DRAMA

EZEKIEL THE TRAGEDIAN (Second Century B.C.)

A N E W T R A N S L A T I O N A N D I N T R O D U C T I O N

B Y R. G. R O B E R T S O N

The Exagoge ("Leading Out") is a tragic drama from the hellenistic period which recounts the story of the exodus from Egypt. Its author. Ezekiel, is described as "the poet of tragedies" by Eusebius, citing Alexander Polyhistor (PrEv 9.28.1). Clement of Alexandria defines him more precisely as "the poet of Jewish tragedies" (Strom 1.23). All that remains of his literary efforts, however, are the fragments of this one work which are preserved in Eusebius and, in part, in Clement of Alexandria and in Pseudo-Eustathius. The content of Ezekiel's work is based upon the biblical narrative in Exodus 1-15 and centers around Moses as the principal figure. Ezekiel begins with the events surrounding Moses' birth and early childhood and then traces the story of his flight into the wilderness, his call by God to lead the Israelites out of Egypt, and the events surrounding the departure of the Israelites from Egypt. In the final act Ezekiel describes the scene at Elim (Ex 15:27) as Moses and the Israelites journey into the wilderness. At various points Ezekiel exercises literary license to create material which is extraneous to the biblical narrative (e.g. Moses' dream and its subsequent interpretation by his father-in-law). Ezekiel also introduces characters in his drama who are fictional in terms of the narrative of Exodus (e.g. the Egyptian survivor who relates the destruction of the Egyptian army in the Red Sea). Such variations are generally in accord, however, with the dictates of the dramatic form which Ezekiel has adopted. In brief, Ezekiel's work represents a synthesis of the content of the biblical narrative of Exodus with the literary form of Greek tragic drama.

Texts The text of Ezekiel is extant only in fragments cited by Eusebius (PrEv 9, 28-29, edited

by K. Mras, GCS 43, 1), Clement of Alexandria (Strom 1.23.155f., edited by O. Stahlin, GCS 15, 2), and Pseudo-Eustathius (Commentarius in Hexaemeron, PG 18, 729). Various critical editions of Ezekiel's text are referred to in the notes that accompany the translation. A complete summary of the earlier editions is included in J. Wieneke, Ezechielis ludaei poetae Alexandrini (Monasterii Westfalorum, 1931). The most recent modern edition of Ezekiel is that of B. Snell, Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta (Gottingen, 1971) vol. I, pp. 288-301.

Original language Ezekiel's text is extant in iambic trimeter, the meter which was commonly used in Greek

tragic drama, thus indicating clearly that Greek was the language in which the author wrote.

Date The date of Ezekiel's composition has been the subject of widespread discussion. His

knowledge of the Septuagint argues for a date subsequent to its translation, while the

excerpts of his work in Alexander Polyhistor's Concerning the Jews (c. first century B .C. ) indicate a date prior to the middle of the first century B .C. Kuiper argued for a date during or shortly after the time of Ptolemy Euergetes III (died 221 B . C . ) , based primarily on Ezekiel's description of the legendary phoenix bird.1 Tacitus (Annates 6.28) refers to the excitement and the flurry of literature generated by the bird's arrival in Egypt around 34 A.D . Tacitus also quotes one of his sources to the effect that the bird had appeared previously during the reign of Pharaoh Sesostris and, at a later date, during the reign of Ptolemy Euergetes III. Kuiper argued that similar interest in the phoenix bird might well have evolved during the reign of Euergetes. Thus, the expected appearance of the phoenix during the reign of Ptolemy Euergetes III may have occasioned Ezekiel's use of the material here and might explain his efforts to link the bird's previous appearance in the reign of Sesostris with Jewish tradition; specifically with Moses, the great Jewish leader. Kuiper's argument is, however, highly speculative. All that one can safely say is that Ezekiel is familiar with a literary tradition concerning the phoenix bird, a fact which may tie him more closely to an Egyptian provenance because of the association of the bird with Egypt.

Perhaps a more significant indication of the actual situation from which Ezekiel's work evolved is the polemic found in the Letter of Aristeas 312-16, where the author addresses himself to the question of certain tragic poets who sought to adapt some of the incidents recorded in the Bible for their plays. The situation described here presupposes literature such as Ezekiel's Exagoge.2 This, combined with the fact that Ezekiel's work may have been based on a recension of the Septuagint text, seems to point to a somewhat later date than that suggested by Kuiper, perhaps the first part of the second century B .C. The lack of any other concrete evidence makes it difficult to be more precise in the matter of dating.

Provenance The provenance of Ezekiel's work has been assigned by most scholars to Alexandria.3

The choice of subject matter, the use of the Septuagint text, and, in particular, the wedding of these elements with the vehicle of Greek tragic drama are indeed compatible with such a milieu. Ezekiel utilized the models of Greek tragedy—Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides—in the construction of his drama. Euripides, in particular, seems to have exercised a great deal of influence on Ezekiel's work.4 This is perhaps consonant with the fact that during the third century B .C. Ptolemy Euergetes III is said to have acquired the official manuscripts of these authors from Athens and to have deposited them in the library at Alexandria. It was during this period also that Satyrus' Life of Euripides was written and circulated in Egypt.5

Nevertheless, there is very little in the way of direct evidence with which to link Ezekiel with Alexandria. It is entirely possible that his work could have been produced in some other center, such as Cyrene, in which the spirit of Hellenism had influenced Jewish culture.6

While Alexandria remains as a most likely place of origin for Ezekiel and his work, it is the lack of direct evidence, rather than its abundance, which has allowed him to be characterized as "the Jewish poet of Alexandria"7 without serious challenge.

Historical importance The significance of Ezekiel's work lies both in its relationship to biblical tradition and in

its testimony to the development of tragic drama in the hellenistic period.

• Kuiper. K. "Le Poete Juif Ezechiel," REJ 46 (1903) 171. 2Cf. Trencsenyi-Waldapfel, "Une trag&lie grecque a sujet biblique," Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum 2

(1952) 161. 3 Kuiper (REJ 46, 174), took exception to this and believed Ezekiel to have been a Samaritan. In this he was

followed (on somewhat different grounds) by J. B. Segal, The Hebrew Passover from the Earliest Times (London, 1963) p. 25.

4 Numerous examples are cited by Kuiper, REJ 46 (1903) 48-73, 161-77; Wieneke, Ezekielis ludaei poetae Alexandria (Monasterii Westfalorum, 1931); and others in their commentaries.

3Cf. Oxyrhynchus Papyri IX, 1176. 6 So, for example, J. Gutmann, Hasifrut Hayehudith Hahellenistith (Jerusalem, 1963) vol. 2, pp. 66-69. 7 So Wieneke in the title of his work.

Striking parallels have long been noted between certain elements of Ezekiel's text and the Septuagint text of Exodus.8 The evidence clearly indicates that Ezekiel was dependent on the Septuagint text. In all probability, he made use of an early recension of the Septuagint, which fact seems to be reflected by the existence of certain variant textual traditions within his text.9 A more precise analysis of the nature of the Greek text on which Ezekiel based his work remains yet to be done.

The Exagoge itself is the most extensive surviving example of hellenistic tragedy. It is a historical drama, but its title is derived neither from the leading character nor from the chorus. Tragedies based on historical events (e.g. Aeschylus' Persians), were rare during the classical period, although later works attributed to Theodectes, Moschion, Philiscus, and Lycophron indicate their rise in popularity during the hellenistic period. The recent discovery of the "Gyges" fragment (part of the tragic drama based on historical events in ancient Lydia) may also attest this phenomenon.10

A distinctive feature of Ezekiel's drama which separates it from the mainstream of classical Greek tragedy is the violation of the theoretical unity of time and place, a principle expressed by Aristotle (Poetics 1449b), who described the ideal tragedy as situated in one geographic location and occurring within a period of twenty-four hours. Although even Aeschylus and Sophocles did not always adhere to such unity, Ezekiel's apparent disregard of Aristotle's principle may be indicative of the changes that were taking place within tragic drama during the hellenistic period, particularly in the Alexandrian school of literature.

Was Ezekiel's work intended for the stage? It is impossible to answer this question with certainty. Most commentators have discussed the problem in some detail, and the general consensus has been that there is nothing in the drama as it now stands that would make it intrinsically impossible for it to be enacted on the stage.

Ezekiel's work conforms to the generally accepted pattern of a tragedy in five acts." Although commentators disagree in some details, the fragments that remain can be easily broken down in a pattern similar to the following:

Act I Scene 1—Moses' monologue Scene 2—Moses' dialogue with Sepphorah

Act II Scene 1—Sepphorah's dialogue with Chus Scene 2—Moses' dream, and Jethro's interpretation

Act III Scene 1—Moses' dialogue with God Scene 2—Moses' instructions to the people12

Act IV —Report of the Egyptian messenger Act V —Elim, and the report of the messengers to Moses.

Kappelmacher and others have argued for various arrangements to deal with the troublesome dialogue between Sepphorah and Chus (11. 66-67), and additional scenes have been hypothesized to include Moses' marriage to Sepphorah (Act II), Moses and Aaron before Pharaoh (Act IV, Scene 1), and perhaps Moses' final reunion with Sepphorah (Act V, Scene 2).

The existence of a chorus has also been argued, although none of the lyric verses that might be attributed to a chorus have survived in the fragments. This is not surprising, however, in light of the particular interests of Alexander Polyhistor, Eusebius, and Clement. It is entirely possible that a chorus could have made its parodos ("entrance") immediately after the opening monologue when Moses noted the appearance of Sepphorah and her sisters. If, as Kappelmacher and others have suggested, there is a closing scene in which Moses and Sepphorah are reunited, then the chorus would have made its "exodus" at that

8 The critical text of B. Snell offers an accurate comparison with the LXX of Ex. The commentary of Wieneke. which includes the text of Ex on facing pp. opposite that of Ezekiel, is sometimes in error.

9Cf., infra, n. on 1. 2, passim. 1 0 The text is published in Oxyrhynchus Papyri XXIII, 2382, with bibliography. A full discussion may be found in

D. L. Page, A New Chapter in the History of Greek Drama (Cambridge, England, 1951). Additional bibliography is included in R. A. Pack, The Greek and Latin Literary Texts from Greco-Roman Egypt (Ann Arbor, 19672) p. 97.

1 1 In the early Gk. tragedians the number of acts was not fixed and was only formally established for drama in Horace, Ars Poetica 189, although the practice had become common since the rise of New Comedy in the fourth century B.C

1 2Cf., infra, n. w2.

point. The idea of a chorus of Egyptians responding to the report of the Egyptian messenger is also possible in Act IV, as is a chorus of the Hebrew people in Act III, Scene 2.

The possibility that the play was intended for the stage is enhanced by the evidence which indicates that Ezekiel transformed certain material from the Exodus account which would have been virtually impossible to present upon the stage. The plagues, for example, have been completely relegated to a speech delivered by God to Moses. The crossing of the Red Sea is handled in true Aeschylean fashion by Ezekiel when, with dramatic irony, he dredges up a lone survivor from the Egyptian army who is able to recount the disaster. One further example is of great importance: that is, the specific statement made by God to Moses (1. 101) that it is impossible for him to be seen by Moses (and so, presumably, by the audience as well). Although it may not be possible to prove conclusively that Ezekiel consciously effected these modifications for the specific purpose of producing a piece suitable for the stage, nevertheless, there is nothing in the play that would make it technically impossible for dramatization.

Ezekiel's verse corresponds with that ordinarily found in the dialogue of tragic drama, iambic trimeter. It is only in recent years that this aspect of Ezekiel's work has received more serious attention. Wieneke's commentary marked a definite advance beyond the work of Kuiper and others who preceded him insofar as he sought to emend the text on the basis of metrical considerations. There is no doubt that the text—as preserved by Eusebius, Clement, and Pseudo-Eustathius, and the scribes who copied their work?*—has suffered corruption at a number of points. There is ample evidence, however, to suggest that Ezekiel was careful to employ the proper rules of metrics in his composition. B. Snell13 and J. Strugnell14 have demonstrated conclusively that Ezekiel was consistent in correctly applying the rules of metrics in his work. There is a marked affinity at this point between Ezekiel's verse and that of the later Euripides and his successors.

Translation In order to preserve the somewhat archaic flavor of Ezekiel's verse, the English translation

has been rendered metrically in iambic pentameter and in a manner which attempts to represent the technically correct, but often strained, language which Ezekiel employed. I am grateful to the editor for allowing an exception in this case to the usual norms followed in this volume, and to J. Strugnell and A. Nakis for their invaluable suggestions and assistance. While every effort has been made to follow the lines of Ezekiel's text with as exact a representation of the content of each line as might be possible in the English translation, metrical and grammatical considerations sometimes precluded this. In some cases, the footnotes indicate the slight rearrangement of the text that was made in the English translation. The translation is based upon the critical text of Mras. The texts of Kuiper, Wieneke, and Snell have been consulted throughout and noted accordingly in the footnotes. The standard numeration for Ezekiel's lines has also been followed in the translation.

1 3 B. Snell. "Die Jamben in Ezechiels Moses-Drama," Glotta 44 (1966) 25-32. 1 4 J. Strugnell, "Notes on the Text and Metre of Ezekiel the Tragedian's 4Exagoge,' " HTR 60 (1967) 449-57.

EZEKIEL THE TRAGEDIAN

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

Charlesworth, PMR, pp. 1 lOf. Delling, Bibliographic p. 55. Denis, Introduction, pp. 273-77.

Freyhan, M. "Ezechiel der Tragiker," Jahrbuch fiir jiidische Geschichte und Literatur 31 (1938) 46-83.

Kappelmacher, A. "Zur Tragodie der hellenistischen Zeit," Wiener Studien 44 (1924-25) 69-86.

Kraus, C. "Ezechiele Poeta Tragico," Rivista difilologia e di istruzione classica 96 (1968) 164-75.

Kuiper, K. "Le Poete Juif Ez6chiel," REJ 46 (1903) 48-73, 161-77. Snell, B. "Die Jamben in Ezechiels Moses-Drama," Glotta 44 (1966) 25-32.

. "Ezechiels Moses-Drama," Antike und Abendland 13 (1967) 150-64. Strugnell, J. "Notes on the Text and Metre of Ezekiel the Tragedian's 4Exagoge,'" HTR

60(1967)449-57. Trencsenyi-Waldapfel, "Une tragedie grecque a sujet biblique," Acta Orientalia Academiae

Scientiarum 2 (1952) 143-64. Wieneke, J. Ezechielis ludaei poetae Alexandrini. Monasterii Westfalorum, 1931.

Exagoge

And with regard to Moses being exposed by his mother in the marsh, and being taken up and reared by the king's daughter, Ezekiel the tragic poet narrates the events, taking up the story from the beginning, when Jacob and those that were with him came into Egypt to Joseph.8 Introducing Moses as the speaker, he says:

1 And when from Canaan Jacob did depart, Gen 46:27

2 with threescore souls and tenb he did go down 3 to Egypt's land; and there hec did beget Ex i:7 4 a host of people: suffering,d oppressed, 5 ill-treated even to this very day 6 by ruling powers and by wicked men. 7 For Pharaoh, seeing how our race increased Ex i : 9 - n , i 4

8 in swarms, devised against us this grand scheme: 9 he forced the men* to manufacture bricks

10 for use in building lofty walls and towers/ n thus with their toil he made his cities strong. 12 He ordered next the Hebrew race to cast* Ex 1:22 13 their infant boys into the river deep. 14 At which point, she who bore me from her womb Ex 2:2f. 15 did hide me for three months, as she declared. 16 But when found out, she robed me and exposed11

a. There seems to be no real reason to suppose, as some commentators have, that the opening 11. of the prologue are missing. (For de as an intro­ductory particle, cf. Xenophon, Cyropaedia 4.5.23; Aeschylus, Agamemnon 717). The editorial state­ment by Alexander Polyhistor implies that Ezekiel's work commenced at the point where Jacob and his family entered Egypt. The text, as it has been preserved, corresponds in detail to the beginning of the narrative in Ex 1. Since the biblical text of Ex comprised Ezekiel's primary source, it may be assumed (with some degree of probability) that the existing text marks the beginning of the drama as it was originally written. A further indication of this lies in the fact that the prologue is comparable in length to similar material in Euripides, whose work Ezekiel may have utilized as a model.

b. Ezekiel's reading of "seventy" marks a sig­nificant departure from the text of the LXX, which reads "seventy-five," (Ex 1:5; cf. Gen 46:27; Acts 7:14). The reading "seventy" is attested in the biblical text primarily by the MT and the Samaritan Pentateuch (cf. Josephus, Ant 2.176). This and other instances in which Ezekiel's text seems to stand closer to the Heb. than to the LXX have led some scholars to conclude that Ezekiel may have used a Heb. text, either directly or as a means of correcting certain LXX readings. In I. 113, for example, Ezekiel reads ouk eulogos, "not elo­quent," a more literal rendering of the Heb. and Samaritan Po >tf a^barlm, "not a man of words," which is rather loosely expressed by the LXX ouk hikanos eimi, "I am not sufficient," Ex 4:10. Similarly, in 1. 140 (Gk.) Ezekiel reads loimos, "pestilence, plague," which seems to stand closer to the Heb. deber kabid, "severe plague," than to the reading of the LXX, thanatos megas sphodra, "a very great death," Ex 9:3. In spite of these and other instances, however, in almost every case in

which Ezekiel's text seems to stand closer to the Heb. text than to the LXX it is supported by significant textual witnesses within the LXX (fre­quently by marginal readings in the uncial manu­script F, and sometimes by Philo or Josephus). This suggests the possibility that Ezekiel's work may have been based on a text of the LXX which had undergone some revision in order to bring it into greater harmony with a changing Heb. textual tradition.

c. Cf. Strugnell, HTR 60 (1967) 455-56, who suggests emending to a plural form of the verb: "and there they did beget . . . "

d. Lit. "faring badly." e. The construction of the Gk. text is difficult,

with nothing in the 11. that follow which answers to tous men. Kuiper felt compelled to add an extra 1. to the text at this point, drawing from parallel material in Josephus, Ant 2.203. The same sort of syntactical problem occurs later in Ezekiel's work (11. 200, 205).

f. Lit. "for heavy building works." The reading of Clement and N 2, oikodomiais, is necessary on metrical grounds.

g. Or, perhaps, "to cast the infant boys of Hebrew descent . . . " The text is unclear; for a full discussion of the question, cf. Howard Jacob-sen, "Ezekielos 12-13," American Journal of Philology 98 (1977), 415f. Jacobsen suggests emending genei to geni, thus bringing Ezekiel's text into closer correspondence with the tradition of Ex. The biblical text (Ex 1:22) is quite clear as to the fact that Pharaoh instructed the Egyptians to cast the male children of the Hebrews into the river. Another tradition, preserved in Jub 47:2 (and perhaps also in Acts 7:19), indicates that it may have been the Hebrews themselves who were instructed to throw their own children into the river. If one accepts these latter references as summary

n me in the marsh hard by the river's edge;1

is and Miriam, my sister1, watched close by. Ex 2-A(. 19 The sovereign's daughter, with her maidens, then 20 came down to bathe her limbs, as was her wont.k

21 And straightway seeing me,1 she took me up: 22 she knew that I was of the Hebrew race. Ex 2 :6-8 23 My sister, running to the princess, said, 24 "Shall I quickly fetch this child a nurse 25 of Hebrew stock?" The princess pressed her on; 26 she came and told my mother, who with haste 27 did come herself, and took me in her arms. 28 The sovereign's daughter then said, "Woman, nurse Ex 2.9 29 this child and I will render you a wage." 30 And she, the princess, named me "Moses,"m since Ex 2:10 31 she took me from the river's soggy shore.

After other matters," Ezekiel adds further information in his tragedy, introducing Moses, who says:

32 And seeing that my infancy had passed, Ex 2:9f. 33 my mother led me to the princess' rooms; 34 but first all things she did declare to me 35 pertaining to my father's God and race.0

36 Throughout my boyhood years the princess did, 37 for princely rearing and instruction apt, 38 provide all things, as though I were her own.p 39 The circle of the days then being full, Ex 2:11 401 quit the royal house, impelled to deeds 41 by my own heartr and by the king's device.

and conflate statements of the instructions given by Pharaoh, first to the Hebrew mid wives and later to the Egyptians, then the basis of this tradition in the biblical account (Ex 1:15-22) is quite clear.

h. For this section, cf. Josephus, Ant 2.217-21. The detail of the thibin, "ark" (cf. Ex 2:3), is omitted by Ezekiel. He adds, however, a reference to the kosmos, "ornamental robe," with which Moses* mother clothed him. Ezekiel's use of the term hypexetheke, translated here "she exposed," is significant for the drama. The motif of the foundling who later rises to success and fame is a familiar one in Gk. literature; cf. Richmond Lat-timore. Story Patterns in Greek Tragedy (London, 1964). p. 74, n. 21.

i. Lit. "on the bank of the river in a deep bushy marsh." Clement reads bathy, "deep," which seems preferable to the reading of Eusebius, dasy, "overgrown with bushes," which may have orig­inated as a marginal gloss on lasion, "bushy."

j . adelphe mou, the emendation accepted by most editors in place of adelph' himon, which is the reading of the MSS in the texts both of Eusebius and of Clement.

k. Lit. "came down to cleanse her flesh with washings." Neon, here translated adverbially, "as was her wont," has sometimes been considered as an adjective modifying "flesh." In this case, the text would read: "youthful flesh."

1. The translation follows the text of Clement. idousa m'euthys. Eusebius reads idousa d'euthys.

m. The introduction of the name of the principal character is necessary for the benefit of the audi­ence, particularly since it is not included in the title of the play. Ezekiel follows closely the Heb.

etymology of Moses' name as it is preserved in the Septuagint (Ex 2:10), over and against Josephus (Ant 2.228) and Philo (VU Mos 1.17), who adopt an Egyptian etymology. The particular form of the name, Mosen, is necessary here to fit the meter. The reading of Clement, MoysSn, must be excluded on metrical grounds.

n. The difficulty with this editorial remark lies in determining whether it should be attributed to Eusebius or to Alexander Polyhistor. The gram­matical sense of the statement seems to favor the latter (cf., contra, Kraus, p. 164. n. 4). Scholars have objected to this, however, on the ground that the historical narrative of Ex does not allow for any "other matters" at this point. Nevertheless, it is entirely possible that Ezekiel may have amplified his material here (as elsewhere), including a section in which Moses was formally presented to Pharaoh (cf. Josephus, Ant 2.232-37).

o. Lit. "my father's race and gifts of God." p. The Septuagint states that Moses became eis

huion to Pharaoh's daughter (Ex 2:10). Ezekiel suggests the theme which is fully developed at a later time by Josephus. Ant 2.232. and Philo, Vit Mos 1.19, to the effect that Moses was legally adopted. Cf. Artapanus. PrEv 9.27.3, who hints at this with the use of the term hypobalesthai.

q. The MSS read kolpos, "womb." The emen­dation which is followed here (kyklos for kolpos) was first suggested by Kuiper.

r. This term, thymos, could also be translated "anger" (cf. Jub 46:12), in which case it might be inferred that at this point Moses had come to a full realization of the conditions under which the Israelites were enslaved by Pharaoh. This would

42 And first I saw men locked in strife, at odds,5

43 Egyptian one, and one of Hebrew race. 44 And seeing them alone, wfrit none about, Ex 2:12 4 5 1 saved my kinsman, but his foe I slew 46 and hid him in the sand,1 that none might see 47 or, else, expose our homicidal act. 48 The next day, once again I saw two men: Ex 2 : 1 3 - 1 5

49 my kinsmen, they, each other pommeling. 5 0 1 said, "Why strike one weaker than yourself?"" 51 Said he, "Who set you for a judge 'twixt us 52 or ruler in this place? Will you slay me 53 as that man yesterday?" And I, afraid, 54 said, "How, then, has this deed been brought to light?" 55 All this was soon reportedv to the king, 56 upon which Pharaoh sought to take my life. 57 When such I heard, I fled beyond his reach, 58 and now I wander in a foreign land.

Then concerning the daughters of Raguel* he adds: 59 But, lo! These seven maidens I espy! Ex 2 : i 6

In response to his question as to who they might be, Sepphorah replies: 60 This land, O stranger, all bears Libya's* name,

also correspond with the understanding of tech-nasma basileds as "the king's device." Technasma is understood here as part of the compound subject of the verb with thymos. If. however, technasma were considered as an accusative belonging with pros erga, "to deeds," the pejorative sense dis­appears completely; the I. would then read: "Im­pelled by my heart to acts and deeds befitting a king." In any event, it is as though the audience was meant to realize that this is an important decision on Moses' part. Given the fact that he is the foundling who has been rescued (contrary to the realities of life, which predict that such a child will probably die), the dramatic theme demands that his star should rise. But even though the shape of the story may intimate the final end, there is still the element of choice whereby the hero may confirm or deny the destiny that lies before him. This theme is common in other Gk. tragedies (e.g. Gyges and Aeschylus' Septem) and was surely understood by the author of Heb. 11:24.

s. For "at odds" as a translation of en cheiron nomais, cf. LSJM on nome, which cites a second-century-B.c inscription as evidence for the use of this idiom.

t. The term ammos. "sand," used by Ezekiel, is derived from the Septuagint and stands in contrast to the more poetic term psammos, which is used by Clement in his editorial summary of this section. In Ezekiel's account of the killing of the Egyptian by Moses, very little effort is made to adjust the picture of Moses in any way. as is the case, for example, in Philo (Vit Mos 1.44). In many respects, Ezekiel's "Moses" seems to be typical of Aris­totle's ideal tragic hero (Poetics XIII.5).

u. Ezekiel's text, "one weaker than yourself," stands against that of the Septuagint, "(your) neighbor." There is no textual support from the biblical evidence, nor do the demands of meter require it. It may, however, be a dramatic portent of the fact that Moses will be the defender of the weak and the oppressed (cf. Kraus. p. 174).

v. Reading apeggele, the emendation proposed by Kuiper (p. 57). The MSS read apiggeile. for which some editors have suggested tis as the subject (replacing kai at the beginning of the I.). The translation would then read: "Someone quickly brought these tidings to the king." This seems to be the understanding of Mras, who refers to "der erwdhnte Gewalttdter" as the subject. A somewhat different solution is proposed by Strugnell (HTR 60 [1967J 456), which results, however, in the same translation as is adopted above.

w. The name "Raguel" does not occur within the actual text of Ezekiel. Its existence here must be attributed either to Eusebius or to Alexander Polyhistor. Thus, Mras's statement (GCS 43, 1, p. 527) that, according to Ezekiel, Sepphorah is Raguel's daughter is an inference that cannot fairly be drawn from Ezekiel's text. At no point does Ezekiel identify Moses' father-in-law by name, as either "Jethro" or "Raguel." The question raised by the diverse biblical tradition as to his name (cf. Ex 2:16, 18; 3:1; 4:18) remains unresolved in terms of Ezekiel's text. The matter did receive a consid­erable amount of attention from other ancient authors, however; e.g. Demetrius (PrEv 9.29.1), who maintained that Sepphorah was the daughter of Jethro and the granddaughter of Raguel; Josephus (Ant 2.264), who may have simply combined "Jethro" and "Raguel" into one name, "letheg-laeus." Modem scholarship has done little more to clear up the confusion. Cf. Kappelmacher (p. 71, n. 1), who suggests that one or the other of the two names was a surname.

x. The name "Libya" represents a radical de­parture from the text of the Septuagint (Ex 2:15) which is not occasioned by the necessities of meter since "Midian" could have scanned equally as well in this 1. The answer may lie in the need to harmonize Moses' marriage to Sepphorah with the well-known reference in Num 12:1 to Moses' Ethiopian wife. Although some early traditions did maintain that Moses had married two wives, Sep-

61 but tribes of sundry races dwell throughout; 62 the dark-skinned Aethiops. Yet there is one 63 who ruler, prince, and sole commander, he 64 rules all this state and judges mortal men; 65 a priest, the father of myself and these.

Then he describes the watering of the flocks and adds an account of the marriage of Sepphorah, introducing Chus and Sepphorah, who speak in dialogued

66 Sepphorah, you must speak in words forthright. <o 67 My father gave me for this alien's wife. Ex 2:2I (S)

(Section from Demetrius, describing these same events)

And Ezekiel also speaks about these things in the Exagoge, including, in addition, the dream which was seen by Moses and interpreted by his father-in-law. Moses himself speaks with his father-in-law in dialogue:2

68 On Sinai's*2 peak I saw what seemed a throne 69 so great in size it touched the clouds of heaven.

phorah and an Ethiopian princess (cf. Josephus, Ant 2.252f., 262f.), nevertheless much of the early tradition attempts to bring the two together into one person. Demetrius (PrEv 9.29) explicitly states that Sepphorah was an Ethiopian woman, a de­scendant of Abraham through his son Keturah, who had been sent away to "an eastern land" (Gen 25:6); cf. T. Rajak, "Moses in Ethiopia: Legend and Literature," JJS 29 (1978) 111-22. The term "Libya," in antiquity, was frequently assigned to all of Africa, so that Ezekiel's description of a land inhabited by "sundry races" including "dark-skinned Aethiops" is quite accurate when he says, "This land all bears Libya's name." (Cf. E. W. Warming ton, "Libya," Oxford Classical Dictio­nary, ed. N. C. L. Hammond and H. H. Scullard (Oxford, 1970) p. 608; LSJM on Libyi. The argument of Kuiper, that anyone with so poor a sense of geography as Ezekiel seems to possess at this point could not possibly have lived in Egypt, is without basis.

y. The expression di' amoibaion is regularly used in the editorial remarks to introduce dialogue, although at no point are the speakers themselves explicitly identified in the manuscripts of Eusebius. The brief, two-line dialogue which follows at this point is problematic both in respect to the identi­fication and function of "Chus" in the drama and as to the question of whether or not Moses' marriage to Sepphorah had actually taken place by this time. Chus has been understood by some scholars to be the brother of Sepphorah, by others as a rejected suitor. The name, in any event, is traditionally connected with Ethiopia (cf. Gen 10:6; Josephus, Ant 1.131; Pseudo-Eupolemus, PrEv 9.17). As to the question of Moses' marriage, Kuiper (REJ 46 [1903] 174) concluded that Moses must have mar­ried Sepphorah in a previous scene which has been omitted in our sources. Kappelmacher, on the other hand, troubled by Jethro's designation of Moses as "stranger" in I. 83, concluded that these II. (66f.) must have followed the ensuing scene. If, as seems most likely, the editorial comments included here are from the pen of Alexander Polyhistor, then a rearrangement of the material such as Kappel­macher suggested is almost impossible. Seppho­rah's statement seems to indicate that the marriage

has already occurred, in which event 11. 66-67 must have been taken from the closing section of this scene.

z. The section which follows, 11. 68-89, rep­resents Ezekiel's free creation in which he departs entirely from the Ex account; cf. E. Starobinski-Safran, "Un poete jud6o-hell£nistique: Ezechiel le tragique," Museum Helveticum 31 (1974) 216-24. The device of the dream has its backgrounds both in Gk. drama and in the biblical material. In the tragedies of Aeschylus and others, the dream some­times functioned as a device which pointed toward the dramatic climax of the play, a miniature prelude to what lay ahead. In terms of content there are some remarkable coincidences between Moses' dream and that of Joseph (cf. Gen 37:9) and the vision of Daniel (cf. Dan 7:13, 14). Moses is portrayed as having been chosen by God to represent him as divine vizier. The significance of the dream for the interpretation of the drama as a whole has been pursued from diverse points of view. Trenc-slnyi-Waldapfel (Acta Orientalia Academiae Scien-tiarum 2 (1952] 156) discussed the motif of ecu­menicity, viewed as an effort on Ezekiel's part to bring together the universalism of Gk. thought with that of the Heb. prophets. Lucien Cerfeaux, "In­fluence des mysteres sur le Judaisme alexandrine avant Philon," Muse'on 37 (1924) 36-48, analyzed Moses' dream in terms of the initiation rites con­nected with the mystery religions (a thesis subse­quently adopted and expanded by E. R. Gooden­ough, By Light, Light (New Haven, 1935). Although some light may be shed from these studies on the literary development of the figure of Moses, it is still sufficient to say that both the function and the content of Moses' dream may be accounted for quite adequately by Ezekiel's obvious knowledge of both the tragic dramas of the Gk. masters and the content of the Bible.

a2. The reading is based on the conjecture of Dubner, Appendix ad Euripidis Fragmenta a Gui-lelmo Wagnero collecta, Christus Paliens, Eze-chieli et Christianorum poetarum reliquiae dra-maticae (Paris, 1846), accepted by most editors; the MSS offer several versions of an obviously corrupt reading.

70 Upon it sat a manb2 of noble mien, 71 D e c r o w n e d , and with a scepter in one hand 72 while with the other he did beckon me. 7 3 1 made approach and stood before the throne. 74 He handed o'er the scepter and he bade 75 me mount the throne, and gave to me the crown; 76 then he himself withdrew from off the throne. 7 7 1 gazed upon the whole earth round about; 78 things under it, and high above the skies.c2

79 Then at my feet a multitude of stars so fell down, and I their number reckoned up. 81 They passed by me like armed ranks of men. 82 Then I in terror wakened from the dream.

And his father-in-law interprets the dream as follows: 83 My friend,*12 God gave you this as sign for good. 84 Would I might live to see these things transpire. 85 For you shall cause a mighty throne to rise, 86 and you yourself shall rule and govern men. 87 As for beholding all the peopled earth, 88 and things below and things above God's realm:e2

89 things present, past, and future you shall see.

And in regard to the burning bush and Moses' mission to Pharaoh, once again Ezekiel introduces Moses conversing with God. And Moses says:R

90 Aha! What token this from yonder bush, EX 3:if. 91 some sign beyond belief to mortal men? 92 A bush that sudden bums, with raging flame, 93 and yet its shoots remain all green and fresh. 94 What then! I shall advance and view this sign, Ex 3:3 95 so great it seems incredible to men.

b2. Ezekiel uses phds (a poetic term for aner), common in the Homeric literature and later poets. Its significance lies in the fact that Ezekiel would represent God as a man, an image which is surely rooted in the figures of "the son of man" and "the Ancient of Days" in Daniel's vision (Dan 7).

c2. Lit. "the heaven." d2. The use of the term xenos as a form of

address caused some difficulties for Kappelmacher, who thought it inconceivable that Jethro could have addressed Moses as "stranger" if Moses was married to Sepphorah at this point in the drama. But, in addition to the more common meaning of the term (cf. 1. 67), there are various levels of usage, among which is the meaning "guest," one who is bound by ties of hospitality.

e2. Lit. "heaven." f2. It is not clear how much may have been lost

between the end of the preceding section and the beginning of this material. The scene itself is a skillful blending by Ezekiel of elements from Ex 3 and 4, with additional references to material from Ex 7. This is followed by a section dealing with the institution of the Passover, based on Ex 12; 13. There are a number of editorial comments inserted in this lengthy discourse, thus making it impossible to accurately determine the complete scope of material that was originally dealt with here. The first section (II. 90-112) represents a

fairly straightforward but poetic rendition of Ex 3:1-10. The latter half of vs. 9 (reference to the various nations) and vs. 10 (which is merely a repetition of vs. 7) have been omitted by Ezekiel in the interests of literary economy and meter. In 11. 11 Of. God instructs Moses to go first to the Heb. people and then to the king. These instructions seem to be in accord with Ex 3:10, 16, but from this point on, Ezekiel seems to have omitted all reference to Moses' mission to the Heb. people and to the possibility that they will not believe him (although cf. infra, n. w2). In Ezekiel's version of the story, the basic thrust of Moses' message is to be directed toward the king. Aaron, for example, is to be Moses' spokesman before the king (11. 118f.), rather than to the people (cf. Ex 4:16). The rod, according to Ezekiel, functions only as a means of establishing credibility before Pharaoh and the Egyptians and not before the Heb. people themselves (as in Ex 4:1-5). In this way, Ezekiel emphasizes the personal confrontation between Moses and Pharaoh, thus heightening the dramatic effect. It is unclear whether Ezekiel's purpose in omitting all reference to possible unbelief on the part of the Heb. people is consequent to his desire for dramatic effect or whether he consciously sought to erase any trace of a lack of solidarity between the Heb. people and their leader Moses.

Then God addresses him: % Stay, Moses, best of men, do not come near Ex 3:4-6 97 till you have loosed the bindings from your feet; 98 the place on which you stand is holy ground, 99 and from this bush God's word shines forth*2 to you. 00 Take courage, son, and listen to my words; 01 as mortal man you cannot see my face, 02 albeit you have pow'r to hear my words, 03 and for this very reason I have come. 0 4 God am I of those, your fathers'12 three, 05 of Abram, Isaac, Jacob, I am He.12

0 6 Mindful of my promises to them,j2 Ex 3:7f 07 to save my Hebrew people I am come, 08 since I have seen my servants' toil and pain. 09 Now go, and testify162 to these my words, 10 to all the Hebrews first, then to the king, 11 the things commanded by me unto you, 12 that you should lead my people from this land.

Then, a few speeches farther down, Moses himself replies: 131 am not by nature eloquent; Ex 4 i o 14 my tongue with difficulty speaks, I stammer, is so that I cannot speak before the king. Ex 6 1 2

Then, in reply to these things, God answers him: 16 Your brother Aaron I will send with haste, E x 4 i 4 . i 5 . i 6

17 to whom you'll tell all things that I have said, is and he it is who'll speak before the king. 19 You'll take the words from me, and he from you.

And concerning the rod and other wonders, he speaks thus in dialogue: 20Say, what is this you hold within your hand? Ex 42f. < o 21 A rod, the chastener of beasts and men. <M) 22 Now cast it on the ground and move away; (O 23 a fearful serpent you in awe shall see. 24 See, there I cast it down. Be gracious, Lord! (M> 25 How dreadful, huge! Be merciful to me! 2 6 1 tremble at the sight, my limbs do shake. 27 Fear not! Stretch forth your hand and seize its tail; Ex 4 4 ( o 28 again 'twill be a rod as it once was. 29 Your hand thrust in your bosom, draw it forth. Ex 46f 30 'Tis done. It has become as white as snow!12 (M> 31 Reach in again, it shall be as it was. <G)

g2. The meaning of theios logos, "divine word," in Ezekiel is difficult to determine. Wieneke (Eze-chielis, p. 77) argued for a simple interpretation of the word as "voice," offering various examples in which the verb eklampein or lampein is connected with sound. This understanding of logos as the equivalent of the metrically undesirable phone would make the burning-bush scene in Ezekiel compatible with similar descriptions in Artapanus (PrEv 9.27.21, phonen theian) and in Josephus (Ant 2.267, phone, which Josephus later identifies as "God"). Cf. Ex 3:2 (LXX) aggelos kyriou; Philo, Vit Mos 1.66, aggelos; Justin Martyr, Apol 1.63; DialTrypho 59.60. In 1. 246, Ezekiel again

associates the term lampein with the presence of God.

h2. The use of the plural term "fathers" is another noteworthy departure from the standard text of the Septuagint (Ex 3:6), supported, in this case, by a variety of witnesses. (Cf. Acts 8:32.)

i2. The proper names in this line, all drawn from the biblical text (Ex 3:6), comprise severe metrical difficulties for the Gk. text. Cf. Strugnell, HTR 60 (1967) 450, n. 5; 453, n. 10; Snell, Glotta 44 (1966) 28.

j2. Lit. "having remembered them and my gifts." k2. Lit. "give a sign." 12. Most editors have assigned this I. to Moses.

To these things (after certain other matters that he has interposed), he (Polyhistor) adds the following: Ezekiel says these things in similar fashion in the Exagoge, introducing God, who speaks concerning the signs as follows:1"2

32 And with this rod these woes you shall effect: Ex AM 33 now, first the river shall flow red with blood, Ex 7:19 34 and all the springs, and every stagnant pool."2

35 A host of frogs and lice I'll cast on earth; Ex 7:27.28;

36 then sprinkle ashes from the furnace round, U 2

9 : 8 f

37 and ulcerous sores shall thus burst forth02 on men. 38 And swarms of flies shall come and sore afflict Ex 8:17.20

39 the men of Egypt; then another plague 40 shall come, and they shall die whose hearts are hardened. 41 And I shall make the heavens bitter; hail Ex 9:23.25

42 and fire shall fall and slay all mortal men, 43 and cause to perish every crop and beast. 44 Darkness I'll decree for three whole days, Ex 10:22 45 and locusts send, who shall the residue Ex io:4f 46 of food consume and every blade of grass. 47 Last shall I slay the firstborn of mankind, Ex 1 1 3 48 and thus bring down the wanton pridep2 of men. 49 Yet Pharaoh shan't be moved**2 by what I say 50 until his firstborn child lies as a corpse; 51 then, moved with fear, he'll send the people forth. 52 This also say to all the Hebrew race: Ex 12:3 53 "This month shall be the first month of your years, Ex 12:2 54 in which I'll lead your2 to another land Ex 12:17 55 which to the Hebrew fathers I did swear." Ex 13:5 56 And say to all the people, "In this month, Ex 12:6 57 on full moon's eve, s 2 the Paschal sacrifice Ex 12:21 58 to God present, and touch the doors with blood, Ex 12.7

m2. Eusebius' editorial comment indicates that Alexander Polyhistor digressed at this point before returning to Ezekiel. In regard to the description of the plagues, Ezekiel takes Ex 4:17 as a literary basis for his discussion of the semeia, although his discourse is based on Ex 7:17-11:7. Ezekiel's account of the plagues is in accord with the tendency of tragic drama to collapse events into a short period of time. The literary freedom which Ezekiel exhibits in regard to the Septuagint text is explicable when one considers that his summary description is of a totally different literary style than that of the historical narrative of Exodus. The technical problems of dramatizing such material have been neatly avoided by transforming the entire series of events into a prophetic speech in which God describes what will take place in the future. As to the order of the plagues in Ezekiel, cf. Wieneke, Ezechielis, pp. 69—71. Ezekiel is neither as stylized nor as tedious as Philo in his division of the plagues (VU Mos 1.96-142). His listing is more complete than that of Josephus (Ant 2.293-314) and of Artapanus (PrEv 9.27) but not quite as closely bound to the biblical text as is the author of Jubilees (48:5-8).

n2. This 1. is found in almost identical form in Pseudo-Aeschylus, cited in Pseudo-Justin (De Mo­norchia 2) and in Clement of Alexandria (Strom 5.14).

o2. Lit. "to boil, seethe.'' The MSS offer several different readings here, none of which is

wholly satisfactory in defining the term precisely, although the general sense seems clear.

p2. The use of the term hybris is significant because of its long-standing association within the pattern of hybris/nemesis in Gk. tragedy. Strong parallels exist between the characterization of Pha­raoh by Ezekiel and the pronouncement of doom rendered against Xerxes in Aeschylus' Persians. Because Xerxes sought to "wrest nature, turn sea into land, manacle a strait with iron, to make a highway for his troops" (Persians, 11. 747f.) and thus to contravene the will of the gods, he received "the just reward of pride and insolence" (1. 808). For a discussion of hybris in Gk. tragedy, cf. R. Lattimore, Story Patterns in Greek Tragedy (Lon­don, 1964), p. 23.

q2. The translation understands peiseC as de­rived from peithd, rather than from pose ho. This is paralleled in Euripides, Helena 446 (cf. Kuiper, REJ 46 [1903] 65). Alternatively, the translation would read: "And King Pharaoh will suffer none of these things of which I speak." This stands in direct contradiction, however, to the evidence of the Septuagint (cf. Ex 8:4, 20, 27).

r2. Lit. "the people." s2. Cf. Ex 12:6: "the evening of the fourteenth

day of the month." For a complete discussion of the material dealing with the Passover in Ezekiel (and in other ancient authors), cf. J. B. Segal, The Hebrew Passover from the Earliest Times (London, 1963).

159 which sign the fearsome angel12 shall pass by. Ex 1 2 1 3 160 But you, by night, shall eat the roasted flesh; Ex 12:8 161 then shall the king drive out the throng in haste. Ex 12:33 162 But ere you go I'll grant the people favor; Ex 3:2if.

163 one woman from another shall receive I M fine vessels, jewels of silver and of gold 165 and clothing, things which one may carry off, 166 so as to compensate them for their deeds."2

167 But when at last you enter your own land, Ex 12:25 168 take heed that from the morn on which you fled 169 from Egypt and did journey seven days, 170 from that same morn, so many days each year Ex 13:7 171 you eat unleavened bread and serve your God. Ex 13:5 172 The firstborn of all living things present*2

Ex 13.2.15

173 to God, whatever virgins first shall bear 174 of males that open up the mothers' wombs.

And again, concerning this same feast, he says that he elaborates more precisely:*2

175 And when the tenth day of this month is come, Ex 12:3.21

176 let Hebrew men by families thus select"2

177 unblemished*2 sheep and calves, and keep them till Ex 12:5

a. In Ex 12:13 God says that he himself will "pass over" them. In I. 187 of Ezekiel it is thanatos which will "pass over."

u2. There is a certain ambiguity in this I. The implication seems to be that the Hebrews will receive a wage as compensation for what they (the Hebrews) had done for the Egyptians. It could be construed, however, to mean that "they [the He­brews] will receive compensation for what they [the Egyptians] had done" (presumably to the Hebrews). Ezekiel's statement is designed to ex­plain the theme which is briefly stated in Ex 12:35— 36, the fact that they despoiled the Egyptians. The attempt to justify this action on the part of the Hebrews was maintained by Philo, Vit Mos 1.141-42; cf. Jub 48:18.

v2. Lit. "sacrifice" (thyontes); cf. Ex 13:2, hagiazein. The idea of human sacrifice, although it might be implied by Ezekiel's use of the term thyein, was surely not intended by him here. Ezekiel may have clarified this point in material which has been omitted between 11. 174 and 175, referring, perhaps, to the biblical instructions (Ex 13:15) which distinguish between sacrificing (thyein) the firstborn of animals and redeeming (lytroein) the firstborn of men.

w2. The difficulty with this editorial insertion lies in determining whether it is the statement of Eusebius or of Polyhistor. The problem is com­pounded by the confusion in the MSS as to the correct form of epexergazomenoslonles. The trans­lation could read either: "he [Polyhistor] says that he [Ezekiel] . . ." or "he [Ezekiel] says that he [God?] . . . " (following the text adopted by most editors, epexergazomenon. Although, from a gram­matical point of view, either reading is possible, the character of Ezekiel's text as dialogue precludes the latter reading, which would be tantamount to a stage direction. The most likely solution is that the editorial statement is to be attributed to Euse­bius, in which case the question as to the identity of the speaker in 11.175-92 remains open. Tradi­tionally, most scholars have assumed that God is

still the speaker and that this section is closely linked to the preceding 11. (132-74). The most obvious objection to this lies in the fact that 11. 175-92 seem to constitute a needless repetition of the material that has gone before. If God is still the speaker in 11. 175-92, under what circumstances did Ezekiel find it necessary to have him issue these instructions twice? A solution may lie in the suggestion that II. 175-92 constitute part of a separate scene in which Moses related God's in­structions to the people (cf. Ex 12:21-28). This would be in keeping with Ezekiel's tendency to follow the general outline of events in the text of Ex. It would also account for the otherwise peculiar use of the term despotes, "Lord," in 1. 188, a term which would be quite natural if spoken by Moses (cf. 1. 124) but which would be most unusual if God himself were the speaker. (The frequent use of this term in the Septuagint is limited to situations where man addresses God directly or is speaking about him.) In contrast, the earlier section (in which God himself is clearly the speaker) uses the term theos, "God," in the commandments regarding the Passover (e.g. 11. 158, 173). In addition, the frequent use of the first person singular in the earlier section is notably absent in 11. 175-92 (e.g. 11. 154, 191). All of these features combine to suggest that 11. 175-92 represent a separate scene in which Moses is addressing the Hebrew people and imparting to them God's instructions in regard to the Passover. (Cf. Kraus, Rivista di ftblogia e di istruzione classica 96 [1968] 167.)

x2. The fact that some material, at least, has been omitted is indicated here by the lack of any subject for the verb labon. Some editors have proposed an emendation to lobe (cf. Ex 12:21: labete), while Mras (GCS 43, 1) understands an anacoluthic construction at this point and suggests hekastos labon—phagesthe.

y2. "Unblemished" = amoma. Cf. Ex 12:5 (LXX) teleion. Ezekiel's term is reminiscent of the regulations in Leviticus (3:1; cf. Ezek 45:18). In regard to the "sheep and calves," Ezekiel's text

i7g the fourteenth day has dawned, and then, at eve, Ex 1 2 6 179 make sacrifice; thus shall you eat them whole, 180 the flesh and inward parts aH roast with fire; Ex 1 2 1 1 181 your loins girt up and shoes upon your feet, 182 and in your hand a staff, for thus in haste 183 the king will order all to leave the land. 184 It shall be called "Passover."22 Then, when you 185 shall sacrifice, take hyssop*3 in your hands; Ex 12:22 186 and dip the twigs in blood and lightly touch 187 both doorposts, so that death may pass you by. Ex 12:23 188 So keep this festival unto the Lord; Ex 12: u 189 for seven days you'll eat unleavened bread.b3

Ex 12:15.

190 For there shall be deliverance from these ills; 1 3 : 3

191 a "going forth" he'll grant you in this month, 192 and first of months and years63 it e'er shall be.

And after certain other matters he (Polyhistor) adds: "And Ezekiel, also, in the drama entitled Exagoge, introduces a messenger who tells of the disposition of the Hebrews and of the destruction of the Egyptians as follows":*13

193 For when King Pharaoh set forth from his house, Ex i4:6f

194 with multitude of myriad armed men, 195 with cavalry and four-horsed chariots, 196 and front ranks with supporting troops nearby; 197 how awesome was the host arrayed for battle. 198 Foot soldiers formed a phalanx in the center, 199 with spaces for the chariots to pass through; 200 and horsemen he deployed, some on the left,e3

201 and on the right the rest of Egypt's force. 202 I asked as to their army's total strength;" 203 there were a million men both brave and true.

seems closer to that of Deut 16:2 and 2Chr 35:8 than to the text of Ex (12:3. 21). Following the text of Ex, however, Ezekiel retains the instructions to "roast" the sacrifice (II. 179f.; cf. I. 160). His text does not reflect the confusion which arises out of the instructions in Deut 16:7 and 2Chr 35:13 regarding "roasting" and "boiling."

z2. The MSS read: pas kai hotan. The emen­dation to pasch' hotan was originally proposed by J. Strugnell (HTR 60 [1967] 449-52). The resultant text not only resolves all metrical and grammatical difficulties in this otherwise troublesome I. but also restores the name of the feast in Ezekiel's text in exactly the same place that it occurred in his source (Ex 12:11).

a3. Lit. "a bundle of hyssop leaves." The same phrase is found in Josephus, Ant 2.312, in contrast to the simpler Septuagintal formula desmen hys-sopou.

b3. Lit. "Seven days (you will eat) unleaven, and you will not eat leaven." (Cf. Ex 12:1, 14, 15,20.) An alternative form of punctuation (utilized by most editors) links the first part of this 1. with the preceding I., resulting in the translation: "You will keep this festival to the Lord, seven days unleavened. Leaven will not be eaten."

c3. Lit. "times," but cf. 1. 153. d3. The appearance of the messenger suggests

that the end of the drama is near. He identifies himself as a member of the Egyptian army for the first time in I. 204. The comparison with the messenger in Aeschylus' Persians has often been noted. The contents of the messenger's speech are

comparable to the themes expressed in the songs of Moses and of Miriam in Ex 15. The closing 11. of this section point up the author's purpose: a contrast between the fate of the well-ordered Egyp­tian army, confident of their success, and that of the disordered Israelite throng, unarmed and ap­parently helpless. Ezekiel does not attempt to develop this theme into the lex talionis (expressed in Jub 48:14 and WisSol 11:16). The contrast depicted by Ezekiel is consonant with material such as Ps 106:9-11. Despite the initial appearance of things, God proves to be the helper of the down­trodden Israelites, while he wreaks destruction upon the Egyptians. For a discussion of the military terminology involved in the messenger's speech, cf. W. Tarn, Hellenistic Military and Naval De­velopments (Cambridge, England, 1930). Although much of this language has no counterpart in the Ex account, it does have parallels in the language of tragic drama (cf. Wieneke, Ezechielis. p. 94) and, to a certain extent, in Philo. Vit Mos 1.168) and in Josephus (Ant 2.324).

e3. The same sort of ambiguous grammatical structure exists in this I. and the following as was seen in 11. 9f. and in 1. 205. Strictly speaking, the pantos in 1. 20) does not answer to the tous men in I. 200. Lit. I. 201 reads: "the whole of Egypt's force."

f3. The problem in the Gk. text of this I. lies in the fact that there are too many syllables. For a concise discussion of the difficulties, cf. Strugnell, HTR 60 (1967) 456.

g3. Lit. "my." h3. Lit. "some [of the Hebrews], on the one

hand, lay strewn . . . " The grammar is broken, with no de to answer to the men in 1. 205. For this reason, Wieneke (Ezechielis) rearranged the order of these 11.: 205. 206, 209. 207, 208, 210. Cf. nn. on 11. 9, 200.

i3. Lit. "They gave food to young children." j3. In Wieneke's arrangement, this I. would

immediately follow 1. 206 (cf. n. h3), which would seem to be a more felicitous arrangement.

k3. The translation is based on an emendation proposed by J. Strugnell (HTR 60 [1967] 450, n. 3), reading pros aither' apetathesan. The text is obviously corrupt and the emendation not only clarifies the confused readings of the manuscripts but has the advantage of eliminating metrical dif­ficulties and of restoring to the text of Ezekiel the biblical reference to the people's complaint against God (Ex 14:11). As to the notion of inveighing against heaven, Strugnell notes that the passage should be regarded "as another instance of the use of shmymlouranos vel sim. for the divine name."

13. For ochlos, "multitude," Kuiper, REJ) 46 (1903), suggested oknos, "shrinking, hesitation," to contrast with the "joy" of the Egyptians in the following I. The text would then read: "And great was their consternation, but, for our part, we were overjoyed."

m3. Determining the exact location of Beelze-phon serves no purpose for Ezekiel's text, since he merely followed the text of Ex. Josephus identifies

it as "a place by the Red Sea" (Ant 2.315). A full discussion may be found in J. Simons, The Geo­graphical and Topographical Texts of the Old Testament (Leiden, 1959) p. 240.

n3. Although the phrase "Titan sun" bears overtones of pagan mythology, it is appropriate in the mouth of the Egyptian messenger. The expres­sion is not common to the Gk. tragedians, although it is found frequently in the Lat. poets. Cf. Wieneke, Ezechielis, p. 100.

o3. The translation is based on the suggestion of Kuiper, who proposed puriphleges for the read­ing of the MSS, pro ges megas. The emendation of Diibner, Appendix, pro ges melas, is an easier correction but lacks grammatical consistency. In any event, the reading of the MSS is suspect, since the preceding 1. also ends in megas. Both of the suggested emendations have support in the text of Ex (cf. 14:20, 24).

p3. The "rod" obviously has magical qualities in the estimation of the Egyptian messenger. Cf. Ex 14:21, 27, which says that Moses used his hand.

q3. Whether one reads orousan (the reading of the MSS BI) or ormesan (the reading of the MSS ON), the translation is essentially the same.

r3. Although the term boedromountes would ordinarily be construed to mean "run to a cry for help," its meaning here must be simply "run with a cry"; cf. Appianus, Hann. 42 and examples cited by Wieneke, Ezechielis, pp. 103-4.

204 The Hebrews, when confronted by our*3 host, Ex 1*9 205 lay strewn about hard by the sandy shore,h3

206 in masses there upon the Red Sea's strand. 207 Some were engaged in caring for the young'3

Ex i2.37f.

208 together with their wives, worn out with toil, 209 with many flocks and herds and household stuff.j3

210 And they, all unprotected, without arms, Ex i4:io 211 on seeing us sent up a doleful cry, 212 'gainst heaven they inveighed,113 their fathers' God. 213 Now great in number was their multitude,13

214 but we, for our part, were all overjoyed. 215 Then, facing them, we pitched our camp nearby Ex i4:9 216 (the place by men is called Beelzephon).m3

217 And since the Titan sun"3 was near to set, Ex i4:i9f.

218 we waited, longing for the fight at dawn, 219 in numbers trusting, and in our dread arms. 220 And thereupon commenced divine portents 221 full wondrous to behold! And, all at once, 222 a mighty column stood, of cloud and fire,03

223 midway between the Hebrew camp and ours. 224 And then their leader Moses, taking up Ex i4:2i

225 the rodp3 of God by which he'd lately wrought 226 such evil signs and ills on Egypt's land, 227 did smite the Red Sea's surface, and the depth 228 was rent asunder; so they all as one Ex 14:22 229 with haste went forthq3 along that briny path. 230 We quickly sped along in that same route, Ex 14.-23

231 foil'wing their track; by night we entered in, 232 in close pursuit with shout;r3 then, all at once, 233 as if with chains our chariot wheels were bound. Ex i4:24f.

234 From heaven, then, a shining light like fire 235 appeared to us, so we were led to think 236 that God was their defense. For when they reached Ex i4:3o 237 the farther shore a mighty wave gushed forth 238 hard by us, so that one in terror cried, 239 "Flee back before the hands of the Most High; Ex 14:25 240 to them he offers succor, but to us, 241 most wretched men, destruction he does work." 242 The sea-path flooded, all our host was lost.53 Ex 1428

And again, after a few things: "From there they went for three days, as Demetrius himself says (and the Holy Bible agrees with this). And since the water in that place was bitter and not sweet, at God's command he cast a certain piece of wood into the spring and the water became sweet. And from there they came to Elim, where they found twelve springs of water and seventy palm trees. In regard to these things and to the bird that appeared there, Ezekiel, in the Exagoge, introduces someone speaking to Moses about the palm trees and twelve springs of water as follows":13

243 Take note, most noble Moses, of this place Ex 15:27 244 which we have found near yonder airy glen."3

245 Tis over there, where you, too, now may see. 246 From thence a lustrous light now flashes forth, 247 by night, a sign,v3 like to a fiery pillar. 248 And there we found a meadow shaded o'er 249 and splashing streams: a place profuse and rich, 250 which draws from out one rocky ledge twelve springs; 251 the trunks of fruitful palms rise like a hedge, 252 threescore and ten, with water flowing round, 253 and tender grass yields pasture for the flocks.

s3. Lit. "The way through the Red Sea has been flooded ("closed up"—some MSS) and has utterly destroyed the way." The repetition of poros in 1. 242 has given rise to several possible suggestions for correction. Mras, GCS 43.1, p. 536. and Snell. Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, p. 300 (fol­lowing Stephanus), read straton for the second instance of poros, while Wieneke adopted the reading stolon, both of which can be translated as "army." Mras suggested, however, that Ezekiel could have intended a play on words here, based on the several meanings of poros (e.g. "the ford was flooded, and destroyed the way of escape").

t3. There is some disagreement among com­mentators as to whether this section represents the closing scene of the drama (so Trencs6nyi-Wal-dapfel. Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientlarum 2 (1952) 143-64) or whether there was one further scene in which Moses and Sepphorah were reunited (cf. Kuiper, REJ 46 (19031166-67; Kappelmacher, Wiener Studien 44 [1924-25] 82). The report of the messenger to Moses is the free creation of Ezekiel, based on Ex 15:27. The closing 11., which describe the "strange living creature." may have been taken from some other literary source. Its identification here as the legendary phoenix bird is based on the repetition of these 11. in Pseudo-Eustathius, Commentarius in Hexaemeron (PG 18.729), and the fact that it is so designated there.

(For a thorough discussion of the phoenix bird in ancient literature, cf. M. C. Fitzpatrick, Lactanti de Ave Phoenice (Philadelphia, 1933). and more recently R. Van den Broek, The Myth of the Phoenix According to Classical and Early Christian Tra­ditions (Leiden, 1972). The association between the name of the bird, phoinix, and the palm trees at Elim, phoinikoi, is obvious (cf. Ovid, Meta­morphoses 15.397). The function of the phoenix in Ezekiel's drama, however, is not so clear. Trencsenyi-Waldapfel suggested that the legislation given to the people by Moses at Marah (Ex 15:26) comprises the heart of this last act, and thus the scene at Elim constitutes a new "garden of Eden" with its subsequent temptation. By identifying a fragment from Epiphanius (PG 43.174) as originally part of this same scene, Trencsenyi-Waldapfel transformed the phoenix into "the tempter" of Gen 3, who tempts the people to disobey the legislation recently given to them. This reconstruction is highly speculative, however, and there is nothing in the fragment from Epiphanius which specifically relates it to Ezekiel's drama.

u3. Cf. the dismal scene at Elim, as described by Josephus (Ant 3.9-11).

v3. Adopting the emendation suggested by Kui­per and others, ha? euphronen. The reading of most of the manuscripts, kaf euphrones "a goodly sign," must be excluded on metrical grounds.

Then, farther down, he sets forth a description of the bird which appeared: 254 Another living creature there we saw, 255 full wondrous, such as man has never seen; 256 'twas near in scope to twice the eagle's size, 257 with plumage iridescent, rainbow-hued. 258 Its breast appeared deep-dyed with purple's shade, 259 its legs were red like ochre, and its neck 260 was furnished round with tresses"3 saffron-hued; 261 like to a coxcomb*3 did its crest appear, 262 with amber-tinted eye it gazed about, 263 the pupil like some pomegranate seed. 264 Exceeding all, its voice pre-eminent; 265 of every other winged thing, the king, 266 it did appear. For all the birds, as one, 267 in fear did haste to follow after him, 268 and he before, like some triumphant bull 269 went striding forth with rapid step apace.

w3. The following lines are also found in Pseudo-Eustathius, Commentarius in Hexaemeron (PG 18.729D). Although the text in Pseudo-Eustathius contains several variant readings, these are gener­ally conceded to be inferior to the text of Eusebius, as is indicated by their lack of conformity to the rules of meter.

x3. Lit. "locks of wool." y3. The text is difficult, with both Pseudo-

Eustathius and the MSS of Eusebius attesting the

phrase koites himeres (vel sim.), indicating, per­haps, "a soft nest." The genitive construction does not fit well, however, with parempheres, and the emendation to kottois hemerois has been accepted by most editors, primarily on the basis of Pliny's description of the phoenix as having a crest on its head (Natural History 10.2): auro fulgore circa colla). Ezekiel's text may preserve the figure of "a tufted nest of feathers" on top of the bird's head.