¹ The standard edition of Eusebius is Karl Mras, Eusebius Werke: Band 8: Die Praeparatio Evangelica (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1954).Google Scholar The citations of Ezechielus are on pp. 525–38. Other editions of, and commentaries on, the text of Ezechielus include Philippson, Ludwig M., Ezechiel des jüdischen Trauerspieldichters Auszug aus Egypten und Philo des aelteren Jerusalem (Berlin: List, 1830)Google Scholar; Dübner, F., Christus Patiens, Ezechieli et Christianorum Poetarum Reliquiae Dramaticae (Paris, 1846)Google Scholar; Kuiper, K., “De Ezechiele Poeta Iudaeo,” Mnemosyne n.s. 28 (1900) 237–80Google Scholar; idem, “Le poete Juif Ezechiel,” Revue des études juives 46 (1903) 48–73Google Scholar, 161–77; Wieneke, Joseph, Ezechielis Judaei Poetae Alexandrini Fabulae Quae Inscribitur Exagoge Fragmenta (Münster: Westfallen Monastery, 1931)Google Scholar; Snell, Bruno, ed., Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971) 1. 288–301Google Scholar; and most recently Jacobson, Howard, The Exagoge of Ezekiel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983).Google Scholar

² On Alexander Polyhistor see Wacholder, Ben Zion, Eupolemus: A Study of Judaeo-Greek Literature (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, 1974) 44–55Google Scholar and passim. The standard literature includes Freudenthal, Jacob, Hellenistische Studien 1–2: Alexander Polyhistor (Breslau: Grass, 1875)Google Scholar; Felix Jacoby, Die Fragmente des griechischen Historiker, 273, 3a, 249–50; Schwartz in PW 1. 1449–52.

³ See Jacoby, Die Fragmente, 722–34 and now Holladay, Carl R., Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors, vol. 1: Historians (Chico: Scholars Press, 1983).Google Scholar

⁴ See Gager, John G., Moses in Greco-Roman Paganism (Nashville: Abingdon, 1972).Google Scholar

⁵ Cf. Jacobson, Exagoge, 5–8 for literature and 8ff. for his support of a secondcentury, perhaps even late second-century, date. Neither Emil Schtlrer (The Literature of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus [ed. Glatzer, Nahum; New York: Schocken, 1972] 33, IV, 3 (pp. 225ff.)Google Scholar nor Marcus, Ralph (“Hellenistic Jewish Literature,” in Finkelstein, Louis, ed., The Jews: Their History [4th ed.; New York: Schocken, 1971] 2. 65ff.)Google ScholarPubMed even essay a date.

⁶ Bickerman, Elias J., “The Jewish Historian Demetrios,” in Neusner, Jacob, ed., Christianity, Judaism, and Other Greco-Roman Cults (Leiden: Brill, 1975) 3. 72–84Google Scholar; Wacholder, Eupolemus, 96–128 and passim; Holladay, Fragments, 1. 51–91.

⁷ The relationship between Ezechielus and Aristobulus, if any, needs investigation. See below, nn. 67, 68, and the text there.

⁸ Gen 46:27; Exod 1:11–2:10; lines 1–40, 50–54 of the Exagōgē are cited in Clement of Alexandria Stromata 1.23.

⁹ Exod 2:11–15.

¹⁰ Fg. 3: Exod 2:16; fg. 4 not in Scripture; fg. 5 not in Scripture. Chum is possibly a stock name for Egypt as the ancient local name for the land was Kami (black); cf. Hebrew Ham. Cf. comments by Jacobson, Howard, “The Identity and Role of Chum in Ezechiel's Exagoge,” The Hebrew University Studies in Literature 9 (1981) 139–46.Google Scholar Ps.-Eupolemus's mention of Χούμ is now available in Holladay, Fragments, 1. 174–75, 186.

¹¹ Not in Scripture; see below, nn. 64, 65.

¹² Exod 3:1–4:17; Exodus 11–12, lines 169–71:ἔπτ᾽ … ⋯μέρας … ⋯ζυμ … ἔδεσθε. Cf. Exod 12:15 and Ezek 45:21.

¹³ An examination of the Halakha of Ezechielus is a desideratum. Cf. Jacobson, Exagoge, 121–36.

¹⁴ See below, n. 55 and Exodus 14. This and other passages are investigated by Loewenstamm, Samuel E., The Tradition of the Exodus in Its Development (in Hebrew; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1965) passim.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Exod 15:27=Num 33:9.

¹⁶ See the summary and discussion in Schürer, Literature, 225–28; Freyhan, Max, “Ezechiel, der Tragiker,” Jahrbuch für Jüdische Geschichte und Literatur 31 (1938) 46–83Google Scholar; and detailed commentary in Jacobson, Exagoge.

¹⁷ Reproduced from Mras (ed.), Eusebius, 537–38. On the reliability of the text as preserved by Eusebius, see Strugnell, John, “Notes on the Text and Metre of Ezekiel the Tragedian's Exagoge,” HTR 60 (1967) 449–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar (only one part published).

¹⁸ The translation is literal. The following have been consulted: E. H. Gifford's poetic version in his Preparation for the Gospel (Oxford, 1903) 3.1, 475Google Scholar; Hubaux, Jean and Leroy, Maxime, Le Mythe du Phénix dans les litteratures grecque et latine (Paris: Drox, 1939) 45–46Google Scholar; Vogt, Ernst, “Tragiker Ezechiel,” Jüdische Schrjften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1983) 132–33Google Scholar; Wieneke, Ezechielis, 24–26; and the Hebrew translations of S. Span, ΕΖΕΚΙΗΛΟΣ / ΕΞΑΓΩΓΗ (Tel Aviv, 1947–48) and Gutman, Yehoshua, The Beginnings of Jewish-Hellenistic Literature (in Hebrew; Jerusalem, 1963) 2.Google Scholar appendix 1. Our thanks to David Winston for his comments.

The most recent translation, by R. G. Robertson (“Ezekiel the Tragedian,” OTP 2. 803–19), became available after this article went to press. He too follows the traditional scholarship in his discussion of the ζῷον as a phoenix.

¹⁹ On the phoenix see Roscher, W. H., Ausführliches Lexikon der Griechischen und Römischen Mythologie (Leipzig, 1902–1909), bd. 3., abt. 2, 3450–72Google Scholar for sources and, in general, Broek, R. van den, The Myth of the Phoenix according to Classical and Early Christian Traditions (Leiden: Brill, 1972)Google Scholar for discussion.

²⁰ Cf. Ginzberg, Louis, Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1925) 7.Google Scholar index s.v.; b. Sanh. 108b; and see below, nn. 36, 50, 52.

²¹ Clement of Rome 1 Cor. 1.25–26.

²² Text apud Hub–15, lines 169–70: Est eadem sed non eadem, quae est ipsa nee ipsa est / Aeternam vitam mortis adepta bono.

²³ E d. Leo Allatius (Ludguni, 1629); PG 18. 729.

²⁴ Eustathius was a fifth-century bishop of Antioch. Correct Jacobson, Exagoge, 157 accordingly.

²⁵ Vilborg, Ebbe, ed., Achilles Tatius Leucippe and Clitophon SGLG 1; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1955) 68–69Google Scholar; see also idem, Achilles Tatius Leucippe and Clitophon: A Commentary (SGLG 15; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1962) 78–79.Google Scholar

²⁶ See Mras, Praeparatio Evangelica, 525–38 and PG18. 729.

²⁷ Ludwig Philippson, the first of the modern authors to edit the Exagoge, accepts this verse as originating from Ezechielus (Ezechiel, 38). He considered it corrupt, however, and corrected it to read Ἀυτο⋯ κέκασται σ⋯μα π⋯ν, which he translated as “Erschien der ganze Körper wohl versehn.”

²⁸ Samuel Bochart, Hierozoici sive bipartiti operis de animalibus (London, 1663) col. 820 11. 70. Many of the primary texts had already been assembled by Ulisse Aldrovandi in his Ornithologia (1599). See Broek, Myth, 3ff. for scholarship. Bochart's treatment follows that already adumbrated by the church fathers Lactantius and Isidore of Seville. See Broek, Myth, 52ff. for discussion.

²⁹ Le Mythe, 46ff. for the following summary.

³⁰ Ibid., 47.

³¹ Ibid.

³² The manuscript originated in Dutch as a doctoral thesis. The author indicates only a few minor changes in that manuscript, which was completed in 1969. Most of the early Greek, Jewish, and Christian texts are noted and discussed in this same context by Gutman, Beginnings, 2. 60–65.

³³ After this article had been accepted for publication, a perceptive essay of Israel Abrahams (“The Phoenix of Ezechielus” in his Bypaths in Hebraic Bookland [Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1920] 46–52)Google Scholar came to our attention. See below, n. 56.

³⁴ See above, n. 18.

³⁵ Broek, Myth, 121.

³⁶ There is a possible fourth source, although it is derived via a medieval Jewish writing. Gershom b. Shlomo of Aries wrote his Shaar ha-Shamayim (The Gate of Heaven; ed. and trans. Bodenheimer, F. S.; Jerusalem: Kiryath Sepher, 1953)Google Scholar most likely in the second third of the thirteenth century. Section 4, paragraph 139 reads: “Aristotle wrote that there is one species of birds, and in this species one male only exists and there is no female (for it). And when it becomes old, it ascends upward to the boundary of fire, and enflames itself in the fire and descends, and when its body is burnt, from the ash there will be another bird similar to it and so it (will be) forever.” Bodenheimer identifies this bird as the phoenix (174). A similar story is told in the following paragraph about the eagle, without any mention of the monosexual characteristic.

An unravelling of this tradition may be of interest. The passage ascribed to Aristotle can be found in Athenaeus's Deipnosophistai 14.652: κα⋯ Ἀριστοτέλης ⋯ν τῷ περ⋯ ϕυτ⋯ν οὕτως “ϕοινίκων ⋯νόρχων, οὕς τινες εὐνούχους καλο⋯σιν, οἱ δ⋯ ⋯πυήνους.” (Ross, V., ed., Aristoteles qui ferebantur librorum fragmenta [Leipzig, 1886] 267).Google Scholar Cf. Hubaux and Leroy, Le Mythe, 103 n.; and Broek, Myth 54 n., who, citing Pliny's Hist. Nat 13.41, correctly reads “date palm” for ϕοινίκων The end of the section of Athenaeus concludes with a description of the famous Nicolaus dates (περ⋯ δ⋯ τ⋯ν Νικολάων καλουμένων ϕοινίκων) which were named after Nicolaus of Damascus. Wacholder has shown (Nicolaus of Damascus [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1962] 2–3)Google Scholar that the De plantis is erroneously ascribed to Aristotle, and “in its present form, must be credited to Nicolaus, though both Aristotle's and Theophrastus's [περ⋯ ϕυτ⋯ν ἱστόριας] share in it remains a subject for further study.”

Wacholder further indicates that Kalonymos ben Kalonymos of Aries in 1314 translated De Plantis under the title Sefer ha-ẓemahim (Book of Plants). Cf. Chotzer, J., “Kalonymos ben Kalonymos, a XIII Century Satyrist,” JQR o.s. 13 (1901) 144Google Scholar and also the interesting summary of his lggereth ba‘ale ḥayyim 139–41. Also cf. “Kalonymos ben Kalonymos s.v. JE 7. 426–29. This translation may have been made when the author was in the service of King Robert of Naples. If so he would have met another Hebrew translator of the king whose specialty was Greek philosophical texts, viz., Shemaryah Ikriti of Negroponte. Cf. Bowman, Steven, The Jews of Byzantium, 1204–1453 (University, AL: University of Alabama Press, 1985) chap. 4 n. 9Google Scholar and text there.

Thus the Shaar ha-Shamayim of Gershom b. Shlomo of Aries antedates the Sefer hazemahim by perhaps two generations, which shows that the Arabic materials known to Kalonymos were already available and freely used by the scholars of mid thirteenthcentury Aries. We do not yet know if Gershom b. Shlomo was the first Hebrew author to identify this particular passage with the phoenix tradition.

³⁷ Text and translation from Broek, Myth, 80 and n. Broek provides an extended commentary on this fragment (76ff); cf. also Gutman, Beginnings, 60.

³⁸ Herodotus (LCL) 1. 358ff.

³⁹ Cf. Broek, Myth, s.v. Herodotus and Ezechielus, and below, n. 71.

⁴⁰ Pace Porphyry apud Eusebius Praep. Ev. 10.3.16. For a criticism of Porphyry's charge, see Kuiper, “Le Poete,” 172–73, where he attributes the source of Ps.-Hecataeus (pace Pollion's περ⋯ τ⋯ς Ἡροδότου κλοπ⋯ς). Cf. Stern, Menahem, ed., Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1976) 1. 20ff.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Antiphanes fg 175 apud Athenaeus 14.655b, cited by Broek, Myth, 306 n.

⁴² See ibid., chaps. 2 and 4.

⁴³ This was argued already by Gutman, Beginnings, 2, 10–11.

⁴⁴ Broek, Myth, 121–22.

⁴⁵ The most ambitious, and sometimes exotic, attempt was made by Cassel, Paul, Der Phönix und seine Aera: Ein Beitrag zur alten Kunst-Symbolik und Chronologie (Berlin, 1879).Google Scholar One example may suffice: “Joseph selbst erhielt den Namen zophnat Paneach, wie die Masora punktirt—aber bedeutet nichts als den Phönix, nehmlich Phenech mit dem Artikel, was den Aeon, den wiederkehrenden Zeitabschnitt (p ist der Artikel) bedeutet”! (12).

⁴⁶ Note parallels in Job 29:18: εἷπα δέ Ἡ ⋯λικία μου γηράσει᾽ ὥσπερ στέλεχος ϕοίνικος, πολὺν χρόνον βιώσω and Philo Moses 1.188: πηγαῖς καταρρεόμενον δώδεκα, παρ᾽ αἷς στελέχη νέα ϕοινίκων εὐερνέστατα ἦν τ⋯ν ⋯ριθμ⋯ν ⋯βδομήκοντα. The translations of these passages seem interdependent. For another instance of ϕοῖνιξ = date palm, see Ezek 40:25.

⁴⁷ Text conveniently reproduced with French translation in Hubaux and Leroy, Le Mythe, xxvii–xxxi. The latest study is by H. E. Gaylord, Jr., “3 (Greek Apocalypse of) Baruch: A New Translation and Introduction,” OTP 1. 653–79. His commentary on the phoenix follows Broek, Myth, 261ff.

⁴⁸ The translation is reproduced from the latest study by F. I. Andersen, “2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch, A New Translation and Introduction,” OTP 1. 91–213; for commentary and literature, cf. Broek, Myth, 287ff.

⁴⁹ ibid.

⁵⁰ Bereshit Rabbah 19.5 followed by the later Midrash Shmuel chap. 12. See Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, 51 n. 151 for other parallels. Ginzberg's classic work is frequently abused by modern scholars who exploit Ginzberg's intimate familiarity with rabbinic sources without attention to provenance and date.

⁵¹ Apud Jellinek, Bet Ha-Midrash 6.xii, with summary in Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, 5. 51 n. 151.

⁵² On the phoenix- in in rabbinic and early Christian literature, see Gutman, Beginnings, 2. 60ff. and the summary of western language references in Broek, Myth, 58ff. and above, n. 20.

⁵³ Both studies are dependent upon Ginzberg's collection. See above, n. 50.

⁵⁴ On the Origin of the World, translated and introduced by Hans-Gebhard Bethge and Orval S. Wintermute, NHLE, 161–79, esp. 176. Cf. Broek, Myth, 480, who treats its content under the rubric “Untitled Gnostic Treatise.”

⁵⁵ The Greek text reads differently from the Hebrew in a way that is suggestive regarding Ezechielus's putative knowledge of that language: Ἀετ⋯ς ⋯ μέγας ⋯ μεγαλοπτέρυγος, ⋯ μακρ⋯ς τῇ ⋯κτάσει, πλήρης ⋯νύχων, ὅς ἔχει τ⋯ ἥγημα εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τ⋯ν Λίβανον, κα⋯ ἔλαβε τ⋯ ⋯πίλεκτα τ⋯ς κέδρου. It is clear from a comparison of the two passages that the Greek translator did not understand the phrase , which means something like “rich in plumage of many colors” (RSV). He misunderstood it to be the subject of the succeeding phrase “came to Lebanon” and thus translated it into Greek as “which has the design of entering into Libanus.”

There are perhaps other indications that Ezechielus used a biblical tradition that differed from the textus receptus of the LXX. In line 216 of the Exagōgē he mentions the place name Βεελζεϕών, which is a more accurate transliteration into Greek of Ba‘al-Zephon than that of the LXX: Βεελσέπϕων A close analysis of the Exagōgē and the LXX, following Wieneke's treatment, will no doubt provide other examples. Jacobson's statement (“no cogent evidence has been adduced to support the view that Ezekiel knew the Hebrew Bible”) is not conclusive.

⁵⁶ Israel Abrahams (see above, n. 33) expresses this idea thus My readers will at once remember the forceful metaphor in the nineteenth chapter of Exodus: “… Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians and how I bore you on eagles’ wings, and brought you unto Myself” The Mekilta interprets the words to refer to the rapidity with which Israel was assembled for the departure from Egypt and to the powerful protection which it afterwards enjoyed. But we may also find in the same words the clue to the poet's fancy. “I bore you on eagles’ wings,” says the Pentateuch. No doubt the phrases of Herodotus, as well as those of Hesiod, were familiar to Ezekielos. With these in mind, he introduced a super-eagle, figuratively mentioned in the book of Exodus, and gave to it substance and life. He personified the metaphor. It would be a perfectly legitimate exercise of poetic license. The description is bizarre. But it is not mythological and it has little to do with the phoenix of fable.

⁵⁷ The LXX understanding of cherubim as a singular is apropos. The image of God and/or the cherub (winged creature) riding on clouds is frequent in the Hebrew Bible. Cf. Psalms 18, 68, and 104, Isa 19:1, etc.

⁵⁸ See BAG, s.v. ζῷον; Bultmann, Rudolf, “ζῷον,” TDNT 2 (1964) 873.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ LXX Ezek 1:27: κα⋯ εἶδον ὡς ⋯ψιν ἠλέκτρου ⋯π⋯ ⋯ράσεως ⋯σϕύος κα⋯ ⋯πάνω, κα⋯ ⋯π⋯ ⋯ράσεως ⋯σϕύος κα⋯ ἓως κάτω εἶδον ὡς ὅρασιν πυρός, κα⋯ τ⋯ ϕέγγος αὐτο⋯ κύκλῳ. This verse may help to explain the appearance of the mysterious light in lines 246–47 (τόθεν δ⋯ ϕέγγος ⋯ξέλαμψέ νυν / κατ᾽ εὐϕρόνης σημεῖον ὡς στ⋯λος πυρός), which attracted the scouts to the oasis at Elim. In other words, the radiant presence or appearance of God directed them to the place where Israel was to encamp.

⁶⁰ As in the throne vision of lines 68–82 of the play, where the γενναῖον also refers to an apparition of God or an emissary enthroned on Mount Sinai. Cf. Ezek 8:2ff. and lines 22ff. Raguel's interpretation, lines 83–89, is also alluded to in Ezekiel (see below). Cf. also Lauterbach, Jacob Z., ed., Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1933)Google Scholar tractate Baḥodesh 5, where God is described as an old man, associated with a throne, who was, is, and will be.

⁶¹ For review of earlier literature see Wacholder, Eupolemus, 285ff.

⁶² See the comments by Martin Goodman in his review of Jacobson, Exagōgē in JJS 35 (1984) 99.

⁶³ This view is categorically denied by Jacobson, Howard, “Mysticism and Apocalyptic in Ezekiel's Exagoge,” Illinois Classical Studies 6 (1981) 288–89.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Translation pace Jacobson, Exagoge, 55. Jacobson (199 n. 2) notes an earlier Hebrew translation of Moses' dream and Raguel's interpretation in an unidentified and undated but possibly medieval rendition published by Jellinek, A., Bet ha-Midrash (6 vols.; 3d ed.; Jerusalem: Wahrmann, 1967) 5. 159–60.Google Scholar Since Ezechielus's dream of Moses is preserved only in Eusebius, we may not err in assuming that the translation stems from a Greek-speaking environment whether Byzantine Palestine (fourth-sixth centuries), Byzantine southern Italy (tenth-eleventh centuries), the Empire proper, or even the fourteenth century (see above, n. 36).

⁶⁵ The Hebrew translation apud Jellinek (see previous note) renders this line as “I slept and dreamed a dream. And behold atop a high mountain a great (throne) seat which reached unto the heavens.” This is closer to the prophet who also never mentions Mount Sinai by name (see Ezek 24:14–18). The Hebrew translation echoes Isa 6:1.

⁶⁶ See discussion in Jacobson, “Mysticism,” 276. There he argues that Exod 24:9–18 is “the direct impetus for his own work.” Exod 24:10 does recall an allusion to Ezekiel in its description of the dais as if it were a work of sapphire slabs: ὡσε⋯ ἔργον πλίνθου σαπϕείρου. Cf. Ezek 1:25–26: κα⋯ ἰδοὺ ϕων⋯ ὑπεράνωθεν το⋯ στερεώματος το⋯ ⋯ντος ὑπ⋯ρ κεϕαλ⋯ς αὐτ⋯ν ὡς ⋯ρασις λίθου σαπϕείρου, ⋯μοίωμα θρόνου ⋯π᾽ αὐτο⋯, κα⋯ ⋯π⋯ το⋯ ⋯μοιώματος το⋯ θρόνου ⋯μοἰωμα ὡς εἶδος ⋯νθρώπου ἄνωθεν. Both Exodus and Ezekiel continue with an analogy to the glory of God as a burning fire (see below).

⁶⁷ Trans. A. Yarbro Collins, OTP 2. 838–39.

⁶⁸ Cf. also the verdant description of Elim by the poet, lines 248–53.

⁶⁹ After a draft of this article was completed, Pieter W. Van der Horst's study “Moses' Throne Vision in Ezekiel the Dramatist,” JJS 34 (1983) 21–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar became available to us. He links the throne vision to the hekhaloth of 3 Enoch which he coincidentally traces to Ezekiel 1, etc. In other words, Van der Horst independently proposes a mystical vein for the throne vision of Ezechielus (lines 68–82). See also Gruenwald, Ithamar, Apocalyptic and Merkabah Mysticism (Leiden: Brill, 1980) 128ff.Google Scholar Cf. above nn. 64ff. and text there. Even though not intrinsic to our argument, see Zohar on Exod 19:4 (80b).

⁷⁰ According to Jacobson, Howard (“Two Studies on Ezekiel the Tragedian,” GRBS 22 [1981] 171)Google Scholar, F. Momigliano saw “the production of the Exagōgē as part of the Passover celebration in Jerusalem” (“Il primo dramma di argomento sacro,” La Nuova Rassegna 1 [1903] 309–15).

⁷¹ See the exhaustive list of parallel phrases in classical Greek literature in Wieneke, Ezechielis, 27ff. In his discussion of the relationship of “the Exagoge and fifth-century tragedy,” Jacobson (Exagoge, 23ff.) summarizes the consensus of the classicists and lists linguistic and thematic parallels to Euripides, Sophocles, and Aeschylus.

Martin Goodman's remarks in his review of Jacobson's study (JJS 35 [1984] 98ff) are worth repeating: “Jacoby's (!) coverage of previous scholarship on the Exagoge is exhaustive. His grasp of the classical issues is on the whole good. … The most striking exception is the rather stubborn search for parallels in Aeschylus' Danaides (25) and in Herodotus (97, 138–40), for no useful conclusions can be drawn from the sort of thematic parallels noted, especially when no cogent verbal similarities are to be found, when so much intervening Hellenistic literature that might have influenced Ezekiel has been lost, and when the dramatist strikingly ignored Herodotus when he came to describe the Phoenix (158).”