· Ezekiel
40-43: the vision of the dimensions of the temple, is analogous to the
instructions for the tabernacle in Exod 25-27, but also bears important
similarities to the description of the Solomonic temple (1 Kgs 6-7), the
sanctuary nonpareil of Zion theology.
· Ezekiel
44-46, which largely concern regulations for temple personnel, draws strongly
from various passages of P and H; but Ezekiel incorporates into this P/H
legislation new regulations for the liturgical functions of the nāšî’,
the Davidic monarch associated with Zion (cf. 37:24-26). The concept of the
monarch as cultic functionary is foreign to all Pentateuchal legislation, but
characteristic of Zion theology.
· Ezekiel
47-48 have obvious parallels to accounts of land division in the Hexateuch (Num
34-35; Josh 13-19), but also reveal the influence of Zion traditions. The river
of life flowing from the temple (47:1-12) is not a Sinaitic or Mosaic motif at
all. Instead, it develops the ancient Near Eastern concept of the divine river
flowing from the primordial mountain of God, which Israelite tradition assimilated
to Zion/Jerusalem and the Gihon spring (Gen 2:13; Ps 46:4; 1 Kgs 1:33, 38, 45).
Likewise, Ezekiel’s division of the land in 47:13-48:35ects the significance
Jerusalem gained during the Davidic monarchy. As Judah and Benjamin surrounded
Jerusalem on each side, so Ezekiel sandwiches his temple city and environs
between the territories of these two tribes (Ezek 48:22). By contrast, there is
no hint in the tribal land divisions in the Hexateuch of the significance
Jerusalem would gain later in the biblical narrative, or that the national capital
would lie between Judah and Benjamin. In sum, Ezekiel’s placement of the
capital precinct between Judah and Benjamin (48:21-22) is the influence of the
Zion tradition. By contrast, the Hexateuch’s de facto capital of Israel is
Shechem (Deut 11:29; 27:4, 13; Josh 24:1, 25, 32).
Thus, every major division of
Ezekiel’s temple vision—the sanctuary (40-43), the personnel (44-45), and the
land (47-48)—shows the same pattern of conflation of Pentateuch motifs and instructions
with material drawn from or inspired by the Zion traditions.
The contrast between Ezekiel and
the Pentateuch highlights the absence of any specific concern for Zion,
Jerusalem, or the temple in the Pentateuch. This is true no matter the position
one takes on the direction of dependence. If Ezekiel is using the Pentateuchal strata,
then he is inserting into them Zion material that they lacked. But if one or
more of the Pentateuchal strata are drawing on Ezekiel—the Holiness Code, for
example—then the Holiness redactors must have intentionally edited out
references to Zion/Jerusalem in their Ezekielan source, such as “my hill”
(Lev 26:3::Ezek 34:26) or “the mountain of my holiness” (Deut 12:5-6::Ezek
20:40). Such a procedure cannot be reconciled with the view that the final
redaction of the Pentateuch was executed by Jerusalem priests in the Persian
period as part of an effort to legitimize the Jerusalem temple cult, as posited
by several current models of Pentateuchal composition. (John S. Bergsma, “The
Relevance of Ezekiel and the Samaritans for Pentateuchal Composition: Converging
Lines of Evidence,” in Exploring the Composition of the Pentateuch, ed.
L. S. Baker Jr., Kenneth Bergland, Felipe A. Masotti, and A. Rahel Wells
[Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplement 27; University Park, Pa.:
Eisenbrauns, 2020], 237-38)
