: Propose, eae tiOre extensive form-critical and traditioshistorical analysis of ie unit as a means for developing new criteria for structural defeatton Our frst step will be a brief summary of literary studies, partiulatly on ne'er, strophic structure, relationship of the unit to ite context, date, and authorship. Second, we shall examine form-critical evidence for defining Structure, as well as genre and setting, And finally, we shall explore prob- Jems in the history of the Reed Sea tradition insofar as they are relevant to the question of structure in the Song of the Sea. I With few exceptions, the Song of the Sea follows a consistent 22" meter. The exceptions are v. 2 (33), v. 5 (23,9 v. Sapb (3'3'),4 v. 14 (3'3/), and v. 16b (3'3'). The strophic structure of the unit is more diffi- cult to establish. Martin Noth suggests that “we cannot certainly discern a series of strophes. . . .”* And, indeed, efforts to define strophes seem characteristically arbitrary. Suggestions for patterns of bicola or tricola as strophic units produce no satisfactory results, no consensus.? And breaks 2 Cf, the metrical analysis by James Muilenburg, “A Liturgy of the Triumphs of Yahweh," Studia Biblica et Semitica (Wageningen, the Netherlands: H. Veenman & Zonen, 1966) 238-50 2 Frank Cross and David N. Freedman, “The Song of Miriam,” JNES 14 (1955) 243, contend that v. 2 is out of place in the unit and breaks the normal metrical pat- tern, Cf. also Frank Cross, “The Song of the Sea and Canaanite Myth,” God ond Christ: Existence and Province, ed. R. W. Funk, et al., (Journal for Theology and the Church 5; New York: Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. 1968), p. 13, n. 42. Nore bert Lohfink, “Das Siegeslied am Schilfmeer,” Das Siegeslied am Schilfmeer: Christ Miche Auseinandersctsungen mit dem len Testament (Frankfurt, aM: Koecht, 1965) 109-10. For arguments against deleting v. 2, cf. Muilenburg, p. 240, ® Cross and Freedman, p. 245, speculate that this bicolon was orisome ee, ‘the same scholars judge v. 1b a distinct unit, ‘first major strophe introduced in either vv. 2, 3, or 4, while v. 18 repr aiete a distinct unit, a coda following the conclusion of the final strophe.® — But no further point of agreement can be found.? "A complex: narrative description of the event at the Sea concludes in Ex 1431 with the J account of Israel's response to Yahweh, Ex 15, la + Rorelaar, p, 223; Hans Schmidt, “Das Meerlied, Bx 15, 219," ZAI 49 (1931) 60; John D. W. Watts, “The Song of the Sea—Ex. xv,” VT 7 (1957) 372-73; Georg, Fobrer, Oberlieferung’ und Geschichte des Exodus: eine Analyse von Ex 1-15, (BZAI 91; Berlin: Alired Tépelmann, 1964) 113-14; Georg Beer, Exodus (HAT ‘Tiibingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1939) 79ff.; Cross and Freedman, p. 241- 4. Muilenburg, p. 237, considers these verses, along with v. 16b, hymnic refrains not elated to principal strophic groups. J. C. Rylaarsdam, “Exodus Exegesis” (In= terbreter's Bible 1; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1952) 942, apparently follows Beer's ‘analysis without offering new evidence. For a different position, ef. Cross, p. 12-16 '§ For the exceptions, ef. Fohrer, p. 113-14, Cross, p. 16. © The following synopsis will demonstrate the lack of consensus Cross- Schmidt Beer —-Rozelaar Freedman Cross 1b) tb 1b 1b ib 25 @ @ 35 35 35 68 oat 1-12 a2) az 13417 13-16a 13-14 1347 16b-17 15-16a 18 1B 18 16b-18 B 16b-18 Muitenburg, p. 237, divides the poem as follows: 1b, 2-3, 45, 6, 78, 9-10, 11, 1213, 14-16a, 16b, 17, 18 On p. 244, he includes v. 14 with vv. 12-13. Cross, p. 12, m. 40, notes that another suggestion, apparently different from the proposal by both Cross and Freedman cited above, will appear in Freedman’s “forthcoming study, ‘Strophe and Meter in Exodus 15!" I do not propose to offer yet another growing series of arguments about meter and strophic structure in the Rather, my concern is to determine whether form-critical evidence structure so inconclusively described by strophie analysis.