: . Is this midrashic fancy or an echo of the original prophecy? Similarly, is there an error, or is there a trace of the lost oracle, in Sirach 49, 8? . The different description in Ezek. 1 and 10 (also 43) seems to refer to a single kind of chariot; do “the divers kinds of chariot” include also the now missing šiṭṭa’ or vision of the heavenly merkabhah of which the midrash speaks? Israel Lévi, L'Ecclésiastique, Paris, 1898, p. 146, unable to make any sense on the basis of our present text of Ezekiel, suggests the reading instead of .

^{page 289 note 29} A. Merx, who understood the date of Ezek. 1, 1, sees in it but a misplaced fragment: “Die Wahrheit ist, dass Vers 1 nicht hieher gehört …. Vers 1 ist ein ungehörig vorgesetztes Bruchstück” (‘Der Wert der Septuaginta für die Textkritik des A. T. am Ezechiel aufgezeigt,’ in Jahrbücher für protest. Theologie. IX, 1883, p. 73). Kuenen, p. 257, records a similar guess, before Merx, by Rutgers (Het tijdvak der Bab. ballingschap, pp. 149–152). The rejection of Ezek. 1,1 as a stray fragment inserted by mistake at the beginning of the book, although it originally stood at its end, won little attention for the correct explanation of the date. Kraetzschmar, p. 4, rightly remarks that the suggested removal of Ezek. 1, 1 to the very end of the book “heisst den Knoten nur noch mehr verschlingen, statt ihn zu lösen.” Who knows if Spinoza was not the first to guess at the true chronology of Ezek. 1, 1 when he said in Tract, theol.-pol., c. 10: “annus enim trigesimus, a quo hic liber incipit, ostendit prophetam in narrando pergere, non autem incipere” — which misled A. Klostermann to presuppose in Ezek. 1, 1 a remnant of the prophet's biography before reaching thirty years of age (Theol. Studien und Krit., 1877, pp. 391–439).

^{page 290 note 30} Ḥagigah 13a.

^{page 290 note 30a} Ibid.

^{page 290 note 31} Ḥagigah 13a seems to have preserved a slight intimation that chapter 1 of Ezekiel was known to contain more than the 28 verses transmitted. The scholars of Pumbeditha studied the ‘work of the chariot’ up to Ezek. 2, 1, that is, the whole of our text; yet they plead with R. Joseph to teach them (it seems) something more. The text is too laconic to permit a more definite surmise. But that keen-witted R. Samuel Edels, who rarely permitted the escape of the subtlest incongruity, does not fail to remark: . In the light of the above interpretation of even his answer may contain more truth than intended by its author: It may be mentioned in this connection that some Mss. (rejected by Rashi) quote instead of Ezek. 1, 27 a verse resembling now Ezek. 10, 8, either supposing that the work of the chariot extended thus far or reading in chapter 1 a similar verse now wanting. Comp. R. Rabbinovicz, Variae lectiones, Ḥagigah, p. 42.

^{page 291 note 1} Pseudo-Ezekiel, p. 22.

^{page 291 note 2} Ibid. p. 59.

^{page 291 note 3} Ibid. p. 60.

^{page 291 note 4} See The Second Isaiah, p. 96.

^{page 292 note 5} Marti-Festschrift, pp. 284–285.

^{page 292 note 6} Pseudo-Ezekiel, p. 62.

^{page 292 note 7} Marti-Festschrift, p. 285.

^{page 292 note 8} Josephus, Antiq. x. 11, 1; Contra Apion. i. 21 f.

^{page 292 note 9} Migne, P. L., XXV, 286.

^{page 292 note 10} Die Phönizier, Berlin, 1849, II, 1, p. 448.

^{page 293 note 11} The Old Testament in the Light of the Historical Records and Legends of Assyria and Babylonia, London, 1908, p. 401.

^{page 293 note 12} Archives from Erech, Time of Nebuchadrezzar II and Nabonidus, New Haven, 1923, p. 25, No. 94.

^{page 293 note 13} See Eckhard Unger, ‘Nebuchadnezzar II und sein Sandabakku (Oberkommissar) in Tyrus,’ ZAW, 44, 1926, pp. 314–317; cf. also the same writer in Theol. Literaturzeitung, 50, 1925,485–486, and Bewer in AJSL, 42, 1926, p. 130.

^{page 293 note 14} No. 98, Dougherty, p. 151.

^{page 293 note 15} Movers, pp. 446 f., quotes ancient sources reporting of Nebuchadrezzar that it was he who first began to build the great mole from the mainland to the island-city which after its completion by Alexander made the capture of Tyre possible. Ezek. 27, 18 f. speaks of heads made bald and shoulders peeled, i. e. of the heavy burdens and loads carried in the attempt to build a mole from the sea-bank to the city “in the midst of the seas” (27, 4). Indeed, “the author of the prophecy shows his knowledge of ancient history” (Pseudo-Ezekiel, p. 94).

^{page 293 note 16} Marti-Festschrift, p. 285.

^{page 294 note 17} Pseudo-Ezekiel, p. 17.

^{page 294 note 18} Ibid. p. 69.

^{page 294 note 19} Nebuchadrezzar found it wiser or even necessary to win the support of Phoenicia rather than to embitter it by greed or cruelty: in fact, we see Tyre later allied with Babylonia against Egypt; see Hölscher, p. 24, who also, not knowing of Babylonian tablets on the siege and vassalage of Tyre, hesitates as to whether Ezek. 29, 17 is not “eine geschichtlich ganz wertlose Kombination des Ergänzers” (pp. 23 and 147).

^{page 294 note 20} See Herrmann, p. 200, also Rothstein, p. 951, and Heinisch, p. 144.

^{page 295 note 21} Or, if ‘hemmah ‘osim’ be retained: “for (but) lasciviousness they do with their mouth.” The emendations for in verse 31, usually suggested on the basis of the versions, are all futile; unable to reproduce the Hebrew play upon the word, the ancient versions render the verse freely although on the whole correctly. See Cornill, C. H., Das Buch des Propheten Ezechiel, Leipzig, 1886, p. 398Google Scholar; Jahn, G., Das Buch Ezechiel, Leipzig, 1905, p. 234.Google Scholar

^{page 295 note 22} Torrey adopts the English Revised Version: “as a very lovely song of one that hath a pleasant voice.” No doubt this is better than the current arbitrary alterations of the text. Yet there is no need for even the slightest change of the textus receptus: is built not unlike the other active participles (qâtil) of the weak stems (e. g , cf. Barth, J., Die Nominalbildung in den semitischen Sprachen, Leipzig, 1894, § 127 c, p. 188)Google Scholar, and means ‘singer’; cf. Amos 8, 3, where also need not be emended. R. Ḥananel (ca. 1050) seems to have known this signification when interpreting Ezek. 26, 13 to mean (see the fragments of his commentary on Ezekiel in Leipzig, 1876).

^{page 295 note 23} Pseudo-Ezekiel, p. 38.

^{page 296 note 24} Ibid. p. 67.

^{page 296 note 25} Millar Burrows, The Literary Relations of Ezekiel, Yale University Dissertation, 1925, p. 27.

^{page 296 note 26} Pseudo-Ezekiel, p. 69.

^{page 297 note 27} For example, Jer. 4, 3 = Hos. 10, 12; Jer. 3, 22 = Hos. 14, 5. In Jer. 26, 18 the elders of the land, not the prophet, mention Micah.

^{page 297 note 28} Pseudo-Ezekiel, p. 84.

^{page 297 note 29} Schrader, Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, I, 148; see also Hommel, Fritz, Ethnologie und Geographie des Alten Orients, München, 1926, p. 194.Google Scholar

^{page 297 note 30} Kost, Paul, Die Keilschrifttexte Tiglat Pilesers III, Leipzig, 1893, Ann. 26–37Google Scholar; cf. also Forrer, Emil, Die Provinzeinteilung des assyrischen Reiches, Leipzig, 1920, pp. 90 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 297 note 31} So Georg Hüsing, Mitteilungen der Anthropol. Gesellschaft in Wien, 46, pp. 209 ff.; Rost, Paul, Untersuchungen zur altorientalischen Geschichte, Berlin, 1897, p. 74, note 2Google Scholar; Hommel, Fritz, Gesch. Bab. und Assyriens, Berlin, 1885, p. 719, note 3.Google Scholar

^{page 297 note 32} Meyer, Eduard, Geschichte des Altertums, 2d ed., Stuttgart-Berlin, 1907, I, 1, p. 806, note.Google Scholar

^{page 298 note 33} Toy, Grätz, Berry, etc.

^{page 298 note 34} Hitzig quotes Sallust, Jug. 18, who mentions Persians in ancient Africa. Dillmann points to the North African Perorsi (Pliny, v. 1, 8, 8, vi. 30, 35. Ptol. iv. 6, 16) and Pharusii (Pliny, v. 1, 10; 8, 8; Ptol. iv. 6, 17; Pomp. Mela iii. 11; Strabo ii. 131), See Manchot, Carl Herrmann, ‘Ezechiel's Weissagung wider Tyrus,’ in Jahrb. für protest. Theologie, XIV, 1888, p. 428Google Scholar; Herrmann, pp. 165 and 304, and Hölscher, p. 138, note.

^{page 298 note 35} Die Phönizier, Berlin, 1850, II, 2, p. 36.

^{page 298 note 36} Kraetzschmar, p. 209.

^{page 298 note 37} See above, note 15.

^{page 298 note 38} Pseudo-Ezekiel, p. 84.

^{page 298 note 39} De Schechina Persarum, Magdeburg, 1743.

^{page 298 note 40} Supplem. ad lex., p. 633.

^{page 298 note 41} Scholia in V. T., I, Leipzig, 1808, p. 241.

^{page 298 note 42} Handwörterbuch, s. v. .

^{page 298 note 43} Die Propheten des Alten Bundes, Stuttgart, 1841, II, p. 245.Google Scholar

^{page 298 note 44} Götzendienst und Zauberwesen bei den alten Hebräern, 1877, p. 62.Google Scholar

^{page 298 note 45} Gesammelte Abhandlungen, Leipzig, 1866, p. 159.Google Scholar

^{page 298 note 46} Die Religion des Alten Testamentes, Berlin, 1835, I, 388.Google Scholar

^{page 299 note 47} Gesammelte Schriften, Berlin, 1875, I, 229.Google Scholar

^{page 299 note 48} Smend, p. 54.

^{page 299 note 49} Das Buch Ezechiel, München, 1896, ad loc.

^{page 299 note 50} Geschichte der alttestamentlichen Religion, 3d ed., Gütersloh, 1924, p. 451.Google Scholar

^{page 299 note 51} For example, Kliefoth, Th., Das Buch Ezechiel, Rostock, 1864, p. 145Google Scholar; Keil, C. F., Bibl. Commentar über den Propheten Ezechiel, Leipzig, 1868, p. 77Google Scholar; even Kraetzschmar, p. 96.

^{page 299 note 52} See Ružička, Rudolf, Konsonantische Dissimilation in den semitischen Sprachen, Leipzig, 1909, p. 112Google Scholar; Paul Haupt in AJSL, XXV, 1909, pp. 1 ff., and in ZDMG, 65, 1911, p. 563; also A. Marmorstein in OrientalistischeLiteraturzeitung, 13, 1910, p. 435.Google Scholar

^{page 299 note 53} See Grätz, MGWJ, 25, 1876, pp. 507–508; cf. also S. B. Kopetzi, Dissertatio ad illustrandum ritum superstitiosum qui perstringitur Ezek. viii, 17, Franequerae, 1772, p. 36.

^{page 299 note 54} Rashi, Kimchi; Gunkel, Schöpfung und Chaos, 1895, p. 141.

^{page 299 note 54a} Pseudo-Ezekiel, p. 84.

^{page 299 note 54b} Ibid.

^{page 300 note 55} Darmesteter, James, The Zend-Avesta, Oxford, 1880, I, 168 (quoting Hang, Essays, 2d ed., p. 243, note 1)Google Scholar; Spiegel, F., Erânische Altertumskunde, Leipzig, 1878, III, p. 560Google Scholar; idem, Avesta übers., Leipzig, 1859, II, p. lxvii; Moore, G. F., History of Religions, New York, 1922, I, 388Google Scholar; Rapp, Adolf, ‘Die Religion und Sitte der Perser und übrigen Iranier nach griechischen und römischen Quellen,’ ZDMG, 20, 1866, pp. 86 f.Google Scholar

^{page 300 note 56} Justi, Ferdinand, Handbuch der Zendsprache, Leipzig, 1864, p. 212Google Scholar; Darmesteter, p. 22, note 2; F. Spiegel, Erânische Altertumskunde, p. 571.

^{page 300 note 57} Yasna lvii. 5, 6 (The Zend-Avesta, transl. by L. H. Mills, Oxford, 1887, III, p. 299).

^{page 300 note 58} Smend, p. 53.

^{page 301 note 59} F. Spiegel, 570; Darmesteter, p. lxviii.

^{page 301 note 60} Darmesteter, 2d ed., Oxford, 1895, p. 214.

^{page 301 note 61} Spiegel, F., Erânische Altertumskunde, II, Leipzig, 1873, p. 55.Google Scholar

^{page 301 note 62} F. Spiegel, Avesta übers., III, p. 107.

^{page 302 note 1} Kittel, R., Geschichte des Volkes Israel, Stuttgart, 1929; III, 2, p. 520Google Scholar; Klamroth, Erich, Die Jüdischen Exulanten in Babylonien, Leipzig, 1912, p. 49, note 1.Google Scholar

^{page 302 note 2} Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden, pp. 159 f.; Gesammelte Schriften, Berlin, 1871, I, pp. 232 f.Google Scholar

^{page 302 note 3} Halle, 1890.

^{page 302 note 4} Pseudo-Ezekiel, p. 85.

^{page 302 note 5} Halle, 1880.

^{page 303 note 6} A list is given by Torrey himself in The Second Isaiah, p. 477, see also p. 108. His dating of that prophet, notwithstanding the other merits of his book, is arbitrary. The lower time-limit is fixed by the passages in which the Babylonian power is spoken of as still standing, e. g. Is. 47, 8: “If this had been a vaticinum post eventum, the prophet must have expressed himself very differently” (p. 104). True; but what follows contradicts the statement that this is not a prophecy after the event: Is. 47, 11 shows that the doom here announced is “not the ‘benevolent assimilation’ by a foreign power which took place in 539.” With equal right one could argue, to quote Hölscher, p. 24, “die Weissagung hat sich, wie alle echte Weissagung, nicht erfüllt.” Even more dubious is the date obtained from Is. 60, 10. Both the evidence derived from the passage (in point of historic information on no higher plane than, for example, Is. 49, 23) and Torrey's new date for the rebuilding of the city wall (384 B.C.; in Ezra Studies, 444 B.C.) are open to dispute. The allusions in Is. 56, 9–57, 21 to 407 B.C., when Egypt threw off the Persian yoke, or in chap. 59 to the murder of Jeshua by his brother Johanan the high priest (p. 109), are hardly taken seriously by the author himself, who in another connection (pp. 95 f.) says, most admirably: “Allusions to contemporary events are of course not to be looked for in religious poetry. The historical background recognized in this or that … composition is usually the creation of the commentator's imagination.”

^{page 303 note 7} The Aramaisms of Ezekiel cited by Selle and Torrey can be increased: see F. Perles, OLZ, 12, 1909, p. 252; Hehn, in Sellin-Festschrift, p. 68; H. Geers, AJSL, 34, 1918, p. 130. Compare also Harry Torczyner, Anzeiger, Vienna Academy, phil.-hist. Klasse, XX, 1910, and OLZ, 15, 1912, p. 402: “Wie der Babylonier Ezechiel schrieben auch die unter babylonischem Einfluss stehenden Juden in Aegypten fur (bab. že'u)”; cf. Ezek. 45, 11 and 15.

^{page 303 note 8} 11, 3; 10,14; 10, 5. See also H. Gunkel, Die Psalmen, Göttingen, 1926, p. 76 (on Ps. 19, 3. 5).

^{page 303 note 9} Specimen Glossarii Ezechielicc-Babylonici (in S. Baer, Liber Ezechielis, Lipsiae, 1884, pp. x-xviii).

^{page 304 note 10} Compare Nöldeke, ZDMG, 40, p. 718; Bertholet, p. xxv; Haupt, P. (in C. H. Toy, The Book of Ezekiel in Hebrew, Leipzig, 1899, pp. 65, 74, 102, etc.)Google Scholar; Simchoni, I. N., in He'athid, IV, Berlin, 1912, p. 225Google Scholar: .

^{page 304 note 11} Leipzig, 1896.

^{page 304 note 12} Selle, p. 39.

^{page 304 note 13} König, Geschichte der alttestamentlichen Religion, 3d ed., Gütersloh, 1924, p. 451Google Scholar; Perles, F., Babylonisch-jüdische Glossen, 1905, p. 8Google Scholar; Haupt, pp. 55, 64, 71, 83; for additional Babylonian loan-words or parallels Ibid. on Ezek. 4, 2; 9, 3; 13, 15; 23, 5; 23, 24; 28, 14; 32, 19 and 30. Meissner, OLZ, 1911, pp. 476 f.

^{page 304 note 14} Sanhedrin 22b, bottom.

^{page 304 note 15} Delitzsch, Assyrisches Handwörterbuch, 196; E. Klamroth, pp. 49, 51.

^{page 304 note 16} Jirku, Anton, Altorientalischer Kommentar zum A. T., Leipzig, 1923, p. 211Google Scholar; Jeremias, A., Das Alte Testament im Lichte des Alten Orients, 4th ed., Leipzig, 1930, p. 707Google Scholar; and the literature quoted by Herrmann, p. 86.

^{page 304 note 17} Toy, C. H., Ezekiel, New York, 1899, pp. 100 f.Google Scholar

^{page 304 note 18} Toy, C. H., ‘The Babylonian Element in Ezekiel,’ in Journal of Biblical Literature, 1881, p. 62.Google Scholar

^{page 304 note 19} Haupt, p. 63.

^{page 305 note 20} ‘Ezekiel and the Babylonian Account of the Deluge,’ in Jewish Quarterly Review, XVII, 1905, pp. 441–445.Google Scholar

^{page 305 note 21} Ezechiel Studien, Wien, 1894, p. 56.

^{page 305 note 22} Hölscher, p. 9. See also Gressmann, H., The Tower of Babel, New York, 1928, pp. 61 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 305 note 23} ‘Éléments sumériens dans le livre d'Ézéchiel?’ in Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, 28, 1914, pp. 333–336.

^{page 305 note 24} P, Cheminant, Les Prophéties d'Ézéchiel contre Tyr, Paris, 1912 (on Ezek. 27,24).

^{page 306 note 25} The Second Isaiah, p. 26, note.

^{page 306 note 26} Pseudo-Ezekiel, p. 70.

^{page 306 note 27} Ibid. p. 34. There is a substratum of truth in Torrey's contention that some chapters seem to be addressed to the Hebrews in Palestine rather than to Jews living in Babylonia. The rabbinic tradition (cited above, §3, note 76) rested upon a similar impression in its assertion that the appointment to the prophetic mission was made in Palestine before Ezekiel's exile to Babylonia (chap. 2–3, or even chap. 17). The impression may be accounted for by the peculiar historical situation of the exiled community in Babylonia. The Jewish captives watched feverishly the developments in the homeland and put all their trust in Jerusalem, which the common view of priest and laity held to be inviolate: God could not possibly permit its destruction. Hence the prophet's invective against Jerusalem and those among the exiles who expected salvation from the “south” (Ezek. 21, 2), that is, of course, from Judaea. Ezek. 21, clearly spoken on Babylonian soil, is according to our author “even more evidently spoken in Jerusalem” (p. 36): but there is not the slightest indication in the language of 21, 7 that the prophet “turns his face back to the city,” for which Ezekiel knows the Hebrew equivalent (cf. 14, 6; 18, 30; 7, 22). The utterance in 6, 2, as 21, 6 proves, is also spoken on Babylonian soil, also chap. 36, etc. There is little cogency in the assertion about the symbolic actions that “performed in Babylonia they would be grotesque” (p. 43): the pantomine in chap. 4 is grotesque wherever performed, and the clay tablet less strange by the river Chebar than by the waters of Shiloah. That the captives “would not care a straw for the preacher's fulminations against the land which they had left behind once for all” (p. 28) is, even when the sternest rebukes of the prophet are taken at their face value, an accusation both mistaken and unjust.

^{page 307 note 28} Hilprecht, H. V., The Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania, IX, 1898, pp. 26 and 76.Google Scholar

^{page 307 note 29} Cf. Daiches, Samuel, ‘Einige nach babylonischem Muster gebildete hebräische Namen,’ OLZ, 1908, p. 276.Google Scholar

^{page 307 note 30} Pseudo-Ezekiel, p. 88; see, however, Haupt, p. 46, and Haupt's English translation of Ezekiel, p. 97; Herrmann, 7, note 15a.

^{page 307 note 31} Pseudo-Ezekiel, p. 34, note 8, and p. 42.

^{page 308 note 32} Ibid. p. 111.

^{page 309 note 33} Ibid. p. 112.

^{page 309 note 34} Ibid. p. 106.

^{page 309 note 35} The Second Isaiah, p. 98; see also Notes on the Aramaic Part of Daniel, p. 248 note 1.

^{page 309 note 1} De criticae sacrae argumento e linguae legibus repetito, pp. 147–151; also, in ZAW, 28, 1908, pp. 174–179 (on J. Oscar Boyd,’ Ezekiel and the Modern Dating of the Pentateuch,’ reprinted [1908] from the Princeton Theological Review).

^{page 310 note 2} The Second Isaiah, p. 107.

^{page 310 note 3} Ibid. p. 213.

^{page 310 note 4} Pseudo-Ezekiel, p. 90.

^{page 310 note 5} The Literary Relations of Ezekiel, 1925, p. 102.Google Scholar

^{page 311 note 6} Pseudo-Ezekiel, p. 92.

^{page 311 note 7} Rabbi Naḥman Krochmal (ed. S. Rawidowicz, p. 138) calls attention to the consistently archaic spelling of the name in Ezekiel, in contradistinction to the scriptio plena of the later Book of Daniel.

^{page 311 note 8} See Gaster, M., ‘Das Schiur Komah,’ in MGWJ, 37, 1893, p. 230Google Scholar, and Scholem, Gerhard, ‘Zur Frage der Entstehung der Kabbala,’ in Korrespondenzblatt der Akademie für die Wissenschaft des Judentums, Berlin, 1928, pp. 8 f.Google Scholar

^{page 311 note 9} Pseudo-Ezekiel, p. 98.

^{page 311 note 10} Burrows, p. 84.

^{page 311 note 11} Ibid. p. 101.

^{page 311 note 12} The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel (Westminster Commentaries), London, 1907, p. xxv.Google Scholar

^{page 312 note 13} Pseudo-Ezekiel, p. 5.

^{page 312 note 14} Cf. Sir. 51, 12 (9) (Hebrew), “Praise him who chose the sons of Zadok to be priests.” See V. Aptowitzer, Parteipolitik der Hasmonäerzeit, p. xxv; Joseph Halévy, REJ, VIII, 53–55; Finkelstein, Louis, ‘The Pharisees,’ in Harvard Theological Review, XXII, 1929, pp. 226–229.Google Scholar

^{page 313 note 15} The Literary Relations of Ezekiel, p. 98.

^{page 313 note 16} Pseudo-Ezekiel, p. 99.

^{page 313 note 17} Judaism, I, p. 246.

^{page 313 note 18} Encyclopaedia Britannica, 14th ed., VII, art. ‘Daniel.’

^{page 314 note 19} Pseudo-Ezekiel, p. 47.

^{page 314 note 20} Ibid. p. 57.

^{page 314 note 21} Ibid. p. 54.

^{page 314 note 22} Ibid. p. 55.

^{page 314 note 23} Ibid. p. 54 note 21.

^{page 314 note 24} Der Prophet Jeremia, 2d ed., Leipzig, 1928, p. 202.

^{page 314 note 25} Pseudo-Ezekiel, p. 57.

^{page 315 note 26} See Hugo Gressmann, ‘Josia und das Deuteronomium,’ ZAW, 42, 1924, pp. 313–337.

^{page 315 note 27} This made Hölscher go to the other extreme and declare (ZAW, 40,1922, p. 238): “gerade aus den Sprüchen Jer. ergibt sich mit aller wünschenswerten Deutlichkeit, dass die lokalen Kultstätten in Juda zu seiner Zeit überhaupt nicht beseitigt worden sind.” See also the same writer, Forschungen zur Rel. und Literatur des A. und N. Testaments, 1923, pp. 206–213.Google Scholar

^{page 315 note 28} Volz, p. xxx and pp. 130 f. Compare also Ezekiel 8, 17 .

^{page 315 note 29} Unnecessarily, that is to say, for his own argument, for 7, 31, though in the same chapter, belongs to another unit of discourse.

^{page 315 note 30} Pseudo-Ezekiel, p. 49.

^{page 315 note 31} Ibid., p, 93.

^{page 316 note 32} Ibid. p. 105 note 43.

^{page 316 note 33} Kraetzschmar, p. xi; Heinisch, p. 18; Herrmann, Johannes, Ezechielstudien, Leipzig, 1908, pp. 4 f.Google Scholar

^{page 316 note 34} Pseudo-Ezekiel, p. 72.

^{page 316 note 35} Ibid. p. 78.

^{page 316 note 36} Ibid. p. 77.

^{page 316 note 37} See R. Kittel, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, III, 1, pp. 258–263.

^{page 316 note 38} For instance, the letter of Rabbi Israel Baal Shem Tob, the founder of Hasidism, appended to the book of R. Jacob Joseph of Polonnoye, , Korzec, 1781, shows similar ‘carelessness’ in dating or confusion of inner and outward reality; cf. S.Dubnow, Tel-Aviv, 1930, p. 62. The childish ‘enlightenment’ saw in the entire movement only fraud; it never guessed that its founder was of impeccable truthfulness of character, and a religious genius of the highest rank; cf. my Hebrew Reborn, New York, 1930, pp. 143 f.

^{page 317 note 39} Pseudo-Ezekiel, p. 94.

^{page 317 note 40} Ibid. p. 81.

^{page 317 note 41} Encyclopaedia Britannica, 14th ed., VII, p. 29.

^{page 318 note 42} Torrey, Ezra Studies, p. 338.

^{page 318 note 43} Kuenen, p. 284.

^{page 318 note 44} Pseudo-Ezekiel, p. 81.

^{page 319 note 45} Heinisch, p. 124: “Ein Orakel gegen Babel hätte die Deportierten mit falschen Hoffnungen erfüllt und zum Widerstande gegen die Macht gereizt. Ez. hatte ja alle Mühe ihnen klar zu machen, dass das Exil lange dauern würde.” Compare also Kuenen, p. 276: Klamroth, p. 83.

^{page 319 note 46} 1 Macc. 5, 6 f.

^{page 319 note 47} Pseudo-Ezekiel, p. 81.

^{page 320 note 48} Our author, and our readers, will recognize here echoes from Torrey's brilliant series of arguments against the dismemberment of Second Isaiah to make a basketful of little authors. One honors an author best when requesting him ‘patere legem quam ipse tulisti.’

^{page 320 note 49} Pseudo-Ezekiel, p. 113.

^{page 321 note 50} Ibid.

^{page 321 note 51} Ibid. p. 5.

^{page 321 note 52} Ibid. p. 26; cf. Toy, The Book of Ezekiel in Hebrew, p 52.

^{page 321 note 53} The Second Isaiah, pp. 218 f.