tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3613525030683671127.post9055092136341325194..comments2023-10-12T14:09:33.965-07:00Comments on The Biblia Hebraica Blog: SBL: P, H, and Ezekiel PaperDouglas Mangumhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15267532075493569019noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3613525030683671127.post-39372718197226523482008-11-28T09:30:00.000-08:002008-11-28T09:30:00.000-08:00Ok, I'll pitch in :)I do think it demonstrable tha...Ok, I'll pitch in :)<BR/><BR/>I do think it demonstrable that Ezek 40-48 uses both H and PT. I also think that Milgrom, Otto, and Nihan have (in very different ways) argued persuasively that H uses PT. <BR/><BR/>To show that Ezek 44 is referring to the Korah story in particular is much trickier. And making the case that HS has edited Num 16-18 on the basis of Ezek would also be tricky (was there still a "Holiness School" after Ezekiel?). The relation of Ezek 40-48 to the rest of the book is also problematic.<BR/><BR/>Still, even though I am absolutely convinced that Ezek knows and uses H, I do think the kind of multi-stage reworking that you describe does occur. It even occurs in textual transmission; you can find places in the Vorlage of LXX-Lev that have been assimilated to Ezek (who was himself using H). It would not surprise me to see redactional activity in PT under the influence of H and Ezek.<BR/><BR/>Of course, you would have to have a rigorous method for identifying redactional strata and the direction of dependence. I know you expressed some doubts about this in conversation at SBL :) It is true that some examples are harder to make a case for than others, but the basic principles of the method are sound.<BR/><BR/>Good to see you at SBL, Doug!<BR/><BR/>Michael LyonsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com