Abstract
According to the Masoretic vocalizations, Ezek. 28.14 directly identifies the king of Tyre as ‘the anointed covering cherub’. Hector Patmore has recently suggested that the Masoretic vocalizations and accentuation produce an awkward reading of the verse, and that the Hebrew consonantal text does not perceive the Tyrian king as a cherub but a god. This article undertakes a two-fold examination of this controversial verse. First, it contends on syntactical grounds that the Masoretic identification of the Tyrian king with the cherub renders an intelligible reading of the consonantal text. Second, it suggests that the Masoretic presentation of the Tyrian king as a cherub is conceptually compatible with Patmore's argument for the divinity of the Tyrian king in Ezek. 28.14. By comparing the Tyrian king to a cherub, the verse extols the Tyrian king to a nearly, if not fully, divine status, which potentially challenges the sole divinity of
Keywords
1. Introduction
Ancient Hebrew and Greek versions of Ezek. 28.14 present the relationship between the king of Tyre and the cherub in two vastly different ways that have caught the eye of many commentators. 1 In the Masoretic text (MT), the verse directly identifies the king of Tyrian king as ‘the anointed covering cherub’ (ךכוסה חשממ בורכ) that is placed on the ‘holy mountain of Elohim’, and which ‘walks in the midst of fiery stones’. 2 The Septuagint (LXX), contrary to the MT, does not envisage the king as a cherub, but distinguishes the Tyrian sovereign from the cherub, reading ‘I placed you beside the cherub on a holy mountain of God’ (μετὰ τοῦ χερουβ ἔθηϰά σε ἐν ὄρει ἁγίω θεοῦ, v. 14; cf. v. 16). 3 Perusing the Hebrew text without the Masoretic vocalizations, Patmore has recently come up with a reading of v. 14 similar to the LXX, one which does not perceive the Tyrian king as an anointed covering cherub. 4 Interestingly enough, he suggests that ‘Ezek xxviii 12–19 has been misread (deliberately or otherwise) by the scribe(s) who added the vocalization and accentuation’, 5 and that the Hebrew text, stripped of its vowels and cantillation marks, identifies the Tyrian king not as a cherub, but as a god (תייה םיהלא).
This present study will undertake a two-fold examination of this controversial verse. The first part of this study will evaluate Patmore's proposed reading of the consonantal layer of the Hebrew text. Contrary to Patmore, I will contend that the Hebrew consonantal text does provide enough ambiguities open for different lines of interpretation, so that the Masoretic identification of the Tyrian king with the cherub does not ‘misread’ the Hebrew consonantal text, but rather renders a syntactically intelligible reading sensitive to the surrounding literary context. In addition, it is my contention that the Masoretic reading, which portrays the Tyrian king as a cherub, does not exclude, but can conceptually accommodate Patmore's overall argument for the divinity of the Tyrian king in Ezek. 28.14. The second part of the study will thus cite and analyze biblical and extra-biblical evidence that present the cherub as a living heavenly or divine being. By comparing the Tyrian king to a cherub, Ezek. 28.14 extols the Tyrian king to a partial, if not full, divine status, which potentially challenges the sole divinity of
2. Opting for the MT's Syntactical Arrangement
On the one hand, the vocalized MT Ezek. 28.14 reads as follows:
On the other hand, Patmore suggests that the consonantal skeleton of vv. 13b–14 without the Masoretic vocalizations should be read as follows:
As seen from above, Patmore treats the Tyrian king as a separate entity from the anointed covering cherub. A new clause, according to him, begins at ךארבה םויב in v. 13. 9 Meanwhile, he takes the last word in the same verse, renders it as an active polel verb, ‘they established’ (ּוננְוֹכּ), and links it to the first few words of the next verse (v. 14). 10 Instead of following the MT to read תא as a second person singular pronoun (ְּתאַ) referring to the king of Tyre, Patmore reads it as a direct definite object marker (תאֵ). 11 Through this rearrangement of words in vv. 13–14, Patmore obtains an impersonal sentence: ‘On the day that you were created, they established the anointed cherub who covered’ (ךארבה םויב ךכוסה חשממ בורכ תא וננוכ), which can also convey a passive sense: ‘On the day that you were created, the anointed covering cherub was established’. 12 Patmore argues that the establishment of the cherub as a separate category of being enhances the grand and cosmic importance of the creation of the Tyrian king. 13
In addition, Patmore contends that the Tyrian king of the consonantal text in v. 14 more naturally presents himself as an םיהלא. His justification is twofold. First and foremost, Patmore insists that ךיתתנו, which he translates as ‘and I set you’, must be read together with the following prepositional phrase ‘on the holy mountain’ (שדק רהב). The Masoretes, however, seemingly intend to let ךיתתנו be read alone. They placed 'etnah, the first level disjunctive accent signifying a major pause, on ךכוסה. Straight after it, a rebia‘ which acts as the third level disjunctive accent indicating a slighter pause, is placed on ךיתתנו. 14 Patmore rejects this Masoretic accentuation on the ground that ‘the verb “to set, give” (ןתנ) almost without exception takes a preposition to indicate the indirect object (e.g. לע, לא, ־ל, ־ב)’. 15 Second, Patmore separates the prepositional phrase ‘on the holy mountain’ (שדקרהב) from the noun ‘Elohim’ (םיהלא). The Masoretes, nevertheless, place two conjunctive accents, kadmah and mahpakh, before the disjunctive pashta on םיהלא. 16 As such, they indicate that םיהלא should be read in conjunction with שדק רהב, producing the phrase ‘on the holy mountain of Elohim’ (םיהלא שדק רהב). Patmore rejects this Masoretic accentuation, and insists that םיהלא should be separated from the preceding two Hebrew words, since ‘elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible the mountain is either “of Holiness” or “of God or Yahweh”, never both’. 17 As such, Patmore is able to take the noun םיהלא as the direct object of the following verb תייה, which in turn gives rise to the identification of the Tyrian king as a god or a divine being (םיהלא תייה). 18
Contrary to Patmore's syntactical arrangement of Ezek. 28.13–14, I still find merit in the current organization of the MT, which identifies the Tyrian figure as a cherub, and which allows the phrase ךיתתנו to stand on its own, and which does not join the noun םיהלא with the verb תייה but places the noun in a construct relationship with the ‘holy mountain’ (שדק רה). This is based on the following three considerations.
First of all, Patmore's re-vocalization of וננוכ at the end of v. 13 as the active polel is not necessary, since the term can be understood well according to its current vocalization as a passive polal—‘they were established’ (ּוננָׁובּ).
19
The grammatical subjects of this verb are likely to be ‘all the precious stones’ (הרקי ןבא לכ) and ‘the gold of the workmanship of your tambourines and your pipes’ (ךיבקנו ךיפת תכאלמ בהז) mentioned in the same verse. The first half of v.13 lists nine precious stones to describe the glory and splendour of the Tyrian king. These stones, as observed by Wilson and others, are reminiscent of the high priest's breastplate from Exod. 28.17–20; 39.10–13.
20
Linguistically, four out of the nine precious stones mentioned in MT Ezek. 28.13 (םדא, םלהי, הפשי, תקרב) appear elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible only in Exodus 28 and 39. Formally, both lists share a tripartite grouping.
21
According to the Masoretic accentuation, בהזו concludes the list of precious stones. Given that gold is not a jewel, and that בהזו disrupts the three preceding groups of triplets, I deviate slightly from the Masoretic reading and follow the LXX in connecting the term to the subsequent phrase (ךיבקנו ךיפת תכאלמ).
22
The word ףת appears about sixteen times in the Hebrew Bible. Except for the case in Ezekiel, both the singular and the plural forms of it always unambiguously denote ‘tambourine’ or ‘tambourines’.
23
The root בקנ means ‘to bore’, and so can designate a drilled thing that acts like a pipe.
24
Taken together, 28.13 can well convey that precious stones and musical instruments were prepared (ּוננָוֹכּ), in order to celebrate the day when the primal figure was created (ךארבה םויב). Patmore objects that the verb ןוב is not ‘for the trivial or frivolous’, and it should not be used ‘to describe dressing up or musical instruments’.
25
However, he does not explain why
Second, different from Patmore's syntactical understanding of ךיתתנו, the Hebrew Bible does attest a handful of instances where the verb can take a direct object alone, without the need to take an indirect object. This is especially so when ןתנ denotes ‘to create’, ‘to cause’, or ‘to bring forth’.
29
Thus, Prov. 10.10 reads ‘he who winks the eye causes trouble’ (תבצע ןתי ןיע ץרק); and Prov. 13.10 asserts ‘by insolence comes nothing but strife’ (הצמ ןתי ןודזב קר). In both cases, the verbs derived from the root ןתנ connote the sense of causation, and are paired with the direct objects—'trouble’ and ‘strife’ respectively—without taking any prepositional phrase or indirect object. Also, Num. 14.4 describes that the rebellious Israelites in the wilderness desire to set (הנתנ) a leader (שאר) for themselves. Again, the qal imperfect cohortative of ןתנ, in the sense of ‘to appoint, to set, to establish’, is followed by the direct object ‘a leader’, without taking any prepositional phrase. In Ezek. 36.8, Joel 2.22, Zech. 8.12 and Ps. 1.3, variant forms of ןתנ are used to describe the productive power of the land or the vine to give forth branches, fruits or power.
30
In all these cases, different verbal forms of ןתנ possess the direct objects without being used in conjunction with any preposition. Perhaps the closest parallel to Ezek. 28.14 is the phrase in 27.10, where the valiant men in the Tyrian ship are said to give and produce its splendour (ךרדה ונתנ המה). In light of all the above biblical examples, ךיתתנו in Ezek. 28.14 can stand quite independently on its own. Given the reference to ‘the day of your creation’ (ךארבה םוי) in the previous verse, the expression ךיתתנו can legitimately denote that
Third, in contrast to Patmore, I still find that the current vocalization of the MT, which places the םיהלא in a construct relationship to the ‘holy mountain’ (שדק רה) in v. 14, fits better with the overall context of 28.11–19. This is because the construct reading as תייה םיהלא שדק רהב acts in parallel with תייה םיהלא ןג ןדעב in v. 13. 32 Moreover, this construct reading as the ‘holy mountain of Elohim’ in v. 14 corresponds to the construct reading in v.16: םיהלא רהמ, ‘from the mountain of Elohim’. Patmore is correct that the combination of שדק, םיהלא and רה appears only rarely in the Hebrew Bible, but he dismisses the construct reading רה יהלא שדק in Dan. 9.20 too easily. 33 Despite the fact that the date of composition of most of the book of Ezekiel might have been earlier than the book of Daniel, this does not definitively exclude the possibility that some of the lexical features in the former could have constituted the prototypes of the syntax found in the latter. 34 Taking all the foregoing into consideration, I thus insist on using the vocalizations of the MT Ezek. 28.14 as a basis for further interpretation, rendering its translation as follows: ‘You were the anointed cherub who covered, and I brought you forth; on the holy mountain of Elohim you were, in the midst of fiery stones you walked about‘.
3. Understanding ‘Cherub’ as a Divine Heavenly Being
Central to Patmore's syntactical reconstruction of Ezek. 28.13–14 is the affirmation of the Tyrian king as a god (תייה םיהלא, ‘you were a god’). 35 Moreover, he speculates that the Masoretes, by adding the vocalizations and accentuation, seek to present the Tyrian king as a cherub, and thus counter the affirmation of the Tyrian king as a god. 36 However, it is my contention that the Masoretic presentation of the Tyrian king as the cherub does not shy away from the possible divinity of the Tyrian king. Even if the MT does not directly present the Tyrian king as an םיהלא, the text still preserves the space of imagination for a human figure to transcend his humanity and attain a divine identity. This is all because the MT, as examined, understands the Tyrian king precisely as a cherub, and not with a cherub.
The majority of the biblical passages conceive the cherubim as the inanimate images decorating the fabrics of the tabernacle (Exod. 26.1, 31; 36.8, 35), and adorning the interior of Solomon's temple (1 Kgs 6.23–29, 32, 35; 7.29, 36).
37
There are no detailed descriptions of the cherubim's appearance in these passages. What can be ascertained from the descriptions of the Ark of the Covenant is that the cherubim are considered to be winged creatures (Exod. 25.18–22; 37.7–9; Num. 7.89; 1 Kgs 8.6–7; cf. 1 Kgs 6.23–29).
38
Therefore, various scholars have attempted to specify the appearances of the cherubim by associating them with winged humans, birds, winged bovines, griffins, winged sphinxes, or any composite creatures.
39
The cherubim represent the divine presence, since the God of Israel is often designated as ‘he who dwells among the cherubim’ (םיבורכה בשוי).
40
Even though the biblical texts in which this epithet appears might be dated later than the exile,
41
Albright and others have connected this divine epithet with the artistic representations of a king seated on a throne accompanied by the winged creatures, which were uncovered at Byblos, Hamath, and Megiddo, all dating between 1200 and 800 BCE.
42
More recently, Eichler argues from a grammatical point of view and suggests that this epithet ultimately seeks to identify ‘
What interests us most is several biblical presentations of the cherubim as animate heavenly beings who function as guardians or transporters.
45
Hence, the cherubim come alive in Gen. 3.24, the setting of which, as in Ezek. 28.13, points to Eden. There, the cherubim possess an apotropaic function. They are positioned in parallel with ‘the flame of the sword’ (ברחה טהל), in order to guard (רמשל) the entrance to the Garden of Eden.
46
In yet another passage, Ps. 18.11 (=2 Sam. 22.11), the singular cherub appears as part of the storm theophany.
47
There, it possesses a locomotive function to transport the deity: ‘And he rode upon a cherub and flew’.
48
The locomotive function of the cherubim comes forth most prominently in the book of Ezekiel. In chs. 8–11, the famous temple vision of Ezekiel envisages the cherubim as
Nor is this understanding of the cherub as a divine being restricted to the biblical traditions. The Mesopotamian traditions also contain mythological figures bearing the names kāribu and kurību, which are likely cognate with the Hebrew term םיבורכ. 57 According to the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary (CAD, K, pp. 216–17), kāribu is a participle of karābu (‘to pray, to consecrate, to bless’) used as an adjective denoting ‘a person performing a specific religious act’, but it can also designate ‘a deity represented as making a gesture of adoration’. 58 Following this, Wood understands the kāribu in one early Babylonian religious chronicle as ‘a descriptive word, modifying a god (or a statue of a god)’, which is represented by the cuneiform sign DINGIR read as ilu, ‘god’. As such, the whole phrase is translated as ‘the praying deity’. 59 However, both Glassner and Grayson read the cuneiform sign as the divine determinative. 60 As such, the kāribu can also be read as a proper noun, representing the name of a divine being (dKa-ri-bu). 61 According to CAD, K, p. 559, kurību is a noun meaning ‘representation of a protective genius [genie] with specific non-human features’. In several Esarhaddon inscriptions, this figure bears the divine determinative, which indicates the figure's deified status. 62 The figure is listed with other apotropaic hybrid figures such as lion, anzû, and lahmu. 63 Following this, a kurību probably belongs to the same class of these apotropaic figures without being identical with them. It is unclear how the kurību looks. Wood notes that one text, describing an Assyrian prince's vision of the netherworld, envisages a monster with the head of a kurību, but human hands and feet. 64 As she then conjectures, it is likely for the kurību to be ‘theriomorphic’ or ‘therianthropic’ rather than ‘anthropomorphic’. 65 Many scholars identify the kurību as a hybrid creature such as a griffin. 66 Hybrid figures in the ancient Near East, as explicated by Hundley, include ‘demons’, ‘monsters’ and ‘protective beings’, which ‘partake of the divine nature’. 67 We cannot assume that the ideological functions of kāribu and kurību correspond completely with those of the cherubim in the Hebrew Bible. Despite their other possible differences, the semi-divine or divine status seems to be a trait shared by these three categories of beings.
Taking into consideration all the above biblical and extra-biblical evidence, the Tyrian king, being identified as the animate cherub in Ezek. 28.14 (cf. v. 16), can also be counted as a heavenly and even a divine being. The Tyrian king is not merely a cherub, but the ‘anointed’ (חשממ) cherub. Even though the precise meaning of חשממ is unclear, the term might be derived from the root חשמ, ‘to anoint’.
68
In the Hebrew Bible, the act of anointing usually marks the conferment of authority or the exaltation of status.
69
In accordance with this notion, Arbel helpfully suggests that ‘the reference to an “anointed cherub” seems to be an alternative way of ranking the primal figure as a superior cherub among other cherubic beings’.
70
The Tyrian king is not merely a cherub, but ‘the covering’ (ךכוסה) cherub. The root ךכס is also used in Exod. 25.20; 37.9; 1 Kgs 8.7; 1 Chron. 28.18 to describe the cherubim who flank the ark or the mercy seat on which God is supposed to be enthroned in the holy of holies.
71
To describe the Tyrian king as the cherub that protects the most intimate place of divine presence thus emphasizes the vicinity between the Tyrian king and the divine. Even if the Masoretes do not utter תייה םיהלא in their reading of Ezek. 28.14, the Leitwort םיהלא that occurs repetitively in the whole dirge (vv. 11–19) still plays tantalizingly with the idea of the possible divinity of the Tyrian king.
72
The term םיהלא can be understood either in a generic sense as referring to any divine being, or as a proper noun referring to
4. Conclusion
By way of conclusion, I would like to draw attention to some comments on the concept of monotheism in the book of Ezekiel. Kutsko points out that Deuteronomy, Joshua-2 Kings and Jeremiah use the phrase ‘other gods’ (םירחא םיהלא) to referto the idols.
76
Even the oft-considered most monotheistic text, Deutero-Isaiah, still attests to the usage of such a term in relation to idols (e.g. 41.23; 42.17; 44.6; 45.5, 21). Kutsko, however, perceives a contrast between Ezekiel and the aforementioned literature, since the former, unlike the latter, demotes all other gods (םיהלא and לא) as mere םילולג or למס, םלצ, םיצוקש, and תוגזת, things devoid of power and life.
77
The general avoidance of the use of the terms לא and םיהלא in the book of Ezekiel leads Kutsko to argue that Ezekiel is one of the loudest proclaimers of monotheism in the Hebrew Bible.
78
This kind of rhetoric in the book of Ezekiel is later termed by Petry as ‘implicit monotheism’ and he, adhering to Kutsko's position, writes as follows: ‘The book of Ezekiel fights neither for the recognition of
The assertions of Kutsko and Petry about the sole divinity of
Footnotes
1.
E.g. G.A. Anderson, ‘Ezekiel 28, the Fall of Satan, and the Adam Books’, in G.A. Anderson et al. (eds.), Literature on Adam and Eve: Collected Essays (SVTP, 15; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2000), pp. 133–47, esp. 137–40; D. Arbel, ‘Questions about Eve's Iniquity, Beauty, and Fall: The “Primal Figure” in Ezekiel 28:11–19 and “Genesis Rabbah” Traditions of Eve’, JBL 124 (2005), pp. 641–55, esp. 649–51; J. Barr, ‘”Thou Art the Cherub”: Ezekiel 28:14 and the Post-Ezekiel Understanding of Genesis 2–3’, in E. Ulrich et al. (eds.), Priests, Prophets and Scribes: Essays on the Formation and Heritage of Second Temple Judaism in Honour of Joseph Blenkinsopp (JSOTSup, 149; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), pp. 213–23; P.-M. Bogaert, ‘Montagne Sainte, Jardin d’Éden et Sanctuaire (Hiérosolymitain) dans un Oracle d'Ezéchiel contre le Prince de Tyr (Ez 28, 11–19)’, Homo Religiosus 9 (1983), pp. 131–53, esp. 134–36; idem, ‘Le Cherub de Tyr (Ez 28, 14.16) et l'Hippocampe de ses Monnaies’, in R. Liwak and S. Wagner (eds.), Prophetie und geschichtliche Wirklichkeit im alten Israel (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1991), pp. 29–38; S.N. Bunta, ‘
2.
This is an interpretation taken over by the Vulgate (tu cherub).
3.
The LXX seems to read תא in v. 14 as a preposition ‘with’ followed by the noun ‘cherub’. There is also no mention of the ‘covering’ function of the cherub. Moreover, in v. 16, while the MT reads ‘And I have destroyed you, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire’ (שא ינבא ךותמ ךכסה בורכ ךרבאו), the LXX again interprets the cherub as a separate entity from the Tyrian king and reads as follows: ‘And the cherub brought you out from the midst of the fiery stones’ (καὶ ἤγαγέν σε τὸ χερουβ ἐκ μέσου λίθων πυρίνων).
4.
H.M. Patmore, Adam, Satan, and the King of Tyre: The Interpretation of Ezekiel 28:11–19 in Late Antiquity (Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series, 20; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2012), pp. 197–201; idem, ‘Did the Masoretes Get It Wrong? The Vocalization and Accentuation of Ezekiel XXVIII 12–19’, VT 58 (2008), pp. 245–57. For a brief summary of his position, see also ‘Adam or Satan? The Identity of the King of Tyre in Late Antiquity’, in A. Mein and P.M. Joyce (eds.), After Ezekiel: Essays on the Reception of a Difficult Prophet (LHBOTS, 535; New York: T&T Clark International, 2011), pp. 59–69, esp. 60, 62.
5.
Patmore, ‘Masoretes’, p. 245.
6.
For this translation of ךיתתנו, see the ensuing discussion.
7.
English translation taken and modified from Patmore, Adam, p. 197; idem, ‘Masoretes’, pp. 254–55; idem, ‘Adam’, p. 61.
8.
English translation taken and modified from Patmore, Adam, p. 197; idem, ‘Masoretes’, pp. 254–55; idem, ‘Adam’, p. 61. For a discussion of other possibilities of reading the Hebrew consonantal text, see Yaron, ‘Dirge’, p. 29.
9.
Patmore, ‘Masoretes’, p. 249.
10.
Patmore, Adam, p. 198; idem, ‘Masoretes’, p. 251.
11.
Patmore, Adam, p. 198; idem, ‘Masoretes’, p. 251. By contrast, Yaron reads תא as a preposition, ‘with’, and deletes the ו from ךיתתנו (‘Dirge’, pp. 30–31). This gives the following translation of the Hebrew consonantal text: ‘I placed you with the anointed covering cherub’. This is also the reading adopted by G.A. Cooke, Ezekiel: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1951), p. 317; W. Zimmerli, A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel (Hermeneia; 2 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979, 1983), II, p. 85; W. Eichrodt, Ezekiel: A Commentary (trans. C. Quin; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1970), p. 389; F. Fechter, Bewältigung der Katastrophe. Untersuchungen zu ausgewählten Fremdvölkersprüchen im Ezechielbuch (BZAW, 208; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992), p. 176. Despite this difference in understanding תא, both Patmore and the aforementioned scholars share the view that the Tyrian king should be read as a being categorically different from the cherub.
12.
Patmore, Adam, pp. 198–99; idem, ‘Masoretes’, pp. 251–52.
13.
Patmore, ‘Masoretes’, p. 251.
14.
On the exegetical dimension of the Masoretic accentuation, see Ε. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), pp. 67–71.
15.
Patmore, Adam, p. 200; idem, ‘Masoretes’, p. 252.
16.
For the kadmah-mahpakh-pashta combination in the Masoretic accentuation, see J.R. Jacobson, Chanting the Hebrew Bible: Student Edition (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2005), pp. 56–57.
17.
Patmore notes the appearances of ‘Mountain of Holiness’ in Pss. 2.6; 3.5; 15.1; 43.3; 48.2; 99.9; Isa. 11.9; 26.13; 56.7; 57.13; 65.11, 25; 66.20; Jer. 31.23; Dan. 9.16; 11.45; Joel 2.1; 3.21; Obad. 1.16; Zeph. 3.11; Zech. 8.3; ‘Mountain of God’ in Exod. 4.27; 18.5; 24.13; 1 Kgs 19.8; ‘Mountain of
18.
Patmore, Adam, p. 201; idem, ‘Masoretes’, p. 253.
19.
Admittedly the passive sense is rare in the Hebrew Bible. Elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, it appears only in Ps. 37.23 (HALOT, I, p. 465). Nevertheless, the by-agent in Ps. 37.23 refers to
20.
Wilson, ‘Death’, p. 214; Callender, Adam, p. 102; W. Zimmerli, A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel (Hermeneia; 2 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979, 1983), II, p. 82; M. Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 22A; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1997), p. 582; Fechter, Bewältigung, pp. 165, 172–74.
21.
Wilson, ‘Death’, p. 214.
22.
Cf. Bunta, ‘Statue’, p. 238; Patmore, ‘Masoretes’, pp. 248–49.
23.
Singular in Gen. 31.27; Exod. 15.20; 1 Sam. 10.5; Job 21.12; Pss. 81.3; 149.3; 150.4; Isa. 5.12. Plural in Judg. 11.34; 1 Sam. 18.6; 2 Sam. 6.5 (//1 Chron. 13.8); Isa. 24.8; 30.32; Jer. 31.4; Ezek. 28.13. Cf. Callender, Adam, pp. 106–107. For a list of other scholarly translations of this term, see Arbel, ‘Questions’, pp. 646–47.
24.
Cf. Callender, Adam, pp. 106–107, followed by Arbel, ‘Questions’, p. 647.
25.
Patmore, ‘Masoretes’, p. 249. Cf. idem, Adam, p. 197.
26.
Callender, Adam, pp. 107–109.
27.
Patmore, ‘Masoretes’, p. 249, cites 2 Sam. 7.13; 1 Chron. 17.12; Ps. 9.8; Exod. 15:7; Deut. 32.6; Prov. 3.19.
28.
The Masoretic vocalization as ְּתאַ is peculiar, given that the subject is a male, rather than a female. Num. 11.15 and Deut. 5.27 do use the feminine pronoun to denote a male subject. Cf. 1 Sam. 24.19; Ps. 6.4; Job 1.10; Eccl. 7.22; Neh. 9.6, where the qere התָּאַ corresponds to the kethib תא. For this argument, see Patmore, Adam, p. 198 n. 53; Bunta, ‘Statue’, p. 238; Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, p. 582; Barr, ‘Cherub’, pp. 215–16; Richelle, ‘Portrait’, p. 121. Alternatively, Arbel, ‘Questions’, pp. 649–51, offers the following interpretation: this feminine form implies that the primal figure might have possessed female features, which in turn allow later traditions such as Gen. Rab. 18.1 to associate the primal figure with Eve.
29.
E.g. לוק ןתנ, ‘to give forth sound’: Exod. 9.23; Num. 14.1; 1 Sam. 12.17–18; 2 Sam. 22.14; Ps. 18.14 [Eng. 18.13]; Jer. 2.15; 4.16; 22.20; 25.30; 48.34; Lam. 2.7; Joel 2.11; Amos 1.2; 3.4; Hab. 3.10. חיר ןתנ, ‘to emanate fragrance’: Song 1.12; 2.13; 7.14 [Eng. 7.13]; Ezek. 6.13. Cf. HALOT, I, p. 733; E. Lipinski, ‘ןתנ’, TDOT, X, p. 92.
30.
Cf. Gen. 4.12; Lev. 26.20; Deut. 11.17. With God as the grammatical subject, see Isa. 43.20; Exod. 9.23; Ps. 105.32. Cf. HALOT, I, p. 733; Lipinski, ‘ןתנ’, X, p. 92.
31.
This is in contrast to the common translation ‘and I set/placed you …’, exemplified for instances in Bogaert, ‘Montagne’, p. 134; Yaron, ‘Dirge’, p. 29; Eichrodt, Ezekiel, p. 389; Zimmerli, Ezekiel, II, p. 85.
32.
So also A. Wood, Of Wings and Wheels: A Synthetic Study of the Biblical Cherubim (BZAW, 385; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008), p. 67; L.-S. Tiemeyer, ‘Zechariah's Spies and Ezekiel's Cherubim’, in M.J. Boda and M.H. Floyd (eds.), Tradition in Transition: Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 in the Trajectory of Hebrew Theology (LHBOTS, 475; New York: T&T Clark International, 2008), p. 108; Yaron, ‘Dirge’, p. 31; Richelle, ‘Portrait’, p. 122.
33.
Patmore, ‘Masoretes’, p. 252; idem, Adam, p. 201.
34.
Interestingly enough, the references to Daniel appear in 28.3 (cf. 14.14, 20). Even though older scholarship (e.g. Zimmerli, Ezekiel, II, p. 80) rejects to identify the Daniel in the book of Ezekiel with the wise protagonist in the book of Daniel, recent scholars (e.g. Strong, ‘Ezekiel's Oracles’, p. 209; H.-M. Wahl, ‘Noah, Daniel und Hiob in Ezechiel XIV 12–20 [21–3]. Anmerkungen zum traditionsgeschichtlichen Hintergrund’, VT 42 [1992], pp. 542–53) concur that Daniel in the book of Ezekiel might well have been a prototype of the main hero in the book of Daniel.
35.
Patmore, Adam, p. 201.
36.
Patmore, ‘Masoretes’, p. 256.
37.
Cf. Ezek. 41.18, 20, 25. Fifty-six out of the ninety-three occurrences of the lexeme בורכ in the Hebrew Bible appear in this kind of context. For the fuller statistics of this lexeme, see Wood, Wings, p. 8. For further explications, see also W.F. Albright, ‘What Were the Cherubim?’, BA 1 (1938), pp. 1–3; Tiemeyer, ‘Zechariah's Spies’, p. 110; O. Keel, Jahwe-Visionen und Siegelkunst. Eine neue Deutung der Majestätsschilderungen in Jes 6, Ez1 und 10 und Sach 4 (SBS, 84/85; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1977), pp. 15–45.
38.
For an explanation of the historical association of the cherubim with the Ark of the Covenant in the Jerusalem temple, see B. Janowski, ‘Keruben und Zion. Thesen zur Entstehung der Zionstradition’, in D.R. Daniels et al. (eds.), Ernten, was man sät. Feschrift für Klaus Koch zu seinem 65. Geburtstag (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991), pp. 231–64.
39.
For the more comprehensive surveys of the appearances of the cherubim, see M. Metzger, Königsthron und Gottesthron. Thronformen und Throndarstellungen in Ägypten und im Vorderen Orient im dritten und zweiten Jahrtausend vor Christus und deren Bedeutungfür das Verständnis von Aussagen über den Thron im Alten Testament (AOAT, 15; 2 vols.; Kevalaer: Butzon & Berker, 1985), I, pp. 311–12; R. Eichler, ‘Cherub: A History of Interpretation’, Bib 96 (2015), pp. 26–38.
40.
There are only seven instances of this usage (1 Sam. 4.4; 2 Sam. 6.2; 2 Kgs 19.15; 1 Chron. 13.6; Pss. 80.1; 99.1; Isa. 37.16). On this divine epithet, see Wood, Wings, pp. 9–22; Albright, ‘Cherubim’, p. 2; R. Eichler, ‘The Meaning of םיבורכה בשי’, ZAW 126 (2014), pp. 358–71.
41.
F. Hartenstein, ‘Cherubim and Seraphim in the Bible and in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Sources’, in F.V. Reiterer et al. (eds.), Angels: The Concept of Celestial Beings – Origins, Development and Reception (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007), pp. 155–88 (160).
42.
Albright, ‘Cherubim’, pp. 1–2. For a fuller list of pictures of the sphinx-thrones, see J.B. Pritchard, The Ancient Near East in Pictures Relating to the Old Testament (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2nd edn, 1969), figs. 332, 456–59 (hereafter ANEP); Keel, Jahwe-Visionen, p. 32, figs. 15–17. Note that these scholars translate the epithet as ‘he who is seated upon the cherubim’ and identify the cherubim with the winged sphinx. For an argument against this position, see Eichler, ‘Meaning’, p. 366; idem, ‘Cherub’, p. 37.
43.
Eichler, ‘Meaning’, pp. 369–70.
44.
Cf. Barr, ‘Cherub’, p. 220, who considers the cherub as ‘a semi-divine being or a divinely placed agent’.
45.
Twenty-eight out of the ninety-three occurrences of the lexeme בורכ in the Hebrew Bible appear in this sense. Cf. Gen. 3.24; 2 Sam. 22.11//Ps. 18.11; Ezek. 9.3; 10.1–9, 14–16, 18–20; 11.22; 28.14, 16. See Wood, Wings, p. 8.
46.
See D. Launderville, ‘Ezekiel's Cherub: A Promising Symbol or a Dangerous Idol?’, CBQ 65 (2003), pp. 165–83 (167); Metzger, Königsthron, I, p. 309; Wood, Wings, pp. 51–61. For the Targumic renditions, which place the cherubim and the flame of the sword in a subordinate role assisting
47.
The riding of
48.
See Wood, Wings, pp. 84–95; Launderville, ‘Ezekiel's Cherub’, p. 167; Metzger, Königsthron, I, p. 310.
49.
See Wood, Wings, pp. 95–138; Hartenstein, ‘Cherubim’, pp. 173–78.
50.
The singular היח in both cases is used as a collective. For the idea that Ezek. 10.9–17 interprets the inaugural vision in Ezek. 1.15–21, see D.J. Halperin, ‘The Exegetical Character of Ezek. X 9–17’, VT 26 (1976), pp. 129–41. For a comprehensive list of bibliography that discusses the exegetical relationship between chs. 1 and 10, see Tiemeyer, ‘Zechariah's Spies’, p. 111 n. 25. See also the explication in Zimmerli, Ezekiel, I, pp. 232–33, 250.
51.
Contrary to the common assumption, Ezek. 10.14 does not describe the four faces of the cherubim, but rather the four faces of the wheels. See Halperin, ‘Character’, pp. 138–39, who argues against Cooke, Ezekiel, p. 117; Zimmerli, Ezekiel, I, pp. 25, 239–40.
52.
ןוילע ינב in Ps. 82.6; םילא ינב in Pss. 29.1; 89.7; םיהלאה ינב in Job 1.6; 2.1; 38.7 (cf. Deut. 32.8 in the LXX).
53.
םיתרשמ in Ps. 104.4; םידבע in Job 4.18; 44.26.
54.
חורה 1 Kgs 22.21. Cf. Job 4.15.
55.
ץילמ ךאלמ in Job 4.18; 33.23.
56.
Tiemeyer, ‘Zechariah's Spies’, p. 107.
57.
AHw, I, p. 449; CAD, K, pp. 216–17, 559; Keel, Jahwe-Visionen, p. 16 n. 5; Hartenstein, ‘Cherubim’, p. 158. Also consult the more extensive discussion of the etymology of םיבורכ in Wood, Wings, pp. 143–55. Note, however, that F.A.M. Wiggermann thinks the kurību ‘is related with the Semitic word for raven (gārib), rather than with Akkadian karābu’ (‘Mischwesen. A. Philologisch. Mesopotamien’, RIA, VIII, pp. 222–46, here p. 243).
58.
Cf. HALOT, I, p. 497.
59.
Wood, Wings, p. 152. The treatment of kāribu as a descriptive participle is also found in L.W. King, Chronicles Concerning Early Babylonian Kings (2 vols.; London: Luzac, 1907), II, p. 84, line 16.
60.
For the different denotations of this cuneiform sign, see J. Huehnergard, A Grammar of Akkadian (HSS, 45; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), p. 563.
61.
J.-J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles (WAW, 19; Atlanta, IN: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004), p. 300. So also A.K. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (Locust Valley, NY: Augustin, 1975; repr., Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000), p. 138.
62.
See E. Leichty, The Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon, King of Assyria (680–669 BC) (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011), pp. 136 (line 24), 155 (line 10), 158 (line 9), 161 (line 9), 175 (line 5); CAD, K, p. 559; Wood, Wings, pp. 141–56. For three distinct ways to identify deities in Akkadian texts, see M.B. Hundley, ‘Here a God, There a God: An Examination of the Divine in Ancient Mesopotamia’, AoF 40 (2013), pp. 68–107.
63.
For an overview of the Mesopotamian hybrid figures, see Wiggermann, ‘Mischwesen. A’; A. Green, ‘Mischwesen. B. Archäologie. Mesopotamien’, RIA, VIII, pp. 246–64, esp. pp. 248, 253, 254, 256–57. For illustrations and explications of lamassu and lahmu, see J. Black and A. Green, Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia: An Illustrated Dictionary (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1992), pp. 64–65, 115. For a more detailed examination of the lamassu as the protective deity, see Hundley, ‘God’, pp. 92–93. For the demonic feature and apotropaic function of lahmu, see G. Mobley, Samson and the Liminal Hero in the Ancient Near East (LHBOTS, 453; London: T&T Clark International, 2006), pp. 22–25.
64.
Wood, Wings, p. 154, cites W. von Soden, ‘Die Unterweltsvision eines assyrischen Kronprinzen’, ZA 9 (1936), p. 16; J.B. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 3rd edn, 1969), p. 109.
65.
Wood, Wings, p. 154.
66.
Many scholars also seek iconographical evidence to correlate the cherubim in the Hebrew Bible with the composite beings in the ancient Near East. Thus, Albright conjectures that the cherub is a composite being like ‘the winged sphinx or winged lion with human head’ (‘Cherubim’, p. 2). So also E. Bloch-Smith, ‘Solomon's Temple: The Politics of Ritual Space’, in B. Gittlen (ed.), Sacred Time, Sacred Place: Archaeology and the Religion of Israel (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002), pp. 83–94 (85, 88). Metzger further elaborates on and refines this hypothesis, claiming that the cherub, being identified with the winged sphinx, has the lion-dragon (Löwendrache) as the ancestor. For further comparisons between the cherubim and the ancient Near Eastern composite beings, see Metzger, Königsthron, I, pp. 312–25.
67.
Hundley, ‘God’, pp. 93–94. See also M. Hutter, ‘Demons and Benevolent Spirits in the Ancient Near East’, in Reiterer et al. (eds.), Angels, pp. 21–34 (23, 25–26), who suggests that ‘demons’ or ‘protective spirits’ are ‘divine beings of a lesser rank’.
68.
See Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, p. 583; Zimmerli, Ezekiel, II, p. 85.
69.
E.g. Exod. 29.29; Lev. 4.3, 5, 16; 6.20; Pss. 105.15; 132.10; 1 Sam. 16.13; 2 Sam. 2.4; 1 Kgs 19.16; 1 Chron. 16.22. See D. Arbel, ‘”Seal of Resemblance, Full of Wisdom, and Perfect in Beauty”: The Enoch/Metatron Narrative of 3 Enoch and Ezekiel 28’, HTS 98 (2005), pp. 121–42 (131 n. 27).
70.
Arbel, ‘Seal’, p. 131.
71.
Miller, ‘Maelaek’, pp. 498–99; Wilson, ‘Death’, p. 215; Yaron, ‘Dirge’, pp. 31–32.
72.
Cf. Ezek. 28.13, 14, 16 (cf. לא and םיהלא in 28.2, 6, 9). Previous scholarship, especially M.H. Pope, El in the Ugaritic Texts (VTSup, 2; Leiden: Brill, 1955), pp. 97–103, has hypothesized that the appearances of לא in Ezek. 28.2, 9 originated from the Ugaritic mythologies concerning the banishment of El from the mountains of gods to the deep of the seas. Also, it is interesting to note Rendtorff, who suggests that the term לא is not used as a proper noun exclusive to
73.
Deuteronomy (cf. 1 Kgs 18) is one exemplary book that displays both the generic and the specific sense of the term. In order to eliminate such a confusion, when the term refers to
74.
The multiple possibilities for the translation of םיהלא are perhaps best reflected in the English NASB and German Herder Bibel. While the KJV and Luther Bibel consistently translates the םיהלא in Ezek. 28 as ‘God’ and ‘Gott’ respectively, the NASB translates vv. 2, 9 as either ‘gods’ or ‘god’ with the rest of the occurrences of the term in the same chapter as ‘God’. Similar mixed occurrences appear in the German Herder Bibel.
75.
On form-critical grounds, Ezek. 28.1–10 and 28.11–19 are treated as two separate textual units. See Yaron, ‘Dirge’, pp. 45–49; Wilson, ‘Death’, p. 211; K.-F. Pohlmann, Das Buch des Propheten Hesekiel (Ezechiel): Kapitel 20–48 (ATD, 22.2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001), pp. 390–91; G. Hölscher, Hesekiel. Der Dichter und das Buch. Eine literarkritische Untersuchung (Glessen: Töpelmann, 1924), p. 140.
76.
J.F. Kutsko, Between Heaven and Earth: Divine Presence and Absence in the Book of Ezekiel (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000), p. 35.
77.
Kutsko, Between Heaven and Earth, p. 28.
78.
Kutsko, Between Heaven and Earth, p. 35.
79.
S. Petry, Die Entgrenzung JHWHs. Monolatrie, Bilderverbot und Monotheismus im Deuteronomium, in Deuterojesaja und im Ezechielbuch (FAT, 2.27; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), p. 381 (my translation). For a review of Petry's monograph, see N. MacDonald, ‘Review of S. Petry, Die Entgrenzung JHWHs. Monolatrie, Bilderverbot und Monotheismus im Deuteronomium, in Deuterojesaja und im Ezechielbuch (FAT, 2.27; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007)’, JHS 9 (2009), 
. This review, however, devotes more space to evaluate Petry's analysis of Deuteronomy and does not deal much with Petry's position on Ezekiel's monotheism.
80.
Philo, QG 1.57, includes an allegorical interpretation of Gen. 3.22–24 where the cherubim are considered to symbolize the divine attributes. One of the cherubim is the creative power called ‘God’, which is ‘a benevolent and friendly and beneficent virtue’. The other is the kingly power called ‘Lord’, which is ‘a legislative, chastising and corrective virtue’. Cited in P. Lanfer, Remembering Eden: The Reception History of Genesis 3:22–24 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), pp. 106–107. See the fuller discussion of Philo's interpretation of cherubim in R. Patai, The Hebrew Goddess (Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, 1998), pp. 75–79, see also pp. 83–84 for one Rabbinic exegesis that echoes Philo's interpretation of the cherubim. Meanwhile, the divine status of the cherubic Tyrian king in Ezek. 28.13 possibly gave rise to an early Church Father's understanding that this story refers to the angelic fall. Reading Ezek. 28 along with Isa. 14 and Lk. 10.18, Origen concludes that the fall of the Tyrian king represents the descent of Satan from heaven (On First Principles 1.5.4–5). For further discussions of the understanding of Origen and other early Church Fathers, see Anderson, ‘Ezekiel 28’, pp. 135–36, 138, 140–41; Patmore, Adam, pp. 41–79; K. Schöpflin, ‘Ein Blick in die Unterwelt (Jesaja 14)’, TZ 58 (2002), pp. 299–314 (313).