APOCRYPHON OF EZEKIEL (First Century B .c.-First Century A . D . )

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 J . R . M U E L L E R and S . E . R O B I N S O N

The Apocryphon of Ezekiel has not survived intact; four fragments preserved in secondary sources and one small fragment of the apocryphon itself, which is also quoted by Clement of Alexandria, are all that remain. Of these five fragments, the only one long enough to require summarization here is the story of the lame man and the blind man found in rabbinic literature and in the writings o f Epiphanius.

In this story a certain king invites everyone in his kingdom except two cripples, the lame man and the blind man, to attend a great feast. Understandably offended, the two cripples devise a plan to get even . The lame man braids a rope and, throwing it to the blind man, leads the latter to himself. He then c l imbs onto the shoulders of the blind man. Thus equipped with the e y e s o f the lame man and the legs o f the blind, the two men enter the garden of the king and, presumably, tear d o w n the fruit trees or, as in the Hebrew version, eat the choice fruit. When the deed is discovered, the lame man and the blind man are brought before the king. Each appeals to his particular infirmity as proof that he could not be the guilty party. Then the wise king has the lame man placed on the shoulders of the blind, and having thus demonstrated how the deed was performed, orders them to be flogged together before him. A s they are flogged, each accuses the other of being primarily responsible for the crime. The moral which is drawn from the story is that body and soul , like the lame man and the blind man, cooperate in all the deeds performed in mortality; hence , at the judgment of G o d , body and soul must be reunited in a resurrection so that both may receive their just deserts.

Texts The texts for fragment 1, the story of the lame man and the blind, are found in Epiphanius'

Against Heresies 6 4 . 7 0 , 5 - 1 7 (ed. Hol l ) , and in rabbinic literature at Sanhedrin 91a , b (attributed to R. Judah ha-Nasi , c. A .D . 2 0 0 ) , Leviticus Rabbah 4:5 (attributed to R. Ishmael , c. A .D . 130) , and in the Mekhilta on Exodus 15:1 (also attributed to R. Ishmael) . The translations be low are taken from K. Hol l ' s edition of Epiphanius 1 and from the Soncino Hebrew-English edition of the Babylonian Ta lmud. 2

Fragment 2 is found in several places , the earliest of which is the text o f 1 Clement 8:2f. The translation of fragment 2 be low is taken from K. Lake's edition of 1 Clement . 3

Other versions of this fragment are found in Clement of Alexandria (Paid 1 .10) , 4 and in the Coptic Exeges i s on the Soul from Nag Hammadi . 5 There is also an allusion to this passage in Quis dives salvetur 3 9 . 2 by Clement of Alexandria . 6

1 Epiphanius: Ancoratus und Panarion, ed. K. Holl (GCS 31; Leipzig, 1915) vol. 2, pp. 515-17. 2 Sanhedrin, ed. I. Epstein (London, 1969) vol. 9, § 91a, b. 3 K. Lake, The Apostolic Fathers (LCL; London, 1912) p. 20. 4 GCS 12, p. 143, 1. 20. 5 CG II, 6; see The Nag Hammadi Library, ed. J. M. Robinson (San Francisco, 1977) p. 186. For the view that

ApocEzek did not exist as an entity prior to the time of Epiphanius, cf. B. Dehandschutter, "L'Apocryphe d'Ezechiel: Source de l'Exegese sur l'ame, p. 135, 31-136 , 4 ? " Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 10 (1979) 227-35.

6 GCS 17, p. 185. A.-M. Denis (Introduction, p. 189) attributes this citation to ApocEzek, but it is an allusion

Fragment 3 is also found in Clement of Alexandria (Strom 1.16),7 and in Tertullian (De carni Christi 2 3 ) , 8 the Acts of Peter 2 4 , 9 Epiphanius (AdvHaer 3 0 . 3 0 ) , 1 0 and Gregory of Nyssa (Against the Jews 3 ) . " Because this fragment takes on various forms in citation, obscuring the original form, all citations are translated be low.

The fourth surviving fragment of the Apocryphon of Ezekiel is cited in no fewer than thirty-two secondary sources , which date from the second century A .D . well into the Middle A g e s . The earliest and most important of these citations is found in Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho 4 7 . 5 , from which the translation be low is taken . 1 2

Slightly varying versions of fragment 5 are found in Clement of Alexandria (Strom 1 .9 ) , 1 3

in Origen (Homilies on Jeremiah 1 8 . 9 ) , ' 4 and in the Manichaean Psalmbook (Psalm 2 3 9 : 5 f . ) . 1 5

The sole surviving fragment of a manuscript o f the Apocryphon of Ezekiel itself, as opposed to a citation of the apocryphon found in secondary sources, contains this fifth fragment. This manuscript fragment was identified and edited by C. Bonner from among the Chester Beatty Papyri . 1 6 This fragment confirms that the citation of Clement is from the apocryphon; the translation is based on the fragmentary text o f the papyrus and the complete text o f Clement.

Original l a n g u a g e

It is extremely hazardous to speculate on the original language of composi t ions that are no longer extant or that are known by only a few fragments. Bearing this in mind, one may, however, hypothesize that Greek and Hebrew are the most likely candidates for the original language of the apocryphon. On the one hand, Greek might be suggested by the fact that it was so widely spoken in the intertestamental period and by the fact that the only surviving manuscript fragment of the apocryphon is written in Greek. On the other hand, Hebrew might be suggested by the appearance of a Hebrew version of fragment 1 in the rabbinic literature and by the statement of Josephus that there were in his day two books of Ezekiel , the natural inference being that he considered these companion p ieces , and hence written in the same language, i .e . Hebrew. However , both of these possibilities are threads too slender to bear much weight , and in the absence of more manuscript ev idence , the question of the original language of the Apocryphon of Ezekiel should be left open.

D a t e

The Apocryphon of Ezekiel cannot be dated later than the end of the first century A . D . 1 Clement (c. A .D . 95) uses the Apocryphon as one of its sources , and the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus noted (Ant 10 .5 .1 ) that Ezekiel had left behind two books , of which w e may assume one to have been the apocryphon. The earliest possible date cannot be determined as precisely, although the conjecture of K. H o l l 1 7 and J . -B . F r e y , 1 8 placing the composit ion of the document between 5 0 B.C. and A .D . 5 0 , has been generally accepted.

rather than a citation. Influence from ApocEzek can be seen throughout this chapter: (1) the presence of the term "blacker" in what appears to be a quotation from Isa 1:18, which destroys the synonymous parallelism; (2) the emphasis upon repentance "with the whole heart"; and (3) the use of the appellation "Father" (infrequently used in the treatise except on the lips of Jesus) in close conjunction with the theme of repentance.

7 GCS 17, p. 66, I. 25. 8 PL 2. col. 836. 9 See M. R. James, ANT, p. 325. 1 0 GCS 25. p. 371, 1. 16. " P G 46, col. 208. 1 2 Corpus Apolegetarum 2, p. 160. For a full listing of citations, cf. A. Resch, Agrapha (TU 30 .3 -4 , pp. 102,

322-24). A corrective to Resch has been proposed by A. Baker, "Justin's Agraphon in the Dialogue with Trypho," JBL 87 (1968) 277-87.

1 3 GCS 12, p. 139, II. 16-27. 1 4 GCS 6, p. 163. 1 5 Cf. C. R. C. Allberry, A Manichaean Psalm-Book (Stuttgart, 1938) vol. 2, p. 39; and W. D. Stroker, "The

Source of an Agraphon in the Manichaean Psalm-Book," JTS 28 (1977) 114-18. 1 6 C. Bonner, The Homily on the Passion by Melito, Bishop of Sardis, and Some Fragments of the Apocryphal

Ezekiel. p. 186. 1 7 "Das Apokryphon Ezechiel," Aus Schrift und Geschichte, pp. 85-98; cf. especially p. 92.

Provenance The fragmentary nature of the extant apocryphon makes a determination of its provenance

very hazardous. Although some of the fragments may indicate a Christian redaction of the apocryphon, there is little doubt that the original was Jewish in character. 1 9

Historical importance Historically, the Apocryphon of Ezekiel is another example of an intertestamental text

that, though Jewish in origin, has been preserved, albeit fragmentarily, only in Christian sources. This c o m m o n phenomenon serves to remind the reader that intertestamental Judaism was not nearly as monolithic in its theology nor as homogenous in its literary tradition as the rabbinic Judaism of a slightly later t ime. Moreover, the wide popularity of the Apoc-ryphon of Ezekiel in early Christian sources witnesses a certain latitude in the concept o f canon that became less c o m m o n as the Church became less and less diversified in later centuries. The transmission history of fragment 4 illustrates ho w an apt saying, even from an apocryphal source, could find its way into general usage and become a Christian maxim long after its origins had been forgot ten . 2 0

Theological importance The first and longest fragment is an eloquent statement of the doctrine of the resurrection

and of the judgment of God in the end-t ime. In both the Hebrew and Greek versions the message is clear: God will reunite body and spirit in a future judgment in order to dispense justly either reward or punishment. The resurrection envis ioned is a literal reunion of the departed spirit with its former body. Man is neither a spirit in a body, nor a body with a spirit, but both a body and a spirit. Without both, the identity of the individual is incomplete and he cannot be judged. A l s o , the individual is clearly judged as an individual and not as a member of a people or of a community . In both the Hebrew and Greek versions the criterion for judgment is the deeds performed in mortality. However , the Greek version may reflect the belief that those w h o were in the service of the king in the parable (Christians?) are exempt from the judgment , or that only those w h o are not enlisted in the king's service would perform deeds worthy of condemnation, for the Greek version has no judgment of those invited to the banquet.

Relation to canonical books It has been suggested by s o m e scholars that the Apocryphon of Ezekiel never existed as

a separate document , but only as an expanded version of, or Midrash on , canonical Ezek ie l . 2 1

If w e were dealing only with fragments 2 , 4 , and 5 , this suggest ion would be very attractive, for these fragments do bear some similarity to passages from the canonical Ezekiel . H o w e v e r , it is very difficult to understand where fragments 1 and 3 would fit in such an expanded or paraphrased text, for they are totally unlike anything in the canonical Ezekiel . A l s o , Epiphanius explicit ly identifies fragment 1 as coming from 4 4 E z e k i e l ' s o w n a p o c r y p h o n . " 2 2

Moreover, any theory that the Apocryphon of Ezekiel is merely an expanded or paraphrased Christian version of canonical Ezekiel must ignore the notice in Josephus (Ant 10 .5 .1 ) that

™DBSup, vol. 1, cols. 458-60 . 1 9 Denis, Introduction, p. 190; K.-G. Eckart, "Das Apokryphon Ezechiel," JSHRZ 5.1 (1974) 47, 49; Holl, Aus

Schrifi und Geschichte, pp. 93f.; T. Zahn, Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons und der altkirchlichen Literatur 6 (1900) 311; J.-B. Frey, DBSup, vol. 1, col. 460. For the opposite opinion, cf. M. R. James, "The Apocryphal Ezekiel," JTS 15 (1914) 243, and A. Resch, Agrapha. pp. 381-84 .

2 0 A. Baker, JBL 87 (1968) 285. J. Jeremias disputes the claim that Justin has improperly attributed this saying to Jesus (Unknown Sayings of Jesus, pp. 86f.; the second English edition cited in Bibliography was translated from the substantially revised third German edition of 1963). He proposed that the Liber graduum preserved the most original form of the saying and attributed it clearly to Jesus, just as Justin did. The attribution to Ezekiel appears later only as a result of a change in the form of the citation that brings it into close alignment with Ezek 33:12-20.

2 1 See J. Danielou, The Theology of Jewish Christianity (London, 1964) pp. 105-7, and more recently, Baker, JBL 87 (1968) 285f. Resch (Agrapha, pp. 381-84) suggests that the fragments are actually from a Christian reworking of the canonical Ezekiel.

2 2 Epiphanius, AdvHaer 64.70.

the Jewish historian knew of two books attributed to that prophet. The five fragments presently extant and the testimony o f Jewish and Christian writers in antiquity we igh heavily in favor of the separate existence o f the Apocryphon o f Ezekiel . A more detailed statement of its relationship to canonical literature must unfortunately await the discovery of a more complete text o f the apocryphon.

Relation to apocryphal books The Apocryphon o f Ezekiel seems to have enjoyed a certain amount o f popularity in the

first centuries o f the present era. Bes ides the numerous quotations from the apocryphon in the patristic literature, fragment 2 is quoted in the Exeges i s on the Soul from the gnostic library at N a g Hammadi; 2 3 fragment 3 is found in the Acts o f Peter; 2 4 and fragment 5 is found in the Manichaean Psa lmbook. 2 5

The Ascens ion o f Isaiah may also have known the apocryphon, for in chapter 11 , as the rumor of Mary's maternity is spread throughout Bethlehem, some affirm and some deny the report. This is quite reminiscent o f fragment 3 , especial ly as preserved by Epiphanius . 2 6 The characterization of the Mess iah's mother as a heifer probably finds its precedent in Jewish literature at 1 Enoch 90:37 . Here Enoch symbolical ly represents the coming of a Messiah by the birth of a white bull. Our apocryphon has taken over this motif and has logically assumed that Enoch's white bull would have been born from a heifer. This motif of the heifer w h o bears the Messiah is taken up by the Church Fathers in later controversies over the virginity of M a r y . 2 7

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

Charlesworth, PMR, pp. 109f. Del l ing, Bibliographic p . 165. Denis , Introduction, pp. 1 8 7 - 9 1 .

Baker, A . "Justin's Agraphon in the Dialogue with T r y p h o , " JBL 87 (1968) 2 7 7 - 8 7 . Bell inzoni , A . J . The Sayings of Jesus in the Writings of Justin Martyr. NovTSup 17; Leiden,

1967; ch. 5 , pp. 1 3 1 - 3 4 . Bonner, C. The Homily on the Passion by Melito, Bishop of Sardis, and Some Fragments

of the Apocryphal Ezekiel. Studies and Documents 12; London, 1940; pp. 1 8 3 - 2 0 2 . Eckart, K. -G. " D a s Apokryphon E z e c h i e l , " JSHRZ 5.1 (1974) 4 5 - 5 4 . Holl , K. " D a s Apokryphon E z e c h i e l , " Aus Schrift und Geschichte. Theologische Abhand-

lungen, Adolf Schlatter zum seinem 70. Geburtstage. Stuttgart, 1922; pp. 8 5 - 9 8 . (Reprinted in Gesammelte Aufsatze zur Kirchengeschichte. Tubingen, 1928; vol . 2 , pp. 3 3 - 4 3 . )

James, M. R. "The Apocryphal E z e k i e l , " JTS 15 (1914) 2 3 6 - 4 3 . . " E z e k i e l , " LAOT. N e w York, 1920; pp. 6 4 - 7 0 .

Jeremias, J. Unknown Sayings of Jesus. London, 1964; pp. 8 3 - 8 8 . Stroker, W. D . "The Source of an Agraphon in the Manichaean P s a l m - B o o k , " JTS 28

(1977) 1 1 4 - 1 8 .

2 3 Robinson, The Nag Hammadi Library, p. 186. 2 4 See James, ANT, p. 325. 2 5 See Allberry, A Manichaean Psalm-Book, vol. 2, p. 39. 26 AdvHaer 30:30. 2 7 All citations of fragment 3 are examples of this use of ApocEzek.

THE APOCRYHON OF EZEKIEL FRAGMENTS

THE APOCRYPHON OF EZEKIEL Fragment 1

Epiphanius, Against Heresies 6 4 . 7 0 , 5 - 1 7 a

Introduction "For the dead will be raised and those in the tombs will be lifted up" speaks isa 26:19 (LXX)

the prophet. And also , so that I might not pass over in s i lence the things mentioned about the resurrection by Ezekiel the prophet in his o w n apocryphon, 6 1 will present them here also. For speaking enigmatical ly, he refers to the righteous judgment , in which soul and body share:0

The lame and blind men in the garden 1 1 A certain king had everyone in his kingdom drafted,*1 and had no civi l ians 6

except two only: one lame man and one blind man, and each one sat by himself 2 and lived by himself. # A n d when the king was preparing a wedding feast for his Mt22:2

own son , he invited all those in his k ingdom, but he snubbed the two civi l ians, L k l 4 : , (

3 the lame man and the blind man. a A n d they were indignant within themselves and resolved to carry out a plot against the king.

4 N o w the king had a garden f and the blind man called out from a distance to the lame man, saying, " H o w much would our crumb of bread have been among the crowds w h o were invited to the party? S o c o m e on , just as he did to us , let us

5.6 retaliate (against) h i m / ' -But the other asked, "In what w a y ? " # A n d he said, "Let 7 us g o into his garden and there destroy the things of the garden ." •But he said, 8 "But how can I, being lame and unable to c r a w l ?" »And the blind one spoke ,

"What am I able to do myself, unable to see where I am going? But let us use subterfuge."

y Plucking the grass near him and braiding a rope, he threw (it) to the blind man io and said, "Take hold and c o m e along the rope to m e . " *And he did as he (the

lame man) had urged (and) when he approached, he said, " C o m e to m e , be (my) feet and carry m e , and 1 will be your e y e s , guiding you from above to the right

n .12 and lef t ." *And doing this they went down into the garden. •Furthermore, whether they damaged or did not damage (anything), nevertheless the footprints were visible in the garden.

13 N o w when the partygoers dispersed from the wedding feast, go ing down into 14 the garden they were amazed to find the footprints in the garden. # A n d they reported

these things to the king, saying, "Everyone in your kingdom is a soldier and no one is a civil ian. So how then are there footprints of civil ians in the garden?"

is And he was astounded.

Parenthetic remark by Epiphanius So says the parable o f the apocryphon, making it clear that it refers to a man,

for God is ignorant of nothing. For the story says:

The judgment of the intruders 1 2 He summoned the lame man and the blind man, and he asked the blind man, 2 " D i d you not c o m e down into the garden?" # A n d he replied, " W h o , m e , lord? 3 You see our inability, you know that I cannot see where I walk . ' ' • Then approaching

Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 9 1 a , b*

Introduction Antoninus said to Rabbi , h " T h e body and the spirit are both able to escape from

judgment . H o w ? The body says , T h e spirit s inned, for from the day it separated A P M 0 S 37-39

from m e , behold, I have been lying like a silent stone in the g r a v e / A l s o the spirit can say, T h e body s inned, for from the day I separated from it, behold, I have QuesEzra6(B) been flying in the air like a bird.' " And he (Rabbi) said to h im, "I will g ive you an illustration:

The lame and blind men in the garden " T o what may this be compared? T o a king of flesh and blood w h o possessed

a beautiful garden4 which had beautiful early figs. And he set in it two guards, one lame and one bl ind. j The lame man said to the blind man, 41 see beautiful early figs in the garden. C o m e and carry m e on your back, and w e will gather (them) to eat them. ' The lame man rode upon the blind man and they gathered them and ate them.

"After a f ew days the owner of the garden came. He said to them, * Where are those beautiful early figs?' Then the lame man said to h im, ' D o I have feet to walk with?' Then the blind man said to h im, ' D o I have e y e s to see with?'

"What did he (the king) do? He made the lame man ride upon the blind and he judged them as one . S o the Ho ly O n e , blessed be he , brings the spirit and placing it in the body , he also judges them as one . For it is said, 'He will call to the heavens from above and to the earth, so he might judge his people.' 'He will call to the heavens from above'—this to the spirit. 'And the earth so he might judge his people1—this to the b o d y . " k

1 a. GCS 31 , pp. 515-17 . See also the possible 18-43; and B. Altaner, "Paganus," ZKG 58 (1939) allusion to the story by Epiphanius (64.17), by George 130-41. Cedrenus (PG 121, cols. 225f.) , by George Hamar- f. Gk. paradeisos. The Heb. form of this word is tolos (PG 110, cols. 268f.), and in the History of found in the rabbinic parallel (see below n. i). Peter (cf. E. A. Budge, Contendings of the Apostles g. Cf. the parallels in Mekhilta Shirata 2 and LevR 2:8-18) and the Palatine Anthology 9:11-13. 4:5.

b. Gk. en to idid apokrupho, it is from this phrase h. This story is part of a fictitious dialogue between that the title "Apocryphon of Ezekiel" has been Marcus Aurelius and Judah the Prince. Cf. L. Wal-derived. Epiphanius' statement substantiates the wit- lach, "The Parable of the Blind and the Lame," JBL ness of Josephus (Ant 10.6) to a second book of 62 (1943) 333-39. Ezekiel. Such a book is also listed among the OT i. Heb. prds. Apocrypha in the stichometry of Nicephorus. j . In the form of the story preserved in the Tanhuma

c. Epiphanius' introduction surely indicates that (Wayyikra 12) the problems associated with the in the ApocEzek the story and the interpretation are choosing of a blind man and a lame man to guard the inextricably bound, just as they are in the rabbinic king's garden are alleviated; the king reasons that a parallel (see below). healthy man would see the beautiful fruits and eat

d. Le. into the army. them for himself. Thus to save the fruits he decides e. Gk. paganoi; this term is significant for the to appoint the lame man and the blind man as guard-

dating of the ApocEzek: Its presence, if original, ians. confirms an earliest possible date for ApocEzek of k. In Sifra on Deut 32:2 the appendix to the story 63 B . C , the date of the Roman occupation of Pal- in which Ps 50:4 is cited is attributed to Simai, a estine. For a full discussion of the term, cf. T. Zahn, disciple of Judah. Cf. Wallach. JBL 62 (1943) 337. "Paganus," Neue kirchlichen Zeitschrift 10 (1899)

4 the lame man, he asked him also , " D i d you c o m e down into my garden?" •And answering, he said, " O lord, do you wish to embitter my soul in the matter of my

5 inabil ity?" *And finally the judgment was delayed. 6 What then does the just judge do? Realizing in what manner both had been Lk 20.15

jo ined, he places the lame man on the blind man and examines both under the 2 T , m 4 : 8

7.8 lash. # A n d they are unable to deny; they each convict the other. •The lame man on the one hand saying to the blind man, " D i d you not carry me and lead me

9 a w a y ? " *And the blind man to the lame, " D i d you yourself not become my e y e s ? " 10 In the same way the body is connected to the soul and the soul to the body, to 4Ezra 7:28-44

11 convict (them) of (their) c o m m o n deeds. - And the judgment becomes final for both body and soul , for the works they have done whether good or evi l . ApPauni 1 3

QuesEzra 12-14(B)

Fragment 2

1 Clement 8 :3 a

Repent, house of Israel, from your lawlessness . I say to the children of my people , Ezek 39:22 "If your sins reach from the earth to heaven, and if they are redder than scarlet or blacker than sackcloth, and you turn back to me with a whole heart and say, 'Father,' I will heed you as a holy p e o p l e . "

Fragment 3

Isa 1:18 Rev 6:12 Jer 3:19 Ezek 3:16-21: 18:31 Rom 8:15 Gal 4:6 Mk 14:36 Jub 1:24

Tertullian, De came Christi 23

We read also in the writings of Ezekie l 3 concerning that c o w which has given i E n 9 0 : 3 7

birth and has not given birth.

Epiphanius, Panarion Haeresies 3 0 . 3 0 , 3

And again in another place he says , " A n d the heifer 5 gave birth and they said, 'She has not g iven b i r t h . ' "

Gregory of Nyssa , Against the Jews 3

Behold, the heifer has g iven birth, and has not given birth.

Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 7:16

She has given birth and she has not given birth, say the Scriptures.

Acts of Peter 24

Ascenls 11:14 Isa 7:14

And again he (the prophet) said, " S h e has g iven birth and has not given birth." Ascents 11 Isa 7:14

2 a. The last portion of this citation can also be found in Clement, Paid 1.10, and is cited in full in the Nag Hammadi Exegesis on the Soul. For a discussion of the latter, cf. A. Guillaumont, "Une Citation de 1'apocryphe d'Ezechiel dans 1'exegese au sujet de l'ame," in Essays on the Nag Hammadi Texts, ed. M. Krause (NHS 6; Leiden, 1975) pp. 35-39; M. Scopello, "Les Citations d'Homere dans le traite de 1'exegese de Tame," in Gnosis and Gnosticism: Pa-pers Read at the Seventh International Conference on Patristic Studies, ed. M. Krause (NHS 8; Leiden, 1978) pp. 3 -12; and M. Scopello, "Les Testimonia' dans le traite de 'L'exegese de Tame' (Nag Hammadi, II, 6 ) , " RHR 191 (1977) 159-71; and B. Dehand-schutter. Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 10 (1979) 227-35.

3 a. Tertullian is the only ancient author who as-cribes this saying to Ezekiel.

b. K.-G. Eckart has argued that the form of the saying as found in Epiphanius is original based upon Epiphanius' familiarity with ApocEzek (see fragment 1) and his faithful quotation of the story of the lame man and the blind man ("Die Kuh des apokryphen Ezechiel," Antwort aus der Geschichte, ed. W. Som-mer and H. Ruppel [Berlin, 1969] pp. 44-48) . This conclusion is unconvincing because of the uncertainty surrounding the transmission history of fragment 1 (compare the two versions above); Epiphanius may have embellished the simple story with references to such NT passages as the parable of the great feast (Mt 22:2; Lk 14:16).

Fragment 4

Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 4 7 a

Wherefore also our Lord Jesus Christ 6 said, "In the things which I findc you , Ezek i8:3o;

in these also I will judge ( y o u ) . " 4Ezra7?ioM5 IEn 50:4 2Bar 85:12 QuesEzra 5(B)

Fragment 5

Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus 1:9a

Therefore he says by Ezekiel . . . , " A n d the lame I wil l bind up, and that E z e k 3 4 : i 4 - i 6

which is troubled I wil l heal , and that which is led astray I will return, and

I will feed them on m y holy mountain . . . and I will b e , " he says , "their

shepherd and I wil l be near to them as the garment to their s k i n . " Jer i 3 : i i ; 2 3 : 2 3

4 a. Cf. n. 12 to the Introduction. b. Justin is the only ancient author to attribute this

saying to Jesus. K. Holl proposed that this ascription is false; he postulated that the saying was originally attributed to "the prophets" (cf. the citations by Elias of Crete and in Pseudo-Athanasius) and that Justin mistakenly read the kurios. "Lord," of the original as Jesus Christ instead of God (Aus Schrift und Ge-schichte, p. 95).

The only authors to attribute the agraphon to Ezek-iel are Evagrius of Antioch in his Lat. translation of the Life of Antony 16 (c. 375 A . D . ; cf. PL 26, col.

869) and John Climacus (c. 649 A . D . ) . J. Jeremias claims that the ascription to Ezekiel is secondary and is based upon the similarity of the agraphon to Ezek 33:12-20 (cf. above, "Texts"),

c. Gk. katalabo, "overtake, find upon arrival."

5 a. Cf. also the fragmentary text preserved in the Chester Beatty Papyri (cf. n. 16 to the Introduction). Misspellings abound in the papyrus fragment; they have not been noted here because they do not represent significant departures from the text found in Clement.