Most critics have remarked the vigour and sur passing energy which are manifest in the character of Ezekiel. The whole of his writings shcw how admirably he was fitted, as well by natural disposi• tion as by spiritual endowment, to oppose the 're bellious house,' the ' people of stubborn front and hard heart,' to whom he was sent. The figura tive representations which abound throughout his writings, whether drawn out into lengthened alle gory, or expressing matters of fact by means of symbols, or clothing truths in the garb of enigma, all testify by their definiteness the vigour of his conceptions. Things seen in vision are described with all the minuteness of detail and sharpness of outline which belong to real existences. But this characteristic is shewn most remarkably in the entire subordination of his whole life to the great work to which he was called. We never meet with him as an ordinary man ; he always acts and thinks and feels as a prophet. This energy of mind developed in the one direction of the pro-, phetic office is strikingly displayed in the account he gives of the death of his wife (ch. xxiv. 15-18). It is the only memorable event of his personal his tory which he records, and it is mentioned merely in reference to his soul-absorbing work. There is something inexpressibly touching as well as cha racteristic in this brief narrative—the ' desire of his eyes' taken away with a stroke—the command not to mourn—and the simple statement, `so I spike unto the people in the morning, and at even my wife died ; and I did in the morning as I was commanded.' That he possessed the common sympathies and affections of humanity is manifest from the beautiful touch of tenderness with which the narrative is introduced. We may even judge that a mind so earnest as his would be more than usually alive to the feelings of affection when once they had obtained a place in his heart. He then, who could thus completelysubordinate the strongest interests of his individual life to the great work' of his prophetic office, may well command our admi ration and be looked upon as (to use Havernick's expression) 'a truly gigantic phenomenon.' It is in teresting to contrast Ezekiel in this respect with his contemporary Jeremiah, whose personal history is continually presented to us in the course of his writ ings ; and the contrast serves to show that the pecu liarity we are noticing in Ezekiel belongs to his individual character, and was not necessarily con nected with the gift of prophecy.
That Ezekiel was a poet of no mean order is ac knowledged by almost all critics. Lowth (De sacra Poen' Ifebnoorum, ed. J. D. Michaelis, Gotting. 1770, p. 431) thus sums up his account of him : In cwteris a plerisque vatibus fortasse superatus ; sed in eo genere ad quod unite videtur a natura comparatus, nimirum vi, impetu, pondere, granditate, nemo ex omni scriptorum numero eum unquam wquavit.' Michaelis and Dathe are the only critics of any eminence (as far as we know) who think slightingly of his poetical genius. The former (to whom Dathe assents) remarks, in Ezekiele non sublimitas laudanda, nedum Isaiana, videtur, ut potius in exornandis amplifi candisque imaginibus plus artis et luxuriei eum habere dixerim, quam cum impetu et sublimitate po&natis consistere potent. Perpetuus aliqua ex parte imitator est, at tamen novus ac suus, non grandis, sed ingeniosus ' (Ib. p. 427). The ques tion is altogether one of taste, and has, we imagine, been decided by common consent against Michaelis. He remarks more truly that Ezekiel lived at a period when the Hebrew language was declining in purity, when the silver age was succeeding to the golden one. It is, indeed, to the matter rather than the language of Ezekiel that we are to look for evidence of poetic genius. His style is often simply didactic, and he abounds in peculiarities of expression, Aramaisms, and grammatical anoma lies, which, while they give individuality to his writings, plainly evince the decline of the language in which he wrote. An extended account of such peculiarities is given by Eichhorn (Einlellang in das A. T., vol. iii. p. 196) and Gesenius (Geschichte der Ile& Sprache a. Schrift, p. 35).
The genuineness of the writings of Ezekiel has been the subject of very little dispute. According to Jewish tradition doubts were entertained as to the canonicity of the book on the ground of its containing some apparent contradictions to the law, as well as because of the obscurity of many of its visions. These, however, were removed, it is said, by Rabbi Hananias, who wrote a commentary on the book, in which all these difficulties were satisfactorily solved (Mischna, ed. Surenhusius, Praf. ad. Part. iv. r11+717 mon ; Carpzov, Introd. pt. iii. p. 215); but still, on account of their ob scurity, the visions at the beginning and close of the book were forbidden to be read by those who were under thirty years of age (Carpzov, p. 212). Some continental critics of the last century have impugned the canonicity of the last nine chapters, and have attributed them to some Samaritan or Hebrew who had returned in later times to the land of Judma (Oeder, Freye Untersuthung fiber einige Bucher des A. T., Hal. Sax. 1771 ; Vogel, in his remarks on the above ; and Corrodi, Beleuch tang des _Witt/sat. and Christi. Bibelkanons, pt. i. p. io5, quoted by Rosenmiiller, Schol. in Ez. ad. c. xl.) These objections have been fully answered by Eichhorn (Einleitung, vol. iii, p. 203), Jahn (Introd. in Lib. Sac. V. F., p. 356), and others. Jahn has also taken notice of and answered some objections raised by an anonymous writer in the Monthly Magazine, 1798, to the canonicity of c. xxv. - xxxii., xxxv., xxxvi., xxxviii., xxxix. A translation of Jahn's arguments will be found in Horne's Introd. vol. iv. p. 222. These and simi lar objections have so little weight or probability that we shall content ourselves with quoting the general remark of Gesenius in reference to the whole of Ezekiel's writings : ' This book belongs to that not very numerous class which, from be ginning to end maintains by means of favourite expressions and peculiar phrases such a oneness of tone as by that circumstance alone to prevent any suspicion that separate portions of it are not genu ine' (Geschichte der Heb. Spr., p. 35). The canoni
city of the book of Ezekiel in general is satisfacto rily established by Jewish and Christian authorities. There is, indeed, no explicit reference to it, or quotation from it, in the N. T. Eichhorn (Einleit. p. 2r8) mentions the following passages as having apparently a reference to this book : Rom. ii. 24 ; comp. Ezek. xxxvi. 21 : Rom. x. 5 ; Gal. iii. 12 ; comp. Ezek. xx. t t : 2 Pet. iii. iv ; comp. Ezek. xii. 22; but none of these are quota tions. The closing visions of Ezekiel are clearly referred to, though not quoted, in the last chapters of the Apocalypse. The prophet Ezekiel is dis tinctly referred to by the son of Sirach, Ss etocv 15pactv 56Ens, 7jv litractEev mire" girl aplutros xepuuf3ig (Ecclus. xlix. 8), and by Josephus (Maly. x. 5. I ; 6. 3 ; 7. 2 ; 8. 2). The book of Eze kiel is also mentioned as forming part of the canon in the catalogues of Melito (Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. iv. 26), Origen (apud Euseb. 1. c. vi. 25), Jerome (Prologus Galeatus), and the Talmud (Eichhorn, vol. iii. p. 218 ; vol. i. pp. 126-137). One of the passages of Josephus to which we have referred has occasioned much controversy and many conjectures, because he seems to affirm that Ezekiel had written two books of prophesies. Having spoken of Jeremiah and his predictions of the Babylonian captivity, Josephus adds, oh ,u6pop Se olxoi 7rpo€06r7reoe raiira rag SxXots, dXXe. cal rrpocbirrns. 'N"eicinNos• [os] vp'aros aryl rotirtop Ito rypcitpas KUTAMEP (f x. 5. I). Ac cording to the ordinary and, indeed, as it would seem, necessary interpretation of this passage, Ezekiel was the first who wrote two books respect ing the Babylonian captivity. The question then arises, Has one of his books been lost, or are the two now joined into one ? The former supposition has been maintained by some in order to account for certain professed quotations from the prophet Ezekiel of passages which are not found in his writings at present. Thus Clemens Romanus (1 El. ad Car. c. 8) refers to such a passage, which is given more at length by Clemens Alexand. (Azdago,g. i. to). Thus, again, Tertullian (Demme Christi, c. 23, p. 394, ed. Semler) says, Legimus apud Ezechielern de vacca ilia qua' peperit et non peperit.' Other instances may be seen in Fabri cius (Codex Pseudepigraphus V. T. ed. 2da, p. 1r18), and quoted from him by Carpzov (Introd. pt. iii. p. 208). Both these critics, however, agree that the most probable explanation of such refe rences is that they were derived from Jewish tra dition. The latter hypothesis, that our present book was originally two, the second containing the last nine chapters, has received the support of very many critics (see Le Moyne, Varia Sacra, t. ii. p. 332; Carpzov, Introa'. p. 208). This view, how ever, is not without serious difficulties. There is no evidence that the book, as at present existing, was ever considered two ; and the testimony of Josephus himself, that only twenty-two books were received as sacred (Contr. Apion. i. 8), appears quite opposed to such a supposition, since in whatever way the division of the O. T. into twenty-two books is made, there cannot be two out of the number left for Ezekiel. Eichhorn (Einkitung, vol. iii. p. 146) maintains that it is Jeremiah of whom Josephus speaks, a position to which we should at once assent if we could with him consider the words Is as equivalent to I Se 7rpairos. If this is what Josephus meant, we must suppose some corruption of his text. [Bekker omits Ss.] The central point of Ezekiel's predictions is the destruction of Jerusalem. Previously to this catastrophe his chief object is to call to repentance those who were living in careless security ; to warn them against indulging in blind confidence, that by the help of the Egyptians (Ezek. xvii. 15-17; comp. Jer. xxxvii. 7) the Babylonian yoke would be shaken off: and to assure them :hat the destruc tion of their city and temple was inevitable and fast approaching. After this event his principal care is to console the captives by promises of future deliverance and return to their own land, to encourage them by assurances of future blessings. His predictions against foreign nations stand between these two great divisions, and were for the most part uttered during the interval of suspense between the divine intimation that Nebu chadnezzar was besieging Jerusalem (ch. xxiv. 2), and the arrival of the news that he had taken it (ch. xxxiii. 21). The predictions are evidently arranged on a plan corresponding with these the chief subjects of them, and the time of their utter ance is so frequently noted that there is little difficulty in ascertaining their chronological order. This order is followed throughout, except in the middle portion relating to foreign nations, where it is in some instances departed from to secure greater unity of subject (e. g. ch. xxix. 17). The want of exact chronological order in this portion of the book, has led to various hypotheses respect ing the manner in which the collection of the separate predictions was originally made. Jahn (Introd. p. 356) supposes that the predictions against foreign nations were placed in their pre sent position by some transcriber in the order in which they happened to come into his hands, and that he through forgetfulness omitted chaps. xxxv., xxxviii., and xxxix. Eichhorn (Einleit. vol. iii. p. 193) thinks it probable that the predictions were written on several greater or smaller rolls, which were put together in their present form without sufficient regard to chronological accu racy. Bertholdt (Einleit. vol. iv. p. 1487, quoted by Havemick) supposes that the collector of the whole book found two smaller collections already in existence (ch. xxv.-xxxii. and xxxiii. 2i-xxxix.), and that he arranged the other predictions chrono logically. All such hypotheses belong, as Haver nick remarks, to a former age of criticism.