Redacted

(On the fifth of the month in the fifth year of King Jehoiachin’s exile, the word of the Lord came expressly to Ezekiel the priest, son of Buzi, in the land of the Chaldeans by the river Chebar; and there the hand of the Lord came upon him.)  Ezekiel 1:2-3  NASB

Came expressly – Don’t overlook the fact that these two verses are not from Ezekiel.  They’re from the penmanship of a redactor who added explanation to the text.  Now why would he do that?  What was missing from Ezekiel’s initial introduction?  It’s obvious, isn’t it?  Ezekiel wrote about his visions when he was with the Chaldeans (he says so), but the reading audience needs to know when this happened according to their means of marking dates, and that means locating Ezekiel’s visions during the time of Jehoiachin’s exile.  So the fifth day of the fourth month of the thirteenth year is really fifth of the month in the fifth year of King Jehoiachin’s exile.  On that day, something happened to Ezekiel.  The word of the Lord hāyo hāyâ to Ezekiel.  Actually, the text begins with hāyo hāyâ,  “hāyo hāyâ the word of the Lord to Ezekiel.” As you can see, the action is the repetition of the verb hāyâ, and as we know, it doesn’t mean “to come.”  It means “to become, to exist, to happen.”  So we might translate is as:

“Became becoming the word of the Lord to Ezekiel”

“Existing became the word of the Lord to Ezekiel”

“Happening it happened the word of the Lord to Ezekiel”

It’s mysterious.  All we know is that it happened.  How isn’t clear at all, not to us and not to the redactor.  What he does is fix the date.  That’s all.  The rest is strange indeed.  This much is clear: whatever happened to Ezekiel happened only to him.  He is the recipient of the double verb.  The vision is meant for him alone.  That does not mean we can dismiss Ezekiel’s visions.  “Ezekiel is the great visionary of the Bible; no one equals him in power of imagination as it reveals itself in his dramatic acts, his parables, his laments, and his plan for the temple-to-be.”^[1]  Much of later Rabbinic development owes reference to Ezekiel’s imaginative visions.  In that regard, Ezekiel’s writing needs less historical validation than spiritual affirmation.  Perhaps we need a “vision” more than we need confirming evidence.

Now let’s take a step back and consider the fact that as early as the second verse we already have the hand of a redactor in the text.  Does that concern you?  Is the redactor also “inspired” or are his explanations merely swept up in the larger scope of the prophetic words of Ezekiel?  And if the redactor can so blatantly expose his hand here, why not in other places as well?  In fact, isn’t the redactor responsible for claiming that the word of the Lord hāyo hāyâ to Ezekiel?  Does Ezekiel ever claim this?

We’ve operated most of our lives on the assumption that the biblical text is something like a single transmission from God through various carefully selected spokespersons.  But what about this redactor (and others)?  How much credit are we willing to give to him (or them)?  How much have later hands influenced what we believed to be from the original author?

Topical Index:  hāyo hāyâ, came expressly to, redactor, Ezekiel 1:2-3

[1] Yehezkel Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel, p. 437.