Abstract
Gile’s study is a revised version of his doctoral thesis, completed at Wheaton College under the supervision of Daniel I. Block. Block’s influence on the work is evident throughout, but this does not prevent Giles from challenging his views. Alongside Block’s own work, the study also builds on Michael A. Lyons’ From Law to Prophecy: Ezekiel’s Use of the Holiness Code (London: T&T Clark, 2009), and can in many ways be seen as a complement to that study. The issue taken up here is whether Ezekiel shows any influence from Deuteronomy. The consensus to date has largely been that although Ezekiel was influenced by a range of scriptural traditions, Deuteronomy was not among them. In a carefully argued and presented case, Gile challenges this, demonstrating that Ezekiel makes creative use of a range of scriptural traditions, and that Deuteronomy (or at least something like it) was among them. This insight can then be laid alongside awareness of how he has used other elements, most notably the Holiness Code.
As is typical of the genre of the published doctoral thesis, Gile demonstrates wide engagement with the secondary literature and close engagement with the text of Ezekiel. Having established the need for his study in the opening chapter, he develops his method in the second chapter, where he establishes a robust method for identifying literary influence while also establishing the importance of influence as a concept because of the status Deuteronomy holds as an authoritative source for Ezekiel. Five chapters then follow, each applying this method to either a specific text in Ezekiel or a theme that is found more widely in the book. Throughout, Gile is careful to define his textual evidence and to build a cumulative case for either the theme or chapter under consideration. His argument is consistently clear and fair to those with whom he disagrees. It might be suggested that he presents his strongest cases first so that the evidence from them provides support for the weaker cases he presents towards the end of his argument, though if the first case studies are valid then there is good reason to think the others might also show the influence of Deuteronomy. Gile is also careful to demonstrate that he is not claiming Deuteronomy is the only influence in these case studies, but rather that it is one significant influence.
The book is well-presented and argued. One curious point though is the inconsistent means of citing sources in languages other than English. At some points these are translated with the original in a footnote but at other points the original German or French is allowed to stand. Scholars will probably not mind, but this could be off-putting to those approaching the book with less training, and a more consistent approach would have helped. This minor point aside, this is a fine study that makes a strong case for seeing influence from Deuteronomy in Ezekiel.