Monday, December 13, 2021

David Bradnick, Evil, Spirits, and Possession (2017) on Ezekiel 28

The following comes from David Bradnick, Evil, Spirits, and Possession: An Emergentist Theology of the Demonic (Global Pentecostal and Charismatic Studies 25; Leiden: Brill, 2017), 235-38:

 

Ezekiel 28 is divided into two parts. The first announces a judgement oracle directed at the king of Tyre, and the second proclaims his funeral dirge. [21] The king’s judgement stems from his narcissism. He has recognized himself as divine, and for this transgression he will suffer terminal consequences. [22] According to Greg Schmidt Goering, “In a dirge, the mourner expresses the finality or irreversibility of death,” but in this instance it serves as a parody. [23] The passage is used to taunt the dead king and to place him firmly below God. [24] From this perspective, it is unlikely that the text refers to Satan’s fall from heaven because the rebellion would have marked the beginning of his reign over earth, not its end.

 

The origins of the judgment oracle and dirge also make traditional interpretations untenable. Most scholars believe that the Ezekiel passage, similar to Isaiah 14, was also constructed from non-Jewish myths. Walther Eichrodt, for example, argues for its roots in Ugaritic mythology, [25] while Hugh Rowland Page and Marvin H. Pope maintain that it concerns the Canaanite gods El and Ba’al. [26] Regardless of its exact origins, it is improbable that the author of the original myth composed it with Satan in mind. Although it is possible that a redactor could have modified the text in order to create a double entendre that references Satan alongside a historical king of Tyre, textual evidence does not support such a theory, as we will see below.

 

The identity of the antagonist in Ezekiel 28 also challenges the conventional view of a pre-adamic fall. While this text references a historical king of Tyre, it also makes an allegorical comparison with a primordial figure—a cherub (maelaek)—who was in the Garden of Eden at one time. The identity of this figure is the crux of the traditional interpretation, and it has been an ongoing issue of scholarly debate. [27] Traditionally, interpreters have read the cherub as Satan, but they base this upon an enigmatic translation of verses 12b-13a. Hector M. Patmore argues that the vowel pointing and accentuation within the Masoretic text render a different reading from the consonantal text. The former is typically rendered “You were an anointed covering cherub,” but the latter can be translated as “When you were created the anointed covering cherub was established.” Patmore argues that the consonantal reading may be preferable and more natural. [28] This means that we can question the traditional interpretation, which assumes that this dirge is about an angel.

 

While scholars generally agree that Ezekiel 28 refers to a historical king of Tyre, there is little doubt that it is also making a comparison to someone or something in the Garden of Eden. [29] Given Patmore’s observation, a few identities for this Garden-being are possible. Adam is the most common identity attributed to this underlying mythological figure. Walther Zimmerli argues that Ezekiel 28 has undeniable connections to Genesis 2 and the Yahwistic tradition, including its language. [30] In addition to being in the Garden of Eden, Adam was in a position above all other creatures, and his desire for power, or at least his desire for the power of knowledge, led to his demise. In this light, Adam’s downfall may serve as admonishment for the King of Tyre. Daphne Arbel, on the other hand, suggests that instances of feminine language and imagery make it possible to interpret this figure as Eve. [31] Considering that the aforementioned descriptions are also characteristic of Adam’s counterpart, Arbel makes a valid appeal. Our purpose here does not require us to resolve this matter, but it is sufficient to note that there are compelling alternatives to the traditional interpretations that associate this text with a Satanic fall.

 

At this point it is appropriate to employ Occam’s razor and suggest that the simplest explanation is probably the best. So, when Ezekiel 28 refers to a perfect being in the Garden of Eden, without adding anything to the biblical narrative, we can reasonably argue that it is referring to Adam and/or Eve. In fact, interpreting the serpent in Genesis as Satan, and furthermore as a perfect being, goes beyond what the Garden narrative says. [32] So we can conclude that any compelling evidence to connect Satan with Ezekiel 28 is lacking. [33]

 

Notes for the Above:

 

[21] Greg Schmidt Goering, “Proleptic Fulfillment and the Prophetic Word: Ezekiel’s Dirges over Tyre and Its Ruler,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 36, no. 4 (2012): 484. Walther Zimmerli proposes that Ez 28:1-10 and Ez 28:11-19 were composed independently and brought together by a redactor. See Zimmerli, Ezekiel: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, Chapters 25-48 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 78.

 

[22] Goering, “Proleptic Fulfillment of the Prophetic Word,” 491.

 

[23] Ibid., 493.

 

[24] Ibid., 494.

 

[25] Walther Eichrodt, Ezekiel: A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970), 393-94.

 

[26] Hugh Rowland Page, The Myth of Cosmic Rebellion: A Study of Its Reflexes in Ugaritic & Biblical Literature (Leiden, The Netherlands: E.J. Brill, 1996), 140; Marvin H. Pope, El in the Ugaritic Texts (Leiden, Netherlands: E.J. Brill, 1955), 103.

 

[27] Daphna Arbel, “Questions about Eve’s Iniquity, Beauty, and the Fall: The ‘Primal Figure’ in Ezekiel 28:11-19 and Genesis Rabbah Traditions of Eve,” Journal of Biblical Literature 124, no. 4 (2005): 644.

 

[28] Hector M. Patmore, “Did the Masoretes Get it Wrong? The Vocalization and Accentuation of Ezekiel xxviii 12-19,” Vetus Testamentum 58 (2008): 245-57. For more on the differences between the LXX and MT versions of Ezek 28 see K.L. Wong, “The Prince of Tyre in the Masoretic and Septuagint Texts of Ezekiel 18, 1-10,” in Interpreting Translation: Studies on the LXX and Ezekiel in Honour of Johan Lust, eds., Marc Vervenne and Brian Doyle (Leuven, Belgium: Leuven University Press, 2005), 447-64.

 

[29] Robert R. Wilson suggests that the earlier editions of Ez 28 refer to the King of Tyre, but later editors added language to make this a judgment and lament against a Jewish priest. Wilson, “The Death of the King of Tyre: The Editorial History of Ezekiel 28,” in Love and Death in the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of Marvin H. Pope, eds. John Marks and Robert Good (Guilford, CT: Four Quarters, 1987), 211.18.

 

[30] Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 90-91; McKenzie, “Mythological Allusions in Ezekiel 28:12-18,” 322-27. This was also a common understanding in ancient Jewish literature. See Hector M. Patmore, Adam, Satan, and the King of Tyre: The Interpretation of Ezekiel 28:11-19 in Late Antiquity (Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill, 2012), 14-26.

 

[31] Arbel argues that this seems to be the matter of interpretation within Jewish midrash (e.g., Genesis Rabbah). Furthermore, references to “drums” and “hollow” holes may be allusions to the female body, which is “reflected also in Iron Age archaeological evidence” (649). Arbel, “Questions about Eve’s Iniquity,” 641-55.

 

[32] For more on the Garden myth see Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary, trans. John H. Marks (London: SCM Press, 1961), 83-99.

 

[33] Yet James E. Miller denies that this is a lament regarding the first humans. Rather, he suggests that it concerns one of the covering cherubim of the heavenly court represented on the Ark of the Covenant. Miller, however, is clear to point out that he makes no attempt to connect this to a fall of Satan. Miller, “The Maelaek of Tyre (Ezekiel 28, 11-19),” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 105, no. 3 (1993): 497-501.

 

Blog Archive