Text, Author and Report - Part D

Keywords: UFO, unidentified flying objects, Bible, flying saucers, prophecy, Paleo-SETI, ancient astronauts, Erich von Däniken, Josef F. Blumrich, Zecharia Sitchin, Ezekiel, biblical prophecy, spacecraft, spaceship, NASA, Roswell, aircraft, propellant, extraterrestrial hypothesis, Jacques Vallee, interdimensional hypothesis, Project Blue Book, Condon Report, ancient history, Jesus, Judaism, Christianity, Middle East, end times, engines, rockets, helicopters, space travel, aliens, abductions, alien abductions, crop circles, extraterrestrials, astronomy, economics, biology, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Space Shuttle, Apollo, stars, planets, solar system, scriptures, design, fuel tank, aerodynamics, fuels, hydrogen, oxygen, wheels

Chapter 7

    In considerations dealing with the author of the Book of Ezekiel we have so far exclusively used arguments resulting from the engineering investigation of the text. In this matter it is further necessary, however, to listen to what those commentators have to say who have approached the problem from a religious and a linguistic angle. In the short summary which follows we present quotations containing important statements by the two commentators consulted so far. Reference 4 contains the following remarks:  [p.118] 

A closer study reveals. . . the hand of a redactor. The text is sometimes in considerable disorder. . . There are also many repetitions.

. . . [Bertholet] assumes that the prophet only left detached leaves and sketches of prophecies expanded into the present book by the spiritual heirs. (p. 604, letter c)

    After a comparative study of the ancient texts the conclusion reads:

We may now ascribe more probably and naturally the whole book to a single translator. (p. 604, letter c)

    Thus Ezekiel is ruled out as the direct author of the traditional book.

    The view upheld in Reference 6 sounds at first somewhat surprising:

    There had never been doubt cast upon the unity of the book. . . some scholars. . . advanced the theory that "considerable additions have been made to this work. . . ." The difficulties found in the text to support this theory are groundless and artificial. The methodical composition of the book from beginning to end is evidence that it is the work of one man. The conservative scholar, Kirkpatrick, confirms the traditional view: "The Book of Ezekiel bears the marks of careful plan and arrangement, and comes to us in all probability direct from the prophet himself. He speaks throughout in the first person." (p. 14)

    However, immediately afterward, as the commentary continues, we read:

    While Ezekiel is the author of the book in its entirety, the final copy for inclusion in the canon was not written by him. . . [it was] authoritatively revised and issued by the men of the Great Synagogue.

    So here again we find an opinion that we are not in possession of Ezekiel's original writing, but have a revised text before us.

    Having thus analyzed the statements in the Book of Ezekiel with reference to their technical contents and deduced certain conclusions it is now appropriate to consider its essential relationships in the light of the knowledge acquired. We proved that Ezekiel indeed encountered spaceships, that he describes them with astonishing accuracy and that he also reports events related to them. In the course of these investigations it was tacitly assumed that the nontechnical parts of Ezekiel's report are visions.

    In the Biblical report the spaceship always appears as an introduction to and twice also as a conclusion of episodes. In the course of such episodes someone whom Ezekiel calls "man" or "he" gives Ezekiel instructions or describes events to him. Sometimes Ezekiel speaks too, so that conversations occur, which however are always very short. It is clear that the spoken parts are the essential ones from the religious point of view: they represent the spiritual nucleus. Even if the spaceships are considered—in the spirit of the religious commentators—as divine throne-carrying chariots they would still be regarded as accessories, as a means of carrying a message but not as an essential part thereof. In a religious sense, the significance of the vehicle is definitely less than that of the message.

    Motivated as we were by a technical interest, we have so far concentrated our investigation on the vehicle, and we have proved that it was a very real spaceship. But this realization confronts us with a conflict resulting from the incompatibility of visions and physical presence of spaceships. This conflict can be resolved in two very different ways!

    We arrive at the first solution by initially complicating the situation by recognizing both elements—spaceships and visions—as actual events. We do so by saying: Ezekiel both saw the spaceships and the various activities related to them and had genuine visions. The step toward the solution consists then of the assumption of a separation in time of these two elements. Such a separation in turn implies that visions took place at a point in time different from that of the encounters with spaceships. In such a case it is not relevant whether the visions were separated from the encounter by weeks or by years. Even the Biblical texts suggest this, because a period of some nineteen years separates the third from the fourth encounters and most of the visions pertain to this period.

    We have already discussed the combination of vision and physical encounter. Such an amalgamation was probably caused by unawareness of the true nature of events; it is the only link between spaceship and vision! With the above clarification of its background we have done away with this link and can therefore accept the separation in time as a credible solution.

    The second solution is fundamentally different. As we often did in the past, we again accept the literal meaning of what Ezekiel says. Having made this decision we are compelled to consider the encounters with the spaceships and the pertinent injunctions and descriptions as simultaneous, that is, pertaining to the same event. However, since we have proved the spaceships and commanders to have been tangible realities, the spoken parts perforce become statements made by the commander and thus lose their character of visions. Of course this in no way affects the conclusion drawn earlier with regard to the authorship of the report which has come down to us.

    This alternative solution is, on one hand, the result of the logical conclusion just outlined; on the other hand, despite its unusual character, it derives more support from the existing literature than one might expect.  [p.121]